Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake 

 National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

August 2008

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

UPPER OUACHITA AND HANDY BRAKE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

Including Farm Service Agency Tracts 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

August 2008 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................3

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

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

Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries .................................................................. 8

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources ...................................................................... 8

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

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

Upper Ouachita NWR ......................................................................................................... 9

handy brake nwr including 44 Farm Services Agency Units ............................................. 12

Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 12

Upper Ouachita NWR ....................................................................................................... 12

handy brake nwr Including 44 Farm Services Agency Tracts ........................................... 14

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 19

Louisiana’s Natural and Scenic Rivers .............................................................................. 19

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 19

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) ................................................................. 19

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 21

Black Bear Conservation Commission (BBCC) ................................................................ 21

Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative ........................................................................ 21

american Woodcock management Plan ........................................................................... 21

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan ..................................................................... 21

Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan) .................. 21

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................22

Loss Of Bottomland hardwood forest and Fragmentation ................................................. 22

Encroachment of Invasives ............................................................................................... 23

Contaminants .................................................................................................................... 23

Barge Traffic and subsequent Channel Maintenance ....................................................... 25

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 26

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 26

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 26

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 26

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 29

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 30

Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 32

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 34

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................43

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 52

Prehistoric background ..................................................................................................... 52
ii Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Historical Period (European contact) ................................................................................ 52

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 55

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 55

Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 55

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 55

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 60

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 63

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...................................................................... 64

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 64

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 64

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 65

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 66

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 67

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 69

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 69

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 69

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 70

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 70

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................... 107

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 107

Projects .................................................................................................................................... 107

Fish And Wildlife Population Management ..................................................................... 107

Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 109

Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 110

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 111

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 111

Volunteers ................................................................................................................................ 111

Partnership Opportunities......................................................................................................... 112

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 112

Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 112

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 115

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 125

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 129

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 143

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 145

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................... 165

APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 173
Table of Contents iii

APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 175

APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 197

Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................. 197

Interdisciplinary Planning Team Members ............................................................................... 197

Biological review – September 2004 ............................................................................... 197

Visitor Services Review – September 2005 .................................................................... 198

Other Contributors ........................................................................................................... 198

APPENDIX L. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 201
iv Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex ............................................................. 10

Figure 2. Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................ 11

Figure 3. The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem with Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake 

National Wildlife Refuges and the Louisiana Wetlands Management District ..................... 13

Figure 4. Natural gas activity on Upper Ouachita NWR ..................................................................... 24

Figure 5. Elevation of Upper Ouachita NWR ........................................................................................ 27

Figure 6. Elevation of Handy Brake NWR ............................................................................................ 28

Figure 7. Watershed map of Upper Ouachita NWR ........................................................................... 30

Figure 8. Watershed of some FSA tracts ............................................................................................ 31

Figure 9. Water levels of Upper Ouachita NWR ................................................................................. 35

Figure 10. Vegetation on Upper Ouachita NWR ................................................................................. 36

Figure 11. Vegetation and water management on Handy Brake NWR ............................................... 37

Figure 12. Farming and moist-soil management on Upper Ouachita NWR ....................................... 40

Figure 13. Invasive plant species identified on Upper Ouachita NWR ............................................... 42

Figure 14. Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and occurence on Upper Ouachitat NWR ................. 49

Figure 15 Louisiana black bear priority areas of conservation and protection associated 

with the FSA tracts ............................................................................................................ 50

Figure 16 Current visitor services on Upper Ouachita NWR .............................................................. 56

Figure 17. Current visitor services on Handy Brake NWR .................................................................. 59

Figure 18 Forest breeding bird priority areas of conservation associated with the FSA tracts ........... 75

Figure 19. Red-cockaded woodpecker species/habitat occurrence map ......................................... 167

Figure 20. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging analysis ................................................................. 170
Table of Contents v

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex schedule for comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment development ............................................ 9

Table 2. Description for each refuge system property within the FSA tracts ...................................... 16

Table 3. Toxic emissions released in pounds for each parish associated with Upper Ouachita 

NWR and the FSA tracts in 2002 .......................................................................................... 33

Table 5. Annual mid-winter waterfowl surveys* for Upper Ouachita NWR at the Mollicy Unit ............ 45

Table 6. Demographics of Morehouse, Union, East Carroll, West Carroll, Richland, Grant, 

and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana, based on U.S. Census 2000 data. .......................... 55

Table 7. North Louisiana NWR Complex funding and staffing for Fiscal Year 2006........................... 61

Table 8. North Louisiana NWR Complex revenue payments for Morehouse, Union, 

Richland, West Carroll, and East Carroll Parishes, Louisiana, for the last three years ......... 62

Table 9. LMVJV habitat objectives for Upper Ouachita NWR ............................................................. 91

Table 10. Summary of projects ......................................................................................................... 113

Table 11. Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the 

comprehensive conservation plan .................................................................................... 114
vi Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

Executive Summary 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

to guide the management of Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) 

including 44 Farm Service Agency tracts (FSA) in northeastern Louisiana. The CCP outlines 

programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). 

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

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

the CCP should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and 

state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuges. The staff 

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

30-day public review and comment period of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) was provided. 

The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A represents no change from 

current management of the refuges. Refuge management programs would continue to be developed 

and implemented with limited baseline biological information and limited monitoring, for mainly 

migratory waterfowl. Upland forest management would continue focusing on red-cockaded 

woodpecker (RCW) guidelines for minimizing hardwoods and maintaining a grassy understory in a 

portion of the mixed pine and upland forests. Bottomland hardwood management would continue at 

current rate of thinning to maintain a closed canopy forest and retain as much water tupelo and bald 

cypress as possible. The open fields would continue with manipulating water levels for moist-soil and 

cooperative cropland management. Management for invasives would continue with opportunistic 

treatment and mapping. Partnerships would continue with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries for several biological programs, hunting regulations, and law enforcement issues. The 

Partners program would still develop projects with interested parties for carbon sequestration projects 

and invasives. Hunting and fishing would continue to be the priority focus of public use on Upper 

Ouachita NWR, with no expansion of current opportunities. 

Under Alternative B, biological potential of historical habitats are restored and enhanced with most 

management actions emphasizing natural ecological processes to foster habitat functions and wildlife 

populations. The biological program would be enhanced with inventorying and monitoring so that 

adaptive management could be implemented for primarily migratory birds, but other species of wildlife 

as well. Upland forest management would focus on restoring the biological integrity of a mixed 

hardwood/pine forest by promoting upland hardwood species and reducing pine basal area. The 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Unit will be managed using a more historic fire regime while 

providing red-cockaded woodpecker habitat as required in the recovery guidelines. A historic fire 

regime will ultimately benefit red-cockaded woodpeckers by creating a more herbaceous understory. 

Bottomland hardwood forest management would be developed on an inventory defining current 

condition that could be conducted in a logical and feasible manner. Bottomlands would have 

management increased to open the canopy cover and increase understory vegetation. Water control 

structures and pumping capability would be improved to enhance moist-soil and cropland 

management for the benefit of wintering waterfowl. Invasives would be mapped and protocols for 

control established with the addition of a forester. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for 

several biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects. 
2 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Public use would be similar to current management with a few improvements based on additional 

staff and funding. Law enforcement would be increased to gain better compliance with refuge 

regulations. Staffing would increase with four positions (biological technician, forestry technician, 

maintenance worker, and law enforcement officer) to increase biological inventorying and monitoring, 

enhance forest management, increase invasives control, enhance public use program, and provide 

safe and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Alternative C is driven by reducing costs of funding and staff with less habitat and wildlife 

management and reduced public use program. Extensive baseline inventories and monitoring 

programs would be conducted with several partners to provide a solid foundation of current 

conditions of refuge habitat and wildlife, while monitoring for changes in trends. Upland forest 

management would focus on red-cockaded woodpecker guidelines for minimizing hardwoods and 

maintaining a grassy understory in the entire mixed pine and upland forests, resulting in an extensive 

prescribed burning program which would include monitoring forest conditions. Bottomland hardwood 

forest management would be developed using an intensive inventory to define current conditions and 

monitoring natural successional changes. Management in the bottoms would be limited to promote 

natural succession, as defined in a revised Habitat Management Plan. The open field would be 

allowed to go through natural succession back to bottomland hardwood forest and the moist-soil units 

would not be maintained. Invasives management would become a priority to establish baseline 

information of location and density, and protocols for control. Partnerships would continue to be 

fostered for several biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research 

projects. Public use is limited, with custodial-level maintenance. 

The Service selected Alternative B as its preferred alternative and it is reflected in this CCP. 

Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuges’ purposes and goals; emphasizes management and restoration of open 

wetlands, bottomland hardwood forests, and hydrology in support of migratory and resident waterfowl 

and other wildlife, especially forest breeding birds, amphibians and reptiles, marsh birds, white-tailed 

deer, wood duck, and woodcock; collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term 

achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide 

balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies, 

and sound biological principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired 

long-term conditions. 

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

managed, maintained, and enhanced, and those lands within the approved acquisition boundary will 

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

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

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

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWRs) including 44 Farm Service Agency tracts (FSA) was prepared to guide management 

actions and direction for these lands. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge 

management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is 

compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the Service or the purposes for which 

these lands were established. 

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

lands and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This CCP describes the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s plan of action. This CCP was made available to state and federal 

government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. 

Comments from each entity were considered in the development of this CCP. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the CCP is to develop a plan of action that best achieves establishing purposes; 

attains the vision and goals developed; contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; 

addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with sound principles of 

fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the CCP is needed to: 

y Provide a clear statement of management direction; 

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

management actions on and around the refuges; 

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. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved 

with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of 

Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 

The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology 

and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals 

to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, thus, the name was changed 

to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896. 

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of 

Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the 
4 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 

The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds, 

endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife 

research activities (142 DM 1.1). 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 545 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

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

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” 

The Improvement Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of 

this new legislation, including an effort to complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are 

completed with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing 

natural resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, CCPs 

will serve as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act 

states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

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 CCPs 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting 

birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established 

for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep 

(1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant 

herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s (i.e., Dust Bowl) severely depleted breeding populations 

of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl 

production areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on 

waterfowl continues today, but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic 

loss of bottomland hardwood forests. By 1973, the Service began to focus on establishing refuges 

for endangered species. 

Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in 

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

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

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

in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 

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

refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); 

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

Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna 

Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River 

(Louisiana) - the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief 

that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and 

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

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

recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data). 

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

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more 

than $22 million. 

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

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

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

management with broad participation from others. 

The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, 

and private landowners, and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an 

opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the CCPs. 

All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide 

management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be 

consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including 

Service compatibility standards, policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1). 
6 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making 

decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural 

resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation between 

Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs, the FSA tracts, and partners such as local landowners, the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Geological Service, the Nature Conservancy, Ducks 

Unlimited, National Audubon Society, Louisiana Tech University, Grambling University, and the University 

of Louisiana at Monroe. 

Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System 

and management of the Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts are 

provided in Appendix C. 

Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No 

refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract 

from, the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs 

and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates 

are to: 

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; and 

y Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public 

uses in planning and management. 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

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

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

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

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

parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

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

integrated where appropriate into this CCP. 

This CCP supports the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Conservation Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 

and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic 

institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure 

the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to 

bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives 

include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight Conservation Plan, North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an 

international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The Plan's goal is to return 

waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the 

United States signed the Plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 

1994, making it a truly continental effort. The Plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and 

municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals 

working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetlandassociated species, and people. The Plan’s projects are international in scope, but implemented at 

regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North 

American landscape. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the 

West Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation 

planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, 

primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in 

conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This Plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be 

most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort 

throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird 

species are restored and protected. The Plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, 

organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation 

goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach 

programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. 

Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This Plan provides a framework for the 

conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird 

populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive 

species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from 

abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, 

marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds 

are federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, 

whooping cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key 

objective of this Plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend 

effective conservation measures. 
8 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure 

timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal 

governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas 

and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the 

overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Louisiana. 

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Cooperation among national wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas provides the foundation 

for protection of wildlife species and habitat, and contributes to the maintenance of biological integrity and 

diversity of fish and wildlife in the State of Louisiana and throughout the United States. 

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is charged with enforcement responsibilities 

relating to migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing state natural resources and 

approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. LDWF coordinates 

the state wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife 

management areas. Russell Sage, Ouachita, Union, and Bouef State management areas are within the 

ecosystem of Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts. The LDWF has also 

partnered with the Service on the development of this CCP through participation on the core planning 

team, biological review team, and internal reviews of the document. 

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

The mission of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) is to preserve and enhance 

the nonrenewable natural resources of the state, consisting of land, water, oil, gas, and other 

minerals, through conservation, regulation, and economic benefit from its asset base. The Monroe 

Gas Field underlies portions of Ouachita, Union, and Morehouse Parishes, which includes some of 

the Refuge System lands of the district. Mineral rights were not obtained when the refuge was 

acquired. The refuge works with LDNR to maintain current records of all active and inactive gas 

leases on refuge lands. 

The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process provides for ongoing 

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

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

objectives where appropriate. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

The Upper Ouachita NWR and Handy Brake NWR, which includes 44 FSA lands, are units of the North 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Figure 1). This Complex includes D’Arbonne NWR, Upper 

Ouachita NWR, Black Bayou Lake NWR, Handy Brake NWR, and Red River NWR. D’Arbonne, Red 

River, and Black Bayou Lake NWRs have issues that are unique and require separate planning efforts 

and public involvement (Table 1.) It was determined that the planning efforts and public involvement for 

Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs could be combined with one CCP covering these units. The 

D’Arbonne NWR planning effort has been completed and planning effort for Red River NWR is in 

development. The remaining Black Bayou Lake NWR Draft CCP/EA was initiated in October 2008. 

Table 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex schedule for comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment development 

Refuge Proposed Start Proposed Finish 

D’Arbonne NWR January 2004 September 2006 

Upper Ouachita NWR October 2005 September 2008 

Handy Brake NWR including FSA Units October 2005 September 2008 

Red River NWR February 2006 September 2008 

Black Bayou Lake NWR March 2008 September 2010 

UPPER OUACHITA NWR 

Upper Ouachita NWR is located in northeastern Louisiana. The northern boundary lies on the 

Louisiana-Arkansas state line. The refuge borders both sides of the Ouachita River running northsouth for 13.7 miles and extends 3.3 miles to the east and 16 miles to the west. The southernmost 

point on the refuge is approximately 20 miles north of Monroe, Louisiana. The current acquisition 

area encompasses 61,633 acres, of which 42,594 acres have been purchased, with 26,304 acres in 

Union Parish and 16,290 acres in Morehouse Parish (Figure 2). 

Upper Ouachita NWR was established in November 1978. The refuge consists of 4,540 acres of pine 

and pine/hardwood mix; 19,767 acres of bottomland hardwood forest; 9,236 acres of reforested 

bottomlands; 2,000 acres of scrub-shrub; 1,182 acres of moist-soil impoundments; 2,541 acres of 

agricultural fields; 682 acres of fallow agricultural fields; and 2,910 acres of open water. Habitat 

management is primarily focusing on reforestation, burning and thinning of uplands and bottomlands 

to promote a healthy forest, maintaining moist-soil units, and partnering for waterfowl foraging habitat. 
10 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 1. North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 2. Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge 
12 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

The Ouachita River is designated as a Louisiana Natural and Scenic River. The refuge provides 

habitat for thousands of wintering ducks and geese and year-long habitat for wood ducks. The 

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and threatened Louisiana black bear use the refuge 

throughout the year. The bald eagle also uses the refuge. 

Hunting and fishing opportunities are permitted on most areas of the refuge, and is open year-round 

for wildlife observation, nature photography, and hiking. All-terrain vehicle trails and management 

roads are provided for access. 

HANDY BRAKE NWR INCLUDING 44 FARM SERVICES AGENCY UNITS 

The Louisiana Wetlands Management District (LWMD) was established in 1990, in response to growing 

Fish and Wildlife Service land-based responsibilities off of traditional refuges. The Wetlands Office is 

responsible for the administration of wetland easements and fee title land transfers from the USDA Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) and for the fall and winter leasing of privately owned wetlands in northeastern 

Louisiana. It also includes the first fee title tract transfer from the FSA to the Service with the 

establishment of Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge in 1988. The FSA tracts include 36 FSA 

easements, 7 fee title units, and 1 lease that are concentrated in northeastern Louisiana (Figure 3) and 

encompass 6 parishes (Table 2). The FSA lands range in size from 3 acres to 1,000 acres (Table 2). 

Handy Brake NWR is primarily a permanent wetland of excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, 

wading birds, and many other wetland-dependent species. A free lease of 35 acres of International 

Paper Company land provides an upland area overlooking the wetland. An observation deck in the 

upland area provides wildlife viewing opportunities into the wetlands. Habitat management within the 

FSA tracts focuses primarily on reforestation of marginal agricultural areas and development and 

maintenance of moist-soil units. These varied habitats provide for a diverse array of wildlife. There is 

no hunting or fishing permitted throughout the FSA tracts. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

UPPER OUACHITA NWR 

Upper Ouachita NWR was established in November 1978. The federally legislated purposes are “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d); and for “...the conservation of the wetlands of the nation in 

order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained 

in various migratory bird treaties and conventions...” (16 U.S.C. 3901b). 

In about 1977, Pennzoil Producing Company, a major landowner in the Ouachita River area, 

began to sell its holdings. Morehouse and Union Parishes’ Police Juries suggested the LWFC 

as a possible purchaser. Without having the funds, the commission referred the Service as a 

possible purchaser and Service personnel began to work toward a purchase agreement. In 

early 1978, when the Service learned that Pennzoil was willing to sell most of its 26,130 acres 

in the refuge area, an environmental assessment was prepared and signed by the Service’s 

Regional Director on July 20, 1978. In November, the first acquisition was completed with the 

sale of 20,834 acres by Pennzoil. Only the surface rights to the land were acquired, with 

Pennzoil reserving in perpetuity all oil and gas deposits found under the land. The Mollicy Unit, 

which totals 16,191 acres, was purchased from one landowner in parcels from 1997-1999. 

Plum Creek Timber Company sold 4,939 acres to the Service on the western edge of the refuge 

(from 1999 to 2004). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

Figure 3. The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem with Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake 

National Wildlife Refuges and the Louisiana Wetlands Management District 
14 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

The current acquisition area encompasses 61,633 acres in northeast Union Parish and northwest 

Morehouse Parish, Louisiana. The current area owned in fee title totals 42,594 acres. The current 

acquisition boundary includes the area to the north of the Mollicy Unit, all inholdings, and areas to the 

south of the refuge, west of the river (Figure 2). These areas, mostly comprising bottomland 

hardwood forests, are adjacent to the refuge and would contribute to the core area of protected 

habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

HANDY BRAKE NWR INCLUDING 44 FARM SERVICES AGENCY TRACTS 

In 1988, prior to the establishment of the FSA tracts, the maxi-lease program was implemented as an 

initiative of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. With plummeting waterfowl 

populations, habitat was leased primarily to provide waterfowl sanctuaries. Large tracts of agricultural 

lands, especially rice, and subject to winter flooding, were leased annually at $3/acre and posted. 

Monitoring and enforcement were provided to the landowner, but limited due to manpower shortages. 

In 1990, the FSA tracts were established with primary objectives being evaluation and management 

of the maxi-leases. The primary reason the Service acquired the leases was to provide waterfowl 

habitat in an undisturbed setting. Some agreements included requirements of the landowner to 

provide pumping to wetlands on the lease to ensure water availability for wintering waterfowl. 

Currently, the Service only manages one property under the maxi-lease program (Table 2). 

The FSA tracts were established in response to growing Service land-based responsibilities off of 

traditional refuges. The Wetlands Office is responsible for the administration of wetland easements 

and fee title land transfers from the FSA. The Wetland Office manages these properties under the 

purpose of “... for conservation purposes...” (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 2002), and for the benefit of endangered species, resident and migratory waterfowl, 

neotropical migratory birds, and other wildlife. 

Land that could be conveyed under the provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 (i.e., Farm Bill) 

was signed, allowing the Service to request lands in fee title or easement once the FSA foreclosed on 

a piece of property. Fee title transfers from the FSA to the Service through the Secretary of the 

Interior, by authority of Section 354 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 

2002) transfer, without reimbursement, of fee title or other interest therein of inventory lands to any 

federal or state agency for conservation purposes. They go through a process and determine that 

the “rights of all prior owners and operators of the lands described below have expired, that the land 

is determined to be suitable or surplus, and that it has marginal value for agricultural production, is 

environmentally sensitive, or has special management importance, and that this transfer and 

conveyance comports with and is in furtherance of said authority.” 

Handy Brake NWR was the first fee title transfer of a FSA tract to the Service in 1988, with an 

establishing purpose of “... for conservation purposes...” (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2002). The language of the establishing legislation is relevant only to those lands 

owned in fee title by the Government (Table 2). 

Changes in the 1990 Farm Bill all but eliminated the opportunity to acquire significant new parcels 

from FSA inventory. Easement administration was then assigned to the Service pursuant to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). “This easement is 

under the authority and in furtherance of the provisions of Federal law, including sections 331 and 

335 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981, 1985), Executive Order 

11990 providing for the protection of wetlands, and Executive Order 11988 providing for the 

management of floodplains. The restrictions and covenants contained in this easement constitute a 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

perpetual servitude on and run with the property.” Thirty-six easement tracts were established and 

are regulated by the associated refuge easement (Table 2). The easement reservation does not 

authorize public entry upon or use of the land. 

For this CCP, the fee title wetland management tracts, easement tracts, and lease are combined to 

evaluate them as a group and a program. The purposes and management capabilities and 

challenges are similar for all 44 Refuge System properties. However, Handy Brake NWR, though 

having the same purpose, has a slightly different management capability to merit developing a 

separate programmatic direction. All goals, objectives, and strategies are intended to support the 

individual purposes for which each Refuge System property was established. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Landowner Rights with Easement Properties 

The conservation and wetland easements of the FSA tracts are primarily based on the same type of 

agreement between the Service and landowner. Since the program was established, some have 

questioned what rights the Federal Government purchased from the landowners relative to the 

property. According to agreements and historical records, it appears the intent was not to control the 

uses that occur on the uplands or naturally occurring wetlands. Generally, the agreements have the 

following language: 

Covenants by the Landowner 

y No dwellings, barns, outbuildings, or other structures will be built within easement area. 

y Vegetation or hydrology of easement area will not be altered in any way or by any means or 

activity, including cutting or mowing; cultivation; grazing; harvesting wood products; burning; 

placing of refuse, waste, sewage, or other debris; draining, dredging, channeling, filling, 

disking, pumping, diking, impounding and related activities; or diverting or affecting the natural 

flow of surface or underground waters into, within, and out of the easement. 

y Will be responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local laws for control of noxious 

or other undesirable plants on easement area. 

y Cattle or other stock shall not be permitted on the easement area, except easement manager 

shall permit access to and use of waters within the area necessary for stock watering under 

terms as easement manager deems necessary to protect purposes of the easement. 

Rights to Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Right of ingress and agrees to conduct wetlands management, monitoring, and easement 

enforcement activities. 

y Right to install, operate, and maintain structures for purpose of reestablishing, protecting, and 

enhancing wetlands’ functional values. 

y Right to establish or reestablish vegetation through seedings, planting, or natural succession. 

y Right to manipulate vegetation, topography, and hydrology on easement areas through diking, 

pumping, water management, excavating, island construction, burning, cutting, pesticide 

application, fertilizing, and other appropriate practices. 

y Right to conduct predator management activities. 

y Right to construct and maintain fences in order to prevent grazing or other types of 

encroachment on easement area. 
16 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake Nati

Table 2. Description for each refuge system property within the FSA tracts 

Tract Ownership Year Acres Floodplain 

Morehouse Parish

Handy Brake NWR Fee title 1988 468 International Paper Lease 1993 35 King & Iverson South Fee title 1992 876? Within Boeuf River floodplain Oliveros Tract (Burress and King were separate tracts combined) 

Fee title 

(1993 & 1992) 

1000 (668 & 332) 

Within Arkansas Alluvial Cone between BBayou Bonne Idee (Burress and King have water manageme

R.Adcock Easement 1990 250 B.Brown Easement 1990 103 Adjacent to Bayou Bonne Idee McKinnie Easement 1991 76 Along Bayou Bonne 

Richland Parish

R&A Farms Fee title 1991 200 Boeuf River and Bayou Lafourche floodplaA. Adcock Fee title 1991 306 W.R. Adcock Fee title 1992 355 Boeuf River and Bayou Lafourche floodplaLewis Easement 1990 29 Leggitt Easement 1990 49 Moore Easement 1990 24 Norman Easement 1989 322 Boeuf River and Bayou Lafourche floodplaW-W North Easement 269 W-W South Easement 82 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Richland Parish

Douciere Easement 1990 480 Between Boeuf River and Big Creek Nobles Easement 1990 140 Thomas Easement 1990 107 Within Boeuf River floodplain along Cypre

headwaters of Cow Bayou 

Walker Easement 1989 4 Within Boeuf River floodplain 

West Carroll

Johnson Easement 1998 3 Archaeological site Burrell Easement 1996 7 Along Macon Ridge with two tributaries of Dosher Easement 21 Within Bayou Macon floodplain along bogHendrix Easement 1990 19 Within Bayou Macon floodplain along BeaLeguin Easement 1990 56 Within Boeuf River floodplain adjacent to B

Bayou 

Mayhall Easement 1990 182 Within Boeuf River floodplain bordering COldham Easement 1990 15 Within Boeuf River floodplain with Colewa 

running through northwest corner 

Prisock Easement 1994 49 Within Boeuf River floodplain Rawls Easement 1990 14 Within Boeuf River floodplain adjacent to B

Bayou 

Smith Easement 1990 14 

East Carroll

Harden Fee title 1996 31 Within Bayou Macon floodplain and adjoin

Bayou 

Coleman Easement 1990 42 Within Bayou Macon floodplain along JoeGilfoil Easement 1989 7 
18 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake Nati

East Carroll

Harvey Easement 1990 35 Within Bayou Macon floodplain Love Easement 1990 113 Minsky Easement 1990 75 Pippin Farms Easement 1992 93 Within Bayou Macon floodplain bordering Robinson Easement 1990 86 Within Bayou Macon floodplain Travis-Bobby Easement 1990 56 Within Bayou Macon and Tensas Bayou f

adjoins Joe’s Bayou and Cypress Bayou p

Travis-William Easement 1990 46 Within Bayou Macon floodplain Wolfe Easement 1990 7 Within Tensas Bayou floodplain 

Grant

Dean now Trotter Easement 1989 88 Within Red River alluvial cone adjacent to 

Marteau 

Brister Easement 1990 19 Within Red River alluvial cone between R

Bayou Darrow 

Natchitoches

Van Matre Easement 1990 11 Within Red River alluvial cone within Youn

drainage on Montgomery Terrace; may haslipper orchid (Cypipedium kentuckiense) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

y Right to prohibit or regulate hunting or other taking of migratory birds, notwithstanding 

permissive provisions of state or federal law. Unless the easement manager prohibits public 

entry, the landowner may permit it at the landowner’s discretion. Subject to the easement 

manager posting the area, or giving notice of prohibitions to the landowner, the landowner and 

invitees may hunt and fish on the easement area in accordance with all federal, state, and 

local game and fish regulations. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

LOUISIANA’S NATURAL AND SCENIC RIVERS 

The Louisiana Natural and Scenic River System is one of the nation’s largest, oldest, most diverse, 

and unique state river protection initiatives. It began in the early 1970s with the passage of the 

Louisiana Natural and Scenic River Act. The Act set certain requirements in order for it to be 

included in the system. The Act also established a regulatory program and empowered the Secretary 

of the LDWF to administer the system through regulation and permits. 

LDWF designated the Ouachita River a Louisiana Natural and Scenic River. This designation 

extends across Morehouse and Union Parishes, from the north bank of Bayou Bartholomew at its 

intersection with the Ouachita River, to the Arkansas State line. Bayou Bartholomew, located in 

Morehouse Parish, is also designated a Louisiana Natural and Scenic River. This designation 

extends from the Louisiana-Arkansas State line to Dead Bayou. There is strong interest at the local, 

state, and federal levels to ensure that the scenic rivers are conserved both as irreplaceable 

elements of Louisiana’s rich natural heritage and as resources to be used and enjoyed by the local 

residents and visitors. Therefore, certain activities, which drastically alter the natural and scenic 

qualities in the system, are prohibited by the State of Louisiana. These activities include 

channelization, channel realignment, clearing and snagging, impoundments, and commercial clearcutting of timber within 100 feet of the low water mark. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM (LMRE) 

The LMRE includes the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with 

the Ohio River and the delta plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the 

meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries (USFWS 2002). Louisiana has twelve 

water quality management basins delineated on the basis of natural drainage patterns of its 

major river basins (Lester et al., 2005). The Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs are within 

the drainage basins and tributaries of the Ouachita Basin. Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake 

NWRs, and four FSA tracts, are within the Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion. The 

majority of the FSA tracts are within the ecoregion of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) 

section of the LMRE (Figure 3). Three easements in Grant and Natchitoches Parishes are 

within the Red Basin and the ecoregions of the Lower West Gulf Coastal Plain and Upper West 

Gulf Coastal Plain. 

Upper Ouachita NWR and the FSA tracts, including Handy Brake NWR, are in the heart of 

protected bottomland hardwood forests and wetlands of north Louisiana. Five national wildlife 

refuges (D’Arbonne, Upper Ouachita, Black Bayou Lake, Handy Brake and Tensas River), 

thirty-six Service easements, and thirty-six LDWF wildlife management areas are lands focused 

on conservation, enhancement, and restoration of bottomland hardwood forests; moist-soil 

management; endangered species management; environmental education; and compatible 
20 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

wildlife-dependent recreation in the LMRE. The LMRE guides Service efforts to enhance, 

restore, and conserve the natural functional processes and habitat types of the LMRE, while 

maintaining the economic productivity and recreational opportunities. 

The ecosystem serves as primary wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations, as 

well as breeding and migration habitat for migratory songbirds. The expansive floodplain 

forests of the past are now fragmented bottomland hardwood patches due to conversion from 

agriculture and flood control projects. 

The LMRE developed eight goals that this CCP will consider and promote when establishing refuge 

goals and objectives to ensure the refuge continues its contribution to ecosystem conservation and 

integrity. These goals are: 

y Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the 

LMRE. 

y Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE. 

y Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all threatened, endangered, 

and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE. 

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

with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE. 

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

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

y Enforce natural resource laws. 

y Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE. 

West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region 

The LMRE is covered primarily by two bird conservation regions: Mississippi Alluvial Valley and West 

Gulf Coastal Plain (Figure 3). The West Gulf Coastal Plain includes Upper Ouachita and Handy 

Brake NWRs, as well as some of the FSA tracts properties because it reaches to the most 

northwestern portion of the Mississippi Alluvial Basin. This section of the region is primarily mixed 

pine – hardwood types with bottomland hardwood forest species in the more mesic areas and on 

slopes. These forests are of high conservation priority for conserving the natural communities and 

the bird populations within these habitats. The primary threats to these forests include reservoir 

construction; stream modifications; destructive timber harvesting practices; and conversion to pine 

plantations, pastures, and other land uses (Neal, http://www.lmvjv.org/wgcp). 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Region 

Most of the FSA tracts lie within a physiographic region known as the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

(MAV) (Figure 3). The MAV was at one time a 25-million-acre forested wetland complex that 

extended along both sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. The primary threats to 

these forests include forest loss and fragmentation, alterations to hydrology, siltation of aquatic 

ecosystems, and proliferation of invasive aquatic plants. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COMMISSION (BBCC) 

The goal of the BBCC “is to promote the restoration of the Louisiana black bear in its historic range, 

through education, research, and habitat management.” The Service is a partner with the BBCC in 

its repatriation efforts. Although Upper Ouachita NWR is not considered an area for repatriation, the 

refuge supports timber management guidelines that produce good bear habitat. Bears have been 

seen on the refuge and may be utilizing it for more than just a travel corridor. Two FSA tracts lie 

within the core breeding area of the Louisiana black bear, while thirteen properties lie within its 

historic range. 

NORTHERN BOBWHITE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE 

The initiative’s goal is “to restore northern bobwhite populations range wide to an average density 

equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in the baseline year of 1980 [58,857,000].” The 

population objective for the West Gulf Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Region is to add 131,033 new 

coveys, with 21,833 of these in Louisiana. Habitat management is the primary vehicle for 

accomplishing this goal with two specific objectives: 

1) Increase the amount and enhance the quality of agricultural lands for nesting, brood-rearing, 

and roosting by bobwhites and other grassland species by adding native warm season 

grasses and other conservation plantings, such as shrubs and forbs. 

2) Enhance the management practices on pinelands and mixed pine-hardwoods by thinning, 

controlled burning, and site preparation in a fashion that benefits bobwhites and other wildlife, 

and increase acreage devoted to longleaf pine where it is ecologically feasible. 

AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Woodcock Plan was developed by the Service in 1990 to “guide the conservation of woodcock in 

the United States.” The plan gives general guidance for habitat and population management at the 

national level. Although habitat for woodcock is limited on Upper Ouachita NWR and the FSA tracts, 

habitat practices that benefit woodcock are considered in this CCP. 

RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER RECOVERY PLAN 

The red-cockaded woodpecker population on Upper Ouachita NWR is considered an important support 

population, but is not identified in the recovery criteria (USFWS 2003). The CCP will evaluate resource 

and management needs for RCW management under the guidelines for critically small populations, as 

defined in the RCW Recovery Plan. These include such things as monitoring nest success, pre-breeding 

roost checks, maintaining at least four suitable cavities in each cluster, augmenting the population as 

needed, maintaining 120 acres of good quality foraging habitat for each group, and using prescribed fire 

during the growing season to maintain an herbaceous understory (USFWS 2003). 

LOUISIANA COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY (WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN) 

The LDWF Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) was defined in 2005 (Lester et 

al., 2005). Its mission statement follows: 
22 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ mission is to manage, conserve, and promote 

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

through replenishment, protection, enhancement, research, development, and education for the 

social and economic benefit of current and future generations; to provide opportunities for 

knowledge of and use and enjoyment of these resources; and to promote a safe and healthy 

environment for the users of the resources. 

The state developed four goals with associated objectives that this CCP will consider and promote to 

ensure that the refuge and FSA tracts continue their contribution to Louisiana wildlife conservation 

and habitat integrity. These four goals are: 

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 between LDWF and state and 

federal natural resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and environmental 

groups, private industry, and academia. 

The primary focus of the CWCS is species of conservation concern and the habitats they depend 

upon. Information relative to these species and those habitats found on Refuge System lands will be 

evaluated for opportunities to foster conservation efforts. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

LOSS OF BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST AND FRAGMENTATION 

The entire 25-million-acre LMV was once a floodplain forest of primarily oak-gum-cypress cover types 

with overcup, willow, Nuttall, water, swamp chestnut and cherrybark oaks, as well as sweetgum, 

water tupelo, water hickory, willow, cottonwood, sycamore, sugarberry, red maple, box elder, 

baldcypress, and green ash. Only about 23 percent of bottomland hardwood forests remain in the 

LMV. In Louisiana, 50-75 percent loss of bottomland hardwood forest has occurred statewide (Lester 

et al., 2005). Loss and fragmentation has primarily occurred due to cropland conversion and 

hydrological changes associated with flood control. There are a few large tracts remaining, such as 

Upper Ouachita NWR and state wildlife management areas, but much of it is second growth and not 

old growth forest. This unique ecosystem is important to hundreds of wildlife species and native plant 

communities. Bottomland hardwood forests and associated wetlands support substantial wintering 

populations of a number of waterfowl species, mainly mallards and breeding and wintering wood 

ducks, and are a primary migration corridor for significant numbers of other dabbling ducks. 

Conserving bottomland hardwood forest habitat is also a high priority for nesting neotropical 

migratory birds, breeding habitat for area-sensitive birds, and necessary stopover habitat for spring 

migratory birds coming across the Gulf of Mexico. 

Because the remaining bottomland forest is so fragmented, conservation often focuses on retention 

or restoration of blocks of forest that are connected and of sufficient size to support healthy 

populations of bottomland hardwood forest birds. The refuges contribute to bottomland hardwood 

conservation by maintaining more than 19,000 acres of mature bottomland hardwood forests and 

9,236 acres of reforestation as a critical component of maintaining a forested corridor in the Ouachita 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

River basin. The refuges provide important habitat for neotropical migratory birds following the 

Ouachita River during migration, as well as area-sensitive breeding migratory birds that are 

dependent on bottomland hardwood forests to nest. Over 10,000 wading birds utilize the refuges 

bottomland hardwood forests during late summer and when post-breeding dispersal occurs. 

ENCROACHMENT OF INVASIVES 

Non-native or invasive plants alter the function of ecosystems by degrading wildlife habitat, displacing 

native species, changing carrying capacity by reducing native forage production, lowering plant 

diversity, and increasing soil erosion and soil sedimentation. Invasives are at a critical junction on the 

North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Until recently, invasive species were considered 

a minor nuisance. Meanwhile, two invasive plants, Japanese climbing fern and Chinese tallow tree, 

moved northward into this area and now threaten to disrupt the entire ecosystem both on and off the 

refuge. Other invasive plants found on the refuge include water hyacinth, princess tree, tree-ofheaven, Chinaberry, and mimosa. No formal monitoring program has been established and only 

opportunistic treatment has occurred. This threat has the potential to significantly decrease the 

integrity and natural diversity of plants and wildlife in all refuge habitats. 

CONTAMINANTS 

The Monroe Gas Field (MGF) underlies portions of Ouachita, Union, and Morehouse Parishes in 

northeast Louisiana. At the time of initial discovery and development, during the 1920s, it was the 

largest known gas field in the United States. A portion of the MGF underlies approximately 32,900 

acres of the 42,594-acre Upper Ouachita NWR (Figure 4). Until the 1970s, economics generally 

restricted wells to one per 40 acres. However, tax laws and a dramatic, though short-lived, increase 

in natural gas prices combined to spur a rash of drilling, which lasted until about 1986. During this 

period, the number of wells in the MGF more than doubled. In some instances, wells were drilled 

within 600’ of each other. This rapidly depleted the gas reserves, reduced the average gas pressure, 

and caused production at many wells to cease. 

Mineral rights were not obtained when the refuge was acquired. Since all the subsurface mineral 

rights within the refuge are held by private interests, mineral exploration and production activities can 

occur anywhere on the refuge. Natural gas exploration and production activities involve a number of 

operations, including, but not restricted to, seismic testing; surveying; site clearing; well drilling; road 

and pipeline construction; maintenance of wells, pipelines, other above-ground facilities; periodic 

meter reading and inspections; and well-plugging operations (USFWS 1985). These actions have 

produced five main problems with refuge management: 

1) Habitat and wildlife disturbance: clearings for well sites, pipelines, and access 

roads result in loss of wildlife habitat and fragment the remaining forest into smaller 

patches. Fragmentation has been shown to have negative effects on nesting 

migratory birds caused by increases in nest depredation and cowbird parasitism. The 

clearing of vegetation can result in destroying potential nesting and foraging trees 

within red-cockaded woodpecker clusters, and drilling can cause disturbance during 

the nesting season. There is potential for further habitat damage by erosion, siltation, 

flooding, and contamination by brine or other harmful substances. 
24 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 4. Natural gas activity on Upper Ouachita NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

3) Improperly covered mud pits: prior to 1990, there were no regulations relating to pit closure 

and often soil was pushed into mud pits, leaving several feet of mud under a thin shell of soil. 

Such pits were quagmires and became hazardous for people, wildlife, vehicles, or heavy 

equipment. Once the surface soil layer was broken, animals, people, or eguipment would sink 

to the bottom of the pit, a distance of up to seven feet. 

4) 

Abandoned or poorly maintained wells and facilities: equipment parts, survey marking tape, 

and all man-made items used in or resulting from gas well operations are supposed to be 

removed from the area when they are no longer functional, needed, or when the well is 

vacated for reasons such as completion of the well or following repair projects. Often, 

equipment is left in place to rust and become an eyesore and result in additional cleanup duty 

for the refuge. Litterers can be cited by law enforcement, but dealing with this activity takes 

time away from more pressing law enforcement duties. Abondoned equipment can also be a 

safety hazard. 

5) Mercury contamination: until the 1970s, most meters used to measure gas production 

contained mercury, which was carelessly handled and resulted in significant amounts 

of mercury being found in the soil below the meter itself. Meters have been replaced 

with non-mercury substances, and all known spill sites have been remediated. The 

primary source of environmental exposure to mercury is through the consumption of 

fish. It is likely that this contamination is related to the levels of methyl mercury in the 

Ouachita River and its tributaries. 

6) Saltwater contamination of soil and water: saltwater contamination of soil and water 

was once a serious problem on the refuge. Saltwater (brine) is a by-product of natural 

gas during its production process. It was formerly stored in open pits that were subject 

to leaks and seasonal floodings. Brine pollution has a severe and long-lasting impact 

on soils and their ability to support vegetation. Concentrated brine kills all herbaceous 

and woody vegetation in the contaminated area. Brine is not biodegradable and the 

resulting damage is very difficult to remediate. Presently, brine from refuge wells is 

pumped back into the subterranean strata through injection wells. The potential for 

brine damage is still high due to poor condition of pipelines, wellheads, and other 

facilities and the lack of proper maintenance in many cases. 

BARGE TRAFFIC AND SUBSEQUENT CHANNEL MAINTENANCE 

Within the refuge, the Ouachita River is dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to 

allow navigation by barge traffic. The refuge portion of the river has not been straightened, 

and consequently, barges sometimes crash into the banks of the river, removing large swaths 

of trees on the refuge. Barge traffic needs to be monitored for impacts and disturbance to the 

refuge resources. 

The Corps has caused siltation on the refuge by blowing dredge spoil (sand) on shore during 

high-water events. These disposal activities of dredge spoil being pumped into the forests 

need to be monitored and analyzed to determine if there are impacts to habitat and wildlife. 
26 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

The climate of the refuge lands is typical of northern Louisiana and largely determined by the large 

land mass to the north, the subtropical latitude, and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. Prevalent winds 

are from the south or southeast. Summer weather is predictable with regular thundershowers that 

develop rapidly. Occasionally, periods of hot, dry weather may interrupt the normally moist summer 

conditions. During late summer and fall, hurricanes and tropical storms may move across coastal 

Louisiana. Such occurrences may produce unusually heavy rainfall in the refuge area, and, at times, 

bring damaging winds. Fall, winter, and spring weather is more variable with cold polar continental air 

alternately replacing the warmer humid subtropical air. Large cyclonic winter storms usually track 

north of the refuge area. Occasionally, when these storms track farther south, ice storms, heavy 

rains, sleet, or even snow may result. 

Daily average temperatures normally range between 20o

F to 70oF during winter and 70oF to 95oF 

during the summer with a yearly average of 64.9OF. The maximum daily temperature is above 90o

 F 

on an average of 41 days per year. Probability of freezing conditions earlier than November 5th and 

later than March 12th is less than 50 percent. The average annual growing season is 237 days. 

Mean annual precipitation is 49.6 inches. Thirty percent of the total occurs in the wettest months of 

February through April, and 15.7 percent in the driest months of August through October. Snowfall 

and ice storms are uncommon occurrences. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Refuge land is all composed of Recent- and Pleistocene-age alluvial soils in the floodplain of the Ouachita 

River. These lands are subject to annual flooding by stream overflow or backwater (Figures 5 and 6). 

The Recent alluvium exists in a band generally within one to one and a half miles of the present river 

channel. The Recent alluvium is mostly point bar deposits consisting of “tan to gray clays, clayey silts, 

and fine sands in the ridges, and soft, gray clays and silty clays in the swales (USFWS 1988).” Water and 

organic contents are high in the swales but usually lower in the ridges. The top strata of the Recent 

deposits are mostly between 50 and 70 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 

The bulk of the refuge land consists of point bar and abandoned channel Pleistocene-age deposits 

known as the Deweyville Terrace formation. The somewhat older alluvial soils of the Deweyville 

Terrace are mostly “gray to light-brown silty to sandy clay.” Elevation of the Deweyville Terrace 

formation is between 60 and 80 feet MSL. 

On the western edge of the refuge is another Pleistocene-age formation known as the Prairie 

Terrace. Prairie terrace soils are similar to those of the Deweyville Terrace, but higher in elevation, 

generally between 80 and 150 feet MSL. Whereas the Recent alluvial land and Deweyville Terrace 

are relatively flat, the Prairie Terrace is gently rolling, due to differential erosion. 

The Pleistocene and Recent deposits are underlain by much older Tertiary-age formations. The 

tertiary deposits outcrop beyond the Prairie Terrace several miles west of the refuge boundary, 

generally above 150 feet MSL. Soils of the Tertiary Uplands generally contain more sands and 

gravels than do the Recent and Pleistocene soils. These soils are also more acidic than the 

Pleistocene and Recent alluvial soils. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Figure 5. Elevation of Upper Ouachita NWR 
28 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 6. Elevation of Handy Brake NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

SOILS 

Upper Ouachita NWR consists of thirteen different soil associations. The vast majority of the north unit on 

the west side of the river is level, poorly drained, and its Litro, Perry, and Portland soils are subject to 

frequent flooding by the Ouachita River. Most of the south unit is a grayish-brown silt loam surface and a 

mottled reddish brown and brownish gray silty clay loam subsoil (Hebert). These soils are mixed in with 

well-drained soils with a brown silt loam surface and reddish-brown silty clay loam subsoil. The higher 

edges of the western edge include level to gently sloping acid, silty soils. Portions of these soils (Frizzel 

and Guyton) are somewhat poorly drained, while others (Providence) are moderately well-drained. The 

east side of the refuge on the Mollicy Unit completely consists of poorly drained soils in the PerryPortland, Litro-Haggerty, and Groom-Wrightsville associations. 

HYDROLOGY 

Upper Ouachita NWR and the majority of the FSA tracts and Handy Brake NWR are located in 

northeastern Louisiana. The northern boundary of Upper Ouachita NWR lies on the LouisianaArkansas State line (Figure 7). The refuge borders both sides of the Ouachita River for 13.7 miles 

and extends 3.3 miles to the east and 16 miles to the west. 

The Ouachita River originates in the Ouachita Mountains of west-central Arkansas, near the 

Oklahoma border. It flows south through northeastern Louisiana, drains into the Little River at 

Jonesville, Louisiana, joins the Tensas River to form the Black River, which empties into the Red 

River. The river has a drainage basin of 10,825 square miles at the refuge (Figure 7). The drainage 

basin in Arkansas is mostly forested, resulting in extremely high water quality when it flows through 

the refuge, even during flood periods. A series of three major reservoirs are located on the Ouachita 

River in Arkansas. The Corps has a lock and dam at Felsenthal, Arkansas, approximately two river 

miles north of the northern refuge boundary. The combined effects of the dams on the river exert 

considerable influence on river stages at the refuge. In northern Louisiana, the Ouachita River is a 

slow moving, muddy river that averages 300 feet wide when at pool stage. 

The normal low-water elevation of the Ouachita River during the dry summer months is 52.4 feet 

above MSL, a level maintained by another navigational lock and dam at the town of Columbia, 

approximately 98 river miles downstream from the refuge. Rainfall in the Ouachita Basin upstream 

from the refuge may produce river stage differences as great as 30 feet, causing various portions of 

the refuge to be flooded, depending upon river stage. When the river is at 70 feet MSL, 

approximately 80 percent of the refuge’s western side is inundated (Figure 7). 

Permanent water areas on the refuge include the Ouachita River, Fish Lake, Moss Lake, Pierre 

Creek, Cecil Creek, Bayou DeButte, Big Lake, Finch Lake, Harrel Lake, and Boggy Bayou. 

There are a few FSA tracts in the Red River Basin (Figure 8). The Red River originates in eastern 

New Mexico and flows east to northwestern Louisiana. At Shreveport, the river turns southeastward 

to join with the Atchafalaya River. 
30 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 7. Watershed map of Upper Ouachita NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Figure 8. Watershed of some FSA tracts 
32 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

AIR QUALITY 

Air quality receives protection under several provisions of the Clean Air Act, including the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the prevention of significant deterioration program. 

Particulate matter (PM10) is a measure of tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that is respirable in 

the lungs. In the area of the refuge, dust associated with dirt from roadways, fields, and construction 

sites; paper industry; utilities; other combustion sources; and soot from open burning may all 

contribute to particulate matter. Other air pollutants under NAAQS are lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, and sulfur dioxide. 

Since initially setting standards in the early 1970s, the EPA changed the standards in 1979, 1987, 

and most recently in 1997. Under the 1997 review, the EPA concluded that the current primary 

standards for ozone and particulate matter were not adequate to protect the public from adverse 

health effects. Therefore, the EPA proposed a new revision of the ozone and particulate matter 

standards. These new standards became effective September 16, 1997. The EPA is requiring 

states to continue implementation of current standards while working toward achieving the old 

standards (http://www.deq.state.la.us). 

Louisiana operates a statewide air monitoring network of 44 monitoring sites. Monitoring sites are 

selected based on minimum federal requirements, usually driven by historical conditions in the area. 

Monitoring data are used to demonstrate that a geographical subdivision's (parish, city, or town) ambient 

air is within the criteria pollutant standards (i.e., in attainment), or if it exceeds one of these standards (i.e., 

in nonattainment). Louisiana’s ambient air quality standards are more stringent and comprehensive than 

47 other states. Air quality in Louisiana has improved over the last 20 years. There was only one nonattainment area in 2004, as opposed to 20 in 1984. Union, Morehouse, Richland, East Carroll, West 

Carroll, Grant, and Natchitoches Parishes have always achieved attainment. 

The annual burn program for the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex does not affect 

air quality on a regional scale. At this time, Louisiana has no legal mandates restricting the volume 

of smoke produced within a given area; however, voluntary smoke management guidelines issued 

by the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry are closely followed. The primary concern 

related to air quality and smoke management is visual impairment from smoke drifting onto public 

roads and is handled with safety devices and traffic control personnel. 

Industries are also monitored for toxic emissions and air pollutants throughout the state. Industries 

report chemicals that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above threshold limits. 

Industries report estimated quantities of chemicals released into the air, water, underground 

injection wells, and land environments. Table 3 illustrates the amount of total releases, air releases, 

and water releases for each parish of the refuge and district and their associated rank in the state to 

other parishes (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 2004). 

WATER QUALITY 

Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the majority of the FSA tracts lie within the Ouachita 

River Basin, which encompasses much of southwest Arkansas and northeast Louisiana (Figure 7). 

Contaminant issues in the past have always been related to high levels of mercury in the water and 

saltwater spills at gas well sites. As part of the 1134 Steep Bank Creek Project, a water quality 

study was conducted in August 2002. Water quality, fish tissue, and wetland soil samples were 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

taken from Moss and Fish Lakes. Parameters measured in the field were water temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, pH, and Secchi Depth. Dissolved oxygen and turbidity 

exceeded their standards. Water samples were also collected for laboratory analysis of nutrients, 

organic carbon, solids, and mercury. Fish and Moss Lakes did not exceed state standards for any 

of these parameters. However, the Ouachita River is known to have concentrations of mercury in its 

water, sediment, and fish tissue. Fish and Moss Lakes had concentrations of total mercury two 

orders of magnitude lower than the Ouachita River mean concentration of 0.55 ug/l and were at or 

below the MDL for mercury. Samples of fish tissue showed that fish collected from Moss Lake did 

not exceed the fish consumption action level from the state. However, four of the fish collected from 

Fish Lake exceeded the consumption level of 0.5 mg/kg for Louisiana. 

There have been mercury advisories in the past for the waters of Ouachita River. Advisories have been 

in place to limit largemouth bass consumption to two meals per month with no limit on other species. 

High levels of mercury can collect in the human body over long periods of time. These high levels can 

cause health problems, especially for pregnant and breastfeeding women, children less than 7 years of 

age, people with compromised immune systems, and others at high-risk. The advisories do not mean 

that people should stop eating fish. Consumers can still get the health benefits of fish and avoid harmful 

levels of mercury by following the advisories for the amount consumed. The refuge must monitor for 

advisories and provide the information to the public fishing refuge waters. 

Table 3. Toxic emissions released in pounds for each parish associated with Upper Ouachita 

NWR and the FSA tracts in 2002 

Parish # 

Facilities 

Total Releases1 Air Releases Water Releases 

Pounds Rank Pounds Rank Pounds Rank 

Union 2 959,497 21 98,023 29 1,210,441 4 

Morehouse 1 2,378,553 11 1,782,650 9 185,353 14 

Richland 1 272 52 262 52 10 37 

East Carroll 0 No data4 No data4 No data4 

West Carroll 0 No data4 No data4 No data4 

Grant 0 No data4 No data4 No data4 

Natchitoches 6 1,649,083 15 873,625 17 521,216 6 

1

 Estimated quantities of chemicals released into the air, water, underground injection wells and land 

environments. 2

7,398,978 pounds all from one chemical facility in Ouachita Parish that was ranked number 4 among the top 

25 facilities for total pounds released. 3

1,001,922 pounds all from one paper industry in Ouachita Parish that was ranked number 16 among the top 

25 facilities for pounds released into the air. 4

Parish does not have a Toxic Release Inventory facility that reports releases for this category. 
34 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

The source of mercury contamination may be from a certain kind of gas well meter, atmospheric 

contamination, or naturally occurring mercury in the Ozarks. Many of these meters were on the 

Mollicy Unit before it became part of the refuge. The Service required that the meter sites be cleaned 

up according to a specific remediation plan before the Mollicy Unit was purchased. A gas company 

contractor began cleanup of several dozen sites in 1996, and completed the work in August 1997. 

HABITAT 

Both refuges and the FSA tracts are situated on the western edge of the Mississippi River Delta. In this 

region, hydrology, topographic position, and soil moisture plays very important roles in determining the 

composition and character of floodplain plant communities because each species has a different level of 

tolerance to flooding. Upper Ouachita NWR and most of the FSA tracts are predominately bottomland 

hardwood forest. The typical gradient of forest species relative to flooding in response to elevation is 

seen in Figures 9 and 10 for Upper Ouachita NWR. As one moves from permanent water up and out of 

the terraces to uplands, forest communites transition from baldcypress/tupelo to overcup oak-water 

hickory, to willow oak, to upland pines mixed with hardwoods. Management and restoration of these 

communities require an understanding of how long species can be inundated and whether that flooding 

should occur during the growing season or dormant season. 

Upper Ouachita NWR contains 4,540 acres of pine and pine/hardwood forest, 19,767 acres of 

bottomland hardwood forest, 2,000 acres of scrub-shrub, 1,182 acres of moist-soil impoundments, 

2,541 acres of agricultural fields, 9,236 acres of reforested bottomland hardwood forest, 682 acres of 

fallow agricultural fields, and 2,910 acres of open water (Figure 10). 

Handy Brake NWR is primarily a permanent wetland of 455 acres. Open water constitutes 60 acres; 

forested wetlands 175 acres; and emergent vegetation covers 220 acres (Figure 11). A free lease of 35 

acres from International Paper Company provides an upland area overlooking the wetland. These 

uplands include swamp chestnut oak, white oak, southern red oak, mockernut hickory, and loblolly pine. 

The FSA tracts are primarily a variety of marginal agricultural tracts totalling 4,930 acres that 

were replanted in bottomland hardwood forest habitat. Several tracts have small acreages of 

moist-soil habitat; however, the vast majority of FSA tracts were reforested after acquisition. 

Bottomland Hardwood Forest 

Bottomland hardwoods account for the majority of Upper Ouachita NWR’s land cover and can be 

classified into three primary habitat types: 1) Sweetgum – Willow Oak; 2) Overcup Oak – Water 

Hickory; and 3) Baldcypress – Water Tupelo. Handy Brake NWR has a Swamp Chestnut OakCherrybark Oak habitat type. These classifications are described below: 

Sweetgum - Willow Oak 

The low ridges in the broad slackwater areas of the first bottom are typically occupied by this forest type. 

Sweetgum and willow oak comprise the largest proportion of the stocking in stands of this type. There are 

extensive areas of this type on the poorly drained willow oak flats of the Upper Ouachita NWR. These 

stands are strongly dominated by willow oak because of the heavy clay soils. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Figure 9. Water levels of Upper Ouachita NWR 
36 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 10. Vegetation on Upper Ouachita NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Figure 11. Vegetation and water management on Handy Brake NWR 
38 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Sweetgum often forms only a minor proportion of the stocking. A major associate on higher clay 

ridges and flats is Nuttall oak, which may represent 30 - 50 percent of the stocking at times. Other 

trees associated with this forest type are sugarberry, green ash, overcup oak, water oak, water 

hickory, cedar elm, persimmon, and sometimes baldcypress. Common shrubs include swamp privet, 

American snowbell, possumhaw, hawthorn, and dull-leaf indigo. Woody vines occasionally present 

are greenbrier, peppervine, and red vine. 

Overcup Oak - Water Hickory 

This type usually occurs in low, poorly drained flats and sloughs with tight clay or silty clay soils. 

These sites are the lowest within the first bottoms and are subject to late spring inundations. Overcup 

oak and water hickory together constitute the majority of stocking. Associates include willow oak, 

Nuttall oak, cedar elm, green ash, and water locust. Minor associates include black willow, 

persimmon, and sweetgum. Common shrub species include swamp privet, hawthorn, buttonbush, 

planertree, and possumhaw. Woody vine species often associated include red vine, peppervine, 

trumpet-creeper, dewberry, and possibly greenbrier. Panicums, asters, annual grasses, and 

cocklebur may occur in openings within the stand. 

Baldcypress - Water Tupelo 

In stands of this type, the majority of the stocking comprises baldcypress and water tupelo together. This 

forest type occurs in swamps, deep sloughs, and very low, poorly drained flats. The sites are always very 

wet, and surface water stands well into or throughout the growing season. Soils are generally mucks, 

clays, or fine sand. Common trees associated with this type are black willow, water locust, overcup oak, 

green ash, and persimmon. Among the shrub species are swamp privet, buttonbush, and planertree. 

Woody vines include red vine. A variety of herbaceous plants will be commonly seen and take the form of 

flotants, emergents, and submergents. Frequently, a variety of mosses and lichens adorn the exposed 

tree trunks, and the crowns may be draped with Spanish moss. 

Swamp Chestnut Oak - Cherrybark Oak 

This forest type occurs on the best, most mature, fine sandy loam soils on the highest of the first 

bottom ridges and hammocks, and on the second bottoms or terraces down from the ridges. These 

well-drained sites are seldom covered with standing water and only rarely overflow. Species 

composition of this habitat type varies widely, though cherrybark oak will most likely be much more 

common than swamp chestnut oak. Many other species contribute to a well-stocked stand: white 

oak, post oak, sweetgum, blackgum, hickory, willow oak, water oak, southern red oak, winged elm, 

sassafras, delta post oak, slippery elm, shumard oak, black oak, black cherry, white ash, green ash, 

red maple, and loblolly and shortleaf pines. Common midstory plants include: eastern redbud, 

flowering dogwood, American holly, red mulberry, American hornbeam, eastern hophornbeam, and 

witch-hazel. Shrub species usually include red buckeye, devil’s walkingstick, sweetleaf, and 

Virburnum spp. Often included in this habitat type are grape vines, Alabama supplejack, Carolina 

jasmine, trumpet creeper, and greenbrier. 

Mixed Pine and Hardwood Uplands 

Loblolly Pine 

Loblolly pine forest type can be found on almost all soil types above 70 feet in elevation in the general 

locale of the refuge. It is found mostly on sites with abundant soil moisture, which also promotes the 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

development of rich undergrowth. This forest type is dominated by loblolly pine as the overstory with 

sweetgum associated, as well as shortleaf pine, southern red oak, and post oak. On moderately to 

poorly drained sites, common associates include red maple, blackgum, and water oak. Midstory 

trees include flowering dogwood, American holly, black cherry, hawthorn, eastern hophornbeam, 

sassafras, and red mulberry. Common woody vines include Carolina jasmine, Alabama supplejack, 

greenbrier, grape, Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry. Among the shrubs associated with this 

type are American beautyberry and Viburnum spp. 

Loblolly Pine - Hardwood 

Hardwoods are predominant in this type with loblolly pine making up at least 20 percent of the 

stocking. On wet sites, loblolly pine is associated with sweetbay, blackgum, sweetgum, water oak, 

willow oak, red maple, and American elm. Species associated on drier sites are southern red oak, 

white oak, post oak, hickory, shortleaf pine, and persimmon. Generally, many of the same shrub, 

vine, and herbaceous species found with the loblolly pine type are also common associates in stands 

of the loblolly pine – hardwood type. 

Scrub-Shrub 

The acres of scrub-shrub habitat are found where shallow, semi-permanent water occurs on the 

refuge. Typically, these habitats are found adjacent to permanent water, in isolated swales, partially 

filled-in abandoned river channels, and along creeks and bayous. The dominant woody species is 

buttonbush. Swamp privet is often found associated with the buttonbush. 

Mollicy Unit Open Fields (moist-soil, reforested, agriculture) 

The Mollicy Unit, located on the east side of the Ouachita River, is the focus of farming and moist-soil 

management for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The Mollicy Unit was once a vast bottomland 

hardwood forest that provided ideal habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Due to soaring soybean 

prices in the late 1960s, the land was cleared to make way for row crop agriculture. A large levee 

was constructed along the Ouachita River to protect some of the cropland from flooding. At that time, 

there were approximately 13,705 acres of cropland inside the levee and 2,574 acres of farmland 

outside the levee. The remaining 2,850 acres include the levee, two reservoirs for rice irrigation, 

roads, river frontage, abandoned fields, and moist soils in rotation with rice farming. Moist soils are 

managed for wintering waterfowl, migrating shorebirds, and wading birds (Figure 12). Vegetation 

mostly consists of sprangletop, millet, smartweed, sedges, rushes, toothcup, panic grass, goose foot, 

and cocklebur. The refuge planted 9,236 acres on the Mollicy Unit with bottomland hardwood 

seedlings between 1997 and 2001. The levee has broken several times over the years but has been 

repaired by previous landowners to prevent flooding at all but the highest river stages. The 

reforested fields outside the levee experience the highest flood depth, duration, and frequency. Rain 

water also accumulates inside the levee during the winter due to depressional topography of the 

area. All of these factors contribute to the shallow flooding of croplands and moist-soil areas 

producing extremely valuable migratory bird habitat. 

Invasives 

Invasive plants are not a large problem—yet. The three species that are of primary concern are 

Japanese climbing fern, Chinese tallow, and water hyacinth. 
40 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 12. Farming and moist-soil management on Upper Ouachita NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Japanese climbing fern is well established on Upper Ouachita NWR and may be beyond the point of 

control, much less eradication. This invasive fern can increase in cover to form mats, smothering 

shrubs and trees (Miller 2003). 

The second problem species, Chinese tallow tree, is increasing exponentially and is an imminent 

threat to wetland and upland habitats. Figure 13 identifies areas where refuge staff have 

opportunistically identified invasion of the Chinese tallow tree. This species causes large-scale 

ecosystem disruption by replacing native vegetation, which reduces native species diversity. This, in 

turn, has a negative impact on wildlife. Tallow can quickly become the dominant plant in disturbed 

areas and invade bottomland forests such that it earned a spot on the “America’s Least Wanted-The 

Dirty Dozen” list of the Nature Conservancy (Flack and Furlow 1996). 

Other invasive plants that have been found on the refuge include water hyacinth, princess tree, treeof-heaven, Chinaberry, and mimosa. Chemicals, such as Garlon and Roundup, have been used in 

the past to kill invasives on an opportunistic basis. No formal monitoring program has been 

established. Control of invasives on the refuge is no longer possible as a routine component of 

general refuge management, both from a funding and manpower perspective. 

Fire Regime 

Fire is a natural phenomenon that has played a critical role in the ecosystem dynamics of the natural 

communities within north Louisiana. Before wildfire suppression strategies were implemented, naturally 

caused fires and anthropogenic fires likely burned thousands of acres of mostly upland habitat across 

northern Louisiana each year. Low intensity fires occurred on average in 3- to 5-year intervals. With 

differences in elevation and moisture gradients, these frequent fires maintained a mosaic of vigorous and 

diverse plant communities in various stages of post-fire succession and provided a wide variety of habitat 

types and conditions for wildlife. Higher elevations of the bottomland hardwood forests on the refuge 

have experienced some low-intensity fire events during extended drought conditions. These occurrences 

were probably rare and played little, if any, long-term role in affecting plant species composition. In 

general, fire is viewed as detrimental to hardwood forest communities. 

Prior to refuge establishment, wildfires occurred on refuge lands every 7 to 12 months based on 

Louisiana Office of Forestry records (USFWS 2001). After refuge establishment, wildfires occurred 

on refuge lands every 22 to 74 months. Most wildfires occurred in October-December and averaged 

5 to 17 acres. In the last 10 years, Upper Ouachita NWR has had 6 wildfires burning only 1,904 

acres, while the FSA tracts have had two wildfires burning 135 acres. 

 

Prescribed fire has been used as a cost-effective method of controlling mid-story hardwoods in the 

pine and mixed pine-hardwood habitat types since 1987. For the entire complex, there have been 

116 management ignited burns for a total of 6,884 acres with an average size of 58 acres. These 

burns were conducted to comply with management guidelines for red-cockaded woodpeckers. 

Prescribed fire interrupts succession of pine stands so that it doesn’t continue toward more 

hardwoods and increased mid-story, which deteriorates habitat for this endangered species. 

Management for the red-cockaded woodpecker has driven the prescribed fire program on the refuge. 

Moderate- to high-intensity spring burns, on a 3- to 5-year cycle, were used to control small diameter 

hardwoods, to increase the amount of grasses, and to promote other vegetative growth by increasing 

the amount of sunlight that reaches the forest floor. The annual growing season burns significantly 

reduced or eliminated hardwoods over time and promoted production of grasses. 
42 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 13. Invasive plant species identified on Upper Ouachita NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Fire management is administrated by the refuge forester as collateral duties, with ultimate 

responsibility placed on the project leader. Wildfire suppression is handled by the Louisiana Office of 

Forestry. Refuge resources are not used for initial attack, but will pre-position equipment to shorten 

response time should fire threaten refuge lands. 

WILDLIFE 

A complete list of biota is located in Appendix I. 

Migratory Birds 

Waterfowl 

The refuges and FSA tracts provide important wintering waterfowl habitat that varies in quality and 

acreage available depending on water levels, weather, and mast crops. Dabbling ducks favor more 

shallow-water levels for feeding when off-refuge areas are dry, causing them to seek the permanently 

flooded areas and low, flooded fields on the refuges. As water levels rise and the backwater floods 

the uplands, mallards and other dabblers begin using the flooded timber. When open water in the 

maize field and at the Mollicy Unit becomes more deeply flooded, diving ducks, such as ring-necked 

ducks and canvasbacks, are attracted to the invertebrate food source on the submergent vegetation. 

The majority of waterfowl use occurs at the north end of the Mollicy Unit where rice fields and moist soils 

are present. This area appears to be an ancestral wintering ground and migratory stop-over site. 

At least 15 species of migratory waterfowl commonly use Upper Ouachita NWR for wintering habitat: 

mallard, mottled duck, gadwall, American wigeon, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, northern 

shoveler, northern pintail, wood duck, hooded merganser, ring-necked duck, canvasback, and lesser 

scaup, snow goose, and white-fronted goose. Other species that utilize the refuge less frequently 

include bufflehead, redhead, common merganser, red-breasted merganser, greater scaup, ruddy 

duck, common goldeneye, and American black duck. 

Mid-winter waterfowl surveys are flown annually on Upper Ouachita NWR (Table 5), Handy Brake 

NWR, and the Oliveros FSA Tract. Though mallards and ring-necks are abundant, wood ducks 

probably are the most abundant wintering duck on Upper Ouachita NWR. From 1992-2007, 

averages of 1,600 and 3,200 ducks were recorded on Handy Brake NWR and the Oliveros Tract, 

respectively. Of those species detected, mallard, green-winged teal, and pintail were most often 

recorded. Wood duck numbers, as well as hooded merganser, are under-represented when using 

traditional survey methods (aerial) because ducks are not detected well in the flooded timber. 

Waterfowl use of the refuge during the breeding season is limited due to the southern latitude. Wood 

ducks nest using the many natural cavities available in bottomland hardwood forests and in the dead pine 

trees on the refuge quite regularly. In addition, wood duck nest boxes are located throughout the refuge 

to provide additional nesting habitat. In the past, hooded mergansers have nested in wood duck boxes 

on the refuge on rare occasions. Mergansers probably nest in natural cavities within the refuge, but they 

are rarely seen during summer. Mottled ducks are present on the Mollicy Unit year-round. The staff has 

seen mottled ducks with young broods on the refuge but no nests have been documented. 

Water and Marsh Birds 

Sloughs, bayous, flooded timber, scrub-shrub, and the Mollicy Unit provide wadingbird habitat at different 

times of the year. When water is coming out of the refuge in late spring, wadingbird concentrations are 

high as they capitalize on trapped fish and crayfish. No major rookeries are known to occur on the refuge. 
44 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Species that commonly use the refuge include: great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, cattle egret, 

little blue heron, white ibis, green heron, yellow and black-crowned night-herons, and American bitterns. 

Glossy ibis, roseatte spoonbills, wood storks and tri-colored herons are seen irregularly, usually 

during post-breeding dispersal in late summer. When conditions are right during late summer, 

several hundred wood storks will forage on the Mollicy Unit. Least bitterns most likely migrate 

through the refuge. Large concentrations of double-crested cormorants utilize the refuge during 

winter, and anhingas are found during summer. American white pelicans are sometimes seen on 

the Mollicy Unit in late summer and during migration. 

Marsh bird habitat is not available on the refuge, but Virginia rails and soras probably migrate 

through. King rails may breed irregularly in the fields on the Mollicy Unit when water levels are 

suitable. Coots are present year-round and are especially abundant in winter. Although common 

moorhen and purple gallinules are supposed to breed in this area, there are no records of them 

nesting on the refuge, and they are rarely seen. 

Shorebirds 

Shorebird habitat is available on the Mollicy Unit when water levels are suitable. The unit tends to 

attract shorebirds during autumn migration rather than spring migration due to the lack of exposed 

land during spring when water is high. Thousands of shorebirds migrate through during fall; most 

commonly seen are pectoral, semi-palmated, western, and least sandpipers and yellowlegs. Other 

species seen include: dunlin, stilt sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, spotted sandpiper, American avocet, 

dowitchers, upland sandpiper, semi-palmated plover, and black-bellied plovers. The buff-breasted 

sandpiper, willet, and American golden-plover are seen irregularly. One or two piping and snowy 

plovers have been spotted. Black-necked stilts nest on the refuge during summer. Common snipe 

winter on the refuge and killdeer are seen year-round. International Shorebird Surveys and surveys 

for the LMVJV have been conducted in the past on the Mollicy Unit. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Breeding landbird surveys have been conducted on the refuge for a few years but point-count 

stations were not randomly or systematically established. Large parts of the western side of the 

refuge have not been surveyed. The Mollicy Unit had 20 points along roads and the western side 

only had 15 points. In 2004, points were randomly established within forest compartments on the 

western side of the refuge. Three compartments will be surveyed per year and therefore the refuge 

will be entirely surveyed every five years. In 2005 and 2006, the initial surveys were in compartments 

that included bottomland hardwood forest and upland pine/hardwood mix. The three most abundant 

species detected were red-eyed vireo, blue-gray gnatcatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo. Thirty-four 

species (11.38 + 0.46) were detected on 18 points, with an average of 15.88 + 0.17 individuals/point. 

Brown-headed cowbirds were detected on 33 percent of the points. The most abundant species on 

the Mollicy Unit were dickcissels, red-winged blackbirds, and western meadowlarks. Of course as 

reforested areas succeed, bird species composition is going to change drastically in the next few 

years. Surveys for breeding cerulean warblers were conducted along the Ouachita River in 2004, 

however, none were detected. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 5. Annual mid-winter waterfowl surveys* for Upper Ouachita NWR at the Mollicy Unit 

Year Mallard G-w Teal Pintail Gadwa ll Wigeon Ring- neck Other Species 1 Total Ducks Snow Goose Whit

front

Goo

1990 47000 7200 3000 750 500 50 250 58750 7000 2001991 19800 1150 16700 1270 0 0 1100 40020 7000 700 1992 88200 5000 10000 15000 5000 8000 6500 137700 4000 1001993 35880 4800 6000 4000 4000 600 4520 59800 10240 15361994 18018 5000 1660 691 0 0 2351 27720 6250 3651995** 7500 1200 2000 2500 0 600 1500 15300 10000 2001997 38000 0 500 4000 0 0 5000 47500 10000 5001998 18650 19650 4630 2260 770 0 356 46316 5100 100 1999 16000 14000 10000 0 0 0 0 40000 30000 5002000 1000 1000 250 250 500 0 0 3000 80 0 20012 6000 0 0 32 48 0 0 6080 1000 0 2002 10370 7200 550 554 50 4545 90 23359 1100 842 2003 12700 18900 7700 770 52 1000 70 41192 35000 27020042 8000 2500 1000 100 50 50 250 11950 2500 750 2005 10370 1320 500 1335 120 3370 545 17560 0 0 2006 335 75 0 15 0 0 5 430 6000 35 2007 3287 4720 725 770 0 500 52 10054 220 438

* Surveys conducted first week of January from airplane **Mid-winter waterfowl surveys were not conducted in 1996. 1 Other species may include unidentified ducks, black ducks, mottled, scaup, shoveler, blue-winged teal, and wood duck. 2 Ground survey due to lack of funding for aerial. 
46 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Resident Landbirds 

Resident landbirds nesting on the refuge include northern cardinal, woodpeckers, Carolina 

chickadee, tufted titmouse, blue jays, eastern bluebirds, Carolina wren, American crow, and pine 

warbler. Brown-headed cowbirds are also numerous on the refuge. 

Woodcock are found in damp, brushy woods and courtship displays are in grassy areas nearby 

(Sibley 2000). Wintering woodcock arrive in our area usually when the Mollicy Unit and the 

bottomland hardwoods are already completely flooded. Consequently, they are pushed into the 

upland pine/hardwood habitat that is mostly on the west side of the refuge. Woodcock hunting is 

open to the public, but they are not nearly as popular to hunt as in south Louisiana. 

Wild turkey declined from over-hunting in the early 1900s in this area. Today, turkeys utilize the 

mixed upland pine/hardwood areas of the refuge, though that type of habitat is limited (i.e., 3,000 

acres). At times, they are seen along the river in the bottoms. The bottoms are usually completely 

flooded during the spring gobbler hunting season, pushing turkeys into the uplands. General season 

turkey hunting is not allowed on the refuge due to the limited acreage available for a safe, quality 

hunt; however, plans for a limited youth turkey hunt are in the works. 

Only a few northern bobwhite quail are found on the refuge, again, because of limited upland habitat. 

A small amount of quail habitat exists on the western side of the refuge. Reproduction does occur on 

the west side of the refuge where a few coveys have been seen in the mixed pine/hardwoods. The 

Mollicy Unit supports a larger population of quail. Bobwhites are one of the more numerous birds 

recorded when breeding landbird surveys are conducted during May and June. However, the habitat 

is changing quickly from the grassy, herbaceous fields that the quail desire to regenerated 

bottomland hardwoods. 

Resident Wildlife 

 

Mammals 

Forty-six species of mammals are known to occur or are likely to occur on the refuge, although an 

inventory has not been conducted. The white-tailed deer is the only big game on the refuge. 

Furbearers found on Upper Ouachita NWR include: Virginia opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, river 

otter, beaver, mink, nutria, and muskrat. Gray fox, red fox, coyote, and bobcats are present also. 

Both eastern cottontail and swamp rabbits inhabit the refuge. Fox and gray squirrels are found on the 

refuge, with fox squirrels in the more open woods and gray squirrels inhabiting the dense forests. 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and southeastern myotis have been found roosting in water tupelo trees 

on the refuge. One roost of southeastern myotis had approximately 1,000 bats and was most likely a 

maternity colony. Research on habiat selection, roosting behavior, reproduction, and wintering 

habitats is needed. 

No inventories have been conducted on small mammals, such as mice, voles, or moles, and species 

occurrence and abundance are unknown. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Over seventy species of reptiles and amphibians are likely to occur on the refuge (Appendix I). Frog and 

toad surveys have confirmed 11 species on the refuge: northern cricket frog, upland chorus frog, spring 

peeper, cope’s gray treefrog, squirrel treefrog, green treefrog, leopard frog, bronze frog, bullfrog, narrowmouthed toad, and Fowler’s toad. Other species that may be present but have not been recorded 

include: pickeral frog, Gulf Coast toad, spade-foot toad, crawfish frog, and bird-voiced treefrog. 

Amphibian malformations have been occurring across the country. The U.S. Geological Survey and 

the Service have been conducting studies to try to determine the extent and cause of these 

malformations. In 2004 and 2005, four collections of tadpoles were taken on Upper Ouachita NWR to 

check for malformations. Two collections were of southern leopard frogs and two were of bullfrogs. 

Only one leopard frog was found to be abnormal with fused digits on its hind foot, but many of the 

bullfrogs were malformed with their hindlegs fused to their tails. 

American alligators are not common on the refuge. Highly fluctuating water levels cause habitat to be 

unsuitable. During the early 1980s, alligators were stocked by the state and federal government from 

southern Louisiana to northern Louisiana, as part of an effort to reintroduce them to their natural 

range. In 1979, 98 alligators were released on the refuge at Finch Lake. 

Three-toed box turtles utilize the upland areas on the refuge. Often, red-eared sliders, musk, 

softshell, and map turtles are found basking on logs along the waterways. Alligator and common 

snapping turtles utilize the refuge. 

Fisheries 

The Ouachita River and its tributaries provide habitat for many species of freshwater fish. When the 

river floods into the backwoods, good spawning habitat becomes available. The important game 

species present in refuge waters are: bluegill; redear sunfish; longear sunfish; white and black 

crappie; and largemouth, yellow, and white bass. Other species include: blue, flathead, and channel 

catfish; smallmouth, bigmouth, and black buffalo; freshwater drum; longnose, shortnose, alligator, 

and spotted gar; bowfin; and carp. Paddlefish are common in the river and utilize shallow areas on 

the refuge for spawning. In Louisiana, 112 fish species have been documented within the Ouachita 

River. The greatest diversity of those documented was collected from Alabama Landing on the west 

side of the refuge. A fish species list can be found in Appendix I. 

Moss and Fish Lakes were historically great fisheries that were legendary among the local public. 

The lakes held water in the spring and summer due to a water control structure located at the mouth 

of Steep Bank Creek. The structure was pulled out in the 1980s by refuge management for various 

reasons and the fisheries declined. In 2001, at the request of the Friends of Upper Ouachita NWR, 

refuge management decided to work with the AGFC and the Corps to restore the fisheries by 

replacing the structure and completing an 1135 wetland restoration study. Hydrologic modeling has 

been conducted by the Corps. Fish and water quality sampling was conducted in the lakes before 

the structure was replaced and for two years after the structure was installed. Initial results of fish 

sampling suggest the fisheries are still good and will benefit by the completion of the 1135 project, 

when water is diverted from Felsenthal pool through the Steep Bank wetlands. 

In 2002, Service fisheries’ biologists sampled Finch Lake, Harrell Lake, wigeon pond, and north 

reservoir for fish. Bass catch per unit effort was low for both Finch and Harrell Lakes. Most of the 

bass were 8-12 inches in size. Because the Ouachita River influences the lakes by overflowing into 

them, it is very difficult to manage a sport fishery and have an efficient hatchery stocking. After 
48 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

sampling the wigeon pond on the Mollicy Unit, it was recommended that 500 bass fingerlings, 1,800 

channel catfish fingerlings, and 10,500 bluegill be stocked, which has been completed. The North 

Reservoir on the Mollicy Unit showed sport fish to be sparse, probably due to high turbidity levels. It 

was recommended that a jar test be conducted to determine the source of turbidity, and then 

alternatives could be discussed on how to fix the turbidity. 

Species of Concern 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) 

The RCW is confined to old pine stands in the southeastern United States. Because this species 

evolved in a fire-maintained ecosystem, these woodpeckers prefer open, park-like pine stands with 

no midstory and herbaceous groundcover. Red-cockaded woodpeckers excavate only live pine trees 

that are usually 75 years old or older. Habitat loss and then demographic isolation are the primary 

causes of their endangerment. Current pine stands are on shorter rotations and fire has been 

excluded from most of the landscape, causing RCW habitat to be scarce. 

The RCW Recovery Plan calls for growing season burns, pine basal areas of 40-70 square feet, the 

installation of artificial cavities, population monitoring, and the translocation of individuals to help 

increase genetic diversity and overcome demographic isolation. 

Currently, there is one active group of RCWs on Upper Ouachita NWR (Figure 14). When 

populations are this small and this isolated, any mortality of adults affects the population greatly. Any 

population under 10 groups is not considered viable, and preferably, populations should consist of 30 

groups or more to be relatively safe from extirpation. 

Bald Eagle 

Many bald eagles are seen during the year, most of them during winter at the Mollicy Unit. For 

several years, golden eagles have been spotted every winter. For decades, bald eagles have not 

nested in northeast Louisiana; however, during the summer of 2000, a pair nested successfully on 

Shiloh Bayou at the Mollicy Unit. In 2004 and 2005, eagles nested successfully. Nests have been 

found near the refuge south of the Mollicy Unit. Eagle surveys are flown annually in conjunction with 

the mid-winter waterfowl counts. 

Bald eagles are known to occur on the FSA tracts. 

Louisiana Black Bear 

Sightings and records of black bears on and adjacent to the refuge have become much more 

common in the past three years due to translocation of individuals into Felsenthal NWR. A 

contiguous block of bottomland hardwood forest exists from the southern end of Upper Ouachita 

NWR to the northern end of Felsenthal NWR. Bears being moved to Felsenthal NWR naturally 

disperse and wander onto Upper Ouachita NWR. As soon as these “Arkansas” bears cross the 

stateline, they are considered threatened Louisiana black bears by similarity of appearance. 

One radio-collared sow and her four cubs stayed in one area on the refuge for over a year. The sow 

died naturally but the cubs are still seen, although one was killed by a car. Other collared bears have 

been tracked onto the refuge and bears without collars have been sighted. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Figure 14. Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and occurence on Upper Ouachitat NWR 
50 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

In 1994, a black bear was photographed on the International Paper lease immediately adjacent to 

Handy Brake NWR in Morehouse Parish. In January 1995, staff and contract tree planters 

observed a bear on the Lewis fee title tract along Boeuf River. Eleven FSA easements in East 

Carroll Parish fall within the designated Tensas Basin critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear 

(Figure 15). Although no bears are currently known to use these areas, the recently reforested 

tracts near the Bayou Macon Wildlife Management Area may provide good future habitat (1993 

Louisiana Wetlands Management District Narrative). 

Pondberry 

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) is a federally endangered, woody plant species that grows in 

bottomland hardwood forests. An old record exists of pondberry on what is now the refuge; however, 

no plants are known to currently exist. Surveys have been conducted on Upper Ouachita NWR by 

the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program but pondberry has not been found. When the plant is 

blooming, the refuge is often under water, which makes searching difficult. 

Pink Mucket 

Federally endangered pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), a freshwater mussel, has been collected in 

Bayou Bartholomew in Morehouse Parish, very near several FSA tracts.

Alligator Snapping Turtle 

Alligator snapping turtles are the largest freshwater turtles in the United States. Prior to 2004, they 

were protected from commercial harvest in every state except Louisiana. Since that time, Louisiana 

outlawed the commercial harvest of alligator snapping turtles; however, one turtle can be taken per 

day recreationally. Commercial harvest of these turtles threatens their populations because snappers 

do not breed until they are approximately 15 years old, and the take of turtles greater than 15 inches 

in size is targeting adults. Another factor contributing to the decline of this species is their low 

reproductive success. Raccoons, skunks, opossums, and fire ants depredate nests at alarming rates. 

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is the least studied bat in the eastern United States and is federally 

designated a species of concern. Because this bat is associated with bottomland hardwood forests, 

many biologists are concerned about its status. Many states consider them to be endangered or 

threatened; however, Louisiana has no official designation for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. 

Southeastern Myotis 

Although southeastern myotis are captured more frequently in mist-nets than big-eared bats, declines 

are being seen in their populations in Arkansas. Southeastern myotis, like big-eared bats, are 

associated with riparian areas or bottomland hardwood forests and are listed federally as a species of 

concern. Little is known about the roosting habits of the southeastern myotis in areas where there 

are no caves, such as Louisiana. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Figure 15 Louisiana black bear priority areas of conservation and protection associated 

with the FSA tracts 
52 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND 

The following is a description of the first people and settlements in north Louisiana in the refuge area: 

Lithic Period (30,000-5000 B.C.) 

Paleo-Indian people probably inhabited the Prairie and Deweyville Terrace zones of the refuge. The 

recent floodplain was probably not yet formed. 

Archaic Period (5000-1500 B.C.) 

Continuation of Paleo-Indian culture with beginnings of local and regional culture patterns; 

hunting/gathering existence; and dominant culture group inhabitating the Ouachita region, the Caddo 

people, were becoming defined at this time. 

Late Archaic Period (1500-250 B.C.) 

People of the Poverty Point culture probably had village sites along the Ouachita River near or on the 

present refuge. These people had rudimentary agriculture and were mound builders. Caddo Indians 

were developing culture patterns independently of other groups in the lower Mississippi Valley. 

Tchefuncte Period (400-150 B.C.) 

The people of this period exhibited an early woodland culture. These people had simple, poorly 

made pottery. This culture diffused gradually up the Mississippi Valley and probably co-existed with 

the Poverty Point culture and Caddo in the refuge area. 

Marksville Period (100-500 A.D.) 

A blending of northward-moving southeastern woodland culture and the southward-moving Hopewell 

culture probably occurred in the refuge area. The Poverty Point culture was still in evidence, 

however. Fine pottery, flint artifacts, and stone projectile points first appeared at this time. Elaborate 

burial techniques and cults developed. 

Mississippian Culture (1400-1600 A.D.) 

This culture was one of the earliest recognized cultural traditions in the United States. It was widely 

distributed in the southeastern United States and had distinctive pottery and projectile points. 

Agriculture was well developed. Although Mississippian type projectile points have been found on the 

refuge, the area was probably on the fringe of the Mississippian culture. The Ouachita branch of the 

Caddo people had become the dominant group along the Ouachita River. 

HISTORICAL PERIOD (EUROPEAN CONTACT) 

1541 – 1542 

Hernando de Soto followed the Ouachita River in his exploration of the southern United States. He found 

Ouachita Indians living along the river. Village site or sites may have existed on the refuge area. 

1682 

La Salle claims lower Mississippi Valley area for France. 

1718 

Several French settlements established along the Ouachita River. Trappers, hunters, and traders 

probably utilized the refuge area. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

1729 

Natchez uprising disrupts French control of northeast Louisiana; French settlements along the 

Ouachita abandoned. 

1734 

Most of the Ouachita Indians had been decimated by European diseases and raids by Chickasaw 

war parties from Mississippi. 

1762 

France loses French and Indian War. Louisiana Territory is ceded to Spain. 

1791 

Fort Miro was established at a small Spanish settlement that would eventually become the city of 

Monroe. European trappers and hunters lived in the refuge area. 

1803 

Louisiana was re-acquired by France. The United States bought it from France. Choctaw Indians 

from Mississippi replaced the Ouachita Caddoans along the river. Congress established Territory of 

Orleans south of 33° N latitude. 

1806 

Ouachita City, at the southern end of the refuge becomes the first permanent European settlement in 

the present-day Union Parish. 

1812 

Territory of Orleans became the State of Louisiana. The county of Ouachita was established. 

1839 

Union Parish was established from part of the old Ouachita County. One of the Police Jury’s first 

actions was to enact a law allowing free-ranging domestic animals in the parish. 

1840-1845 

This was the period of influx of settlers from Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Most of these 

people disembarked at Alabama Landing, located on the present refuge. Towns of Marion, Haile, 

and Linville resulted from this wave of immigration. Most of these people were small farmers—not 

slaveholders. The town of Marion was named after Marion, Alabama, which was named for Francis 

Marion, the “Swamp Fox” of the American Revolution. 

1861 

Louisiana secedes from the United States. A major back-water flood occurs on the Ouachita River. 

The state sends aid to the victims in Union Parish. This indicates that the floodplain and refuge area 

were probably substantially populated at that time, probably by trappers, fishermen, subsistence, and 

commercial hunters. 

1865-1930 

Louisiana re-entered the United States. Between the Civil War and the 1940s, agriculture was the 

parish’s major economic base. Most of the Tertiary uplands were cleared and planted in cotton and corn. 

By the 1930s and 1940s, much of the cropland was allowed to revert to forest. Lumber, paper, and 

mineral companies began buying much of the parish land. Breece Lumber Company acquired much of 

the refuge land prior to 1930. During this period also, natural gas was discovered in the refuge area. 
54 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

1930 

Breece Lumber Company sold some of the refuge land to the United Gas Company. Much of this 

land was subsequently sold to Union Producing Company. 

1969 

Union Producing Company changed its name to Pennzoil Producing Company. Pennzoil began leasing the 

land to private hunting clubs and continued selective harvest of overcup oak and pecan sawtimber. 

About 1977 

Pennzoil decided to sell its holdings in the Ouachita River Swamp. Morehouse and Union Parishes’ 

Police Juries suggested the LWFC as a possible purchaser. Not having funds, LWFC referred the 

Service as a possible purchaser. Numerous Service personnel in Region 4, particularly Area 3, 

worked toward culminating a purchase agreement with Pennzoil. 

In 1980, a cultural resources survey of pre-selected portions of the refuge was conducted by New 

World Research, Inc., a private cultural resource management firm (New World Research 1981). It 

was an intensive survey of road easements, a pipeline corridor, and several land tracts projected as 

locations for various refuge support and recreational facilities. As a result of the survey, three 

prehistoric sites, all apparently dating to the Late Woodland (A.D. 800-1000) and Mississippian (A.D. 

1000-1750) periods were identified. Two of the sites yielded both lithic and ceramic artifacts. The 

third was composed solely of prehistoric lithic artifacts. One site yielded not only artifacts, but 

evidence of a midden and two shell concentrations. It is likely that more prehistoric sites exist on the 

refuge, especially on deposits of Pleistocene age. 

The National Register of Historic Places, established by Congress in 1966, is the nation’s official list 

of significant historic properties. The National Register recognizes five basic types of historic 

properties: historic buildings, such as plantation houses; courthouses or log cabins; historic 

structures, such as old bridges, lighthouses or forts; historic districts, such as old residential or 

commercial neighborhoods; historic sites, such as battlefields or Indian mounds; and historic objects, 

such as old steamboats or fire engines. It is important to note that not every historic site or old 

building or neighborhood is eligible for the National Register. Properties must have some type of 

significance: properties that are closely associated with an important person, event, or development; 

buildings that are architecturally significant because they are important examples of a particular style 

or type, or a method of construction; and, properties that are archaeologically significant because the 

remains yield information about the nation’s history or prehistory. Generally, properties are not 

placed on the National Register if they are less than 50 years old; if the period of their historical 

significance is less than 50 years old; or if they have been significantly altered. 

Each State has a historic preservation office which is responsible for nominating buildings, sites, 

districts, etc., to the National Register. In Louisiana, this program is administered by the Division of 

Historic Preservation, which is part of the Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture, 

Recreation and Tourism. None of the refuge sites covered by this CCP are known to be eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places at this time and they will not be designated as 

scientific sites. Official designation as scientific sites, as part of the planning process, also carries the 

risk of alerting illegal artifact collectors to the location of these sites. The Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979 specifically prohibits making available to the general public the location of any 

archaeological site, if such notification may create a risk of harm to the site. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The rural setting and sparse population of the refuges and FSA tract vicinities are characteristic of 

much of Louisiana. Population estimates, total households, families, housing units, and average 

annual incomes are listed in Table 6 for Morehouse, Union, West Carroll, East Carroll, Richland, 

Grant, and Natchitoches Parishes (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Forest products, natural gas 

production, agriculture, and light industry provide the main economic bases in these areas. 

Table 6. Demographics of Morehouse, Union, East Carroll, West Carroll, Richland, Grant, and 

Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana, based on U.S. Census 2000 data 

Parish Population Households Families Housing 

Units 

Average Annual 

Income ($) 

Morehouse 31,021 11382 8319 12,711 35,439 

Union 22,803 8,857 6,412 10,873 37,563 

East Carroll 9,421 2,969 2,140 3,303 28,531 

West Carroll 12,314 4,458 3,250 4,980 33,203 

Richland 20,981 7,490 5,481 8,335 34,170 

Grant 18,698 7,073 5,274 8,531 38,160 

Natchitoches 39,080 14,263 9,503 16,890 37,083 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

There are several parcels of land that lie within the existing boundaries of Upper Ouachita and Handy 

Brake NWRs that are not owned by the Service. Several of these compromise management due to 

conflicting management purposes, access, and disturbance to wildlife. Acquisition/exchange of these 

parcels would eliminate access issues, improve management options, and tighten some unclear and 

confusing boundary issues. There are no immediate plans to expand the acquisition boundaries. 

Most of the FSA tracts are in perpetual easements with only seven tracts in fee title. 

Acquisition/exchange of some of these units in the future may eliminate access issues, improve 

management options, and allow public use. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Upper Ouachita NWR 

Upper Ouachita NWR provides the Service’s six priority wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

to the public (Figure 16). Hunting and fishing are the primary public uses on Upper Ouachita NWR. 

More opportunities for observation and photography of wildlife found uniquely in the Mollicy Unit have 

been made available with increased public access within the unit. There are interpretive signs at the 

refuge and onsite environmental interpretation and education are available when requested. 
56 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 16 Current visitor services on Upper Ouachita NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

University ecology classes visit the refuge periodically. Most of the education and interpretation for 

the refuge complex takes place at Black Bayou Lake NWR, which has much easier accessibility and 

facilities developed for these purposes. 

Loose estimates of numbers of visitors to the refuge in the last five years are between19,000 and 24,000 

per year. There are no good tools in place to estimate the number of visitors. Multiple access points by 

land and easy access from off the refuge by river make estimates for hunting and fishing visits abstract. 

Orienting Visitors 

Welcoming kiosks with maps and refuge information and hunting and fishing regulations’ brochures 

are located at all developed parking areas on the refuge. Upper Ouachita NWR is open year-round 

for permitted activities. 

Hunting 

Hunting is the second most popular public use on the refuge with estimated big game hunting visits 

being the greatest followed by waterfowl hunting visits. Either sex gun deer hunts are offered on 

three weekends in November and December. Archery deer hunts are the same as the state season 

with either sex all season. Feral hogs are also actively pursued by hunters. 

Waterfowl hunting is allowed from legal starting hours until noon every day of the season. Most of the 

hunting occurs in the flooded bottomlands. The more open northern section of the Mollicy Unit is a “No 

Hunting” area. A limited youth duck hunt for ten hunters chosen by lottery is offered the first Saturday of 

the state youth hunt. The most commonly harvested species is mallard. Hunter success varies from 

year-to-year as a result of many factors, including refuge water levels, acorn production, and weather. 

 

The refuge offers state seasons for quail, woodcock, rabbit, and squirrel (except the spring squirrel 

state season). Mourning dove hunting is offered outside the levee on the Mollicy Unit the first three 

days of the state season. Raccoons can be harvested in daytime during the state small game 

season and at night in December and January. Feral hogs, beaver, and coyotes may be taken 

incidentally during all refuge hunts with whatever weapons are legal for the particular season. 

Fishing 

Fishing is the most popular public use on the refuge and is allowed according to state regulations. 

The Ouachita River, which bisects the refuge, attracts many anglers during spring and summer. Fish, 

Moss, Finch, and Harrell Lakes are popular fishing areas on the west side of the refuge. Wigeon 

Ponds and North Reservoir are fished on the Mollicy Unit. Fishing is year-round except for the “No 

Hunting” area of the Mollicy Unit where fishing is permitted March 1-August 31. Annual flooding 

greatly contributes to the productivity of the refuge waters. Bream, catfish, crappie, and bass are the 

most sought after fishes. Yo-yos, trotlines, and recreational gear (with special use permit) are 

allowed; gill nets are not permitted. 

Wildlife Observation 

Driving River Road on the west side of Upper Ouachita NWR provides frequent opportunities to observe 

deer and turkey and a variety of birds. The west side uplands provide opportunities to observe the 

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Wildlife observation opportunities on the Mollicy Unit have 

increased due to road improvement and increased public access. Birders frequent the Mollicy Unit 

because its unique habitat provides opportunities to a variety of bird species that may not be found at 
58 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

other locations in north Louisiana. A planned observation tower will allow the viewing of nesting bald 

eagles, wading birds, and thousands of wintering waterfowl without disturbance to the wildlife. 

Wildlife Photography 

There are no photo blinds on the refuge but visitors can photograph wildlife anywhere there is public 

access on the refuge. Several local photographers frequent the refuge and have provided pictures 

taken on the refuge for use in brochures, exhibits, and presentations. 

Environmental Education 

Upper Ouachita NWR is located in rural areas of Union and Morehouse Parishes and has no public 

restrooms, no educational exhibits, and no suitable facilities to shelter students in case of unexpected 

bad weather or for eating lunch. Black Bayou Lake Environmental Education Center has been 

developed for the environmental education program emphasis for the North Louisiana NWR Complex 

and the refuge ranger for the complex is housed at Black Bayou Lake NWR. University wildlife 

management and ecology classes occasionally make fieldtrips to the Mollicy Unit. Other educational 

fieldtrips could be arranged upon request, but groups are encouraged to schedule their fieldtrips to 

Black Bayou Lake NWR where staff, facilities, and equipment are available. 

The complex staff participates in a wide array of public events, including the area National 

Hunting and Fishing Day and Earth Day celebrations. Portable exhibits and educational materials 

are made available at informational booths at special events. The refuge manager 

accommodates requests to speak at local civic clubs and other organizations. Refuge brochures 

are posted in local sporting goods stores and at the LDWF District II office. The complex general 

brochures are distributed at the Monroe/West Monroe Visitor and Convention Bureau. 

Educational brochures and other materials are available at complex headquarters, complex visitor 

center at Black Bayou Lake NWR, and are mailed upon request. 

Environmental Interpretation 

Upper Ouachita NWR currently has three interpretive panels located on the Mollicy Unit. 

Other interpretive panels could be utilized on both sides of the refuge. Most of the formal and 

informal interpretation for the complex is done in association with the complex visitor center at Black 

Bayou Lake NWR. 

Other Uses 

Trapping and raccoon hunting on horseback are permitted with special use permits, but use for these 

activities is very low. 

Handy Brake NWR and the FSA tracts 

A short boardwalk to an observation deck is the only public access on Handy Brake NWR (Figure 17). 

Large numbers of waterfowl can be observed from the deck in the winter. Wildlife photography 

opportunities are limited unless a high power lens is used. An interpretive kiosk is located in the 

parking area and interpretive signs are located on the observation deck. School groups from Bastrop 

occasionally go to Handy Brake NWR on teacher-guided fieldtrips, but requests for educational fieldtrips 

are referred to the Black Bayou Lake NWRr where facilities, staff, and equipment are available. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Figure 17. Current visitor services on Handy Brake NWR 
60 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

No hunting or fishing is permitted at Handy Brake NWR. 

There is no public access on FSA tracts. Wildlife observation and photography could occur from the 

roads around or through the various tracts. There is one interpretive sign at the Joe Oliveros tract. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Staffing 

Staffing issues are complicated since some positions are “assigned” to the complex and those individuals 

provide assistance to Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts, as well as all other 

refuges in the complex. Other positions are “assigned” to specific refuges; however, the staff coordinates 

and collaborates on resource issues as needed. The private lands program will periodically check 

conservation easements within the FSA tracts for compliance and current condition. 

Refuge Complex Personnel Upper Ouachita NWR and FSA tracts Personnel 

Project Leader Refuge Manager 

Deputy Project Leader Forester 

Private Lands Biologist Equipment Operator 

Wildlife Biologist Equipment Operator 

Office Automation Clerk 

Outdoor Recreation Specialist/Ranger 

A volunteer program exists on the refuge. Currently, volunteers serve as guides and assist in getting 

blinds ready for youth turkey hunts. There is one volunteer at Handy Brake NWR who opens and closes 

gates each day, cleans up, mows, etc. Volunteers for the entire complex are recognized at an annual 

banquet for their contributions to the refuge. The refuge tried to establish a Friend’s group, but was 

unsuccessful. The refuge manager has been initiating efforts again with individuals who express an 

interest in forming such a group. 

Funding 

Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts are units of the North Louisiana NWR 

Complex, and do not have their own budget. Refuge operations monies are spent among all refuges 

within the complex (Table 7). Some years there are project-specific monies directed to only Upper 

Ouachita or Handy Brake NWRs. 

Facilities 

The complex headquarters is located on D’Arbonne NWR. The existing office/visitor contact 

building was constructed in 1992, enlarged in 1997, and, due to expanding land-based 

responsibilities, is currently too small to adequately serve the present staff. Upper Ouachita 

NWR has two maintenance shops, one on the west side and one on the Mollicy Unit. The shop 

on the west side is the largest and stores and maintains the majority of the vehicles and 

equipment for Upper Ouachita NWR and the FSA tracts. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

All refuge roads (37 miles) that are open to public travel are graveled. Grading and other 

maintenance are conducted by refuge staff. Some roads are closed during annual flooding. There 

are 11 access points and 14 maintained parking areas (Figure 16). In 2002, all refuge roads and 

parking areas were graveled. 

Table 7. North Louisiana NWR Complex funding and staffing for Fiscal Year 2006 

Description FTE* Amount 

1121 Partners For Fish and Wildlife 1.0 $74,300

1261 Refuge Operations - Administration 5.5 $598,800

1262 Refuge Operations - Maintenance 5.0 $492,200

1263 Refuge Operations - Public Use 3.0 $273,400

1264 Refuge Operations – Law Enforcement 0.0 $41,000

1265 Natural Resource Planning 1.0 $108,100

4753 Hurricane Incident 0.0 $37,700

6860 Forest Management 0.5 $45,000

9264 Fire Support 0.0 $10,000

Total Refuge Complex Operating Budget 16 $1,680,500

* Full-time Employee 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

By law, the refuges are exempt from paying property tax, but makes in lieu payments to Morehouse, 

Union, Richland, West Carroll, and East Carroll Parishes through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

established by Congress (Table 8). This program provides a method of collecting monetary receipts 

from revenue generating activities on refuges within the nation, pooling them together, and paying 

them out to counties containing refuge lands. Payment for acquired land is computed on whichever 

of the following formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths of one percent of the fair market value of the 

lands acquired in fee title; or (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipt collected; or (3) 75 cents per 

acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the county. If the receipts generated on refuges do not 

meet the entitlement amount, Congress may approve additional funds to make up the shortfall. 
62 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 8. North Louisiana NWR Complex revenue payments for Morehouse, Union, Richland, 

West Carroll, and East Carroll Parishes, Louisiana, for the last three years 

FY Morehouse Union Richland West 

Carroll 

East 

Carroll TOTALS 

2006 $40,323 $118,872 $977 $0 $27 $160,199

2005 $37,778 $105,256 $866 $572 $24 $144,496

2004 $42,711 $117,127 $979 $647 $27 $161,491
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

III. Plan Development 

In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a 

crucial factor throughout the development of the CCP for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs 

and the FSA tracts. This CCP 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 Upper 

Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts. 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 complex. 

A Core Planning Team (refer to Section B, Chapter V) composed of refuge staff was formed to prepare 

the CCP. Initially, the team focused on identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge 

management. The team met on several occasions from September 2004 to June 2007. 

In preparation for developing the CCP, the refuge conducted a Biological Review and Public Use 

Review in September 2004 and September 2005, respectively. Early in the process, the Planning 

Team identified a variety of issues, concerns, and opportunities that were provided to both review 

teams. 

The Upper Ouachita NWR Biological Review was held during the week of September 13, 2004. The 

Biological Review Team was a diverse team of experts from universities, state and federal agencies, 

and non-profit organizations invited to review the biological program of the refuge (see Chapter V for 

a list of members). The Biological Review Team conducted a critical examination of all aspects of the 

biological program. Members of this review team then produced a report that summarized 

recommendations to be used while developing the CCP. 

The Public Use Review Team (see Chapter V for a list of members) was comprised of Upper 

Ouachita NWR and neighboring refuge staff and a Regional Office representative from the Visitor 

Services’ and Outreach programs. The team reviewed the existing public use programs, facilities, 

and opportunities available. Emphasis is placed on the priority six wildlife-dependent public uses. 

The team prepared a Public Use Review Report that also provides recommendations for the shortand long-term public use program. These recommendations were taken into consideration during the 

development of the CCP. 

A notice of intent to prepare the comprehensive conservation plan was published in the Federal Register

in 2005 for Upper Ouachita NWR, and October 2005 for the FSA tracts, which includes Handy Brake 

NWR. The public was notified via local newspapers and media of two open house meetings to be held on 

November 14 and 15, 2006, in Marion and Bastrop, Louisiana. In addition, information packets, including 

a letter of invitation, public input workbook, and mailing list request form were mailed to approximately 160 

different federal, state, and local agencies; state and federal congressional delegates; and private 

individuals. In Marion, 23 individuals attended with comments and discussions among staff and public. In 

Bastrop, only five individuals attended. The Bastrop Daily News and the cable community board 

announced the event. However, a large thunderstorm that evening may have minimized attendance. Of 

the workbooks, sixteen were returned along with seven notecards from the open houses, and two letters 

from private individuals. 
64 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The Core Planning Team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish 

and wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and 

endangered species. Additionally, the Core Planning Team considered federal and state mandates, 

as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of 

obtaining public input through public scoping meetings, comment packets, and personal contacts. All 

public comments were considered, however, some issues important to the public fall outside the 

scope of the decisions to be made within this planning process. The team has considered all raised 

issues throughout this planning process, and has developed a CCP 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 

Beavers are overpopulating refuge lands and must be controlled for proper bottomland hardwood forest 

management. Without adequate control, beaver populations on the refuge will increase to a point that 

results in prolonged flooding of bottomland hardwood forest areas, resulting in loss of trees. 

The public, in the past, has questioned the refuge’s assessment of the carrying capacity in terms of 

management for white-tailed deer. Forest management options will be reviewed, as well as deer herd 

health check data, to define refuge carrying capacity for the next 15 years and associated white-tailed 

deer management. 

In 2006, a unique biological resource was found on the refuge. Many southeastern bats were discovered 

roosting in a water tupelo stand. This provides an opportunity to further define current habitat use by bats, 

and define available habitat and/or biological potential for suitable habitat on the refuge. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion 

LDWF defined habitats within this ecoregion and then defined species of concern for those 

habitats (Lester et al., 2005). Upper Ouachita NWR uplands contain mixed hardwood-loblolly 

pine and hardwood slope forests, which the wildlife conservation strategy identified. This habitat 

is not as imperiled as many other habitats given that mixed hardwood-loblolly pine forest is 

estimated to occupy 500,000 to 1,000,000 acres, historically, with the same percentage thought 

to remain today (Smith 1993, Lester et al., 2005). This habitat type is expanding into uplands due 

to fire suppression and conversion to pine plantations; however, the quality of this habitat is lower 

than in the past. Pine plantations are managed on short rotations, not allowing trees to be older 

than 25-30 years. Most of these plantations are owned by timber companies that manage them 

to be almost pure pine by using herbicides to kill hardwood speces. As a result, fewer hardwoods 

are present and the overall age of the forest is young. 

 

Upper Ouachita NWR currently supports only one active red-cockaded woodpecker group with a 

present objective of one group (Figure 14). Recently, much discussion has centered on the problems 

of trying to maintain and increase this population. There has been a reduction of suitable habitat 

surrounding the refuge with an already low and decreasing quality of existing habitat on the refuge. 

This leads to little hope for maintaining even the remaining family group for much longer, much less 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

being able to increase the family groups. This habitat historically was, and still pushes itself to be, a 

mixed pine and hardwood type with many more hardwoods and woody understory than what the 

RCW guidelines suggest. Substantial staff time and resources are devoted to managing and monitoring 

what is clearly a limited population in a marginal habitat situation. Experts have suggested that for the 

circumstances under which red-cockaded woodpeckers could persist as a small but sustainable 

population would require radically different habitat conditions on the refuge that are artificial, as well as a 

dramatic change to present landuse patterns adjacent to the refuge. The issue then is whether to 

continue funneling resources to maintain an artificial habitat for an endangered species, or allow the 

habitat to succeed with a natural progression to mixed pine hardwoods that will conserve the biological 

integrity of the area, and monitor for subsequent RCW use. 

Parts of Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and four FSA tracts occur in the West Gulf Coastal 

Plain ecoregion (Figure 3). Within this ecoregion, LDWF identified bottomland hardwood forests as 

the main natural community type. Clearing for agricultural production was the primary factor that led 

to the fragmentation and decline of this important habitat type. 

The Service has been dealing with the conservation and management of bottomland hardwood 

forests throughout the Southeast Region. Constraints of thinning either from funding, logistics, or 

hydrological (overflow flooding) problems have led to overstocking and shading out of understory 

species and loss of regeneration in some areas. Understory shrubs and trees are highly important to 

nesting and foraging neotropical migratory birds. Management activities need to be reviewed and a 

determination made as to whether they are resulting in an appropriate forest structure, composition, 

and associated understory for bottomland hardwood conservation when they are implemented on an 

overflow refuge such as this one. In association with this, several priority species of migratory 

songbirds utilize bottomland hardwood forests, but it is unknown how much nesting occurs on Upper 

Ouachita NWR and whether nesting attempts are successful. Since Upper Ouachita NWR was 

established for migratory birds, there is an opportunity under future management to direct resources 

toward neotropical migratory songbirds. 

A concern was noted for a loss of biological integrity of bottomland hardwood forests and upland 

mixed pine/hardwood forests with an increase in Japanese climbing ferns and Chinese tallow trees, 

as discussed in the previous chapter. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Easement Issues 

Problems specific to FSA easements include trespassing and destruction of survey markers and 

signs. Several meetings have been held with landowners to discuss easement requirements; 

however, when easements sell and resell without the refuge’s knowledge, management is unable to 

discuss these requirements with the new owners. Therefore, violations of easement requirements 

can possibly exist. 

Natural Gas Resources 

Upper Ouachita NWR is saturated with natural gas wells (Figure 4). Leases for resource extraction 

were retained with private mineral holders when refuge lands were acquired. However, gas 

extraction must be conducted in a manner that does not degrade the natural environment of the 

refuge (RM 612 FW 2). Therefore, refuge administration must maintain oversight of gas production 

impacts to the refuge and coordinate for best management practices with gas companies. There are 

also occasional requests for new access rights-of-way that the refuge must review for compatibility. 
66 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Watershed Protection 

The large levee constructed along the Ouachita River to protect some of the cropland from flooding 

has broken several times over the years, but has been repaired by the previous landowners to 

prevent flooding at all but the highest river stages. The reforested fields outside the levee experience 

the highest flood depth, duration, and frequency. Rain water also accumulates inside the levee 

during the winter due to depressional topography of the area. Although all of these factors contribute 

to the shallow flooding of croplands and moist-soil areas producing extremely valuable migratory bird 

habitat, concern remains that the levee will breach again from a flood event. Breaching the levee 

from a high flood event or actively may restore some of the historic hydrology of the area. An 

evaluation of leaving a levee breach from a flood event versus actively breaching the levee in the 

most advantageous area will be addressed. 

Contaminants 

During public scoping, several individuals were concerned with the water quality of the Ouachita River 

and wanted the Service to “clean it up.” The Service does not have authority to regulate and control 

activity on the Ouachita River but will evaluate partnership opportunities to address overall 

contaminant issues. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting 

Quality turkey habitat is limited on the refuge. Refuge management will evaluate the turkey habitat 

for opportunities to conduct safe, sustainable, quality turkey hunts. 

Deer management is often an issue with a variety of user groups. Public comments have been 

received for deer management changes. These range from moving toward more or different 

harvests; leaving the harvest as is, or not allowing deer hunting at all. Bow hunters often want no gun 

hunting, or some want special muzzle-loader seasons, etc. Often deer management comments are 

associated with trophy hunts, antler size restrictions, and limitations to doe and buck days. Refuge 

management will evaluate the current program and determine opportunities for the future. Often 

coinciding with deer hunting is the access issue involving all-terrain vehicles (ATV). Currently, the 

refuge allows ATVs on designated trails. Comments have been received from individuals requesting 

more access with ATVs, while others want to maintain the existing restrictions. 

Fishing 

Improving the fishery and access to fishing through management were main concerns identified 

during the scoping process. 

Wildlife Observation 

Increasing wildlife observation opportunities on the refuges and improving signage to these areas will 

address public concern. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Other Uses 

The public requests access for horseback riding. Currently no horseback riding is allowed. 

Special use permits are issued for night raccoon hunting that is conducted on horseback. Issues 

associated with horseback riding are habitat degradation and conflict with other uses. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Staffing needs to support current and future public uses exist, as well as needs for public use 

facilities’ improvement. In general, the number and condition of refuge access points and roads limit 

all public use on the refuges. Access will remain limited until more all-weather roads are provided 

and maintained. 

The FSA tracts have had minimal administration needs except for boundary posting to reduce 

trespass issues. Refuge law enforcement officers cooperate with LDWF officers to enforce the 

closure of hunting and fishing activities on the tracts. Rights-of-way requests across easement 

properties have deemed it necessary for administration review and discussion. 

Wilderness Review 

Refuge planning policy requires a Wilderness Review concurrent with the comprehensive conservation 

planning process (RM 602 FW 3) that is consistent with provisions of the Wilderness Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other applicable legislation. 

Service lands were inventoried to identify whether areas meet the defining wilderness criteria set forth 

in the Wilderness Act of 1964. These criteria are: 

(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 a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

(3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

(4) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic 

or historical value. 

No areas on Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and fee-title FSA tracts meet the eligibility 

criteria for a wilderness study. There are no areas of 5,000 contiguous roadless acres; almost all the 

lands have been logged and the imprint of man from the Columbia Lock and Dam will remain a major 

impact on the landscape; and there is a substantial amount of land subject to surface and subsurface 

mineral exploration and development that could not be relinquished, acquired, or exchanged in the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not 

analyzed further in this CCP. 
68 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats, considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. 

A requirement of the Improvement Act 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 six priority wildlife-dependent public uses. 

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

interpretation are therefore emphasized in this CCP. 

Described below is the CCP for managing Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA 

tracts for the next 15 years. This management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies 

that will be used to achieve the vision for the refuges and the FSA tracts. 

Three alternatives were considered: A) current management; B) proposed management; and C) minimize 

management and public use. Each of these alternatives is described in the Alternatives’ section of the 

EA. The Service chose Alternative B as the management direction. 

Implementing Alternative B will result in management based on sound science for the conservation of 

a structurally and species diverse bottomland hardwood habitat for migratory birds and resident 

wildlife. Upland habitat will be maintained to function and respond to processes mimicking the natural 

fire regime and disturbances to benefit migratory birds, red-cockaded woodpeckers, and resident 

wildlife. A focused effort will be made to reduce invasive species threatening the biological integrity 

of the refuge. Wintering waterfowl habitat will be maintained and enhanced in the open field and 

forested wetlands. Baseline inventories and monitoring of management actions will be completed to 

gain information on a variety of species, ranging from reptiles and amphibians to butterflies to several 

species of concern. Cooperative projects will be conducted with universities, LDWF, and other 

agencies and individuals to provide biological information to be used in management decisions. 

When compatible, the wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation will be provided, 

and in some instances enhanced, while achieving the refuges’ purposes. 

VISION 

Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts will conserve, enhance, and restore the 

integrity of bottomland hardwood forests, other wetlands, and upland mixed pine-hardwood habitats 

primarily in the Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain and MAV. Moist-soil and cropland habitats will be 

managed to benefit a variety of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and associated species. A diversity of 

wildlife species will be fostered while maintaining opportunities for the public to enjoy wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Future resource protection will be strategically charted for establishing habitat conservation 

linkages in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem through partnerships and collaboration. 
70 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

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 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 Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Upper 

Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts. The following goals, objectives, and strategies 

apply to all refuge lands unless specified according to individual units (i.e., Upper Ouachita NWR, 

Handy Brake NWR, FSA tracts). The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and 

strategies within the next 15 years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

GOAL A. Promote the conservation and management of migratory bird diversity, resident wildlife, and 

species of special concern in support of national, regional, and ecosystem habitat and population goals. 

Objective A-1. Migratory Waterfowl 

Annually monitor, assess, and inventory species abundance, use period, and habitat use on the 

refuge to help evaluate and improve management for migrating/wintering waterfowl. 

Discussion: Upper Ouachita NWR is located in the West Gulf Coastal Plain close to 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. Handy Brake NWR and the FSA lands are located in the MAV. North American 

waterfowl have seasonally dynamic life-cycle needs that are fulfilled by use of a diversity of habitats 

and foods throughout their annual range, which, for most species, is continental in scale in contrast to 

resident wildlife. Indeed, habitat (both its quality and quantity) is the primary template for ecological 

strategies of waterfowl (and all wildlife) and a critical determinant of their survival and productivity. 

Hence, sustaining viable and harvestable populations of waterfowl depends on conservation and 

management of habitats throughout the flyways of North America. Concerning wintering habitat, 

dabbling ducks need a diversity of wetlands including the following: (1) flooded crop land; (2) natural 

wetlands; and (3) refuge (i.e., sanctuary) (Reinecke et al., 1989). 

At times, the refuge has surveyed (indexed) over 80,000-100,000 waterfowl, but usual monthly 

winter “estimated” averages will vary between 30,000-45,000 birds depending on weather, 

surrounding lands/forage, survey timing, and landscape water conditions. Geese (white-fronted 

and primarily snow geese) can also add another 10,000-20,000 birds during winter periods. 

Although snow geese are targeted for major reductions in the Mississippi Flyway, they are a 

resource to be treasured at acceptable levels. 

Strategies: 

y Determine the feasibility for a multi-agency, multi-refuge cooperative aerial survey (inventory 

protocol) during key months (late-October through mid-February). Pool resources for monthly 

or twice monthly (fall/winter) aerial inventories (archive the data). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

y Continue aerial mid-winter survey using the current Southeast Region Waterfowl Survey 

Protocol for Refuges. 

y Hire biological technician to assist with surveys and data management. 

y Design and implement a protocol for estimating wintering waterfowl use of flooded forest. 

Collaborate with LMVJV for design. 

Objective A-2. Waterfowl Sanctuary 

Maintain 9,734 acres (22 percent) of Upper Ouachita NWR and most other fee title FSA tracts 

as no waterfowl hunting areas, using adaptive management for yearly regulations, delineations, 

and modifications. 

Discussion: Waterfowl need sanctuary from hunting pressure. Winter is an important season in the 

life of waterfowl. It is a biological preparatory period during which many ducks and geese pair and 

perform other life functions (e.g., females of some species [e.g., mallard] undergo a prebasic molt to 

acquire their breeding-season plumage) in readiness for reproduction. No hunting areas enable 

some species of waterfowl to prepare biologically for spring migration and reproduction. 

Strategies: 

y Enforce waterfowl hunting prohibitions in the closed area. 

y Monitor the “closed to hunting” area for disturbance during waterfowl wintering period. 

y Evaluate closed area from a conservation perspective for size, location, and access. 

y The “No Hunting Area” of the Mollicy Unit will be monitored for disturbance levels by other 

user groups (e.g., birdwatchers). 

y The school board section inholding should be leased (obtained) to provide flooded tree/shrub 

sites for cover, loafing, feeding, etc., where no hunting occurs. 

y Since a majority of the refuge is open to waterfowl hunting, continue with the “hunting until 

noon policy” or consider only allowing 3 days-per-week of all-day waterfowl hunting. 

Objective A-3. Resident/Nesting Waterfowl 

Annually determine wood duck nesting success on the refuge and contribute to determining harvest 

and survival rates of wood ducks in Louisiana to foster wood duck sustainability in the MAV and West 

Gulf Coastal Plain. 

 

Discussion: Wood ducks are year-round residents in the forest lands of the United States, including 

Upper Ouachita NWR. Preferred habitats include forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, treelined 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 in situations where nests are close to water. Due to conversion of forest lands to urban 

sprawl, agriculture, forestry practices, and competition for nest sites from a host of other species, 

natural cavities are considered to limit reproduction. Nest boxes are commonly used to supplement 

natural cavities and increase local production of wood ducks. Box programs are not an end to all 

nesting problems. They require time to clean and repair at least annually. Production can be 

increased by more frequent checks and cleaning of boxes, but this must be weighed with other time 

constraints. The refuge has recently modified the nest box program strategy to minimize the impact 

of extreme water level fluctuations. Upper Ouachita NWR maintains 24 nest boxes placed on land 

above the normal flood elevation. There are numerous, dilapidated nest boxes on Handy Brake 
72 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

NWR and the FSA tracts. Box checks are conducted prior to and after the nest season as a 

minimum. Box checks during the nest season are typically conducted to better estimate the number 

of broods, nest success, and productivity. The refuge reports only about 20 percent nest box usage 

and is currently compiling a report of past nest success. 

A recent publication, Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for Management and Banding 

on Refuge Lands (Southeast Region) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds 

2003), provides guidelines for the use of wood duck nest boxes that should be used to guide the nest 

box program on refuge lands. It is critical that nest boxes be spread out so that they are at least 100 

yards apart or cannot be seen from another box. The boxes must have a functional predator guard 

and be checked and repaired annually; otherwise, boxes are considered traps for the hen and her 

clutch. Conical predator guards should be placed on all of the boxes to more effectively keep rat 

snakes and raccoons from climbing into the boxes. Some reports indicate that if rat snakes learn 

there is a meal of eggs in the nest box, it is very difficult to exclude them from the boxes, even boxes 

with predator guards. If boxes cannot be properly maintained, they should be boarded up until 

sufficient effort can be put toward operating an effective nest box program. Cleaning the boxes after 

the initial peak of nesting (about mid-April) will significantly improve annual production if competition 

for nest sites increases. Continued monitoring of nest boxes is critical to success. If box usage and 

nest success does not improve, modifications to the current program should be considered. 

Brood survival is always a consideration, especially if broods must travel long distances to suitable 

habitat. McGilvrey (1968) described preferred brood habitat as 30 to 50 percent shrubs, 40 to 70 

percent herbaceous emergents, and 25 percent open water. Overhead cover within 1 to 2 feet of the 

water surface is vital for wood duck broods. Optimum habitat should have 75 percent cover and 25 

percent open water, with a minimum of one-third cover to two-third’s open water. Probable reasons 

for the limited nest box usage should be reviewed periodically and corrected through reasonable 

management actions. 

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 complex has an annual preseason banding quota of 125 wood ducks, including 

16 adult males, 27 adult females, 34 immature males, and 48 immature females. The complex has a 

history of reaching its banding quota and it is essential that it continues so that this important resource can 

be managed. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain a program of well-maintained nest boxes (see 2003 Guidelines). Place boxes with 

functional predator guards so that it is difficult to see from one box to the next, or at least 100 

yards apart. It is important to place boxes so that they are easy to access. As a minimum, 

box checks should be conducted in January, just prior to nest initiation that should begin 

between late-January and mid-February. Preferably, boxes will also be checked in late-April, 

soon after the first round of nest exodus by ducklings and again in August, just after the 

nesting season is complete. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

y Evaluate nest use and nesting success in boxes. Adjust the program accordingly to add more 

boxes if over 50 percent of the existing boxes are used, but not to exceed more nest boxes than 

refuge staff can properly maintain. If nest box usage does not expand, boxes should only be 

replaced to provide about two times the average number of boxes used during the previous 2 or 3 

years (e.g., if 10 boxes are used on the average during the past 2 years, maintain a box program 

of 20 nest boxes). Keep good records, archive data (see 2003 Guidelines). 

y Evaluate areas on Handy Brake NWR and other fee title FSA tracts for nest box installation, 

repair, and replacement. Install when feasible. Collect GIS location information of all boxes. 

y Utilize trapping/banding to help achieve banding objectives--focus on July-September banding 

periods. Continue meeting or exceeding the preseason wood duck banding quota of 125 

wood ducks, including 16 adult males, 27 adult females, 34 immature males, and 48 immature 

females. The quota, by age and sex, should be the goal, not just the total duck (125) quota 

(see 2003 Guidelines). 

y Favor/keep good brood rearing sites (do not destroy all beaver ponds, etc.). (See 2003 

Guidelines.) 

y Favor natural cavities when conducting forestry practices. Add this as an integral part of the 

Forest Habitat Management Plan. 

Objective A-4. Mottled Duck 

Collect data to determine mottled duck use of refuge and status in northeast Louisiana and promote 

nesting, brood-rearing, and molting habitat where applicable. 

Discussion: Mottled ducks are a resident species with a range limited to the west Gulf Coast (WGC) 

and Florida. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture estimates midwinter mottled duck populations of the WGC 

to be 646,000. Available information on WGC population trends is somewhat ambiguous, but 

generally suggests a stable population in Louisiana and the possibility of declines in Texas. Mottled 

ducks are generally considered to only inhabit coastal areas, but have been documented as yearround residents in northeast Louisiana, particularly in the rice-growing region. 

Mottled ducks have a long potential nesting period (February through mid-July), and as a result, 

frequent renesting attempts are common, but the peak of nesting activity occurs mid-April through 

May (Moorman and Gray 1994). Typical mottled duck nesting habitats are cordgrass ridges and 

other elevated sites within coastal marsh complexes, and cattle pastures and rice production zones of 

the former coastal prairie (Stutzenbaker 1988). Mottled ducks frequently select nest sites with some 

overhead cover, but typically abandon sites once they are overgrown with bacharis, willow, or 

Chinese tallow (Stutzenbaker 1988, Holbrook 1997). 

Mottled duck brood rearing occurs March through mid-September, with the peak occurring April 

through June. Mottled duck broods require habitats that are fresh or intermediate (Moorman et al., 

1991). The period of adult wing molt, mid-June to mid-September, is likely a time of particular 

susceptibility for mottled ducks (Moorman and Gray 1994). Large concentrations of birds 

(>2000/section) are not unusual during this period that is typically one of the driest of the year (B. 

Wilson, unpublished data). 

The year-round residency of this species makes it susceptible to potential population stresses that 

are unique among ducks. For instance, extremely high shot ingestion rates have been documented 

from a large sample of mottled duck gizzards in Texas from 1981- 1999, with 41 percent containing 

shot, including 23 percent with lead shot (J. Neaville, unpublished data). Mottled ducks are also 

susceptible to spring and summer mortality from a variety of predators that other dabbling duck 

species do not encounter, including an increasing population of alligators across their WGC range. 
74 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

As such, special consideration is warranted to ensure that their unique needs are met. Although not 

as high a priority for management as in coastal Louisiana, mottled duck use of the refuge should be 

documented as well as possible. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor mottled duck population trends on the refuge through fall/winter aerial surveys and 

other rigorous and repeatable surveys (e.g., spring/summer surveys) as feasible. 

y Promote nesting, brood-rearing, and molting habitat where applicable. 

Objective A-5. Forest Breeding Birds 

Every 3 years, determine neotropical migratory bird species relative abundance on the refuge and 

FSA lands within priority bird conservation areas to monitor for trends and regional comparisons. 

Discussion: Upper Ouachita NWR is a predominately forested refuge in a largely forested landscape 

context in the WGC plain of northern Louisiana. Of the 42,594 acres within the refuge, 24,307 acres 

are forested, with an additional 9,236 acres recently reforested. Upland forests totaling 4,540 acres 

are dominated by pine and pine/hardwood mix. Although the majority of forests on the refuge is in 

maturing or mature condition, the forested landscape surrounding the refuge is increasingly in early 

successional habitat. 

Several FSA tracts are located in high priority restoration areas for forest breeding birds (Figure 18). 

Given the fact that these lands have recently been reforested, monitoring use would provide 

important information in priority areas. 

Several research and survey needs were identified during the Biological Review with regard to forest 

bird habitat context and content issues. Most of these needs are with breeding species, but rising 

continental conservation concern with the rusty blackbird, which winters in forested wetlands of the 

southeastern United States, also requires survey attention. 

Strategies: 

y Use aerial photography that covers an area of at least 75,000 acres (including an area with 

radius extending 6 miles from the center of refuge) to compare land use patterns 10-15 years 

from now with today’s patterns. 

y If surrounding forest cover falls below 70 percent, evaluate nesting success of forest birds and 

if nesting success is found to be depressed due to nest predation or cowbird parasitism, 

consider additional reforestation. 

y Collaborate with LMVJV for design. 

y Refuge staff or volunteers conduct point-count surveys within each habitat type. 

y Hire a biological technician to assist with surveys and data management. 

y During the winter months, refuge staff should be encouraged to keep records on their 

encounters with rusty blackbirds, including locations, numbers, and dates when encountered. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Figure 18 Forest breeding bird priority areas of conservation associated with the FSA tracts 
76 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Objective A-6. Forest Breeding Birds 

Determine nesting success of priority neotropical migratory birds (e.g., hooded warbler, Kentucky 

warbler, northern parula, Swainson’s warbler, wood thrush, and prothonotary warbler) within 6 years 

after the CCP is approved, and use production data as a baseline for comparison in future years as 

surrounding land cover changes. 

Discussion: At this point in time, it does not appear that forest birds occurring on Upper Ouachita 

NWR are subjected to elevated nest depredation and cowbird parasitism pressure associated with 

fragmented landscapes. Nevertheless, maintaining 2,540 acres in agricultural fields (Mollicy Unit) at 

the northeastern portion of the refuge may contribute to elevated numbers of nest predators and 

cowbirds that could affect overall forest bird nesting success at Upper Ouachita NWR. This does not 

appear to be a serious threat unless the forested landcover surrounding the refuge falls below 70 

percent (covering an area of 75,000 to 100,000 acres). 

Strategies: 

y Develop research projects in cooperation with LDWF and a university to meet objective and 

obtain recommendations for best management practices that will increase production of 

Louisiana species of concern. 

y Obtain funding for research project and graduate student or temporary employee for a period 

of 3 years. 

y Test assumption that nesting success of forest breeding landbirds is high at Upper Ouachita 

NWR with existing surrounding landscape considered >70 percent forested, establishing 

baseline if surrounding landscape falls below 70 percent by 2010. 

y Working with the LMVJV, establish point counts in stands that will be subjected to 

management in the near-term, as well as stands that will not be managed in the near-term to 

track bird responses by 2012. 

Objective A-7. Marshbirds 

Determine status of marshbirds, particularly breeding king rails, in moist-soil areas and unharvested 

rice fields on the Mollicy Unit. 

Discussion: The moist-soil areas and unharvested rice fields on the Mollicy Unit may support 

breeding king rails when water levels, and subsequent height and density of moist-soil plants, are 

appropriate. Similarly, transient rails and bitterns may also use the Mollicy Unit. 

Strategy: 

y Determine presence of marshbird species in suitable looking habitat and response of these 

species to habitat management by contributing to secretive marshbird survey data presently 

coordinated by BRD-University of Arizona. 

Objective A-8. Waterbirds 

Annually, monitor species presence, habitat use, and abundance of colonial waterbirds, pelicans, and 

waders during post-breeding periods. 

Discussion: Generally speaking, nesting wadingbirds have adequate habitat. Controlling human 

disturbance at nesting colonies is a key to protecting these species. It is important to track changes 

in public use around established colony sites and responses by the nesting birds. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

One important aspect of managing for long-legged wading birds, including post-breeding wood storks 

dispersing from Mexico, is providing post-breeding foraging habitat in summer and early fall. 

Drawdowns and stocking of forage fish improve foraging habitat and concentrate birds for viewing. 

Species of conservation interest in the WGC plain include little blue heron, wood stork (not federally 

listed in Louisiana), and white ibis. Observations of these species, their numbers, use of 

impoundments, and the condition/management of these impoundments would provide valuable 

information in guiding future management decisions in line with what is needed for brooding wood 

ducks and later use by migrating and wintering waterfowl. 

In addition, the Mollicy Unit also supports large numbers of American white pelicans (about 2,000 

were observed in 2005), and tracking the occurrence and abundance of this species is considered 

important. This species is of increasing management interest with respect to aquacultural conflicts 

located east of Upper Ouachita NWR. 

Strategies: 

y Locate nesting sites of colonial waterbird species each year and determine if special 

measures are needed to control disturbance. 

y Determine use of managed wetlands, especially during post-breeding periods by long-legged 

waders, starting in June on about a 15-day interval (on or about the 5th and 20th of each 

month) through September. 

Objective A-9. Grassland Birds

Monitor presence, abundance, and habitat use of wintering grassland bird species, such as Henslow 

and LeConte’s sparrows, in open wetland and recently reforested habitats. 

Discussion: Approximately 4,200 acres of moist soil, rice, and fallow fields and 9,236 acres of 

recently reforested ground on the Mollicy Unit and the FSA tracts are currently considered a locally 

important habitat for supporting grassland species, such as Henslow’s and LeConte’s sparrows. 

These grassy conditions may also support other priority grassland birds, including yellow rail, 

American woodcock (nocturnal display and foraging use), Wilson’s snipe, short-eared owl, northern 

bobwhite, grasshopper sparrow, barn owl, loggerhead shrike, and sedge wren. Recently reforested 

sites may provide grassy conditions initially; however, as trees mature, grassland associated species 

are expected to decline. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor and compare changes in abundance of grassland birds, especially Henslow’s and 

LeConte’s sparrows and sedge wren. 

y For better understanding of habitat use and monitoring trends over time in reforested areas, 

implement Project Prairie Bird or similar surveys. 

Objective A-10. Scrub/Shrub Birds 

Determine species presence, relative abundance, and habitat use of priority scrub/shrub species. 

Discussion: Several species associated with early successional forests are often described as 

scrub/shrub species. The American woodcock, painted bunting, and prairie warbler are among the higher 

priority scrub/shrub species dependent upon habitats found on the refuge. No data exist for whether 

these species are nesting successfully on the refuge. There are only data demonstrating that they occur 
78 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

on the refuge. Louisiana has these species listed as a species of conservation concern. With 

cooperation from the state, the refuge may be able to provide data on their abundance and habitat use 

that could be used in conjunction with refuge management to promote their conservation. 

Painted buntings are associated with forest edges that have substantial understory. Maintaining 

unmowed grassy roadsides during the breeding season reduces cowbird foraging habitat (i.e., 

recently mowed roadsides). Many species, including painted buntings (but also many other 

songbirds and wild turkey), make substantial use of unmowed roadsides as “bugging” habitat to 

support feeding their young of the year. Limiting mowing operations along roadsides and utility 

rights-of-way, particularly between April 15 and August 15, is important to nesting success. 

Strategies: 

y Link status of scrub/shrub species at Upper Ouachita NWR with habitat improvements to 

3,800 acres of pine woodland by 2015. 

y All forest edges should be feathered by cutting into the existing woods to maximize potential 

use by scrub/shrub species and with nearby patches of unmowed grass, such as along 

roadsides and utility rights-of-way, from mid-April to mid-August (as is practicable), especially 

for painted buntings, by 2015. 

y Working with the LMVJV, consider establishing roadside point counts along forest and field 

edges across the refuge to track habitat use by all priority scrub/shrub species. 

y Cooperate with LDWF and a university for developing a research project with graduate 

students to evaluate timber management efforts on scrub/shrub birds. 

Objective A-11. American Woodcock 

Determine use of open field habitat by American woodcock during winter and spring. 

Discussion: American woodcock use of refuge lands would seem limited as available habitats during 

the winter months are usually subject to deep flooding. Some breeding does occur, but at this time 

there are few areas on the refuge that support optimal breeding conditions (i.e., canebrakes or very 

dense understory patches). These conditions may increase with recommended forest management 

to promote more open canopies and denser patches of understory. Draft protocols for surveying 

American woodcock are now available for implementation if staffing and other priorities permit. 

Strategies: 

y Review literature and discuss with partners to design and implement a valid, feasible protocol. 

y Establish protocol to survey American woodcock using fields during winter and spring. 

Objective A-12. Shorebirds 

Annually, monitor shorebird species presence, habitat use, and abundance during post-breeding periods. 

Discussion: Where opportunities exist, managing shorebird habitat should be focused during both 

northbound and southbound movement periods. Although habitat objectives for shorebirds in the 

WGC plain have not been established, it appears most of the habitat in Louisiana would come from 

Upper Ouachita NWR. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

The management regime for moist-soil areas on the Mollicy Unit is critically important for southbound 

migratory birds in the WGC plain bird conservation region, and may, in fact, be the most important 

site in Louisiana’s portion of this bird conservation region during this time of year when habitat is 

generally unavailable in most areas. Of the approximately 1,000 acres of moist soil that should be 

available on the Mollicy Unit every year, the established regime of initiating gradual drawdowns 

starting in early July through early October provides excellent habitat in copious amounts. 

 

For southbound migration, specific measures should be implemented, such as holding water in some 

impoundments into July and some into August/September, then gradually drawing down water for the 

greatest production of invertebrates. September habitat would overlap needs of southbound 

migrating blue-winged teal and northern pintail. 

Both moist soil and rice also should provide important habitat for northbound migratory birds in 

concert with other management priorities (marshbirds, waterfowl, etc.). 

Strategies: 

y Continue to draw down water from early July through October on moist-soil areas on the 

Mollicy Unit. 

y Determine if opportunity exists to provide northbound habitat from late March to late May in 

concert with waterfowl or other species management, by 2015. 

y Continue to support LMVJV Shorebird Survey protocol and conduct more regular surveys 

using International Shorebird Survey protocol in coordination with the South Atlantic Migratory 

Bird Initiative. 

Objective A-13. Mammals 

Develop a comprehensive species list of mammals utilizing refuge lands. 

Discussion: Many species of mammals are present on the refuge, including white-tailed deer, 

raccoon, bobcat, beaver, nutria, muskrat, otter, opossum, red and gray fox, coyote, rabbit, bat, and 

gray and fox squirrels and other rodents. No research has been conducted on refuge mammals, 

except for white-tailed deer; therefore, little information is available on populations of other species. 

Before management strategies can be developed, a basic understanding of the species that use the 

refuge needs to be acquired. The trapping and surveying of all mammals on the refuge would be 

logistically time-consuming and expensive, so other alternatives, such as literature searches, will help 

initiate a species list. A focus can then be developed for target species or species of concern 

requiring more intensive monitoring or research. 

Strategies: 

y Research literature, including range maps, for species that should occur in north Louisiana. 

y Implement a variety of survey techniques to sample for presence of potential species. 

Objective A-14. Mammals 

Monitor white-tailed deer herd health, age, and sex structure every 3 to 5 years to determine disease 

occurrence and carrying capacity on Upper Ouachita NWR habitat. 

Discussion: White-tailed deer are a popular species with the public for the wildlife-dependent uses of 

hunting, wildlife observation, and photography. Deer move freely across refuge boundaries, making it 

difficult to manage for a specific number of individuals given the size of their range and seasonality of 
80 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

use of the refuge. However, the refuge can monitor the population size and distribution to determine 

if the population is increasing beyond carrying capacity or if animals are concentrating in areas 

resulting in vegetation damage. By monitoring the availability, diversity, and use of understory woody 

and herbaceous plants by deer, the refuge will be able to better understand the pressure being 

exerted on the habitat, and therefore make habitat and harvest recommendations. 

Chronic wasting disease is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of deer and elk. It has not 

been found in Louisiana to date, but the high profile of this disease makes it crucial for the Service to 

cooperate with the state and other federal agencies in monitoring for the disease. These 

management actions are necessary to support the public use program. 

Strategies: 

y Develop protocol to estimate deer population on the refuge (browse survey). 

y Partner with Southeastern Disease Study Group to conduct deer herd health checks on the 

refuge. 

y Partner with LDWF to monitor occurrence of chronic wasting disease in Louisiana and 

neighboring states. 

y Apply adaptive management to determine best practices to use in response to monitoring data 

on deer population and habitat. 

y If deer population increases beyond carrying capacity, reduce the herd size by adjusting 

season length, bag limits, and method of take. 

Objective A-15. Amphibians and Reptiles 

Maintain a species list of reptiles and amphibians utilizing the refuge based on opportunistic sightings 

each year and results of anuran call survey. Monitor impacts of forest management on amphibians 

and reptiles. 

Discussion: Although the prospective herpetofauna of the refuge is large, at least 80 species, the 

presence of relatively few of the species has been confirmed and associated with particular refuges 

or their habitats. Among these are three species of special concern: Louisiana slimy salamander 

(Plethodon kisatchie), alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), and western worm snake 

(Carphophis vermis). The alligator snapping turtle is dealt with elsewhere (Objective A-16). The 

Louisiana slimy salamander is listed by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program as an S1S2 species, 

and the western worm snake is listed as S1. In the case of both species, there are historical records 

of these two species from nearby parishes, although none for Union Parish or Upper Ouachita NWR 

(Dundee and Rossman 1989). Under provisions of the Improvement Act, refuges are called upon to 

conserve, manage, and restore wildlife populations and their habitats. When confronted with a lack 

of knowledge concerning the species actually resident on refuge lands, the first step in conserving 

them is determining their presence, and to the extent possible, associating this with particular 

habitats. These are fundamental aspects of biodiversity knowledge recommended as priorities for 

helping the Department of the Interior to manage its lands (NRC 1993). 

Strategies: 

y Design and implement an inventory protocol including call surveys, drift fence arrays 

configured with pitfall and funnel traps, and cover boards with valid sampling methodologies 

for all major habitats throughout the year. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

y If species of concern are documented on the refuge, then management actions will be 

reviewed for benefits and impacts. 

y Continue to sample anurans with the current call survey protocol at a minimum of every other 

year in order to monitor population trends. Special effort should occur during the lateFebruary to mid-April period to look for spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus hurteri) along the 

western boundary of the refuge in areas with predominantly sandy soils. 

Objective A-16. Amphibians and Reptiles 

Survey potential habitat for indications of successful nesting by alligator snapping turtles and other 

nesting turtles. 

Discussion: The alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) is the largest North American 

freshwater turtle. As such, it is among the top tier of predators in most aquatic ecosystems that it inhabits, 

exceeded routinely in size only by the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). It is a characteristic 

component of lowland swamps, lakes, and streams in the southeastern United States; however, it has 

declined in abundance to the point where it is now considered a threatened or endangered species in all 

range states except Louisiana. In Louisiana, it appears on the list of species of conservation concern by 

the Natural Heritage Program as an S3 species (rare and local throughout the state), and up to four 

individuals per day of any size may be taken for personal use with a fishing license. The alligator 

snapping turtle has been of conservation concern for some time (Pritchard 1989; Sloan and Lovich 1995), 

and was recently proposed for listing on Appendix III of CITES by the United States (Federal Register

2002) in order to monitor the growing international trade in this species. 

While certain aspects of the biology of the alligator snapping turtle are slowly unfolding, population 

dynamics are still largely unknown (Trauth et al., 1998) and critical to managing the species. One of 

the most significant features of its life history that impacts any conservation effort is delayed onset of 

sexual maturity; 13-21 years in females and 11-21 years in males (Tucker and Sloan 1997). Given 

the significance of reproductive characteristics for determining population dynamics, there are 

relatively few studies of reproduction in the species, and several are studies that have relied upon 

meat market specimens of unknown provenance (Dobie 1971; Tucker and Sloan 1997). Until 

recently, the only study of nesting in Macrochelys was along the Apalachicola River in the Florida 

panhandle (Ewert 1976; Ewert and Jackson 1994; Woosley 2005). They found the turtles frequently 

nested on dredge spoil that produced a relatively open area with a significant elevation in close 

proximity to water. Observations of nesting Macrochelys at Black Bayou Lake NWR (Carr, pers. 

comm; J.B. Harrel, pers. Comm., Woosley 2005) indicate that nesting lasts for 2-4 weeks within the 

period from the last week of April through the first week in June. During this period, it is relatively 

simple to locate both intact and depredated nests. Nests appear to be concentrated in or near 

anthropogenically open areas within a forested matrix. Further, nesting efforts may be concentrated 

in areas with a relatively steep elevation above water level within a short distance of the water’s edge. 

With this knowledge and the proper personnel, it is possible to survey for nesting activity and gauge 

the relative success of nesting by monitoring the fate of nests. 

Strategies: 

y Using the best available maps of elevation and cover for the refuge, identify 5-6 potential 

nesting sites along the shoreline, each approximately one-half km long, that can be surveyed 

during the spring (late April-May) for nesting by Macrochelys. For a proper survey, daily 

searching of the sites is required. 

y Evaluate the frequency of nest site location along different sections of shoreline representing 

both natural and anthropogenically “opened” habitats. 
82 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

y Evaluate nesting success by examining the ratio of successful nests. Predators should be 

identified, as possible, in particular the extent to which raccoons (Procyon lotor) are 

responsible. If the predation rate is deemed to be too high, then possible intervention 

strategies should be explored (e.g., installation of nest protectors). 

Objective A-17. Butterflies and Moths 

Inventory and create a species list and display of butterflies and moths utilizing the refuge. 

Discussion: Butterflies and moths have been poorly understood and not well researched. However, 

recent interest has prompted studies on butterly response to fire and forest treatments, along with 

studies emphasizing that butterflies and moths could be indicators of a healthy ecosystem. On Upper 

Ouachita NWR, no information exists about butterfly and moth populations. Initial work should be 

directed towards a basic inventory to determine if any species of concern are present. 

Strategy: 

y Consult literature to determine best survey methods to implement. Conduct as suggested. 

Objective A-18. Mussels 

Inventory for mussels in refuge waters to determine whether species of concern or invasive species 

are present. 

Discussion: Freshwater mussels are the most jeopardized animal group in North America, with 60 

percent of species being classified as either threatened or endangered (Ricciardi et al., 1998). The 

introduction of invasive, exotic mussels, such as the zebra mussel, has threatened some species of 

native mussels with extinction. The Mississippi River has the largest number of endemic freshwater 

mussels in the world (Ricciardi et al., 1998); however, the zebra mussel has been extirpating local 

populations of native mussels in the basin since the early 1990s. Although zebra mussels have yet to 

be documented in the State of Louisiana, survey work along the Ouachita River on the refuge is 

needed to determine if species of concern are present and whether zebra mussels have encroached. 

Strategy: 

y Consult literature to determine best survey methods to implement. Conduct as suggested. 

Objective A-19. Fisheries 

Inventory fish in the mainstream and backwater areas to determine whether species of concern or 

invasive species are present, and explore opportunities to enhance fish habitat in these areas. 

Discussion: The Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan (2004-2008) details specific actions and 

tactics that will be implemented over the next five years to meet national goals and objectives 

supported by the Service’s Fisheries Program Vision of the Future (2002). The national objective 

listed as 3.1.1 in the plan states “Quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other related 

recreational enjoyment of Aquatic resources on Service lands....” The national objective listed as 

3.1.2 in the plan states “Enhance recreational fishing opportunities....” Other documents and/or 

legislation pertaining to the importance of aquatic species management and the associated role of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are numerous. They include the following: Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956, National Recreational Fisheries Policy 1988, Action Plan for Fisheries Resources and Aquatic 

Ecosystems 1994, and Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan 1996. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Upper Ouachita NWR is located within the Ouachita River Basin. The Ouachita River bisects the 

refuge for 13.7 miles (the river goes north and south). Three major reservoirs are located on the river 

in Arkansas. Felsenthal and Columbia locks and dams are located approximately 2 river miles north 

of the refuge in Arkansas, and approximately 98 river miles downstream from the refuge in Louisiana, 

respectively. Dams and rainfall in the river basin influence the river stage and approximately 80 

percent of the refuge is subject to annual flooding from December through May. 

Strategies: 

y Explore cooperative opportunities with USGS and universities for inventorying and monitoring 

the insect and aquatic resources of refuge waters. 

y Inventory fish with electro fishing gear, gill nets, angler surveys, seines, traps, rotenone, etc. 

y Evaluate opportunities for fish habitat enhancement that does not conflict with other 

management strategies in Wigeon Ponds on the Mollicy Unit (i.e., gravel beds, fish-attracting 

structures, and fishing piers). 

Objective A-20. Species of Special Concern 

Annually monitor historic bald eagle nesting areas for activity and success. 

Discussion: Bald eagles often winter on the refuge, and an active nest exists on the Mollicy Unit. 

The staff has documented eagles successfully fledging young in 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Years 

where chicks were not recorded does not necessarily indicate the eagles did not attempt nesting. 

The Southeast Regional Management Guidelines suggest that all nests should include buffer zones 

of restricted human activity to reduce the chance of disturbance or abandonment of nests. Bald 

eagles have been shown to change their behavior in response to human activity near their nests that 

may affect nestling survival and reproductive success (Steidl and Anthony 1999). However, the same 

research showed that bald eagles will habituate to disturbance (Steidl and Anthony 1999). Pairs that 

nest in an area that has been regularly exposed to human activity are often not disturbed and still 

have success in raising and fledging young. The refuge will follow the Southeast Regional 

Management Guidelines when a need to reduce disturbance has been demonstrated to try to 

maximize the chance of reproductive success. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain records of nest location and nest success. 

y Coordinate with LDWF for midwinter eagle surveys which include non-nesting birds. 

y When bald eagle nesting activity is confirmed, follow regional and national guidelines. 

Objective A-21. Species of Special Concern 

Provide red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging and nesting habitat and conduct population 

monitoring, nest monitoring, translocations, and cavity management on 1,220 acres of the RCW Habitat 

Management Area of Upper Ouachita NWR per guidelines in the RCW Recovery Plan (Figure 14). 

Discussion: Upper Ouachita NWR presently supports one active RCW group. During the 

Biological Review, there was much discussion about (1) the history of management for this 

species at Upper Ouachita; (2) the recent reduction of suitable habitat surrounding the refuge; (3) 

the very low priority being given on translocating birds from healthier populations to Upper 

Ouachita NWR; (4) little hope for maintaining even the remaining family group for much longer; 

and (5) the substantial staff time that could be devoted to managing and monitoring what is 

clearly a doomed population, given points 1-4 above. 
84 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

With less than 10 active family groups, the Upper Ouachita NWR population is considered in the 

USFWS Management Guidelines for the RCW as an “important support population,” not otherwise 

identified as a RCW recovery population. According to these guidelines, such populations, 

regardless of status, still are subject to monitoring and management attention. Such small 

populations are to be closely monitored at the most intense level, which consists of color banding 

both nestlings and adults, conducting nest and fledgling checks, and conducting pre-breeding roost 

checks for all active and inactive clusters (USFWS 2003). However, the present evidence discussed 

below does not suggest this population is sustainable. It was the judgment of the Biological Review 

Team that even given unlimited staffing or funding resources devoted to this population it is still likely 

to disappear completely in the very near future. 

The Service habitat management guidelines for RCWs include providing (1) at least four suitable 

cavities to be maintained in each cluster; (2) 120 acres of good foraging habitat for each group (within 

250 acres around the cluster site); (3) use of prescribed burning (with preference for growing season) 

to maintain a herbaceous understory and minimal midstory; and (4) the use translocation and 

augmentation to maintain and grow small populations. 

Present habitat considered potentially suitable for RCWs at Upper Ouachita NWR consists of 3,660 

acres of mature pine-dominated stands concentrated on the western side of the refuge (of which 

almost all came from a recent land exchange between the Plum Creek Timber Company and The 

Nature Conservancy, and transferred to the Service in 2003). As is the case with many refuges 

where wetlands form the core of the acreage, uplands are generally included as transitional areas 

secondary to ensuring all the primary forested wetlands are within land acquisition boundaries. Thus, 

upland forest species that require large home ranges often occur on refuges at the margins of their 

habitat tolerances. In addition to Upper Ouachita NWR, similar inclusions of upland habitats occur at 

Felsenthal, D’Arbonne, and Okefenokee NWRs, and formerly at Santee and Pee Dee NWRs. 

In terms of habitat conditions on Upper Ouachita NWR, the vast majority of pine is loblolly, with few 

shortleaf pines. Outside of cluster sites, pine stands need to be maintained at higher than otherwise 

recommended stocking rates to support adequate foraging habitat for each family group. A 

prominence of loblolly pine, as opposed to shortleaf, requires more care in the use of growing season 

prescribed fire, especially with respect to ensuring adequate regeneration for replacement stands. 

Finally, loblolly pine is relatively short-lived, with most dying by 120 years of age, again adding 

importance to ensuring successful regeneration for supporting adequate replacement stands. In 

contrast to D’Arbonne NWR, where restoring shortleaf pine is conceivable and would lead eventually 

to greater management flexibility, the pine habitats presently at Upper Ouachita NWR are flatwoods 

that are too moist for supporting shortleaf pine. Also, these flatwoods present a significant challenge 

for maintaining open loblolly pine woodlands as well. 

Presently at Upper Ouachita NWR, the sole active cluster site has had no female present for a couple 

of years now. Four additional cluster sites were developed during 2002, but have gone unoccupied 

to date. On private lands on the east side of the refuge in contrast, there is a relatively large 

population (most on Plum Creek Timber Company land), but this population is effectively isolated 

from the west side of the Ouachita River by bottomland hardwood forests. 

As late as 20 years ago there was substantial mature and maturing pine on private lands adjacent to 

Upper Ouachita NWR, suggesting that there was some historical interchange with other RCW 

populations in northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas. However, this interchange most likely is 

severed today as almost all of the pine stands in the vicinity of the existing occupied and recruitment 

habitat has been cut within the last 20 years. In addition to this direct loss of potential habitat, there 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

are increasing market pressures to harvest pines on less than a 20-year cycle. Thus, the likelihood of 

any increase of suitable habitat adjacent to the refuge in the foreseeable future seems remote under 

present ownership and land use patterns. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain the existing active cluster site according to RCW Recovery Guidelines. 

y Ensure all aspects of Service policy are adhered to in considering this approach (ESA, NEPA, 

NWRS). 

Objective A-22. Species of Special Concern 

Annually monitor known Rafinesque’s big-eared and southeastern Myotis bats’ roost tree use and 

location on the refuge. Conduct a research project to determine roost habits, reproductive success, 

and wintering roost location of Rafinesque’s big-eared and southeastern Myotis bats on Upper 

Ouachita NWR. 

Discussion: The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and southeastern Myotis bat are both considered Federal 

species of concern. The Rafinesque’s bat may be listed as federally threatened in the near future. Both 

Rafinesque’s big-eared and southeastern Myotis bats utilize Upper Ouachita NWR to an unknown extent. 

Roosts of these bats have been found in water tupelo trees on the refuge and surrounding lands. They 

are strongly associated with bottomland hardwood forests and with water tupelo trees. Little is known 

about location of winter roosts, relative abundance, or roosting dynamics. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor known roost tree locations for annual use. 

y Conduct a research project to determine roost dynamics, reproductive success, and wintering 

roost location of Rafinesque’s big-eared and southeastern Myotis bats on Upper Ouachita 

NWR only. 

Objective A-23. Species of Special Concern 

Support the Louisiana black bear recovery efforts and continue to provide habitat to support this species. 

Discussion: Habitat reduction and declining populations were reasons for listing the Louisiana black bear 

(Ursus americanus luteolus) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This 

subspecies 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 (Ursus americanus) habitat consists of diverse forests with stable and varied food 

supplies, suitable denning sites, and escape cover with minimal human contact. Black bears are 

opportunistic omnivores that exploit a variety of foods (Smith and Pelton 1986). Bears feed primarily on 

succulent vegetation during spring, berries and soft mast during summer, and hard mast during fall. 

Colonial hymenopterans, especially ants (Formicidae), are an important annual food source. Fall foods 

are especially important because high-energy diets are necessary for bears to accumulate fat reserves 

and thereby withstand winter denning, production of young, and the food scarcity of early spring. Black 

bears use a variety of den sites, including tree cavities above ground, excavated and natural depressions 

under tree roots, stumps, and fallen logs, and in open ground nests. Dense understory vegetation is also 

an important factor for escape cover. Cover, such as switchcane, palmetto, and shrub understories, that 

limits visibility, slows foot travel, and creates considerable noise when traversed, provides security. 

Expanses of water can also be an important form of escape cover. 
86 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Sightings and records of black bears on and adjacent to the refuge have become much more common in 

the past three years due to translocation of individuals into Felsenthal NWR. A contiguous block of 

bottomland hardwood forest exists from the southern end of Upper Ouachita NWR to the northern end of 

Felsenthal NWR. Bears being moved to Felsenthal NWR naturally disperse and wander onto Upper 

Ouachita NWR. As soon as these “Arkansas” bears cross the stateline, they are considered threatened 

Louisiana black bears. One radio-collared sow and her four cubs stayed in one area on the refuge for 

over a year. The sow died but some cubs are still seen, although one was killed by a car. Other collared 

bears have been tracked onto the refuge and bears without collars have been sighted. 

Documented breeding activity in north-central Louisiana has occurred and the potential for 

occupancy is good. 

Strategies: 

y Document sightings of bears on Upper Ouachita NWR and the surrounding area. 

y Anticipate information requests/assistance with nuisance bear situations, particularly with deer 

feeders and household garbage. 

y Timber management promoting diversity, while maintaining a hard mast component and 

retaining den trees, on Upper Ouachita NWR will improve habitat conditions for bears. Utilize 

the most current general guidelines for hardwood forest management. 

y Refuge employees maintain communication and collaboration on biological issues such as 

Louisiana Black bear sightings or nuisance problems. 

Objective A-24. Nuisance and Invasive Wildlife Species 

Intensively remove nuisance and invasive species on Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and 

other fee title lands where feasible using all control methods, including regulated hunting seasons, 

opportunistic harvest by refuge staff, and large-scale trapping program. Monitor success of control 

methods and educate public about adverse effects of feral hogs on native wildlife and habitat. 

Discussion: Invasive wildlife species on the refuge include feral hogs, red fire ants, nutria, Eurasian 

collard doves, and European starlings. Control of doves, starlings, and fire ants is practically 

impossible. Nutria are established throughout Louisiana and can damage levees and impact native 

vegetation if populations become high. Numbers can be reduced by shooting or trapping. Feral hogs 

have been on the refuge for many decades. Hogs root up native vegetation and compete with native 

wildlife for food. Control of the population can be gained through shooting and trapping. Nuisance 

wildlife species, such as beaver, cause major damage to reforestation efforts. 

The Ouachita River acts as the primary corridor of infestation for exotic fish species. Exotic carp are 

the primary species of concern in northeast Louisiana. Several species, including the Eurasian 

common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and the Asian grass carp, silver carp (Hypopthalmichthys molitrix), and 

bighead carp (H. nobilils) are now present in the Ouachita River. Common carp, which have been in 

North America for over 100 years, are known to be reproducing in the Ouachita River, while the 

reproductive success of the Asian species here is not fully known. The recent (early 1990s) occurrence 

of the Asian species can be attributed to commercial fish farming operations in the MRV. All of the carp 

have the ability to cause habitat degradation. Common carp can increase turbidity, especially when 

abundant in shallow water bodies. Grass carp feed on vegetation and may cause decline or eradication 

of native aquatic plants in certain situations. Silver and big head carp are primarily planktivores, and 

may compete with native species, including bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus), and paddlefish 

(Polyodon spathula), a protected species in Louisiana. Freshwater mollusks and the young of most fish 

species may also be affected by increased competition with exotic planktivores. The silver and bighead 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

species have not been here long enough to accurately determine their impacts. Another species, the 

Asian black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus), has been found in at least one river in the southern part of 

the state. This species feeds primarily on mollusks and shellfish. If established, it has the potential to 

damage native mussel and snail populations and create additional competition for food with other fish, 

birds, and mammals. Little can be done to prevent the introduction of this fish into the refuge. Periodic 

sampling may be conducted to inventory species and abundance, along with the noting of any changes 

in the condition of the fisheries that may be attributed to its presence. Eradication of this species 

without harm to other fish is not practical. 

Strategies: 

y Although nuisance and invasive wildlife, both aquatic and terrestrial, have spread over the 

entire refuge and do not need to be mapped, a basic species list (inventory) needs to be 

created. 

y Implement an aggressive control program to reduce/eliminate invasive non-native species. 

y Integrate information gained on nuisance animals into a Nuisance Animal and Plant 

Management Plan. 

y Seek alternative funding sources to address nuisance animal concerns. 

y Work with adjacent landowners to encourage participation in control efforts. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

GOAL B. Restore, enhance, manage, and maintain healthy bottomland hardwood and upland 

forests to support a natural diversity of plant and animal species and to foster the ecological integrity 

of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

Discussion: Upper Ouachita NWR is a predominately forested refuge in a largely forested landscape 

context in the WGC plain of northern Louisiana. Of the 42,594 acres within the refuge, 24,307 acres 

are forested, with an additional 9,236 acres recently reforested. Upland forests consist of 4,540 

acres dominated by pine and pine/hardwood mix. Although the majority of forest on the refuge is in 

maturing or mature condition, the forested landscape surrounding the refuge is increasingly in an 

early successional condition. 

Objective B-1. Bottomland Hardwood Forest

Complete a Habitat Management Plan that will use the LMVJV Forest Working Group General 

Guidelines for Hardwood Forest Management as the desired future conditions and that will include a 

baseline inventory, entry schedule, and monitoring program. 

Discussion: The refuge contains 19,767 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, which is mostly comprised 

of overcup/water hickory and willow oak/sweetgum cover types. Most of the present stands have a 

closed canopy, with dense shade limiting lower layers of the forest. Closed canopy stands should be 

thinned to a basal area of 70 sq. ft., leaving many, but not necessarily all, of the larger diameter class 

trees. This would provide an abundance of sunlight on the forest floor to spur the re-sprouting and/or 

germination of plants in the lower levels of the forest. The new plants will be many tree and shrub 

species, but only those that can survive the present hydrologic regime will flourish over time. If willow oak 

seedlings/saplings don’t appear to survive the current flood patterns, supplemental planting of overcup 

oak might be appropriate on sites that are now too wet for willow oak. 
88 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

A few higher ridges along the river are more important to forest birds due to less flooding depth and 

duration. This habitat has more potential to be diverse structurally and should be of high priority in 

thinning operations. 

Handy Brake NWR and the FSA tracts have very little mature forests; therefore, no forest 

management is necessary at this time. However, reforested areas will eventually need to be treated. 

Strategies: 

y Implement Forest Management Plan and use General Guidelines for Hardwood Forest 

Management as Desired Future Conditions in bottomland hardwood forest prescriptions. 

y Continue forest management activities by creating multi-canopied conditions through 

thinnings, group selections, and larger openings (1/2 to 2 acres) to improve understory tree 

species that provide food and cover, to maintain/improve mast and fruit production, and to 

encourage red oak regeneration for future stands. 

Objective B-2. Bottomland Hardwood Forest 

Continue to monitor reforestation survival and include in the Habitat Management Plan strategies for 

future silvicultural treatments. 

Discussion: Most FSA tracts were reforested during the 1990s. Over 9,000 acres of reforestation on 

Upper Ouachita NWR occurred from 1997-2006. These young forests will eventually need to be 

treated siviculturally and incorporated into the refuge’s Forest Management Plan. Refuge staff should 

assess reforested areas and estimate when treatments would begin. Within the context of this 15-

year plan, most of these young forests will not be ready for thinning. 

Strategies: 

y Assess current ages of reforested lands within the FSA tracts, and Upper Ouachita and Handy 

Brake NWRs, and create a plan for forest management over the next 15 years. 

y Continue monitoring reforested areas for tree survival and re-plant where necessary. 

Objective B-3. Upland Pine Forest 

Manage 1,220 acres of pine habitat on the west side of Upper Ouachita NWR for RCW habitat 

according to RCW Recovery Plan guidelines, which include pine basal area of 70-90 sq. ft., little 

midstory, and grassy understory. Manage remaining upland pine habitat (2,440 acres) as a mixed 

hardwood/pine forest (Figure 14). 

Discussion: Uplands on the west side of the refuge consist of pine flatwoods that are located on Lake 

Monroe 1, Lake Monroe 2, and Intermediate and Prairie Terraces. This flatwoods habitat has significantly 

declined in Arkansas and Louisiana to where extensive coveage is mainly left on three national wildlife 

refuges: Felsenthal, Upper Ouachita, and D’Arbonne. It is extremely important to manage these remnant 

flatwoods in a manner consistent with historical processes that produced more open canopy, 

loblolly/hardwood mix, fire, and grassy understory. The RCW Habitat Unit will be managed to create a 

more open, park-like pine savannah by using frequent fire and timber thinnings. Historically, flatwoods 

burned frequently, but the burns were very patchy due to soil types and moisture. Moisture is directly 

related to elevation. For example, a loblolly/hardwood area may have experienced fire every 3 years, but 

a given spot in that area may only have burned every 5 to 7 years due to patchiness of the burn. The 

wetter areas, where fires did not burn well, allowed hardwoods to regenerate. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

The remaining pine forests (2,440 acres) will be managed to promote upland hardwood species, such 

as swamp chestnut oak, white oak, southern red oak, post oak, cherrybark oak, sweetgum, hickories, 

etc. Mature mixed hardwood/pine forests are declining at alarming rates in northern Louisiana due to 

conversion to pine plantations. Pine plantations are managed on shorter rotations (25-30 years) and 

hardwoods are often killed to reduce competition. The outcome is an unnaturally young, pure pine 

forest that is less diverse and does not provide habitat for as many species of wildlife as would a 

mature mixed hardwood/pine forest. 

Strategies: 

y Use prescribed fire and mechanical thinning to maintain an open pine forest condition at least 

every 2-5 years in the RCW Habitat Unit. 

y Thinnings should occur to decrease pine basal area to 70 sq. ft./acre in the RCW Habitat Unit. 

y Frequent, patchy growing season burns should be applied. 

y Hardwood mid-story should be removed to achieve less than 30 percent coverage in the RCW 

Habitat Unit. 

y In the hardwood/pine forest, hardwood will be promoted, and the pine basal area will be 

decreased to 40-70 sq. ft./acre. 

y Fire will be used sparingly in the hardwood/pine forest on a case-by-case basis if needed to 

achieve objectives. 

Objective B-4. Invasive Plant Species 

Foster opportunities each year for developing cooperative invasive plant species control projects with 

other agencies, private landowners, and corporations on lands adjacent to and on the refuge. 

Discussion: There are numerous exotic/invasive species now on the refuge and expanding their range in 

the region. Surveys should be performed to inventory and monitor their presence and to determine their 

impacts. When deemed detrimental to the management goals of the refuge, control measures should be 

taken whenever possible. Control of these species should be prioritized by refuge managers, as their 

levels of environmental impact are variable. The following are invasive species that are likely to occur, or 

the have potential to occur, on the refuge and impact native flora and fauna. 

Terrestrial exotic plants are the most serious threat to the biological integrity of the refuge. 

Although many species have been recorded, such as crepe myrtle, royal palownia, and mimosa, 

the species of greatest concern are Chinese tallow tree and Japanese climbing fern. Both of 

these plants aggressively spread throughout the forest with little hope of being eradicated. 

Refuge personnel should also aggressively treat these two species with the objective of keeping 

them from spreading as much as possible. Tallow is a small, fast growing tree with high 

reproductive ability. It grows in a variety of habitats, having its most detrimental impacts in marsh 

type areas, where it has the ability to cause large-scale ecosystem modification by changing 

marshlands to forested communities. Tallow would be particularly detrimental to the refuge fields 

managed for waterfowl and shorebirds. Pulling seedlings by hand is effective if numbers are not 

too high. Basal applications of triclopyr and cut-stem application of 50 percent triclopyr or 10 

percent imazaypr can be effective. Fire usually will not completely kill the tree, but burning during 

winter, followed by burning or mowing in the summer, has shown some success. This species 

should be considered difficult to eliminate once established. Japanese climbing fern is a fast 

growing vine, preferring moist soils, which can completely shroud everything in its path. It has 

the ability to kill trees directly by blocking sunlight, and adds extra mass to trees, acting as a sail 

which causes uprooting during high winds. This species is becoming widespread throughout 

Louisiana and the southeast. Small patches and single plants may be hand-pulled. Fire will kill it 
90 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

back but not eliminate it. No herbicides have yet been tested specifically for L. japonicum, but 

Triclopyr amine and glyphosate are effective at controlling L. microphyllum, a similar species. 

There are several species of invasive aquatic plant species of concern on the refuge. Most of 

these are capable of forming dense mats over the surface of the water. When this occurs, 

dissolved oxygen levels in the water may become too low to support oxygen-dependent aquatic 

species (fish, mollusks, etc.). The invasives compete with native species and can cause habitat 

degradation. They may also inhibit waterfowl and other animal use and boat navigation. The 

efficiency of water control structures may also be affected if left uncontrolled. When infestations 

occur, herbicidal applications are normally the most effective control measure. Biological control 

for certain species may also be achieved with the use of sterile grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon 

idella) in waterbodies that are not prone to flooding. Alligatorweed (Alternanthera 

philoxercoides), common salvinia (Salvinia minima), giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta), hydrilla 

(Hydrilla verticillata), and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) are invasive species known to 

exist in Louisiana and should be considered priorities for control. 

The main source of proliferation by these species is by boat trailer transport. Signs should be 

placed at boat ramps to encourage boaters to inspect trailers for exotic plants before backing 

them into the water. Refuge waterbodies should be periodically checked for presence of any 

exotic species. If exotics are identified and serious detrimental impacts are expected, a method 

of control should be taken immediately. 

Strategies: 

y Map invasive terrestrial and aquatic plants using a GPS and enter into a GIS system. 

y Establish a monitoring program of invasive plants to determine rate of spread by annually 

mapping areas of infestation and comparing to previous year’s range. 

y After comparison, calculate rate of growth (spread) by both tallow and Japanese fern, and any 

aquatic invasives. 

y Treat 5 percent of invasive plants annually by hacking and using chemicals, such as 

RoundUp, or other more appropriate chemicals. 

y Communicate and meet a minimum of once a year with the Louisiana Statewide Exotic 

Species Task Force to learn about new invaders, grant opportunities, and cooperation 

possibilities. 

y Have refuge complex biologist develop priority ranking of those neighboring lands posing 

biggest threat of encroachment of invasive species onto refuge lands. 

y Have private lands biologist communicate with neighbors to ascertain interest in developing 

cooperative projects for invasive species control. 

WETLAND HABITAT 

GOAL C. Continue to serve as an important component of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem’s 

complex of managed moist-soil and croplands that provide crucial wintering and migratory habitat for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other associated wildlife. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

Objective C-1. Open Wetland Habitat 

Manage 2,500 acres of open field, split annually between moist-soil units and crop fields (preferably 

rice), to provide high-quality food for wintering waterfowl populations. 

Discussion: Two natural wetland habitats historically used by ducks in the Mississippi Delta are 

bottomland hardwood forests and moist-soil habitats (i.e., early successional grass-sedge and other 

herbaceous vegetated wetlands). These natural wetlands are critical foraging and resting habitats. 

Both hardwood bottomlands and moist-soil habitats are rich in high-energy natural seeds (e.g., 

acorns in oak bottomlands; grass-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. 

Flooded cropland is also an important component of a waterfowl wintering habitat complex inasmuch 

as agricultural seeds provide high amounts of energy (i.e., hot foods). High-energy foods are critically 

important to waterfowl during cold periods and for migration and subsequent reproduction. Thus, 

flooded cropland can be a valuable habitat source for high-energy foods, but waterfowl satisfy most of 

their needs for protein by foraging on aquatic invertebrates in natural wetlands. Indeed, natural 

wetlands are rich in invertebrates compared to agricultural fields, which harbor comparatively meager 

amounts of invertebrates. 

Working under the direction of the NAWMP, the LMVJV strives to provide habitat plans for over-wintering 

waterfowl in the MAV and WGC plain bird conservation regions. As such, the LMVJV assumes that the 

availability of foraging habitat is the most important factor affecting the number of dabbling ducks that can 

be accommodated during winter. Based on a “step-down” process, the LMVJV established habitat 

objectives that link continental waterfowl populations to on-the-ground habitat objectives. Habitat 

objectives are apportioned among three categories: public managed, private managed, and natural 

flooding within each state (in the LMVJV administrative boundaries). By doing so, each national wildlife 

refuge is responsible for contributing to some portion of the habitat objectives (Table 9). This “step-down” 

process is now being updated for the MAV and for the WGC plain. 

Table 9. LMVJV habitat objectives for Upper Ouachita NWR 

Dabbling Ducks

Upper Ouachita NWR

Objective (ac) Objective (DUD) 

Bottomland Forest 0 0 

Moist Soil 563 780,318 

Harvested Rice 354 266,208 

Unharvested Rice 118 3,464,952 
92 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Strategies: 

y At a minimum, provide 1,500-2,000 nonforested acres focused on a combination of 

harvested/unharvested rice, moist soil, milo, etc., where water can be or usually is assured 

during late fall and winter (focus area is Mollicy Unit section). 

y Manage to have 100-120 acres of an unharvested grain crop (preferably rice) where flooding 

is assured during most early winters or late falls. Work with cooperative farmers or achieve by 

force account or contracts the capability to maintain some fair-good rice production (at least 

every other year) on 100-120 acres as refuge non-harvested shares. This would include 

pumping, levee maintenance, and preferably providing some early fall water during dry years. 

This would also include plugging rice levees after harvest, when dry years prevail. 

y Explore means of acquiring by fee-title or enacting partnership agreements for Delta 

Farmland’s 3, 000 acres of rice land adjacent to the refuge and managing it for waterfowl 

habitat. If this is accomplished, the current agriculture base could be planted or let revert 

(passive reforestation) back to bottomland forest. 

y Improve the refuge’s long-range forest mast producing capability (primarily oaks) by utilizing 

group selection forest/tree silvicultural operations on 33 - 50 percent of the current hardwood 

acres (15-year time period). Increase oak regeneration within the current forest blocks by 

providing more sunlight on the forest floor. 

y Explore means of maintaining/providing water in the “sump area” (on the north end of the 

Mollicy Unit) for early (late September to early October) migratory waterfowl (blue-winged teal, 

pintails), shorebirds, and waterbirds (long-legged waders). 

y Initiate a “worst-case scenario” game plan for how the refuge will proceed with waterfowl 

habitat management when the levee fails and the farmer decides not to repair it. As a 

preferred option, do not intentionally break the main levee, but instead (at least for the next 5 

years) pursue Alternative 3 as outlined in the 2004 Cropland Management Plan. 

Objective C-2. Water Management

Complete an open wetland habitat management plan within 3 years of CCP implementation. 

Discussion: Moist-soil management and grain production are important components of the refuge’s 

waterfowl foraging habitat objective. Proper water control infrastructure is needed in order to provide 

the greatest benefits to waterfowl and other species. 

Strategies: 

y Establish and maintain sufficient water control infrastructure (i.e., pumps, internal levees, 

ditches, control gates, and wells) to enable intensive management of moist-soil sites and 

facilitate crop production. Work with the current farmer to keep the large pump(s) on the main 

line levee functional. 

y Have annual water management plans prepared for moist-soil units. Inspect each unit biweekly during the early spring/summer to change/refine management manipulations to better 

ensure sites with good food production. 

y Place water control gauges at all key impoundments, etc., to correlate water levels and 

practices to plant responses. Implement a habitat monitoring program to assess 

“performance” of water management units. As the stated objectives reflect “full-pool 

capabilities,” better knowledge of actual performance is needed to evaluate objectives. This 

could be accomplished through the use of staff gauges and/or collection of GPS points that 

can be utilized in a GIS. Record data. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

y Sample plant responses within 30 days of drawdowns or water manipulation and then change 

water management as needed. Record data and actions. 

y In late summer and early fall, sample moist-soil production (i.e., pounds of seed) to determine 

at a minimum the percentage of poor, fair, or good coverage of preferred waterfowl foods. 

Archive the data and results. 

y Read 2-4 water level gauges at key areas in refuge on a monthly or twice-monthly basis. 

Some additional gauges are needed in the Mollicy Unit moist-soil sites to help compare plant 

responses to numerous water level stages within a year or a span of months for a given year. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

GOAL D. In collaboration with private landowners, LDWF, and other public and private 

organizations, strategically plan growth by connecting refuge lands or wetland management district 

units to provide wildlife benefits and conservation of archaeological resources and habitats where 

feasible for future and present generations. 

Objective D-1. Refuge Land Protection

On Upper Ouachita NWR focus acquisitions on inholdings within the current refuge boundary with 

special emphasis on protecting the L. L. C. Tract and the Plum Creek Timber Company Tract. 

Discussion: The current refuge acquisition boundary for Upper Ouachita NWR encompasses 61,633 

acres, within which 42,594 acres have been acquired by the Service. Of the remaining 19,084 

private inholding acres, 9,235 acres consist of two inholdings. The final 9,849 acres include 

numerous smaller inholding properties, ranging in size from a few acres to several hundred acres. 

These inholdings are mostly recreational hunting properties of various sizes distributed throughout 

the refuge. Also included is one 16th section property owned by the Morehouse Parish School Board. 

Acquisition of the private inholdings, and acquisition or leasing of the school board sections, would 

greatly facilitate refuge management by incorporating these smaller parcels into the larger contiguous 

block of refuge lands. 

The Plum Creek Timber Company Tract is located in the northeast corner of the refuge, east of the 

Ouachita River. The north boundary of the tract is the Louisiana-Arkansas State line, which is also 

the north boundary of the refuge. The tract is primarily a bottomland hardwood forest intermixed with 

cypress/tupelo swamps and shallow lake/emergent and shrub wetlands. The property floods 

annually. The Mollicy Unit of the refuge borders the Plum Creek Timber Company Tract on the south. 

Strategies: 

y Assess inholdings, consult private landowners, and acquire land from willing sellers. 

y Working through the Department of the Interior’s Appraisal Services, obtain approval for nongovernmental organization to contract appraisal of the property; or, obtain appraisal of the 

property through the Service’s Realty Division. 

Objective D-2. Private Land Protection 

Foster opportunities each year for developing reforestation and invasive control projects on 2-5 

private lands on and surrounding the FSA units in priority conservation areas that add to developing a 

contiguous block of bottomland hardwood forest (Figures 15 and18). Focus particular attention on 

lands within and surrounding Handy Brake NWR. 

 
94 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Discussion: Most of the land in the WGC plain and the MAV is privately owned and must play an 

important role in the restoration and maintenance of native biodiversity and achievement of the goals 

and objectives of national and regional plans, such as the NAWMP and the Partners in Flight: 

Mississippi River Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan. In an effort to address those objectives, the 

Service established a private lands program known as Partners for Fish and Wildlife. Through this 

program, the Service provides technical assistance and delivers financial assistance programs to 

private landowners. The North Louisiana NWR Complex has a private lands biologist responsible for 

implementing the Partners program in this area. 

The Partners program also provides financial assistance to landowners wanting to restore wetlands. 

Landowners are limited to $25,000 of financial assistance per year. In the MAV, most projects 

involve the restoration of hydrology and hardwood reforestation. Vegetation on up to 30 percent of 

the area can be manipulated to maintain successional stages other than what would be expected to 

occur naturally. For example, up to 30 percent of the area could be managed for moist-soil 

management. The program favors projects located adjacent to refuges and within forest bird 

conservation areas. 

The Louisiana Waterfowl Project is a partnership with other conservation organizations to provide 

water control structures to private landowners who traditionally flood harvested cropland and moistsoil areas in the winter period (November 15 through February 28). The program provides significant 

benefits for wintering waterfowl and water quality. 

Other agencies, particularly the FSA and NRCS, have large programs that will restore wetland 

habitats in the MAV. The NRCS administers the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), which is a 

popular program that restores croplands to wetlands by restoring hydrology and reforestation and 

protects these areas through the acquisition of 30-year and perpetual easements. There are over 

100,000 acres of WRP easements in Louisiana. A significant acreage is manageable water for 

waterfowl. The Service plays an important role in developing ranking criteria, evaluating sites, and 

working with private landowners to manage and maximize wetland values. The FSA administers the 

Cropland Resource Program (CRP), which provides 50 percent cost share to reforest wetland and 

highly erosive sites in the MAV. The program is competitive and qualifying lands are placed under a 

15-year contract. Various other programs are also available. 

Strategies: 

y Mentor significant partnership to protect remnant prairies located next to Handy Brake NWR. 

Provide technical assisitance as needed. 

y Consider a partners project with International Paper on leased land within Handy Brake NWR. 

y Facilitate communications with energy companies and private landowners interested in carbon 

sequestration restoration on private lands. 

y Annually review bottomland hardwood habitat areas ranked by LMVJV as high priority for 

reforestation and conservation. 

y Private lands biologist would seek out interested landowners in areas of high priority for 

reforestation. 

y Work through a variety of programs to provide technical and financial assistance necessary to 

provide additional migratory bird habitat to benefit refuge objectives, specifically wintering 

waterfowl habitat adjacent to the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

y Work with the NRCS, FSA, private landowners, and other partners to designate conservation 

priority areas to provide incentives that will encourage landowners to implement practices that 

will benefit trust resources, refuge purposes, and MAV ecosystem goals. 

y Develop cooperative invasive control projects. Communicate and meet a minimum of once a 

year with the Louisiana Statewide Exotic Species Task Force to identify new invaders, grant 

opportunities, cooperation possibilities, etc. 

Objective D-3. Physical Resource Protection 

Meet or exceed national standards for air and water quality on the refuge, when feasible. 

Discussion: Although there are no indications that air quality is impaired in the refuge area, it 

should be a matter of concern to refuge managers, as air quality can be a limiting or 

debilitating factor in any ecosystem. Refuge activities that may produce episodic air quality 

problems should be viewed as a possible detriment to the health of the refuge and mitigation 

measures should be taken when possible. 

The importance of water quality to a bottomland ecosystem cannot be overstressed. This 

refuge is greatly influenced by the Ouachita River and subsequently by the water quality it 

presents. The problems with water-related contaminants, primarily mercury, other than 

consumption advisories, are the effects they may be having on not only the fish species with 

elevated levels, but also those animals that use them as a primary food source. The annual 

backwater flooding of large portions of the refuge provide for poor water quality in the form of 

dystrophic conditions that are ideal for the methylation of mercury and for its availability to the 

food chain. As long as these conditions exist, the problem with mercury is likely to continue. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain contact with state environmental agencies (both Arkansas and Louisiana) to 

ascertain if air quality problems arise or are suspected. 

y Do not undertake any activities that could adversely affect air quality locally in the 

refuge area. 

y If those types of activities that may cause fugitive particulate emissions are necessary 

(i.e., burning, land treatments, and construction), then try to accomplish those activities 

in a manner that would lessen the effect if possible through best management 

practices. 

y Regularly monitor databases, electronic or otherwise, from sources in Arkansas and 

Louisiana, which report on water quality in the Ouachita River. 

y Become acquainted and develop a working relationship with environmental officials at 

the Georgia Pacific Mill in Crossett, Arkansas, so that concerns can be discussed and 

aired, resulting in possible solutions and assistance. 

y Conduct or request assistance in contaminant monitoring (Hg) from the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) or other entities, such as local 

universities, for biota found in the refuge. 

y Report water quality damaging incidents dealing with oil and gas production, barge 

operations, or any other activity to the LDEQ for investigation and resolution. 

y Minimize the amount of turbid water being pumped from the Mollicy Unit to the 

Ouachita River as much as possible as it affects water quality for many miles 

downstream. 
96 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

y Take whatever physical alterations are possible and practical to maintain water flow 

within refuge water bodies to avoid poor water quality during critical conditions of low 

flow and high temperatures. 

Objective D-4. Natural Gas Resources

Conduct yearly, and as needed, discussions with LDEQ and Department of Natural Resources 

Conservation for gas well information; gas well operations; mercury warnings; and soil, water, and 

fish monitoring for contaminants. 

Discussion: Numerous gas wells and pipelines are located on the refuge and are owned by private 

companies. In the event that the gas companies operating within the refuge carry on activities or 

practices that are contrary to the mission and goals of the refuge and cooperation is not forthcoming, then 

regulatory and law enforcement involvement should be sought. Saltwater contamination from such sites 

can be significant, extremely damaging, and poses a danger to the environment in those areas. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain communications and database information on gas well leases on refuge lands. 

y Maintain updates of mercury warnings in waters and fish to post regulations in information 

kiosks on the refuge. 

y If problems are suspected, Service will coordinate with LDEQ to search for funding and 

research opportunities to gain information on suspected contaminant problems. 

Objective D-5. Watershed Protection 

Work with local, state, and federal partners to aid the restoration of hydrology on the Mollicy Unit of 

Upper Ouachita NWR by completing a geomorphologic and hydrologic assessment to breach the 

river levee. 

Discussion: Upper Ouachita NWR is located within the Ouachita River Basin. The Ouachita River 

bisects the refuge for 13.7 miles and Upper Ouachita NWR extends 3.3 miles to the east and 16 

miles to west. Three major reservoirs are located on the river in Arkansas. Felsenthal and Columbia 

locks and dams are located approximately two river miles north of the refuge in Arkansas and 

approximately ninety-eight river miles downstream from the refuge in Louisiana, respectively. Dams 

and rainfall in the river basin influence the river stage, and approximately 80 percent of the refuge is 

subject to annual flooding from December through May. 

After the land on the east side was cleared, a large levee was constructed along the Ouachita River to 

protect some of the cropland from flooding. At that time, there were approximately 13,705 acres of 

cropland inside the levee and 2,574 acres of farmland outside the levee. The remaiing 2,850 acres 

include the levee, two reservoirs for rice irrigation, roads, river frontage, and abandoned fields. The levee 

has broken several times over the years, but has been repaired by previous landowners to prevent 

flooding at all but the highest river stages. The reforested fields outside the levee experience the highest 

flood depth, duration, and frequency. Rainwater runoff also accumulates inside the levee during the 

winter due to the depressional topography of the area. All of these factors contribute to the shallow 

flooding of croplands and moist-soil areas, producing extremely valuable migratory bird habitat. 

In order to restore the natural hydrology on the Mollicy Unit and simultaneously provide the greatest 

wildlife benefits, the refuge needs to explore where the best place to breach the river levee would be. 

This proactive approach will ensure that the highest quality habitat will be achieved. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Strategies: 

y Work with the NRCS, Corps of Engineers, Ducks Unlimited, and others to complete a 

geomorphologic and hydrological evaluation of existing refuge conditions, and to examine the 

potential beneficial and negative impacts from any proposed levee breaching, irrigation 

system modification or installation, or wetland construction, etc., on the refuge. 

y Investigate/establish water quality baseline for the refuge. Coordinate with LDEQ to 

determine if sampling sites on the refuge are needed. 

y Work with partners to restore the hydrology of the refuge where applicable and in the best 

interest of the Service, and contribute to the health of the entire watershed. Ensure that 

opportunities for fish and wildlife habitat are enhanced and do not materially detract from the 

purposes of the refuge. 

 

Objective D-6. Cultural Resources 

Each year comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or other pertinent historic 

preservation mandates prior to the initiation of any refuge undertaking or habitat management action 

that will involve significant, new ground disturbance and where the land has not been substantially 

altered or disturbed within the last 50 years. 

 

Discussion: Although none of the refuge sites covered by this CCP are known to be eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places at this time, the refuge will continue to protect 

any new or unknown resources. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain records of refuge survey data for cultural and archaeological sites. 

y Monitor for vandalism and degradation to identified sites. 

y Contact Regional Archaeologist prior to construction or significant ground disturbance 

projects, and complete a request for cultural resources review to determine appropriate steps 

necessary for compliance. 

y Within 5 years of CCP approval, refuge manager or designee will look into taking the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act training course. 

y Ensure that cultural resources management and protection strategies are integrated into 

refuge management plans, such as fire and road maintenance. 

y GIS layer for archaeological and historic sites will be integrated into the refuge’s GIS 

database. 

y Maintain data as confidential per National Historic Preservation Act and Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act. 

y As archaeological and cultural resources are discovered, coordinate with the Regional 

Archaeologist for cataloging and archiving as appropriate. 

Objective D-7. Law Enforcement 

Develop and implement law enforcement procedures and include them in the various management 

plans in order to protect the refuge’s resources. 

Discussion: Protecting the natural resources of the complex and ensuring the safety of refuge visitors are 

fundamental responsibilities of the Refuge System. The complex is currently accomplishing this with two 

collateral duty officers. In addition to natural resource violations, serious felonies, including homicides, 

rapes, assaults, and acts of arson, are occurring on refuges every year. 
98 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Strategies: 

y Hire a park ranger (law enforcement) to protect natural resources and refuge visitors. 

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. Update current Law 

Enforcement Plan. 

y Provide education and outreach programs in the local community as part of a preventive law 

enforcement effort. 

y Provide assistance to the Service’s special agents and state conservation officers for offrefuge activities as requested. 

y Establish and implement a protocol for site damage assessments and include it in the Cultural 

Resources Management Plan. 

y Law enforcement will collaborate and coordinate with the state on regulatory issues or needs 

of either agency. 

Objective D-8. Contaminants 

Annually, eliminate, prevent, monitor, and mitigate 50-75 percent of each area of contamination of 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats that result from sources within the refuge at the earliest possible time 

that logistics and funding allow. 

Discussion: Contaminants can affect the environment in many ways. The refuge has the potential to 

receive contaminants from the oil and gas industry, barge traffic accidents, industrial and municipal 

effluents in the Ouachita River from upstream reaches, and naturally occurring mercury in the soils 

and sediments. Contaminants, such as saltwater, can affect water quality and may be damaging to 

the soil and subsequent plant diversity. None of these sources are known to be a significant problem 

at the current time. Dioxin was once a major concern to the area but changes in production methods 

at local mills have greatly reduced the problem by all accounts. Mercury contamination occurs in the 

soil from historic use at gas sites and is also naturally occurring from the weathering of geologic 

formations in the Ouachita Mountains. The manometer-related mercury contamination was 

addressed in the early 1990s and should no longer pose a serious problem. The naturally occurring 

mercury is believed to be the source of mercury contamination found in significant and above alert 

levels in fish from the refuge and the Ouachita River. The seasonal backwater flooding of the refuge 

provides optimum conditions for the contamination of the food chain by mercury. Not only are 

contaminated fish a problem for human consumers but also must be considered detrimental to all 

piscivorous species. Possible effects of this contamination to the resident wildlife are another subject 

worth pursuing. The Service began such studies in the early 1990s. Continuing that work or similar 

inquiries is appropriate given the levels of mercury seen in fish from the area. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct regular surveillance of gas production facilities within the refuge and report all 

suspected problems to the responsible company and state regulatory agency. 

y Maintain vigorous enforcement to prevent illegal dumping. Seek to prosecute those who 

illegally dump within the refuge. 

y Periodically test water/fauna for selected food-chain contaminants, as well as water analyses 

for such contaminants as PAHs, metals, and regular water quality parameters and analyses. 

y Monitor piscivores for mercury in order to mitigate or manage food-chain problems where 

possible and to anticipate negative effects in the various wildlife populations. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

VISITOR SERVICES 

GOAL E. Provide wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities where compatible and promote an 

appreciation of fish and wildlife resources in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

Discussion: The Improvement Act, the organic legislation of the Refuge System, designates six priority 

wildlife-dependent public uses. These are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. National refuge policy encourages refuges to offer these 

opportunities and to seek out additional resources when needed to do so. These activities foster an 

appreciation and understanding of wildlife and the outdoors. 

Objective E-1. General 

Develop and implement a Visitor Services’ Plan that encompasses recommendations for current and 

future wildlife-dependent recreational visitor services and needs of visitors. 

Discussion: The Service provides recreational opportunities that reflect the unique qualities and 

features of each national wildlife refuge. Opportunities vary on each refuge for compatible wildlifedependent recreation and must be evaluated against the compatibility standards, public desires, and 

other recreational opportunities in the area. A Visitor Services’ Plan will evaluate the best fit for 

recreational opportunities in line with maintaining the biological integrity of the refuge. Visitor contact 

and information must be provided to allow visitors to gain the most information from their visit and 

provide a safe environment for wildlife and people. To maintain a visitor services’ program and the 

impacts of such, volunteers will be used to maximize wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 

and to do so in a manner that allows the volunteers to take away a better understanding of wildlife 

and their role in the environment. A visitor services’ program creates a greater awareness of the 

biological environment, a better understanding of each individual’s role in the environment, and 

promotes a conservation ethic in refuge visitors. 

Strategies: 

y Develop a plan that encompasses recommendations for current and future visitor services and 

recreation needs of visitors. 

y Plan should reflect current legislation, Director’s orders, initiatives, policy and the mission and 

purposes of the Service and of the refuge. 

y Coordinate and collaborate with LDWF two to four times per year regarding public use 

programs, biological issues, and law enforcement coordination. 

y Maintain gravel roads and parking lots at nine major access points. 

y Develop project for graveling of refuge roads for visitor access. 

y Add speed limit signs and traffic control signs where needed. 

y Place more directional and road name signs both on and off the refuge and replace 

vandalized boundary signs. Place reflectors on ends of bridge rails. 

Objective E-2. Hunting 

Increase quality hunting opportunities on Upper Ouachita NWR by annually allowing deer, rabbit, 

squirrel, duck, goose, coot, quail, woodcock, turkey, raccoon, opossum, feral hog, coyote, and beaver 

hunting under LDWF and refuge-specific regulations to regulate resident game populations. Evaluate 

opening new limited hunting areas on other fee title FSA tracts. 

Discussion: The Service recognizes hunting as one of the six priority public uses of the Refuge 

System. It is a legitimate and appropriate public use of the Refuge System that is deeply rooted in 
100 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

American culture. Hunting can promote a unique understanding and appreciation of wildlife, their 

behavior, and habitat requirements. 

The refuge will monitor local, huntable populations to maintain all hunt programs in a compatible 

manner with the purpose of the refuge. Adaptive management will be used to modify hunting 

regulations if needed. Youth turkey and waterfowl hunts, will be held. In addition to having a quality 

hunt, overcrowding must be avoided. Since staff time is generally the limiting factor for special 

events, the refuge will recruit volunteers and the National Wild Turkey Federation to assist in 

conducting the youth turkey and waterfowl hunts. This will provide a good opportunity to introduce 

youth to hunting and foster a sense of appreciation and stewardship for the refuge and its mission of 

protecting fish, wildlife, and plants, while still providing for wildlife-dependent uses. 

Strategies: 

y Refuge will participate in annual state hunt coordination meetings to discuss proposed refuge 

hunting programs and regulations. 

y Maintain communication on hunting and fishing issues that the state may have regarding 

opportunities or modifications to these programs. 

y Update the Hunt Plan as needed to ensure a quality opportunity. 

y Evaluate limited hunting on Handy Brake NWR and other fee title FSA tracts where feasible 

and needed to enhance wildlife populations and habitats. 

y Revise the hunting brochure. 

y Conduct special youth-only hunts for waterfowl and turkey to provide a unique opportunity for 

youth to gain an appreciation and understanding of the outdoors and wildlife. 

y Conduct a lottery system for ten youths to hunt ducks on the first Saturday of the season in 

the closed area of the Mollicy Unit, using volunteers and staff in refuge blinds. 

y Recruit volunteers and the National Wild Turkey Federation to assist with the turkey hunt. 

y Increase white-tailed deer hunting opportunities on Upper Ouachita NWR, using the yearly 

evaluation of deer population and habitat. 

Objective E-3. Hunting 

Provide easily accessible information to and personal contact with hunters to strive for 80-95 percent 

compliance with refuge regulations. 

 

Strategies: 

y Develop and maintain at least four parking areas on each side (east and west) of the refuge 

with kiosks that provide maps, rules and regulations, and explain wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. 

y Obtain additional base budget funds to add an additional park ranger (law enforcement) to 

current level. 

y Increase presence of law enforcement officers in the field to contact visitors and educate and 

enforce ethical standards. 

y Develop a step-down plan for law enforcement, including a monitoring program for compliance 

by refuge visitors. 

y Erect appropriate signs to designate closed and restricted areas to reduce the chance of 

noncompliance and conflicts with non-hunters. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Objective E-4. Fishing 

Provide quality fishing opportunities by maintaining and enhancing access areas, providing 

universally accessible areas, and creating opportunities for youth on Upper Ouachita NWR. 

Discussion: The Service recognizes fishing as one of the six priority public uses of the Refuge 

System. It is a legitimate and appropriate public use of the Refuge System that is deeply rooted in 

American culture. Fishing can promote a unique understanding and appreciation of nature. 

Upper Ouachita NWR is part of the Ouachita River drainage basin and therefore is subject to mercury 

warnings. The refuge will maintain informational kiosks for contaminant warnings, as well as fishing 

regulations to provide a quality fishing experience for visitors. Presently, visitors have access to two 

concrete boat launches, but these need to be upgraded to provide better access. 

Promoting youth fishing is an opportunity to introduce future generations to the pleasure and 

excitement of fishing. Those involved not only learn how to fish successfully but ethically as well. 

Strategies: 

y Repair fishing pier at Harold Lake. 

y Develop an annual monitoring method to evaluate level of visitor use and determine whether 

improvements or increases are needed. Obtain and use traffic counters at boat launch areas 

to estimate use. 

y For ponds and lakes, name them on the map and then place a corresponding sign at the boat 

launch/fishing area. 

y Improve boat launches as use increases. 

y On west side fishing pier, develop universally accessible parking spot next to ramp. 

y Make the fishing pier at Harold Lake universally accessible. 

y Develop one universally accessible boat launch. 

y As use increases, consider adding additional fishing pier(s) at the Mollicy Unit area (e.g., 

North Reservoir and Widgeon Pond). 

y Work with youth programs, such as Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and schools, to encourage a 

broader participation in fishing events. 

y Conduct the youth fishing program during National Fishing Week to attract more participants 

and provide more educational opportunities. 

y Recruit community volunteers to help with youth fishing event. 

Objective E-5. Wildlife Observation and Photography

Within five years of CCP implementation, enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography by providing public access with minimal disturbance to wildlife and habitat. 

Discussion: People often drive the River Road through the refuge along the west side of the river. 

Deer, squirrels, turkey and other birds, and other wildlife are frequently seen along this beautiful 

drive. Birders make up the majority of wildlife observers to date. A RONS project proposal has been 

approved to build a raised observation platform on the Mollicy Unit, which would allow public viewing 

of waterfowl and nesting bald eagles from a distance so as not to disturb the birds. The Mollicy Unit 

has unique habitat and provides a chance to observe many birds not commonly seen in the vicinity of 

the refuge. Moist-soil management attracts a variety of migrating shorebirds. Short-eared owls 

winter on the Mollicy Unit. 
102 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Strategies: 

y Develop an observation tower on the Mollicy Unit. 

y Develop two walking trails of varying lengths and loops for the area west of the River Road, 

and one in the vicinity of the RCW cluster. 

y Promote wildlife observation and photography in collaboration with local groups and clubs. 

y Add description of permitted activities and in-depth directions to the refuge on website. 

y Evaluate areas of deer and migratory waterfowl use and determine whether additional viewing 

blinds could be installed for photography or educational purposes. 

Objective E-6. Environmental Interpretation

Significantly increase the number of interpretive panels and displays to communicate the key 

resources and issues of Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and fee title FSA tracts within eight 

years of CCP implementation. 

Discussion: Opportunities and information are provided to visitors to enable them to pursue wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental interpretation. Visitor interpretive trails, 

observation towers, etc., allow visitors to develop an understanding of and appreciation for natural 

resources and how to use the refuge in an appropriate and compatible manner. Providing visitors 

with safe, quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities fosters ethical behavior, which 

results in minimal disturbance to wildlife and plants. 

Interpretive activities are often the visitor’s first contact with the refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System message, and possibly even his/her first contact with a conservation issue and wildlife. 

Through these contacts, visitors’ attitudes and behaviors can be influenced positively toward the 

Service and the Refuge System. Interpretation is limited at Upper Ouachita NWR due to annual 

flooding that normally inundates over 75 percent of the refuge. Signs that go under water become 

very unattractive and are hard to maintain. Currently, there is one large interpretive sign near a major 

access point on the Mollicy Unit which interprets the bottomland reforestation project. Another 

partnership sign is located at the southern access on the Mollicy Unit. A third sign interpreting moistsoil management has not yet been installed. The development of River Road as an auto tour will 

include interpretive signage and brochures. 

Strategies: 

y Develop interpretive panels for migratory songbirds, RCWs, bottomland hardwood forests, 

mixed pine-hardwoods, etc., and evaluate other potential areas for more interpretive 

materials. 

y Place interpretive panels on walking trails, observation tower, parking area for Cheney 

Slough, fishing piers, and wildlife drive pullouts. 

y In coordination with city planners and other conservation agencies, develop an interpretive 

display of conservation properties for the surrounding area of Bastrop, Louisiana. 

Objective E-7. Environmental Education

Increase the refuge environmental education program by developing a seasonal environmental 

education loop trail in the vicinity of the RCW cluster. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

Discussion: Environmental education fosters stewardship among our future caretakers. 

Environmental education will be increased to some degree to provide lending materials for local 

educators and to maintain some trails for small school groups to utilize for field trips. However, it is 

still limited and another refuge in the complex, Black Bayou Lake, provides an intensive interpretation 

and environmental education program that refuge visitors are encouraged to utilize. 

Biology/ecology classes from the University of Louisiana and Louisiana Tech University 

occasionally visit the Mollicy Unit of Upper Ouachita NWR because of its unique habitat. Other 

field trip requests are handled by the complex interpretive ranger who works at the Environmental 

Education Center at Black Bayou Lake NWR. The center includes the complex visitor center, the 

new Conservation Learning Center’s educational facilities, equipment, nature trail, arboretum, 

and prairie demonstration area. Requests for information about the refuge are handled through 

the complex headquarters at D’Arbonne NWR. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to support education programs at Black Bayou Lake NWR. 

y Make certain that education programs provide information about the Complex, as well as 

specific unique programs on Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts. 

y Create wildlife and habitat educational check-out kits for area teachers. 

y Develop an environmental education nature loop trail near the RCW cluster. 

Objective E-8. Special Uses

Allow special uses (e.g., horseback riding, firewood cutting, and trapping) by permit to ensure 

compatibility with refuge purpose(s) and mission. 

Discussion: Permits are issued for uses that are normally not permissible by the general public. 

Examples of permit uses include horseback riding, firewood cutting, trapping, and research. 

Often, special conditions are developed that the permittee must follow to ensure compatibility. 

Special uses, other than horseback riding, are implemented to further refuge goals and 

objectives, such as forest management, species management, or, in the case of research, to gain 

insight into a resource issue. Other public uses of the refuge include raccoon dog field trials and 

trapping (four permits issued in FY05). Nighttime raccoon hunting on horseback by special use 

permit occurs once a year during raccoon dog field trials. Four hunters hunted three nights in 

FY05. Currently, no firewood cutting is permitted on the refuge, but plans are to issue firewood 

cutting permits in the future (as part of forest habitat management). Requests for access to the 

refuge to conduct commercial photography have increased recently. 

Strategies: 

y Coordinate with Service’s Office of Visitor Services to develop procedures to address 

commercial photography. 

y Monitor permitted activities to ensure compliance and assess the impact of the use on the 

refuge resources. 

y Make sure there are up-to-date appropriate use forms and compatibility determinations for all 

uses. 
104 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

GOAL F. Secure and enhance staffing, funding, and facilities to maintain the integrity of habitats and 

wildlife resources of the Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts in support of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission. 

Discussion: The administrative functions include a wide array of activities that are critical to the 

mission of the Refuge System and the purpose of each refuge. Refuges must have appropriate 

staff, facilities, and equipment in order to accomplish their goals and objectives and conserve the 

integrity of the refuge. 

Many of the objectives and strategies cannot be implemented without the addition of personnel. 

Some work may be taken on by volunteers or interns, but generally still requires staff oversight to 

ensure accomplishment of objectives. There is a need to add one biological technician, one forestry 

technician, one park ranger (law enforcement) and one maintenance worker. In addition, this CCP 

supports the additional positions in the CCP for D’Arbonne NWR. Highest priority would be to add a 

forestry technician and a maintenance worker to focus more on improving the upland pine and 

structure of bottomland forests on the refuges. 

The next priority would be the position dealing with visitors. Nationally, visitation is increasing at an 

annual average of 6.6 percent. Protecting the natural resources and ensuring the safety of refuge 

visitors are fundamental responsibilities of the refuges. Currently, there are two collateral duty 

officers who have complex-wide responsibilities. The addition of one law enforcement position is 

critical with the increasing visitation and increasing public use activities. 

Objective F-1. Staffing

Increase base funding of the complex by 6 percent to cover mandated salary increases and maintain 

minimum refuge management needs and to add four additional staff positions. 

Discussion: All of the staff positions referenced in this plan would be assigned to Upper Oachita and 

Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts. 

Strategies: 

y Provide equal consideration to all stations within the complex when funding and other 

resources become available. 

y Obtain funding and recruit for the following new positions: biological technician, forestry 

technician, park ranger (law enforcement), and maintenance worker. 

y Provide continuing education and training opportunities to all staff to ensure a highly 

competent and motivated team. 

y Provide safe and efficient equipment and vehicles for refuge operations and maintenance. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

Objective F-2. Facilities

Repair and maintain existing facilities and roads, and maintain refuge programs that can provide safe 

and efficient refuge operations. 

Strategies: 

y Repair and maintain facilities and roads. 

y Implement RONS and SAMMS projects to maintain refuge resources. 

y Coordinate road maintenance with Ouachita and Union Parishes’ Police Juries. 

y Maintain equipment in a safe and efficient operating status. 

y Hire an additional full-time maintenance worker. 
106 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the Improvement Act. 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 wildlife-dependent 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 wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this CCP for Upper Ouachita and 

Handy Brake NWRs and the FSA tracts, this chapter identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, 

volunteers, partnerships opportunities, and step-down management plans. This chapter also covers the 

need for monitoring to determine management effects on wildlife populations, and the need for plan 

review and revision. 

PROJECTS 

Implementation of this CCP will require increased funding and personnel support from a variety of 

internal and external sources. New projects are identified in the Refuge Operating and Needs 

System (RONS), while maintenance needs for existing facilities and projects are identified through 

Service Asset and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). This CCP outlines proposed 

projects that are substantially above current budget allocations, that provide direction for future 

management, and that represent wildlife resource needs based on sound biological science and input 

from the public. Upon implementation of this CCP, the RONS and SAMMS systems will be updated 

to include the project needs described below (also see Appendix K for current RONS projects). 

Listed below are the projects and their associated costs for fish and wildlife population management, 

habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge administration that are 

projected for implementation over the next 15 years. This project list reflects the priority needs 

identified by the public, planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information (Table 10). 

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. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

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 NWRs and the FSA tracts. Information collected will serve as the basis for developing habitat 

management plans and will influence all management activities. A systematic inventorying and 

monitoring program will enable the refuge to make informed management decisions and valuable longterm contributions to national and regional objectives for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, wintering 

forest and scrub/shrub birds, 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, forest habitat utilization, 

trends’ analysis for migratory and resident wildlife, and other programs. All data will be shared with 
108 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

appropriate state and federal partners in an effort to further ecosystem management. This project 

supports the wildlife biologist position identified in the CCP for D’Arbonne NWR. The estimated first-year 

cost for this project: $30,000; Recurring cost: $10,000 (Linkages: D’Arbonne Refuge CCP; and Goal A, 

Objectives A-1-24.)

2. Improve Management of Endangered Species and Wildlife - Improve Upper Ouachita NWR’s 

ability to manage for endangered species and other wildlife. Biological (GS-486-07) and forestry 

technicians (supported below) are needed to assist refuge staff with prescribed fire activities and fire 

break maintenance to improve endangered RCW habitat; to trap, band, and erect nest boxes for 

wood ducks; and to increase surveys and monitoring for management impacts on migratory birds, 

reptiles, amphibians, butterflies, and fisheries. Recurring cost: $53,000; Special project cost: 

$65,000. (Linkages: Goal A, Objectives A-1-24; and Goals B and C.) 

3. Determine Nesting Success of Priority Neotropical Migratory Songbirds - Improve Upper 

Ouachita NWR’s ability to manage bottomland hardwood forests to increase the biological potential 

for nesting habitat of hooded warbler, Kentucky warbler, northern parula, Swainson’s warbler, wood 

thrush, and prothonotary warbler species. Management practice impacts should be incorporated into 

the research design to determine the bird response so that adaptive management decisions can be 

made. The research project should be explored for cooperation with the LDWF and a university. 

Point count surveys, nest searches, and vegetation and landscape analyses will be conducted for a 

minimum of three years. Recurring cost: $50,000; Special project cost: $300,000. (Linkages: Goal A, 

Objectives A-5-6; and Goal B, Objectives B-1-2.) 

4. Population Status and Management Impacts with Reptiles and Amphibians - Although the 

prospective herpetofauna of the refuge is large, at least 80 species, the presence of relatively few of the 

species has been confirmed and associated with particular refuges or their habitats. When confronted 

with a lack of knowledge concerning the species actually residing on refuge lands, the first step in 

conserving them is learning of their presence, and to the extent possible, associating their presence with 

particular habitats and how forest management activities are impacting their populations. The refuge will 

cooperate with a university or organization to design and implement the project and collaborate with the 

USGS for cooperative funding possibilities through the Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Initiative. While 

certain aspects of the biology of the alligator snapping turtle are slowly unfolding, population dynamics are 

still largely unknown. In cooperation with the University of Louisiana and its herpetologist, A.Carr, the 

refuge provides a good opportunity to further our understanding of alligator snapping turtle nesting 

requirements and components of successful nesting. These data are crucial in furthering our 

conservation efforts of this declining species. Recurring cost: $15,000; Special project cost: $30,000. 

(Linkages: Goal A, Objective A-16; and Goals B and C.) 

5. Bat Use of Bottomland Hardwood Forest - Conduct a research project to determine roost habits, 

reproductive success, and wintering roost locations of Rafinesque’s big-eared bats and southeastern bats 

on the refuge within two years of CCP implementation. This project supports the D’Arbonne NWR CCP 

bat project. These two species of bats are of concern and their presence is documented on the refuge. 

Little information exists concerning their habitat needs. This information is imperative for making 

successful management decisions. The refuge will look into cooperative possibilities with USGS and 

universities for establishing a research project. Recurring Cost: $15,000; Special project cost: $60,000. 

(Linkages: Goal A, Objective A-22; and Goal B, Objectives B-1 and B-2.) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

6. Habitat Management - Management of bottomland hardwood and upland pine/hardwood mixed 

habitats has been minimal and sporadic due to lack of staff for inventories, timber cruises, and 

monitoring of management action effects on wildlife. This project will improve the management of 

these habitats by reestablishing and improving forest inventories, evaluating wildlife habitat needs 

and prescribing treatments on the refuge, implementing GIS resources, and developing and 

implementing habitat management plans on Upper Ouachita NWR. This project supports the addition 

of a forestry technician (1 FTE, GS-7), a permanent maintenance worker (1 FTE, WG-4749-9), and 

associated equipment and supplies. Recurring cost: $90,000; Special project cost: $110,000. 

(Linkages: Goal A, Objectives A-1-24; Goal B, Objectives B-1-4; and Goal F, Objective F-1.) 

7. Water Management System Operation - Man-made hydrological alterations have all but 

eliminated the natural flooding regimes that once supported historical numbers of waterfowl and 

shorebirds. In this altered floodplain, a system of levees, water control structures, and wells are 

necessary to provide dependable flooded habitats that correspond with the migration chronologies of 

migratory birds. To meet the needs of migratory birds, which are the primary purpose of the refuge, 

the timing of water management is critical to stimulate the production of desirable moist-soil plants 

and to control undesirable plants. Water management includes monitoring water flow, water levels, 

and pumping, via information in a GIS database, to more efficiently manage resources. This project 

will increase water management capabilities. To efficiently improve, manage, and maintain the water 

management system, this project includes the installation or replacement of additional water control 

structures ($50,000). Estimated first-year cost: $50,000; Recurring cost: $10,000. (Linkages: Goal A, 

Objectives A-1-3; and Goal C, Objectives C-1-2.) 

8. Control Nuisance Wildlife - Upper Ouachita NWR has an established population of feral swine. 

The scientific literature has documented many adverse effects of feral swine on habitat productivity 

and reproduction of native wildlife. Being omnivores, feral swine utilize virtually every component of 

the habitat and directly compete with native wildlife, reducing carrying capacity and adversely 

affecting their reproduction and recruitment. Feral swine are compromising the refuge’s efforts in 

wetland restoration, reforestation, and habitat management. This project would support a multifaceted control program, including public hunting, trapping, and various other techniques. Water level 

management would be improved by controlling beavers on Upper Ouachita NWR. Beavers construct 

dams that cause floods and hold water that can damage and even kill trees. Ponded water also 

backs up onto the property of adjacent landowners, which causes tension with our refuge neighbors. 

Additionally, beavers chew trees and seedlings, hampering reforestation efforts of staff members. 

This project supports one permanent maintenance worker (1 FTE, WG-4749-9), included in the 

Habitat Management Project above, and is needed to control beavers to prevent damage to forests 

and individual trees, and to prevent flooding damage to adjacent landowners. Recurring cost: 

$80,000;Special project cost: $97,500 (Linkages: Goal A, Objectives A-1-24; Goal B, Objectives B-1-

4; and Goal C, Objectives C-1-2.) 

9. Control Invasive Plants - Chinese tallow and Japanese climbing fern are established on Upper 

Ouachita NWR and are an imminent threat to wetland and upland habitats. Control of exotics here is 

no longer possible as a routine component of general refuge management both from a funding and 

staffing perspective. Chinese tallow grows quickly and shades out desirable planted species. Their 

fallen leaves are toxic to other plants. Without control, they will be the dominant species in many 

forested areas, thus eliminating natural diversity. Chinese tallow is particularly noticeable following 

logging operations and monitoring and treatment protocols must be developed. This project supports 

one maintenance worker (1 FTE, WG-4749-9), as described above in the Habitat Management 

Project, as well as equipment/supplies (primarily chemicals). Increased use of volunteers will be 
110 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

promoted, along with the private lands biologist, to investigate opportunities to establish partners’ 

projects with adjacent landowners whose property is often a source of infestations. Environmental 

education and interpretation relative to invasive species will be promoted through brochures and/or 

an interpretive panel. Recurring cost: $53,000; Special project cost: $65,000. (Linkages: Goal A, 

Objectives A-1-24; Goal B, Objectives B-1-4; and Goal C, Objectives C-1-2.)

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

10. Land Protection - Through a combination of fee title purchases from willing sellers and 

cooperative agreements and conservation easements with willing landowners, the Service will continue 

to purchase inholdings within the existing approved acquisition 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. FSA tracts, especially those lands in priority bird and 

Louisiana black bear conservation areas, will be targeted for protection. The acquired lands will be 

made available to the public for additional wildlife-dependent recreation. Potential 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 $5-15 million. (Linkage: Goal D, Objectives D-1-2.)

11. Boundary Line Surveys and Posting - Several portions of the FSA tracts 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 easement landowners. This project will fund boundary line surveys for 

all 36 easements, 7 fee-title lands, and 1 leased land at an estimated cost of $5,000 per mile. Project 

cost: $200,000; Recurring cost: $3,000. (Linkage: Goal D, Objectives D-1-2.) 

12. Watershed Protection - Prior to its establishment, the area encompassing the Mollicy Unit of 

Upper Ouachita NWR was intensively farmed and a man-made levee constructed along the Ouachita 

River was repaired twice by previous landowners. A series of irrigation ditches, pumps, and water 

control structures were constructed to facilitate farming in this flood prone area. In order to try to 

restore the natural geomorphology on the Mollicy Unit of Upper Ouachita NWR and maintain current 

operations for wildlife, such as cooperative farming and waterfowl management, a thorough analysis 

of the geomorphology (including where to actively breach the levee), water quality, and contaminants 

will be accomplished with this project. The refuge will work with partners to restore the hydrology to 

this area of the refuge, where applicable and in the best interest of the Service, and contribute to the 

health of the entire watershed utilizing the refuge hydrological assessment, refuge water quality 

baseline survey, and other resulting studies. Ensure that opportunities for fish and wildlife habitat are 

enhanced and do not materially detract from the purposes of the refuge. Project cost: $200,000; 

Recurring cost: $10,000. (Linkages: Goal D, Objectives D-3-8.) 

13. Safety and Resource Protection - Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs rely on one 

collateral duty law enforcement officer whose time is split among all the refuges within the complex. 

Public use has continued to increase with hunting and fishing pressure on the refuge along with other 

issues requiring law enforcement, such as vandalism, compliance with access, and public use 

regulations. The refuges and FSA tracts are currently unable to adequately address safety and 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111

resource protection issues. The refuge needs to hire one full-time park ranger (GS-0025-7/9) 

($140,000) to just begin to keep up with a growing population utilizing the refuge from public use to 

access issues on easement lands to gas lease compliance. Special project cost: $150,000; 

Recurring cost: $115,000 (Linkages: Goals A, B, C, D, E, and F.) 

14. Cultural Resource Overview of the Refuge - Using available scientific and historic information, 

the selected contractor will author an interdisciplinary overview of the refuges’ cultural landscape as it 

has changed over the past 15-20,000 years. The final technical report will include, at a minimum, 

sections about the area’s geomorphology and hydrological regime, paleoenvironmental 

reconstruction, the area’s cultural history, the scope and scale of past archaeological investigations 

on and near the refuge, a detailed list of the refuge’s historic properties, and future research 

questions. Submission of the overview report will satisfy the cultural resource objectives listed in the 

CCP, as well as those listed in other Service documents. Using the information generated from the 

overview, as well as on-going scientific archaeological investigations of the area, the selected 

contractor will inventory and then evaluate the National Register’s eligibility of historic properties 

located on the refuges. Recurring costs include conservation and protection of sites and 

administrative needs for existing or new sites that are found. Recurring cost: $10,000; Special project 

cost: $75,000. (Linkages: Goal D, Objective D-6.) 

VISITOR SERVICES 

15. Improve Public Use Opportunities - Improve public use opportunities at Upper Ouachita and 

Handy Brake NWRs and other fee title FSA tracts by placing directional and interpretive signs at 

major visitor access points. The refuges have several access points, most of which are not located 

along federal or state highways. Currently, not enough signs are present to provide adequate 

information to visitors. Public use and wildlife interpretation will be enhanced through the increased 

opportunities this project provides. Visitor amenities would be improved by adding interpretive panels 

and observation tower, obtaining environmental education equipment, and improving gravel boat 

launches by adding concrete. Recurring cost: $15,000; Special project cost: $250,000. (Linkages: 

Goals A, B, C, and E.) 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

16. Administrative Support - Increase base budgeting for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs 

to cover salaries with cost of living increases, and provide adequate training and equipment for 

personnel. Volunteers and interns are used presently and will be used in the future but need stipend 

support and recreational vehicle pads to adequately support them. Recurring cost: $28,000; Special 

project cost: $110,000. (Linkages: Goals A-F.)

17. Facilities Support - Provide annual costs for utilities, fuel, and other annual operating expenses. 

Recurring cost: $15,000. (Linkages: Goal F, Objective F-2.) 

VOLUNTEERS 

A volunteer program exists and will be enhanced during the life of this CCP. Volunteers will continue 

to be recruited to assist with youth turkey hunts and upkeep of Handy Brake NWR. The program will 

be enhanced for volunteers to help with wood duck and blue bird box management, migratory 

songbird point count surveys, amphibian and reptile surveys, grounds maintenance, etc. 
112 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this CCP is to establish partnerships with local landowners, private 

organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. Partnerships assist in conserving 

resources and providing recreational opportunities for the refuges and the Lower Mississippi 

River Valley. Projects in this CCP will rely on partners to assist in implementation of everything 

from wildlife surveys to special research projects to improve habitat management to conducting 

hunting programs. In the immediate vicinity of the refuge, opportunities exist to establish 

partnerships with local landowners, LDWF, Louisiana Tech, Grambling University, and the 

University of Louisiana. At state and regional levels, partnerships may be able to be established 

with agencies such as U.S. Geological Service, National Wild Turkey Federation, The Nature 

Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and National Audubon Society. 

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. 

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 and/or communities, then alterations to the management projects will be 

made. Subsequently, the refuges’ CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation activities 

will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The CCP will be reviewed annually in development of the refuges’ annual work plans and budget. 

It will also be reviewed 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 CCP 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 CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject 

to public review and NEPA compliance. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113

Table 10. Summary of projects 

Project Title Special 

Project Cost 

Recurring 

Annual Cost 

Additional 

FTE 

Science-based Inventory and Monitoring of Plant 

and Animal Populations $30,000 $10,000 1 

Improve Management of Endangered Species and 

Wildlife $65,000 $53,000 

Determine Nesting Success of Priority Neotropical 

Migratory Songbirds $300,000 $50,000 

Population Status and Management Impacts with 

Reptiles and Amphibians $30,000 $15,000 

Bat Use of Bottomland Hardwood Forest $60,000 $15,000 

Habitat Management $110,000 $90,000 2 

Water Management System Operation $50,000 $10,000 

Control Nuisance Wildlife $97,500 $80,000 

Control Invasive Plants $65,000 $53,000 

Land Protection $5-15 Million* * 

Boundary Line Surveys and Posting $200,000 $3,000 

Watershed Protection $200,000 $10,000 

Safety and Resource Protection $150,000 $115,000 1 

Cultural Resource Overview of the Refuge $75,000 $10,000 

Improve Public Use Opportunities $250,000 $15,000 

Administrative Support $110,000 $28,000 

Facilities Support N/A $15,000 

Grand Total 

* Cost not included in total and recurring annual cost unknown at this time. 
114 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Step-Down Management Plans 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. A step-down management 

plan provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services management. 

These plans (Table 11) are also 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 11. Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the 

comprehensive conservation plan 

Plan Completion Date Revision Date 

Master Plan N/A CCP will replace 

Station Safety Plan 1998 2011 

Law Enforcement Plan 1998 2009 

Fishery Management Plan 2005 2010 

Sign Plan 1992 2012 

Fire Management Plan 2001 2011 

Forest Management Plan 2002 2011 

Water Management Plan 1997 2010 

Nuisance Animal Control Plan 1992 2010 

Biological Inventory and Monitoring Plan 1992 2009 

Hunt Plan 2007 2013 

Cultural Resource Protection Plan 2014* 2024 

Habitat Management Plan 2011* 2021 

Visitor Services Management Plan 1985 2010 

Invasive Plant Management Plan 2012* 2022 

* Indicates plan has not been completed as of publication of this CCP. 
Appendices 115

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented 

within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test 

predictions and assumptions inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results helps managers determine whether current 

management should continue as is or whether it should be modified 

to achieve desired conditions. 

Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by 

flowing water. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the 

stated need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of 

objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes 

and goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving 

issues (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Anadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and 

migrate to fresh water to breed. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The system’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a 

habitat or area. 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, 

CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4).

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any 

other use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on the sound 

professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the national wildlife 

refuge (50 CFR 25.12 (a)). A compatibility determination supports 

the selection of compatible uses and identifies stipulations or limits 

necessary to ensure compatibility. 
116 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP):

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; 

and meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue. 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for 

the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 

(Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, 

the nature and extent of known cultural resources, previous 

research, management objectives, resource management conflicts 

or issues, and a general statement on how program objectives 

should be met and conflicts resolved. An overview should 

reference or incorporate information from a field office’s background 

or literature search as described in Section VIII of the Cultural 

Resource Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by peoples of the 

past. 

Designated 

Wilderness Area:

An area designated by the United States Congress to be managed 

as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be 

natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal 

communities and their associated non-living environment. 
Appendices 117

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 that basic ecosystem processes 

are perpetuated indefinitely. 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or 

extirpated in the state within the near future if factors contributing to 

its decline continue. Populations of these species are at critically 

low levels or their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a 

significant degree. 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the 

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and 

provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of 

no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that 

cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of 

the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment 

of resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define 

measurable units (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism 

for survival and reproduction. The place where an organism 

typically lives. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 
118 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “go along” with a course 

of action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K). 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative. 

Management Concern: See Issue. 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue. 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National 

Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the 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 NEPA with other planning requirements, and 

prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision-making (40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service is 

required to develop 15-year comprehensive conservation plans for 

all national wildlife refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes 

the six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission 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. 
Appendices 119

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened 

with extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management 

areas; or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and 

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive 

or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or 

his environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we 

want to achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is 

responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide 

the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. 

Making objectives attainable, time-specific, and measurable 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative that would best achieve the refuge purpose, 

vision, and goals. It would contribute to the Refuge System mission 

and address the significant issues, all within principles of sound fish 

and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May be from natural 

ignition or intentional ignition. 
120 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that require protective measures and/or 

management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority 

species include the following: (1) State-listed and candidate 

species; (2) species or groups of animals susceptible to significant 

population declines within a specific area or statewide by virtue of 

their inclination to aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) 

species of recreation, commercial, and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the 

comprehensive planning process. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on, Service actions and policies. In the 

process, these views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful 

consideration of public views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes 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, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges 

that encompass congressionally designated wilderness, the 

purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the 

refuge (Service Manual 602 FW 106 S). 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both 

the Director and Secretary, and recommended for designation by 

the President to Congress. These areas await only legislative 

action by Congress in order to become part of the Wilderness 

System. Such areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” 

(Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were 

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where 

applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 
Appendices 121

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that is medium to small perching landbirds. 

Most are territorial singers and migratory. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects 

(e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. 

It describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting 

CCP goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, 

tools, and techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use 

potential. For purposes of this CCP, the study area includes the 

lands within the currently approved refuge boundary and potential 

refuge expansion areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective. 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct 

plant associations. 
122 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what 

we hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission 

and specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the 

vision statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; 

the purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and 

other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the 

definition of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for 

recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study 

area must meet the following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces 

of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable; 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; and 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in 

size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness. 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire 

other than prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3). 
Appendices 123

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE Environmental Education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FR Federal Register 

FTE Full-time Equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PFT Permanent Full-time 

PUNA Public Use Natural Area 

RM Refuge Manual 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS) 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
124 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 125

Appendix B. References and Literature 

Citations 

Alexander, G.R., and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. 

N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 6:9-23. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Third edition. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, PA. 540pp. 

Braun, C.E., K.W. Harmon, J.A. Jackson, and C.D. Littlefield. 1978. Management of National Wildlife 

Refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. Wilson Bull. 90:309-321. 

Carr, J.L 2001. Louisiana Map Turtle Survey: Map Turtles in Northern Louisiana. Final Report on 

USGS-BRD Coop. Agreement No. 99CRAG0017, iv + 113 pp. 

Dobie, J.L. 1971. Reproduction and growth in the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macroclemys temminckii

(Troost). Copeia 1971:645-658. 

Dundee, H.A. and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana. Baton Rouge: 

Louisiana State University Press, xi + 300 pp. 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 

1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 460 pp. 

Ewert, M.A. 1976. Nests, nesting and aerial basking of Macroclemys under natural conditions, and 

comparisons with Chelydra (Testudines: Chelydridae). Herpetologica 32:150-156. 

Ewert, M.A. and D.R. Jackson. 1994. Nesting ecology of the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macroclemys 

temminckii, along the lower Apalachicola River, Florida. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish 

Comm., Nongame Wildl. Program Final Report. vi + 45 pp. 

Esslinger, C.G., and B.C. Wilson. 2001. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast 

Joint Venture: Chenier Plain Initiative. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

Albuquerque, NM. 28pp. + appendix. 

Flack, S. and E. Furlow. 1996. America’s least wanted “purple plague,” “green cancer” and 10 other 

ruthless environmental thugs. Nature Conservancy Magazine. Vol. 46, No. 6 

November/December. 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, NY. 

250 pp. 

Gabrielson, G.W., and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence 

through management and research. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372pp. 
126 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Heitmeyer, M.E., and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks 

in California. Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Univ. of Calif., Davis. Final Report to Delta 

Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. 200pp. 

Holbrook, R.S. 1997. Ecology of nesting mottled ducks at the Atchafalaya River Delta, Louisiana. 

M.S. Thesis. Louisiana State University. 60pp. 

Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.-A. C. Hayek, and M.S. Foster (eds.). 1994. 

Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, xix + 364 pp. 

Johnson, R.E. 1964. Fish and fowl. Pages 453-458 in J.P. Linduska, editor. Waterfowl tomorrow. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39. 

Laycock, George. 1965. The Sign of the Flying Goose: A Guide to the National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Natural History Press, Garden City, NY. 299 pp. 

Lester, Gary D., Stephen G. Sorensen, Patricia L. Faulkner, Christopher S. Reid, and Ines E. Maxit. 

2005. Louisaina Comprhensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries. Baton Rouge, LA. 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. 2002 Louisiana Environmental Inventory 

Report: A compilation of data from toxics release inventory, toxic emissions data inventory, 

and emissions inventory. 2nd Annual Edition. 

McGilvrey, F.B. 1968. A guide to wood duck production habitat requirements. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Research Publication 60. 32pp. 

Miller, J.H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for identification and 

control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 93p. 

Moorman, A.M., T.E. Moorman, G.A. Baldassarre, and D.R. Richard. 1991. Effects of saline water on 

growth and survival of Mottled Duck ducklings in Louisiana. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:471-476. 

Moorman, T.E. and P.N. Gray. 1994. Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula). In The Birds of North America, 

No. 81 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; 

Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 20pp. 

New Employee Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

New World Research , Inco. 1981. A cultural resources survey of pre-selected portions of the Upper 

Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge, Union and Morehouse Parishes, LA. 

Project Report. 65pp. 
Appendices 127

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 33(1):103-112. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1980. The Alligator Snapping Turtle: Biology and Conservation. Milwaukee Public 

Museum, 104 pp. 

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. 1989. Texas Tech University 

Press. 560pp. 

Ricciardi, A., R. Neves, and J. Rasmussen. 1998. Impending extinctions of North American 

freshwater mussels (Unionoida) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. 

Journal of Animal Ecology 67(4): 613-619. 

Sloan, K.N. and J.E. Lovich. 1995. Exploitation of Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macroclemys temminckii, 

in Louisiana: a case study. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 1:221-222. 

Smith, L.M. 1993. Estimated presettlement and current acres of natural plant communities in 

Louisiana. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Stutzenbaker, C.D. 1988. The mottled duck, its life history, ecology and management. Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Dept, Austin, TX. 209p 

Trauth, S.E., J.D. Wilhide and A. Holt. 1998. Population structure and movement patterns of Alligator 

Snapping Turtles (Macroclemys temminckii) in northeastern Arkansas. Chelonian Conserv. 

Biol. 3:64-70. 

Tucker, A.D. and K.N. Sloan. 1997. Growth and reproductive estimates from Alligator Snapping 

Turtles, Macroclemys temminckii, taken by commercial harvest in Louisiana. Chelonian 

Conserv. Biol. 2:587-592. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. Office of 

Science. Office of Fossil Energy. 

http://fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/publications/1999_rdreport/front_feb.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, NC; National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends, 1900 – 1998; 

www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/trends/trends98/trends98.pdf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds. 2003. Increasing wood duck productivity: 

guidelines for management and banding. 16pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Environmental assessment of natural gas exploration and 

production operations on the D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge in Ouachita and Union 

Parishes, LA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Forest Habitat Management Plan, Upper Ouachita National 

Wildlife Refuge, Union and Morehouse Parishes, LA. 
128 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Louisiana Wetlands Management District Annual Narrative. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Environmental contaminants cross-program strategy for the 

Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. Environmental Contaminants Committee Lower 

Mississippi River Ecosystem Team. 35pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Fire Management Plan for North Louisiana Refuges Complex, 

Farmerville, LA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 10, 2002. Final 

Draft Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan, Version 2.5. Accessed at: 

http://www.fws.gov/lmre/strategic_plan.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 

borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas - Oklahoma, Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement, Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, 

California. M.S. Thesis, Humbolt State Univ., Arcata. 62pp. 
Appendices 129

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and 

Executive Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal 

agencies with respect to identification of information to be 

made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; 

maintenance of records; attendance and notification 

requirements for specific meetings and hearings; issuance of 

licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects 

of antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. 

The Act authorizes the President to designate as national 

monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on 

lands owned or controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, 

express, and exercise their traditional religions, including 

access to important sites, use and possession of sacred 

objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonial and 

traditional rites. 

Americans With 

Disabilities Act of 1990 

Prevents discrimination of and makes American Society more 

accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to enter 

into cooperative agreements with states and other non-federal 

interests for conservation, development, and enhancement of 

anadromous fish and contributes up to 50 percent as the federal 

share of the cost of carrying out such agreements. Reclamation 

construction programs for water resource projects needed solely 

for such fish are also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

Strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It 

also revised the permitting process for archaeological 

research. 

Architectural Barriers Act 

of 1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 
130 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or 

golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as 

permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or 

exhibition purposes, or for the religious purposes of Indians. 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, conservation of natural resources, and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources 

Protection Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on federal lands, including allowing 

the land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves 

from the public, and requiring permits for any removal or 

collecting activities in caves on federal lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile 

sources. This Act and its amendments charge Federal land 

managers with direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and 

related values” of land under their control. These values include 

fish, wildlife, and their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, 

as amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that 

federally permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act 

standards, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate 

state laws. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers with regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into 

waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identified undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and 

Gulf coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the Act 

are to minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful federal 

expenditures, and minimize the damage to natural resources by 

restricting most federal expenditures that encourage 

development within the CBRS. 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the CBRA and expanded the CBRS to include 

undeveloped coastal barriers along the Great Lakes and in the 

Caribbean, and established “Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs).” 

The Service is responsible for maintaining official maps, consulting 

with federal agencies that propose spending federal funds within 

the CBRS and OPAs, and making recommendations to Congress 

about proposed boundary revisions. 
Appendices 131

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection, and 

Restoration (1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

participate in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands 

restoration program, participate in the development and 

oversight of a coastal wetlands conservation program, and lead 

in the implementation and administration of a National coastal 

wetlands grant program. 

Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972, 

as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a state’s coastal zone management plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Reserve 

Research System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a 

National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan and requires states 

to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 

Plans. It enables transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund of amounts equal to import duties on arms and ammunition. 

It also established entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. 

Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of threatened and endangered 

species and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires 

refuge managers to perform internal consultation before initiating 

projects that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a 

Federal environmental education program in consultation with 

other federal natural resource management agencies, including 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
132 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies and the states, to study and inventory estuaries of 

the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, 

and to determine whether such areas should be acquired for 

protection. The Secretary is also required to encourage state and 

local governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities related to federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the 

Secretary was required to establish conditions to ensure the 

permanent protection of estuaries. 

Estuaries and Clean 

Waters Act of 2000 

Created a federal interagency council that includes the Director 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Administrator for 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 

Council is charged with developing a national estuary habitat 

restoration strategy and providing grants to entities to restore 

and protect estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

Contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers 

who convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after 

enactment of the law are ineligible for most farmer program 

subsidies. It also established the Wetland Reserve Program to 

restore and protect wetlands through easements and restoration 

of the functions and values of wetlands on such easement 

areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the 

unnecessary conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. 

Federal programs include construction projects and the 

management of federal lands. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees 

that provide advice to the Federal Government. Advisory 

committees may be established only if they will serve a 

necessary, nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly 

advisory unless otherwise specified and meetings must be open 

to the public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, 

or the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized 

mining coal on refuges. 
Appendices 133

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of federal highways through 

wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the natural 

beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed 

to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal 

agencies before approving any program or project requiring the 

use of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to 

designate plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other 

federal, state, and local agencies, farmers’ associations, and 

private individuals in measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or 

retard the spread of such weeds. The Act requires each federal 

land-managing agency, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

to designate an office or person to coordinate a program to 

control such plants on the agency’s land and implement 

cooperative agreements with the states, including integrated 

management systems to control undesirable plants. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing 

industry, but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and 

resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment, and to 

maintain and increase public opportunities for recreational use 

of fish and wildlife resources. Among other things, it authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to take such steps as may be 

required for the development, advancement, management, 

conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources 

including, but not limited to, research, development of existing 

facilities, and acquisition by purchase or exchange of land and 

water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under Federal permit or license. 
134 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Improvement Act of 1978 Passed to improve the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs. It amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 

Secretary 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. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised 

of federal and state officials, including the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. It provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel 

fishing permits. 

Freedom of Information 

Act, 1966 

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions; official, published and unpublished policy 

statements; final orders deciding case adjudication; and other 

documents. Special exemptions have been reserved for nine 

categories of privileged material. The Act requires the party 

seeking the information to pay reasonable search and 

duplication costs. 

Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and 

related resources on public lands. Section 15c of the Act 

prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all Service 

administrative lands. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Designed originally to help states protect their native game 

animals and to safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful 

foreign species. This Act prohibits interstate and international 

transport and commerce of fish, wildlife or plants taken in 

violation of domestic or foreign laws. It regulates the 

introduction to America of foreign species into new locations. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

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 for 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 135

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a federal responsibility to conserve marine mammals 

with management vested in the Department of the Interior for sea 

otter, walrus, polar bear, dugong, and manatee. The Department 

of Commerce is responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other 

than the walrus. With certain specified exceptions, the Act 

established a moratorium on the taking and importation of marine 

mammals, as well as products taken from them. 

Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to 

approve areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for 

acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of 

the Commission was expanded by the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement proposals recommended by the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the “Duck Stamp Act,” it requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

of 1918, as amended 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. 

and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for 

the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special 

regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, 

capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export, or import 

any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public 

lands. 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development 

of deposits of coal, oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons; sulphur; 

phosphate; potassium; and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-ways over 

federal lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (such as gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in 

full-and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and 

poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes 

the American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage 

young adults in approved human and natural resource projects, 

which will benefit the public or are carried out on federal or 

Indian lands. 
136 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for 

environmental impacts of federal actions. It stipulates the 

factors to be considered in environmental impact statements, 

and requires that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary 

approach in related decision-making and develop means to 

ensure that unqualified environmental values are given 

appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical 

considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a 

program of matching grants for preservation of significant 

historical features. Federal agencies are directed to take into 

account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or 

eligible for listing in the National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic and historic values of some important trails. National 

recreation trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior 

or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with 

the consent of the involved State(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National Scenic and National Historic Trails may 

only be designated by an Act of Congress. Several national trails 

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an area provided 

such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) for which the 

area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act 

of 1997 

Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966. This Act defines the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness 

of the six priority ”wildlife-dependent” public uses, establishes a 

formal process for determining ”compatible uses” of Refuge 

System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as 

responsible for managing and protecting the Refuge System, 

and requires the development of a comprehensive conservation 

plan for all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the 

United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. 
Appendices 137

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation 

of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the 

Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between Canada, the U.S. 

and Mexico. The North American Wetlands Conservation 

Council was created to recommend projects to be funded under 

the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Available funds may be expended for up to 50 percent of the 

United States share cost of wetlands conservation projects in 

Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the 

cost of projects on Federal lands). 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

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 the 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. 

Partnerships for Wildlife 

Act of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist 

the state fish and game agencies in carrying out their 

responsibilities for conservation of non-game species. The 

funding formula is no more that 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 

foundation funds, and at least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local 

government within the county, which suffer losses in tax 

revenues due to the establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of 

federal agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It 

also requires all federally assisted programs, services, and 

activities to be available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 

1899, as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the 

United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides 

authority for the Service to review and comment on the effects 

on fish and wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or 

permitted by the Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include 

contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill projects 

in navigable waters. 
138 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Departments of Interior and 

Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor 

recreation facilities on military reservations throughout the U.S. 

It requires the Secretary of each military department to use 

trained professionals to manage the wildlife and fishery 

resource under his jurisdiction, and requires that federal and 

state fish and wildlife agencies be given priority in management 

of fish and wildlife activities on military reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes 

Act of 1948 

Provides that upon determination by the Administrator of the 

General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred, without 

reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has 

particular value for migratory birds, or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding 

for approved public use roads and trails and associated parking 

lots, comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who 

sell their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act 

requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market 

value of the property. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of 

Cabinet representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. 

The Council reviews river basin plans with respect to 

agricultural, urban, energy, industrial, recreational, and fish and 

wildlife needs. The Act also established a grant program to 

assist states in participating in the development of related 

comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act of 1968, as amended 

Selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, 

or other similar values; preserves them in a free-flowing 

condition; and protects their local environments. 
Appendices 139

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every roadless area 

of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless island regardless of 

size within the National Wildlife Refuge System and to recommend 

suitability of each such area. The Act permits certain activities 

within designated Wilderness Areas that do not alter natural 

processes. Wilderness values are preserved through a “minimum 

tool” management approach, which requires refuge managers to 

use the least intrusive methods, equipment, and facilities 

necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

program within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. 

Within the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on 

refuges, fish hatcheries, and research stations. 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and 

Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic sites, 

the Service will consult with Federal and State Historic 

Preservation Officers to comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road 

Vehicles on Public Land 

(1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the use of 

off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and 

directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to 

promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to 

minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain 

Management (1977) 

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 floodplains. 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends 

Section 2 of EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted by offroad vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands (1977) 

Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership and take 

action to minimize the destruction, loss of degradation of 

wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial values of wetlands. 
140 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental 

Review of Federal Programs 

(1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by requiring 

federal agencies to use the state process to determine and 

address concerns of state and local elected officials with 

proposed federal assistance and development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental 

Justice (1994) 

Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and low-income 

populations. 

EO 12906, Coordinating 

Geographical Data 

Acquisition and Access 

(1994), Amended by EO 

13286 (2003). Amendment of 

EO’s and other actions in 

connection w/ transfer of 

certain functions to Secretary 

of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data 

Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular importance to 

CCP planning is the National Vegetation Classification 

System (NVCS), which is adopted, standard for vegetation 

mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of regional 

and national summaries, which in turn, can provide an 

ecosystem context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational 

Fisheries (1995) 

Directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, function, 

sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic 

resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities in 

cooperation with states and tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American 

Religious Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian sacred 

sites on federal lands used by Indian religious practitioners 

and direction to avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support 

of Community Efforts Along 

American Heritage Rivers 

(1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for the 

purpose of natural resource and environmental protection, 

economic revitalization, and historic and cultural 

preservation. The Act directs federal agencies to preserve, 

protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources 

important to our history, culture, and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian 

Tribal Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials 

in the development of federal policies that have tribal 

implications. 
Appendices 141

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13112, Invasive Species 

(1999) 

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and control 

populations of such species in a cost effective and 

environmentally sound manner, accurately monitor invasive 

species, provide for restoration of native species and habitat 

conditions, conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public education on 

invasive species and the means to address them. This EO 

replaces and rescinds EO 11987, Exotic Organisms (1977). 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds. (2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by 

several means, including the incorporation of strategies and 

recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the United 

States Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency 

management plans and guidance documents. 
142 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 143

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 

Public involvement in the development of this CCP for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake 

National Wildlife Refuges, including the Farm Services Agency tracts, in Union, Morehouse, 

Richland, West Carroll, East Carroll, Grant, and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana, was sought 

throughout the planning process. A planning team composed of representatives from various 

Service divisions, was formed to prepare the CCP. Initially, the team focused on identifying the 

issues and concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met on several occasions 

from September 2004 to February 2008. 

In preparation for developing the CCP, a Wildlife and Habitat (Biological) Review was conducted on 

Upper Ouachita NWR during September, 2004, by a team of Service biologists, managers, foresters, 

and non-service managers/biologists. A Visitor Service Review Report was completed in September 

2005. Public input to the development of this CCP was initiated through a notice of intent published in 

the Federal Register in 2005 for Upper Ouachita NWR, and October 2005 for the FSA tracts, which 

includes Handy Brake NWR. To expand the range of issues and generate potential alternatives, 

public input to the development of this CCP was sought through two open house meetings held on 

November 14 and 15, 2006, in Marion and Bastrop, Louisiana. In addition, information packets, including 

a letter of invitation, public input workbook, and mailing list request form were mailed to approximately 160 

different federal, state, and local agencies; state and federal congressional delegates; and private 

individuals. At the meetings, interested stakeholders were able to register their concerns to ensure 

that they would be considered in developing the CCP. The meeting was publicized by a press 

release in the local papers. Approximately 15 members of the public attended the open house and 

scoping meetings. In addition, information packets, including a letter of notice and invitation to 

attend, public input questionnaire, and mailing list request form were mailed to approximately 150 

different federal, state, non-governmental agencies, state legislative offices, federal and state 

congressional offices, and private individuals. Five questionnaires were returned and three letters of 

comment were received from the public. 

The issues and alternatives generated from these meetings, coupled with the input of the planning 

team, are summarized in Chapters I and III of this CCP. Over a 3-year period, this CCP was 

developed for the refuges, which will direct their management over the next 15 years. 

Approximately 160 copies of the Draft CCP/EA were made available for public review, beginning 

March 21, 2008 and ending April 21, 2008. No comments were received. 
144 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 145

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Upper Ouachita 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 include 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 (Administration Act). 

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 law states “...it is the policy of the United States that...compatible wildlifedependent 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 
146 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other general 

public uses in planning and management within the System.....” This policy implements the 

standards set in the Administration Act by providing enhanced consideration of 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 (EO) 11644 when allowing use of off-highway vehicles on 

refuges. This EO requires that we: designate areas as open or closed to off-highway 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, EO 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, or environmental education and interpretation. 
Appendices 147

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. 

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. 
148 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 149

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determinations 

Uses: The following uses were found to be appropriate and considered for compatibility 

determination reviews: (1) Wildlife observation and photography; (2) Environmental education and 

interpretation; (3) Fishing; and (4) Cooperative farming. A description and anticipated biological 

impacts for each use are addressed separately in this compatibility determination. 

Refuge Name: Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: November 1978 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Refuge Purpose: “....for the use as an inviolate sancturary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d); and “....the conservation of the wetlands on the nation in order 

to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in 

various migratory bird treaties and conventions....” (16 U.S.C. 3901(b)). 

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) 
150 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

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 CFR 

Subchapter C; 43 CFR 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) 

Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV 3, Clause 2 

Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 

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. 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife photography, including other image-capturing activities, such as videography, has occurred 

on the refuge since its inception. It is in anticipated that an increase in non-consumptive wildlifedependent uses will occur over the next few years as facilities and access are provided. 

Wildlife observation and photography could occur anywhere on the refuge throughout the year. 

These activities can be accomplished while driving, boating, or walking on the refuge according to 

refuge regulations. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Minor amounts of personnel time associated with administration, management, and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: 

Observation tower, access roads, kiosks, and brochures. 

Maintenance costs: $20,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $5,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 
Appendices 151

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. As a result of these activities, individual 

animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Examples of potential disturbance 

include flushing of birds from feeding, resting, or nesting areas and trampling of plants from observers and 

photographers. Disturbance to trust species are expected to be minimal. 

Construction of foot trails, boardwalks, observation platforms, and upgrading refuge roads 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 and species of special 

concern. Impacts Short-term impacts to facilities, such as roads and trails, can be avoided by special 

closures due to unsafe conditions. 

Long-term impacts: 

Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse 

impacts have been experienced. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife 

Refuges and the Farm Service Agency tracts which was announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 

15186) and made available for public comment from March 21, 2008, until April 21, 2008. Copies of 

the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge headquarters and area locations and over 160 copies were 

distributed to local landowners; the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Visitors are required to abide by all refuge regulations that limit impacts on plant and wildlife populations. 

Justification: 

Visitors have the opportunity to view and photograph many species of wildlife with relative ease at 

many places on the refuge. Opportunities exist for these activities by boat, by walking, or by driving 

the public roads. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ______8/8/2023_____
152 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation activities include traditional environmental education, 

such as teacher- or staff-led on-site field trips, off-site programs in classrooms, and interpretation of 

wildlife resources on the refuge. These activities are largely conducted at Black Bayou Lake NWR, 

another refuge in the complex, and are utilized to encourage understanding in citizens of all ages to 

develop land ethics, foster public support, increase visibility, and improve the image of the Service. 

Sometimes, environmental education and interpretation activities occur on Upper Ouachita NWR. 

Environmental education and interpretation have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public uses provided they are compatible with the 

purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Environmental education and interpretation could occur throughout the refuge year-round as requested by 

the public. Although the activities do not require special use permits, they are most often closely 

coordinated with the refuge manager and led or supervised by the park ranger. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Minor amounts of personnel time. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use:

Kiosks, observation tower, brochures, and environmental education materials. 

Maintenance costs: $2,000/year 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities by groups of teachers/students to accomplish 

environmental education objectives may impose a low-level impact on the sites used for these activities. 

Impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the 

immediate vicinity during the activities. Since most activities would take place on existing roads, trails, 

and other facilities, impacts would be minimal. 

Long-term impacts: 

Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse 

impacts have been experienced. Long-term beneficial impacts include the furthering of the refuge 

mission through the education of the general public. 
Appendices 153

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife 

Refuges and the Farm Service Agency tracts which was announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 

15186) and made available for public comment from March 21, 2008, until April 21, 2008. Copies of 

the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge headquarters and area locations and over 160 copies were 

distributed to local landowners; the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

On-site activities should be held where minimal impact would occur. Evaluations of sites and 

programs should be conducted periodically to assess if objectives are being met and to ensure that 

the natural resources are not being degraded. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts begins to 

appear, it may be necessary to change the location of the outdoor activities. 

Justification: 

Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage citizens of all ages to act responsibly 

in protecting a healthy ecosystem. They are tools to use in building land ethic, developing public support, 

and decreasing wildlife violations. They constitute one method of increasing visibility in the community 

and improving the image of the Service. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ______8/8/2023_____

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of the area that is now Upper Ouachita NWR prior to its 

inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System and continues to be a recreational pursuit with the 

public. It is one of the more popular wildlife-dependent uses on the refuge. Fish populations 

currently support a sustainable harvest under a regulated fishing program. 

Fishing, a wildlife-dependent recreation, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 
154 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Fishing is permitted in the entire refuge. The use is conducted year-round except for inside the 

Mollicy Unit levee where it is open from March 1 to August 31. Fishing is conducted subject to 

regulations established by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Fishing is further 

restricted by regulations which prohibit commercial fishing on the refuge and prohibit the use of 

certain fishing methods. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Personnel time associated with administration and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: 

Boat ramps, kiosks, brochures, law enforcement equipment, and access roads. 

Maintenance costs: $10,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $5,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Minor impacts, such as litter and gasoline contamination, could occur but not at a level that would 

cause serious concern. There is some erosion from outboard wakes. 

Long-term impacts: 

Fishing, as regulated, should not have any long-term negative impacts on the refuge. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are known to occur. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife 

Refuges and the Farm Service Agency tracts which was announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 

15186) and made available for public comment from March 21, 2008, until April 21, 2008. Copies of 

the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge headquarters and area locations and over 160 copies were 

distributed to local landowners; the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 
Appendices 155

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Commercial fishing is prohibited. Recreational fishing using commercial gear is allowed by obtaining 

a special use permit from the refuge. Trotlines must have cotton line attached to the ends and they 

must be tended daily. 

Justification: 

Fishing is probably one of the most popular forms of outdoor recreation in the state, and the refuge 

has the opportunity to provide quality fishing to the public, which is a priority public use. Current state 

and refuge regulations limit impacts to fish and wildlife populations on the refuge, while providing a 

safe and rewarding experience for the refuge visitor. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ______8/8/2023_____

Description of Use: Cooperative Farming 

Cooperative farming is utilized on the refuge to manage and maintain approximately 2,650 acres of 

waterfowl impoundment habitats that provide seasonally flooded crops and moist-soil units necessary to 

meet the refuge’s waterfowl habitat objectives. This farming program is a critical component of the 

refuge’s habitat management program. The refuge’s cooperative farmers enter into annual cooperative 

farming agreements specifying what crops will be grown in specific fields for both the refuge and 

cooperative farmer’s share. The cooperative farmer receives 80 percent of planted acres, while the 

refuge receives 20 percent of the planted acres. The refuge’s crop share is strategically located in areas 

that can be flooded in the winter to provide waterfowl foraging habitat in support of North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan objectives for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. At the present time, the refuge 

does not have the staff or equipment necessary to manage and maintain the acreage needed to meet its 

waterfowl foraging objectives without the assistance of the cooperative farming program. Refuge 

cooperative farming operations will continue under carefully regulated conditions. 

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 at its current level. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Cooperative farmers grow rice and milo on the refuge under an annually updated cooperative farming 

agreement. Refuge crop shares are left standing in the field to provide high energy grain and forage 

primarily for wintering waterfowl. The cooperative farmers' harvested fields are also used extensively 

by snipe, shorebirds, geese, ducks, deer, and other wildlife. The majority of all cooperative farming 

takes place in the refuge’s core waterfowl sanctuary area. 
156 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Cooperative farming results in some degree of soil erosion due to disking and planting operations. 

The impact of soil erosion on adjacent wetlands and water bodies is minimal because of maintained 

grass buffer strips around each field and the extensive use of flash board risers to retain and slowly 

release sediment-laden water. Cooperative farmers are allowed to use approved pesticides under a 

closely monitored pesticide use proposal system. Refuge-approved pesticides have low toxicity and 

fast biodegradation rates compared to other commonly used agricultural pesticides. Under approved 

label application rates and methods, approved pesticides should have minimal effect on the biological 

environment. However, the potential exists for misapplication or accidental spills of approved 

pesticides. During the past 10 years, there have been no known pesticide accidents or pesticiderelated wildlife mortality reported on the refuge. Careful monitoring of cooperative farmer pesticide 

use should further reduce any potential impacts from pesticide use on the refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife 

Refuges and the Farm Service Agency tracts which was announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 

15186) and made available for public comment from March 21, 2008, until April 21, 2008. Copies of 

the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge headquarters and area locations and over 160 copies were 

distributed to local landowners; the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The cooperative farming program is regulated through annual cooperative farming agreements that 

specify the field crops to be grown, acceptable farming practices, and approved pesticide use 

procedures. Special conditions contained in each cooperative farming agreement provide the 

following requirements: (1) no fall disking allowed; (2) vegetative filter strips must be maintained 

around all fields and water bodies; (3) crops must be harvested by November 15; (4) no drainage of 

seasonally flooded habitat is allowed until after March 1; (5) crops will be planted in designated fields 

and not be manipulated in any way after maturity; and (6) only approved pesticides will be used when 

the level of pest occurrence is at the economic threshold level as indicated by crop scouting. Under 

these carefully controlled conditions, the cooperative farming program has been and is expected to 

continue to be compatible with the refuge’s purposes. 

Justification: 

The cooperative farming actions as set forth in the Cropland Management Plan for Upper Ouachita 

NWR are in accordance with Service guidelines for the protection, management, and enhancement of 

habitats for wildlife populations on the refuge. Adherence to the Cropland Management Plan 

promotes the enhancement of habitats for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and 

resident wildlife. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: ______8/8/2018_____
Appendices 157

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is 

considered for compatibility outside of the comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 
158 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determinations 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: (1) wildlife 

observation and photography; and (2) environmental education and interpretation. 

Refuge Name: Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge, Morehouse Parish, Louisiana 

Date Established: 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Refuge Purpose(s): “... shall be administered by him [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in 

accordance with cooperative agreements ... and in accordance with such rules and regulations for 

the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat 

thereon ...” (16 U.S.C. 664) (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

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 CFR 

Subchapter C; 43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 
Appendices 159

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV 3, Clause 2 

Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 

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. 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife photography, including other image-capturing activities, such as videography, has occurred 

on the refuge since its inception. There are no photography blinds but an observation tower is 

located on the west side of the refuge. 

Wildlife observation and photography can only occur at the observation tower which is located at the 

only designated parking lot on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Minor amounts of personnel time associated with administration, management, and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: 

Observation tower, access roads, kiosks, and brochures. 

Maintenance costs: $5,000/year 

Monitoring costs: $1,000/year 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. As a result of these activities, individual 

animals could be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Examples of potential disturbance 

include flushing of birds from feeding, resting, or nesting areas and trampling of plants by observers and 
160 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

photographers. However, because observers and photographers can only be in the parking lot or on the 

observation tower, disturbance to wildlife is minuscule. Disturbance to trust species are expected to be 

minimal. Waterfowl use the emergent lake 120 meters away and do not seem to respond to activity at the 

observation tower. Short-term impacts to facilities, such as roads and trails, can be avoided by special 

closures due to unsafe conditions. 

Long-term impacts: 

These uses are incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse impacts have been 

experienced. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife 

Refuges and the Farm Service Agency tracts which was announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 

15186) and made available for public comment from March 21, 2008, until April 21, 2008. Copies of 

the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge headquarters and area locations and over 160 copies were 

distributed to local landowners; the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Visitors are required to abide by all refuge regulations that limit impacts on plant and wildlife 

populations. 

Justification: 

Visitors have the opportunity to view and photograph many species of wildlife with relative ease from 

the observation tower which is located off of a public road. During winter, thousands of waterfowl are 

easily seen from the observation tower. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ______8/8/2023_____

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation activities include traditional environmental education, 

such as teacher- or staff-led on-site field trips, off-site programs in classrooms, and interpretation of 
Appendices 161

wildlife resources on the refuge. These activities are largely conducted at Black Bayou Lake NWR, 

another refuge in the complex, and are utilized to encourage understanding in citizens of all ages to 

develop land ethics, foster public support, increase visibility, and improve the image of the Service. On 

rare occasions, environmental education and interpretation activities occur on Handy Brake NWR. 

Environmental education and interpretation have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public uses provided they are compatible with the 

purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Environmental education and interpretation could occur throughout the refuge year-round as requested by 

the public. Although the activities do not require special use permits, they are most often closely 

coordinated with the refuge manager and led or supervised by the park ranger. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Minor amounts of personnel time. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use:

Kiosks, observation tower, brochures, and environmental education materials. 

Maintenance costs: $500/year 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities by groups of teachers/students to accomplish 

environmental education objectives may impose a low-level impact on the sites used for these activities. 

Impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the 

immediate vicinity during the activities. Since most activities would take place on existing roads and the 

observation tower, impacts would be minimal. 

Long-term impacts: 

These uses are incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse impacts have been 

experienced. Long-term beneficial impacts include the furthering of the refuge mission through the 

education of the general public. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 
162 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife 

Refuges and the Farm Service Agency tracts which was announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 

15186) and made available for public comment from March 21, 2008, until April 21, 2008. Copies of 

the Draft CCP/EA were posted at refuge headquarters and area locations and over 160 copies were 

distributed to local landowners; the public; and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible 

__X__Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

On-site activities should be held where minimal impacts would occur. Evaluations of sites and 

programs should be conducted periodically to assess if objectives are being met and to ensure that 

the natural resources are not being degraded. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts begins to 

appear, it may be necessary to change the location of the outdoor activities. 

Justification: 

Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage citizens of all ages to act responsibly 

in protecting a healthy ecosystem. They are tools to use in building land ethic, developing public support, 

and decreasing wildlife violations. They constitute one method of increasing visibility in the community 

and improving the image of the Service. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: ______8/8/2023_____
Appendices 163

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is 

considered for compatibility outside of the comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 
164 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 165

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

Originating Person: Gypsy Gooding 

Telephone Number: _318-726-4222 

E-Mail: gypsy_gooding@fws.gov 

Date: March 29, 2007 

PROJECT NAME (Grant Title/Number): Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

and the Louisiana Wetlands Management District 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 

III. Station Name: Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake NWRs and the Louisiana Wetlands 

Management District 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): 

Implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Upper Ouachita and Handy 

Brake NWRs and the Louisiana Wetlands Management District by adopting the proposed 

alternative. This CCP directs the management of the refuge for the next 15 years. 

Current management consists of maintaining pine basal area within red-cockaded 

woodpecker (RCW) foraging partitions to at least 40 square feet/acre of mature pine, i.e. > 30 

years of age within foraging habitat and >60 years of age in nesting habitat. Within RCW 

foraging partitions, canopy hardwoods represent less than 30 percent of the overstory stem 

count, and grass and herbaceous plants represents at least 20 percent of the ground cover. 

Controlled burning is currently conducted during March – May, with a 100 percent burn 

coverage objective, for the benefit of red-cockaded woodpeckers. 

The Upper Ouachita NWR is proposing to manage 1,220 acres of RCW habitat on the 

western side of refuge according to RCW Recovery Guidelines. This area is characterized by 

native grasses and herbs, representing at least 40 percent of the ground cover. It is dense 

enough to carry growing season fires at least once every five years. Canopy hardwoods 

within RCW foraging partitions represent less than 30 percent of the total stem count in the 

overstory, providing contiguous foraging habitat for each cluster so that the habitat is not 

separated by more than 200 feet of non-foraging habitat. Fire and timber thinning is utilized to 
166 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

promote an open park-like forest with no hardwood midstory within the foraging partitions. 

The historical conditions would have been a pine dominated landscape with a mix of 

hardwood species in the wetter, lower areas and an herbaceous understory. The amount of 

hardwood basal area in the historical landscape would have been 20-30 percent, depending 

on how often the stand burned. Fire frequency would have been dictated by how wet an area 

was, which is largely a factor of elevation. 

The proposed action would allow burning to occur in spring and in September and 

October, which is when the peak number of wildfires occurred historically. The RCW 

habitat would be burned as close to historical frequency as possible and would be 

conducted in a way that would mimic the historical fire regime. This entails allowing the 

fire to burn patchy. These uplands were dynamic in that wetter areas did not burn as 

often and hardwood trees would regenerate. Hardwood trees were interspersed 

amongst the pine but in a patchy distribution. The amount of hardwood in an area was 

dictated by fire frequency and intensity, which were largely influenced by elevation and 

soil types. Moving fire timing to the historical period of September/October would 

increase fire intensity due to drier seasonal conditions, and will over time manage 

against the percentage of hardwood in the landscape compared to spring burns. 

However, the variation in moisture would provide conditions that promote hardwoods in 

the drains and pines on the hills. This shift in fire timing would benefit the RCW if fires 

are allowed to burn naturally, which is entirely consistent with RCW management. 

The proposed action would rely on patchiness of burns to achieve the objectives. A 100 percent 

coverage burn would not allow hardwoods to regenerate. Hardwood trees would regenerate in 

small patches where the fire was not successful due to fuel being wet or not ignitable. 

The proposed action for the bald eagle would be to continue monitoring bald eagle use on the 

refuge during the annual mid-winter eagle survey and to continue monitoring the one eagle 

nest on the refuge annually. The nest is monitored beginning in December and continuing to 

July. The nests in northeast Louisiana usually fledge chicks in June or July. If the nest is 

active, then management will monitor for disturbance. If disturbance is likely, the guidelines 

for the Management for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region would be implemented. 

The proposed action for the Louisiana black bear would be to continue keeping records of 

bear sightings and managing the forest according to the Desired Forest Conditions 

recommended by the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture office. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

 A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: See Figure 19 

B. Complete the following table: 
Appendices 167

Figure 19. Red-cockaded woodpecker species/habitat occurrence map 
168 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Table 1. Listed/proposed species/critical habitat that occur or may occur within the 

project area 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Red-cockaded Woodpecker E 

Bald Eagle No longer listed 

Louisiana Black Bear 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: Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

B. County and State: Union and Morehouse Parishes, Louisiana 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): Woodpecker clusters 

are located in Sections 19 and 30 in T22N, R04E, and Section 25 in T22N, R03E. 

Habitat also includes Sections 2, 3, 13, 14, and 22 in T22N, R03E and Section 34 in 

T22N, R03E. 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: ~4 miles north of Sterlington, 

Louisiana 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the 

action area: One active group of federally endangered RCWs (Picoides borealis) on 

the western side of Upper Ouachita NWR in upland pine habitat. 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) utilize the refuge mostly during the winter 

months, but also will nest during the spring. Usually five to seven eagles will use the 

refuge during winter, mostly at the Mollicy Unit, along the river, and at Fish and Moss 

Lakes. One active nest is known to occur at the Mollicy Unit in Shiloh Bayou. 

Louisiana black bears (Ursus americanus luteolus) utilize the refuge infrequently as 

they pass through the area. However, the refuge anticipates more black bear use in 

the future. Black bears use a wide variety of habitat types and can be found anywhere 

on the refuge when flood waters are low. Large, hollow baldcypress and oak trees are 

present on the refuge and may be used as den trees by bears. 
Appendices 169

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. 

According to habitat guidelines set forth in the RCW Recovery Plan, no hardwood midstory is to exist above 2.1 m in height, and canopy hardwoods are to be less than 30 

percent of the number of canopy trees in loblolly forests. 

A foraging analysis has been conducted (Figure 20). As long as 120 acres of pine at 

least 40 sq. ft. in basal area is available in each 1⁄2-mile circle center on each nesting 

cluster, then no take occurs. The foraging analysis indicates that this minimum will be 

met by providing 315 acres. 

Basically the proposed action would produce habitat that is very similar to the open, 

park-like pine stands with the herbaceous understory that RCWs prefer, but there 

would be patches of hardwood trees within the landscape, mostly at the toe of slopes 

or in wet, depressional areas. 

The proposed action would have no adverse effects on bald eagles. The nest is 

located in an area closed to the public and is seasonally flooded. The nest is close to 

moist soil units that are farmed in some years. No disturbance by farming has been 

noticed. The birds typically nest successfully. 

The proposed action would have no adverse effects on Louisiana black bears. If anything, 

black bears should benefit from the proposed action by creating a healthier, more structurally 

diverse forest with adequate numbers of den trees available. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

RCWs are more sensitive to hardwoods being in the nesting cluster than in their foraging 

habitat. For this reason, RCW management in the proposed action would exclude 

hardwood midstory and strictly limit hardwoods in the overstory within the 10-acre nesting 

cluster. In other words, hardwoods would not be promoted in the nesting cluster. 

Hardwoods would not constitute more than 30 percent in the foraging areas and would be 

mostly confined to drains and depressional areas. Even though these drains may move in 

and out of the foraging areas in irregular patterns as they naturally would, this is not 

promoting hardwoods within the foraging area, because the foraging area is on the higher 

ground that would burn more frequently. 

The proposed action of changing the burning regime would still kill many hardwood trees; 

however, the patchiness of the burns would allow small pockets of hardwoods to 

regenerate. The proposed fire regime would reduce the hardwood component; except for 

hardwood regeneration within the drains and depressions, which would not constitute 

more than 30 percent of overstory stems. Small pockets of hardwoods in wet, 

depressional areas would in all likelihood be avoided all together by the RCWs in favor of 

pine dominated habitat within the landscape. 

Monitoring of wintering and nesting bald eagles would continue in order to ensure that 

refuge activities are not having an adverse effect on the eagle population. 

Forest management would be conducted so that adequate numbers of den trees are left 

for black bears during harvest operations. 
170 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 20. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging analysis 
Appendices 171

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested:

Table 4. The effect determination and response requested for impacts to each proposed/listed 

species/critical habitat 

SPECIES/ 

 CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1 RESPONSE1

REQUESTED 

 NE NA AA 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker X Concurrence 

Bald Eagle X Concurrence 

Louisiana Black Bear X Concurrence 

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 AConcurrence@ 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 AConcurrence@. 

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 AFormal Consultation@. Response Requested for proposed or candidate species is 

AConference@. 
172 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

If the project description changes or incidental take exceeds that which has been exempted under 

Section 9 of the Act, then the Ecological Services Field Office must be contacted. 

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Non-concurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______ 

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):
Appendices 173

Appendix H. Wilderness Review 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges and the Louisiana 

Wetlands Management District were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for wilderness, 

as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

No lands were found to meet these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness 

designation is not further analyzed in this CCP. 
174 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 175

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

North Louisiana Refuge Complex 

Bird List 

This list contains those species of birds thought to occur on lands owned by the North Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Grebes 

Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps)

 Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus)

Pelicans, Cormorants, and Darters 

 American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos)

 Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)

Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga)

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets 

 American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)

 Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis)

 Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)

 Great Egret (Ardea alba)

 Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)

 Little Blue Heron (Efretta caerulea)

 Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor)

 Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis)

 Green Heron (Butoroides virescens)

 Black-crowned Night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)

 Yellow-crowned Night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea) 

Ibises, Spoonbills, Storks, and New World Vultures 

 White Ibis (Eudocimis albus)

 Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaia)

 Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

 Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus)

 Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)

Waterfowl 

 Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)

 Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens)

 Ross’s Goose (Chen rossi)

 Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) 

Black-bellied Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis) 

 Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)

Gadwall (Anas strepera)

American Wigeon (Anas americana)

American Black Duck (Anas rubripes)

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
176 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Waterfowl 

Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula)

Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors)

Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata)

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta)

Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca)

Canvasback (Aythya valisineria)

Redhead (Aythya americana)

Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris)

Greater Scaup (Aythya marila)

Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis)

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)

Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)

Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)

Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator)

Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis)

Hawks, Eagles, and Kites 

 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)

 Mississippi Kite (Ictinia mississippiensis)

 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

 Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)

 Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus)

 Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

 Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)

 Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus)

 Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

 Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

True Falcons 

 American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)

 Merlin (Falco columbarius) 

 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

Gallinaceous Birds (Quail, Turkey, and Allies) 

 Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

 Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus)

Rails, Gallinules, Coots, and Cranes 

 King Rail (Rallus elegans)

 Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola)

 Sora )Porzana carolina)

 Purple Gallinule (Porphyrula martinica)

 Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus)

 American Coot (Fulica americana)

Plovers 

 American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica)

 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola)

 Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus)

 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 
Appendices 177

Plovers 

Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) 

 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous)

Avocets and Sandpipers 

 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus)

American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) 

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca)

 Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes)

 Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria)

 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia)

 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)

 Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) 

Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) 

 Dunlin (Calidris alpine) 

 Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla)

 Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri)

 Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla)

 Pectoral Sandpiper (Caladris melanotos)

 Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) 

Wilson’s Phalarope 

 Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus)

 Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus)

 Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago gallinago)

 American Woodcock (Scolopax minor)

Gulls, Terns, and Skimmers 

 Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus philadelphia)

 Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)

 Herring Gull (Larus argentatus)

 Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia)

 Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri)

 Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

 Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)

Pigeons and Doves 

 Rock Dove (Columba livia)

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 

Common Ground Dove (Columbina passerine) 

 Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) 

Cuckoos 

 Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus)

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

 Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus)

Owls 

 Barn Owl (Tyto alba)

 Eastern Screech-Owl (Otus asio)

 Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus)

 Barred Owl (Strix varia)
178 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Owls 

 Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

Nightjars 

 Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)

 Chuck-will’s-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis)

 Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous)

Swifts and Hummingbirds 

 Chimney Swift (Chaeura pelagica)

 Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) 

Kingfishers 

 Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon)

Woodpeckers 

 Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus)

 Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus)

 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius)

 Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)

 Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus)

 Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

 Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)

 Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

Shrikes 

 Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

Vireos 

 White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus)

 Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons)

 Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius)

 Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus)

 Philadelphia Vireo (Vireo philadephicus)

 Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus)

Jays and Crows 

 Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata)

 American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 

 Fish Crow (Corvus ossigragus)

Larks 

 Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)

Martins and Swallows 

 Purple Martin (Progne subis)

 Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) 

 N. Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis)

 Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia)

 Barn Swallow (Hirundia rustica)
Appendices 179

Chickadees and Titmice 

 Carolina Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis)

 Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor)

Nuthatches 

 Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis)

 White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)

 Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla)

Creepers 

 Brown Creeper (Certhia americana)

Wrens 

 Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus)

 Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii)

 House Wren (Troglodytes aedon)

 Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes)

 Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis)

Kinglets and Gnatcatchers 

 Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa)

 Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula)

 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea)

Thrushes 

 Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis)

 Veery (Catharus fuscescens)

 Gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus)

 Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus)

 Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus)

 Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)

 American Robin (Turdus migratorius)

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

 Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis)

 Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)

 Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum)

Starlings 

 European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 

 

Pipits 

 American Pipit (Anthus rubescens) 

Waxwings 

 Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla garrulous)

Wood Warblers 

 Blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus)

 Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera)

 Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrine)
180 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Wood Warblers 

 Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata) 

 Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla)

 Northern Parula (Parula americana)

 Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia)

 Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica)

 Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia)

 Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens)

 Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata)

Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens)

 Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca)

 Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica)

 Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus)

 Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor)

 Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum)

 Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea)

 Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata)

 Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulean)

 Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia)

American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla)

Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea)

Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus)

Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypsis swainsonii)

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus)

Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis)

Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla)

Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus) 

Mourning Warbler (Oporornis philadelphia)

Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)

Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrine)

Wilson’s Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla)

Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) 

Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) 

Tanagers 

 Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra)

 Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) 

Sparrows 

 Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)

 Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)

 Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine)

 Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla)

 Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 

 Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)

 Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

 Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii)

 Le Conte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii)

 Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) 

 Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)

 Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii)
Appendices 181

Sparrows 

 Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana)

 White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)

 White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)

 Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis)

 Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus)

New World Finches 

 Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)

 Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheuticus ludovicianus)

 Blue Grosbeak (Passerina caerulea)

 Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea)

 Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris)

 Dickcissel (Spiza americana)

Blackbirds 

 Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 

 Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna)

 Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus)

 Brewer’s Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)

 Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula)

Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater)

 Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurious)

 Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula) 

Old World Finches 

 Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus)

 Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus)

 American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) 

 Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus)
182 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

North Louisiana Refuge Complex 

Mammal List 

This list contains those species of mammals thought to occur on lands owned by the North Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex according to various literature sources. Those species marked 

with an asterisk (*) have been documented on the specified refuge by sightings or specimens. The 

abbreviations are as follows: BBL – Black Bayou Lake NWR, UO – Upper Ouachita NWR, DB – 

D’Arbonne NWR, FSA tracts – Farm Services Agency. This list is largely based on information from 

The Mammals of Louisiana and Its Adjacent Waters by Lowery (1974). 

Didelphiidae (Opossums) 

*Opossum (Dedelphis marsupialis)—BBL, UO, DB 

Soricidae (Shrews) 

*Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda)—DB 

Least Shrew (Cryptotis parva) 

Talpidae (Moles) 

*Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus)—DB 

Bats (Chiroptera) 

*Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius)—DB 

Eastern Pipistrel (Pipistrellus subflavus) 

*Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus)—DB, UO 

*Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis)—DB, UO 

*Seminole Bat (Lasiurus seminolus)—DB 

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) 

*Evening Bat (Nycticeius humeralis)—DB 

*Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Coryrhincus rafinesquii)—DB, UO 

Brazilian Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) 

Dasypodidae (Armadillos)

*Nine-banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus)—DB, UO, BBL 

Leporidae (Hares, Rabbits)

*Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)—DB, UO, BBL 

*Swamp Rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus)—DB, UO, BBL 

Sciuridae (Squirrels) 

*Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)—DB, BBL, UO 

*Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger)—DB, BBL, UO 

*Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans)—DB, UO, BBL 

Geomyidae (Pocket Gophers)

*Plains Pocket Gopher (Geomys bursarius)—DB 

Castoridae (Beaver)

*Beaver (Castor canadensis)—DB, BBL, UO 
Appendices 183

Cricetidae (Mice, Rats, Lemmings, Voles) 

Marsh Rice Rat (Oryzomys palustris) 

Fulvous Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens) 

*White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus luecopus)—DB 

*Cotton Mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus)—DB 

*Golden Mouse (Peromyscus nuttalli)—DB 

*Hispid Cotton Rat (Sigmodon hispidus) 

*Eastern Woodrat (Neotoma floridana)—BBL 

Pine Vole (Pitymys pinetorum) 

*Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica)—DB, UO, BBL 

Muridae (Old World Rats and Mice) 

Roof Rat (Rattus rattus) 

Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) 

House Mouse (Mus musculus) 

Capromyidae (Nutria) 

*Nutria (Myocastor coypus)—DB, UO, BBL 

Canidae (Dogs, Wolves, Foxes)

Red Wolf (Canis rufus) (extirpated) 

*Coyote (Canis latrans)—DB, UO, BBL 

*Red Fox (Vulpes fulva)—DB, UO, BBL 

*Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)—DB, UO, BBL 

Ursidae (Bears) 

*Black Bear (Ursus americanus)—DB, UO, FSA TRACTS 

 

Procyonidae (Racoons)

*Raccoon (Procyon lotor)—DB, BBL, UO 

Mustelidae (Weasels, Skunks)

Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata) 

*Mink (Mustela vison) 

*Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)—DB, UO, BBL 

*River Otter (Lutra canadensis)—DB, BBL, UO 

Felidae (Cats) 

*Bobcat (Lynx rufus)—DB, UO 

Mountain Lion (Felix concolor) (extirpated) 

Suidae (Hogs) 

*Feral Hog (Sus scrofa)—UO 

Cervidae (Deer) 

*White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)—DB, UO, BBL 
184 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

North Louisiana Refuge Complex 

Herptile List 

This list contains those species of reptiles and amphibians thought to occur on lands owned by 

the North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex according to various literature sources. 

Those species marked with an asterisk (*) have been documented on the specified refuge by 

sightings or specimens. The abbreviations are as follows: BBL – Black Bayou Lake NWR, UO 

– Upper Ouachita NWR, DB – D’Arbonne NWR. Documentation of these species was compiled 

from surveys conducted by the refuge biologist and by herpetologists at the University of 

Louisiana in Monroe, namely Dr. Carr. 

Alligatoridae (Alligators) 

*American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) – BBL, DB, UO 

Chelydridae (Snapping Turtles) 

*Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) – BBL, UO, DB 

*Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) – BBL, UO, DB 

Kinosternidae (Musk and Mud Turtles)

*Common Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) – BBL, UO 

*Razorback Musk Turtle (Sternotherus carinatus) – BBL 

*Mississippi Mud Turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis) – BBL 

Emydidae (Box and Water Turtles)

*Three-toed Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina triunguis) – BBL, DB 

*Mississippi Map Turtle (Graptemys pseudogeographica kohnii) – BBL, UO, DB 

Ouachita Map Turtle (Graptemys ouachitensis) 

*Red-eared Slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) – BBL, UO, DB 

*River Cooter (Pseudemys concinna) – BBL 

*Southern Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta dorsalis) – BBL, UO, DB 

*Western Chicken Turtle (Deirochelys reticularia miaria) – BBL, HB, UO 

Trionychidae (Softshell Turtles) 

*Smooth Softshell (Apalone mutica) – UO 

*Spiny Softshell (Apalone spinifera) – BBL 

Iguanidae (Anoles and Fence Lizards) 

*Green Anole (Anolis carolinensis) – BBL, DB, UO, M 

*Northern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus) – DB 

Teiidae (Racerunners) 

*Six-lined Racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus sexlineatus) – DB 

Scincidae (Skinks) 

*Little Brown Skink (Scincella lateralis) – BBL, DB 

*Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) – BBL, DB 

*Broad-headed Skink (Eumeces laticeps) – BBL, UO, DB 

Southern Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus pluvialis) 
Appendices 185

Anguidae (Glass and Alligator Lizards) 

Western Slender Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus attenuatus) 

Colubridae (Snakes)

*Mississippi Green Water Snake (Nerodia cyclopion) – BBL, DB 

*Diamondback Water Snake (Nerodia rhombifer rhombifer) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Yellowbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster) – BBL, DB 

*Broadbanded Water Snake (Nerodia fasciata confluens) – BBL 

Graham’s Crayfish Snake (Regina grahamii) – BBL 

*Gulf Glossy Crayfish Snake (Regina rigida sinicola) – BBL, DB 

*Midland Brown Snake (Storeria dekayi wrightorum) – BBL 

Florida Red-bellied Snake (Storeria occipitomaculata obscura) – BBL 

Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) – DB 

*Western Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis proximus proximus) – BBL, DB 

Western Smooth Earth Snake (Virginia valeriae elegans) 

Rough Earth Snake (Virginia striatula) 

*Eastern Hognose Snake (Heterodon platirhinos) – DB 

Mississippi Ringneck Snake (Diadophis punctatus stictogenys) – DB 

Western Worm Snake (Carphophis vermis) 

*Western Mud Snake (Farancia abacura reinwardtii) – BBL, DB 

*Racer (Coluber constrictor anthicus or C. c. latrunculus or intergrades) – BBL, DB 

Eastern Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum flagellum) – DB 

*Rough Green Snake (Opheodrys aestivus) – BBL, DB 

Corn Snake (Elaphe guttata guttata X emoryi) 

*Black Rat Snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Speckled King Snake (Lampropeltis getula holbrooki) – BBL, DB 

*Louisiana Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum amaura) – DB 

Prairie King Snake (Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster) 

Northern Scarlet Snake (Cemophora coccinea copei) 

Flathead Snake (Tantilla gracilis) 

Elapidae (Coral Snakes) 

*Texas Coral Snake (Micrurus fulvius tener) – DB 

Viperidae (Vipers and Pit Vipers) 

*Southern Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix contortrix) – BBL, UO, DB 

*Western Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) – BBL, UO, DB 

Western Pygmy Rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius streckeri) 

*Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridis) – UO, BBL 

Proteidae (Waterdogs and Mudpuppies) 

Red River Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus louisianensis) 

Amphiumidae (Amphiumas) 

*Three-toed Amphiuma (Amphiuma tridactlyum) – BBL, DB 

Sirenidae (Sirens) 

*Western Lesser Siren (Siren intermedia nettingi) – BBL 
186 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Ambystomatidae (Salamanders) 

*Mole Salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) – DB 

*Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum) – DB 

Smallmouth Salamander (Ambystoma texanum) 

*Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) – DB 

Salamandridae (Newts) 

*Central Newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) – BBL 

Plethodontidae (Lungless Salamanders)

Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus fuscus complex) 

Dwarf Salamander (Eurycea quadridigittata) 

Bufonidae (Toads) 

*Fowler’s Toad (Bufo fowleri) – BBL. DB 

Gulf Coast Toad (Bufo valliceps valliceps) 

Hylidae (Treefrogs and Their Allies)

*Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans crepitans) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Green Treefrog (Hyla cinerea) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor) – BBL, DB 

*Cope’s Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Squirrel Treefrog (Hyla squirella) – BBL 

*Bird-voiced Treefrog (Hyla avivoca) – BBL 

*Northern Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Upland Chorus Frog (Pseudacris feriarum) – BBL, DB, UO 

Microhylidae (Narrowmouth Toads) 

*Eastern Narrowmouth Toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis) – BBL, DB 

Ranidae (True Frogs) 

*Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Bronze Frog (Rana clamitans clamitans) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala) – BBL, DB, UO 

*Pickerel Frog (Rana palustris) – DB 
Appendices 187

North Louisiana Refuge Complex 

Fish List 

This list contains those species of fish thought to occur in waters administered by the North Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex according to various literature sources. Those species marked with an 

asterisk (*) have been documented on the specified refuge by sightings, fishing, and/or specimens. The 

abbreviations are as follows: BBL – Black Bayou Lake NWR, UO – Upper Ouachita NWR, DB – 

D’Arbonne NWR. Documentation of these species was compiled from surveys conducted by Service 

personnel, Dr. Aku at the University of Louisiana in Monroe, and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

personnel. Literature sources used include Dr. Douglas’ Fishes of Louisiana and Mike Wood’s M.S. 

Thesis entitled “A taxonomic survey of the fishes of Bayou D’Arbonne after impoundment.” 

Petromyzontidae—Lampreys 

Chestnut Lamprey (Ichthyomyzon castaneus) 

Southern Brook Lamprey (Ichthyomyzon gagei) 

Polydontidae—Paddlefishes 

*Paddlefish (Polydon spathula)—UO, DB 

Lepisosteidae—Gars 

*Spotted Gar (Lepisosteus oculatus)—BBL, UO 

*Longnose Gar (Lepisosteus osseus)—BBL 

*Shortnose Gar (Lepisosteus platostomus)—UO 

Alligator Gar (Lepisosteus spatula) 

Amiidae—Bowfin 

*Bowfin (Amia calva)-BBL/s, UO/s, DB 

Anguillladae—Eels 

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) 

Clupeidae—Shads 

Skipjack Herring (Alosa chrysochloris) 

*Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)—BBL, UO 

*Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma petenense)—BBL, UO 

Hiodontidae--Mooneyes 

*Mooneye (Hiodon alosoides)—BBL/s 

Goldeye (Hiodon alosoides) 

Esocidae—Pikes 

Grass Pickeral (Esox americanus) 

*Chain Pickeral (Esox niger)—BBL, UO 

Cyprinidae—Minnows 

Goldfish 

* Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio)—UO 

*Cypress Minnow (Hybognathus hayi)—UO 

*Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus nuchalis)—UO 
188 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Cyprinidae—Minnows 

Speckled Chub (Hybopsis aestivalis) 

Silver Chub (Hybopsis storeriana) 

*Golden Shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas)—BBL, UO 

*Pallid Shiner (Notropis amnis)—UO 

*Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides)—UO 

Bigeyed Shiner (Notropis boops) 

Ghost Shiner (Notropis buchanani) 

*Ironcolor Shiner (Notropis chalybaeus)—UO 

Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) 

*Ribbon Shiner (Notropis fumeus)—UO 

Bluehead shiner (Notropis hubbsi) 

*Taillight Shiner (Notropis maculatus)—UO 

Weed Shiner (Notropis texanus) 

Redfin Shiner (Lythrurus umbratilis) 

*Blacktail Shiner (Cyprinella venusta)—UO 

Mimic Shiner (Notropis volucellus) 

Steelcolor Shiner (Notropis whipplei) 

*Pugnose Minnow (Opsopoeodus emiliae)—UO 

Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus) 

Flathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 

Bullhead Minnow (Pimephales vigilax) 

Cheek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) 

Catostomidae—Suckers 

River Carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio) 

Creek Chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) 

*Lake Chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta)—UO 

*Smallmouth Buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus)—UO 

*Bigmouth Buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus)—UO 

Black Buffalo (Ictiobus niger) 

*Spotted Sucker (Minytrema melanops)—UO 

Blacktail Redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum) 

River Redhorse—UO 

Ictaluridae—Catfishes 

*Blue Catfish (Ictalurus furcatus)—UO 

*Black Bullhead (Ameiurus melas)—UO 

*Brown Bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus)—BBL, UO 

*Yellow Bullhead (Ameiurus natalis)—BBL, UO 

*Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)—UO 

*Tadpole Madtom (Noturus gyrinus)—UO 

Brindled Madtom (Noturus miurus) 

Freckled Madtom (Noturus nocturnus) 

Brown Madtom (Noturus phaeus) 

*Flathead Catfish (Pylodictis olivaris)—UO 

Aphredoderidae—Pirate Perch 

*Pirate Perch (Aphredoderus sayanus)—UO 
Appendices 189

Cyrinodontidae—Topminnows 

*Golden Topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus)—UO 

*Blackstripe Topminnow (Fundulus notatus)—UO 

Starhead Topminnow (Fundulus notti) listed as N. starhead F. dispar 

*Blackspotted Topminnow (Fundulus olivaceus)—UO 

Peociliidae—Livebearers 

*Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)—UO 

Atherinidae—Silversides 

*Brook Silverside (Labidesthes sicculus)—BBL, UO 

Percicthyidae—Temperate Basses 

*White Bass (Morone chrysops)—UO 

*Yellow Bass (Morone mississippiensis)—UO 

Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) 

Centrarchidae—Sunfishes 

*Flier (Centrarchus macropterus)—UO 

*Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)—BBL 

*Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus)—UO 

*Orangespotted Sunfish (Lepomis humilis)—UO 

*Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)—BBL, UO 

*Dollar Sunfish (Lepomis marginatus)—UO 

Longear Sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) 

*Redear Sunfish (Lepomis microlophus)—BBL, UO 

*Spotted Sunfish (Lepomis punctatus)—UO 

*Bantam Sunfish (Lepomis symmetricus)—BBL, UO 

Spotted Bass (Micropterus punctulatus) 

*Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)—BBL, UO 

*White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis)—UO, BBL 

*Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)—BBL, UO 

Elassomatidae—Pygmy Sunfishes 

*Banded Pygmy Sunfish (Elassoma zonatum)BBL/s 

Percidae—Perches 

Scaly Sand Darter (Ammocrypta vivax) 

Western Scaly Sand Darter (Ammocrypta clara) 

*Mud Darter (Etheostoma asprigene)—UO 

*Bluntnose Darter (Etheostoma chlorosomum)—UO 

Creole Darter (Etheostoma collettei) 

Swamp Darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) 

Slough Darter (Etheostoma gracile) 

Harlequin Darter (Etheostoma histrio) 

Goldstripe Darter (Etheostoma parvipinne) 

Cypress Darter (Etheostoma proeliare) 

Speckled Darter (Etheostoma stigmaeum) 

Redfin Darter (Etheostoma whipplei) 

*Logperch (Percina caprodes)—UO 

Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) 
190 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Cyprinidae—Minnows 

Blackside Darter (Percina maculata) 

Ouachita Darter (Percina ouachitae) 

Dusky Darter (Percina sciera) 

River Darter (Percina shumardi) 

Sauger (Stizostedion canadense) 

Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) 

Sciaenidae—Drums 

*Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus grunniens)—UO 
Appendices 191

North Louisiana Refuge Complex 

Woody Plant List 

This list contains those species of woody plants thought to occur on lands owned by the North 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex according to various literature sources, specimens, and 

sightings. 

Aceraceae 

oxelder (Acer negundo) 

Red Maple (Acer rubrum) 

Agavaceae 

Adam’s needle (Yucca filamentosa) 

Anacardiaceae 

Shiny Sumac (Rhus copallinum) 

Smooth Sumac (Rhus glabra) 

Chittimwood (Sideroxylon lanuginosum) 

Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) 

Annonaceae 

Dwarf Pawpaw (Asimina parviflora)

Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) 

Araliaceae 

Devil's Walkingstick (Aralia spinosa) 

Arecaceae 

Palmetto (Sabal minor) 

Aristolochiaceae 

Dutchman’s pipevine (Aristolochia tomentosa) 

Asteraceae 

Saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia)

New Jersey Tea (Ceanothus americanus) 

Aquifoliaceae 

Carolina Holly (Ilex ambigua) 

Deciduous Holly (Ilex deciduas) 

American Holly (Ilex opaca)

Youpan (Ilex vomitoria)

Betulaceae 

Smooth Alder (Alnus serrulata) 

River Birch (Betula nigra) 

Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) 

Blue beech (Carpinus caroliniana) 

Eastern Hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) 
192 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Bignoniaceae 

Cross Vine (Bignonia capreolata) 

Trumpet Creeper (Campsis radicans) 

Southern Catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides) 

Caprifoliaceae 

Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)

Coral Honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens) 

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) 

Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) 

Arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum)

Rusty Blackhaw (Viburnum rufidulum) 

Celastraceae 

Strawberrybush (Evonymus americana) 

Clusiaceae 

St. Andrew’s Cross (Hypericum hypericoides) 

Broombush (Hypericum prolificum) 

Cornaceae 

Rough-leaf Dogwood (Cornus drummondii)

Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) 

Swamp dogwood (Cornus foemina) 

Cuppressaceae 

Eastern Red-cedar (Juniperus virginiana) 

Ebonaceae 

Persimmon (Diospyrus virginiana) 

Ericaceae 

Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboretum) 

Elliot’s Blueberry (Vaccinium elliotti) 

Deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) 

Large Cluster Blueberry (Vaccinium virgatum) 

Euphorbiaceae 

Chinese Tallow tree (Triadica sebiferum) 

Fabaceae 

False Indigo (Amorpha spp.)

Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) 

Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis) 

Coralbean (Erythrina herbacea) 

Water Locust (Gleditsia aquatica) 

Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) 

Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) 

American Wisteria (Wisteria frutescens)
Appendices 193

Fagaceae 

Allegheny chinquapin (Castanea pumila) 

American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)

White Oak (Quercus alba) 

Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcate) 

Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 

Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 

Blackjack Oak (Quercus marilandica) 

Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 

Water Oak (Quercus nigra) 

Post Oak (Quercus stellata) 

Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagodafolia) 

Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 

Shumard Oak (Quercus shumardii) 

Delta Post Oak (Quercus similes) 

Nuttall Oak (Quercus texana) 

Black Oak (Quercus velutina) 

Grossulariaceae 

Sweetspire (Itea virginica) 

Hamamelidaceae 

Witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana) 

Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) 

Hippocastanaceae 

Red Buckeye (Aesculus pavia) 

Hoary Azalea (Rhododendron canescens) 

Juglandaceae 

Mockernut Hickory (Carya alba (C. tomentosa) 

Bitter Pecan (Carya aquatica) 

Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis) 

Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra) 

Sweet Pecan (Carya illinoiensis) 

Black Hickory (Carya texana) 

Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) 

Lauraceae 

Sassafras (Sassafras albidium) 

Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) 

Loganiaceae 

Carolina Jessemine (Gelsemium sempervirens) 

Magnoliaceae 

Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) 

Meliaceae 

Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 
194 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Moraceae 

Osage-orange (Maclura pumifera)

Red Mulberry (Morus rubra)

Myricaceae 

Waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifica) 

Nyssaceae 

Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) 

Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) 

Oleaceae 

Fringetree (Chioanthus virginicus)

Swamp Privet (Forestiera acuminate) 

White Ash (Fraxinus americana)

Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) 

Pinaceae 

Shortleaf Pine (Pinus echinata) 

Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) 

Platanaceae 

American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 

Polygonaceae 

Lady’s eardrop vine (Brunnichia ovata) 

Ranunculaceae 

Virgin’s bower (Clemantis virginiana) 

Rhamnaceae 

Rattan vine (Berchemia scandens) 

Carolina Buckthorn (Frangula caroliniana) (Rhamnus caroliniana) 

Rosaceae 

Serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea) 

Cockspur hawthorn (Cretageous crus-galli) 

Parsleyhaw (Cretageous marshallii) 

Mayhaw (Cretageous opaca) 

Green Hawthorn (Cretageous viridis) 

Chickasaw Plum (Prunus angustifolia) 

Mexican Plum (Prunus mexicana)

Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) 

Blackberry (Rubus argutus) 

Rubiaceae 

Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 
Appendices 195

Rutaceae 

Toothache Tree (Zanthoxylum clava-hercules) 

Trifoliate-orange (Poncirus trifoliate) 

Salicaceae 

Ea. Cottonwood (Populus deltoids) 

Black Willow (Salix nigra) 

Sapotaceae 

Gum Bumelia (Bumelia lanuginose) 

Schizaeaceae 

Japanese Climbingfern (Lygodium japonicum) 

Scrophulariaceae 

Princesstree (Paulownia tomentosa) 

Simarubaceae 

Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) 

Smilacaceae 

Fiddleleaf Greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) 

Sawbriar (Smilax glauca) 

Common Greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia)

Upland Bamboo Vine (Smilax smallii) 

Red Berry Greenbriar (Smilax walterii) 

Styracaceae 

Two-winged Silverbell (Halesia diptera)

Large Snowbell (Styrax americanum) 

Small Snowbell (Styrax grandifolius) 

Symplocaceae 

Sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria) 

Taxodiaceae 

Baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) 

Ulmaceae 

Southern Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) 

Winged Elm (Ulmus alata) 

American Elm (Ulmus americana) 

Cedar Elm (Ulmus crassifolia) 

Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra) 

Water Elm (Planer aquatica) 

Verbenaceae 

American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) 
196 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Vitaceae 

Peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea) 

Heart-leaf Peppervine (Ampeopsis cordata) 

Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) 

Summer Grape (Vitis aestivalis) 

Gray Grape (Vitis cinerea) 

Muscadine Grapes (Vitis rotundifolia) 

 
Appendices 197

Appendix J. List of Preparers 

CORE PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The Core Planning Team included refuge staff from North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge, and Central Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. This 

team was the primary decision-making team for the CCP. This group was tasked with defining and 

refining the vision; identifying, reviewing, and filtering the issues; defining goals; developing objectives and 

strategies; developing feasible alternatives; and outlining a realistic plan for the future. 

y George Chandler, Project Leader, North Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Kelby Ouchley, Deputy Project Leader, North Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Brett Hortman, Refuge Manager, Upper Ouachita NWR 

y Lindy Garner, Planning Biologist (former), North Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Tina Chouinard, Natural Resource Planner, Central Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Gypsy Hanks, Wildlife Biologist, North Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Steve Pagans, Forester, North Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Gay Brantley, Interpretive Ranger, North Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Chris Foster, Fire Management Officer, North Louisiana NWR Complex 

y Michael Renfrow, Private Lands Biologist, North Louisiana NWR Complex 

INTERDISCIPLINARY PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

Several individuals supported the planning process with participation on the Biological Review Team and 

Visitor Services’ Review Team, and additional special-topic discussions. Their information provided 

additional biological support for developing objectives in the CCP. Some members are internal to the 

Service and provided additional policy guidance and support for objective development as well. 

BIOLOGICAL REVIEW – SEPTEMBER 2004 

y Frank Bowers, Regional Migratory Bird Coordinator (Former), Migratory Birds, FWS 

y Pat Stinson, Wildlife Biologist, Migratory Birds, FWS 

y Chuck Hunter, Regional Biologist, Region 4, FWS 

y Ken Clough, Realty Specialist, Migratory Bird Realty Office, FWS 

y Jeff Denman, Forester, White River NWR, FWS 

y Jon Wessman, Farm Bill Coordinator, Conway ES, FWS 

y Cedric Doolittle, Fisheries Biologist, FWS 

y Randy Wilson, Science Coordinator, Lower Mississippi Joint Venture, FWS 

y Ryan Daniel, Fisheries Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) 

y Kenny Ribbeck, Forester Supervisor, LDWF 

y Jerald Owens, District Supervisor, LDWF 

y John Carr, Herpetology Professor, University of Louisiana at Monroe 

y Bill Vermillion, Biologist, Lafayette ES, FWS 

y Kirk Cormier, Regional Manager, Louisian Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

y John Posey, Contaminant Biologist, LDEQ 

y Jim Dickson, Merritt Professor, Louisiana Tech University 
198 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

y Gypsy Gooding, Wildlife Biologist, Upper Ouachita NWR 

Brett Hortman, Refuge Manager, Upper Ouachita NWR 

y Kelby Ouchley, Deputy Project Leader, Upper Ouachita NWR 

y Lindy Garner, Natural Resource Planner, Upper Ouachita NWR 

Chris Foster, Forester, Upper Ouachita NWR 

VISITOR SERVICES REVIEW – SEPTEMBER 2005 

y Garry Tucker, Visitor Services and Outreach, R4-RO 

y Ray Paterra, White River NWR 

y Lindy Garner, North Louisiana NWR Complex 

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS 

y Tom Foti, Ecologist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 

y Jody Pagans, Botanist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 

y Ralph Costa, Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Leader, FWS 

y Rick Kanaski, Regional Archaeologist, FWS 

y Bo Blackman, Information Technology, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

y Dale Yocum, GIS Specialist, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

y Robert Grecko, GIS Specialist, FWS 

y Evelyn Nelson, Writer/Editor, FWS 
Appendices 

Appendix K. RONS Budget Requests 

Project Number 

CCP 

Project 

Description 

Number 

Station Project Description 

Fish and Wildlife Populations

RONS 26 1 Handy Brake NWR Complete Geographical Information System RONS 97012 1 FSA tracts Complete Geographical Information System RONS 3001/3003 2-5 Upper Ouachita NWR Expand Endangered Species Monitoring RONS 3004 1-9 Upper Ouchita NWR Biologist RONS 3002/3005 2-5 Upper Ouachita NWR Expand Endangered Species Monitoring 

Habitats

RONS 99011 6-7 FSA tracts 

Expand wetland habitat restoration capabilities (refuge manager) 

RONS 99016 7 FSA Tracts Improve water level management 

(maintenance worker) 

RONS 7 7 Upper Ouachita NWR Improve water level management (bio 

technician) 

RONS 13 7 Upper Ouachita NWR Improve moist soil management RONS 30 8 Upper Ouachita NWR Control noxious weeds in moist soil units RONS 31 7 Upper Ouachita NWR Improve moist soil management capabilities RONS 99015 7 Upper Ouachita NWR Improve water level management (bio tech) 
200 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake Nati

Project Number 

CCP 

Project 

Description 

Number 

Station Project Description 

RONS 99010 6 Upper Ouachita NWR Improve Habitat Capabilities (refuge 

manager) 

RONS 6 6 Upper Ouachita NWR Restore RCW habitat (forestry tech) RONS 3006 6,8-9 Upper Ouchita NWR Forest Management RONS 99004 6,8-9 Upper Ouachita NWR Restore BHF 

Visitor Services

RONS 12 15 Handy Brake NWR Maintain and Improve Public Use Facilities 

(Maintenance worker) 

RONS 5 15 Upper Ouachita NWR Improve public use opportunities 

(maintenance worker) 

RONS 21 15 Upper Ouachita NWR Improve public use opportunities RONS 1004 15 Upper Ouachita NWR Improve visitor services RONS 25 15-17 Upper Ouachita NWR Improvement and maintenance of roads The Refuge System currently faces a backlog of project, operational, maintenance, and equipment needs. The provides a list of proposed projects for the refuge, over and above the current base operating budget of the refu

RONS and SAMMS needs would continue under this Plan. Once the CCP is approved, the RONS and SAMMS updated to reflect the needs and proposed actions outlined in the Plan. 
Appendices 201

Appendix L. Finding of No Significant Impact 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in Union, Morehouse, Richland, West Carroll, East Carroll, Grant, and Natchitoches Parishes, 

Louisiana, through the Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges including the 

Farm Services Agency tracts (FSA). An Environmental Assessment was prepared to inform the 

public of the possible environmental consequences of implementing the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges including the 

Farm Services Agency tracts. 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 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National 

Wildlife Refuges including the Farm Services Agency tracts. 

ALTERNATIVES 

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National 

Wildlife Refuges including the Farm Services Agency tracts, the Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated 

three alternatives: 

Alternative A: Current Management Direction (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B: Optimize Biological Program and Visitor Services (Proposed Action) 

Alternative C: Minimize Management and Public Use

Each alternative is summarized below. 

Under Alternative A, current management and public use would continue. Refuge management programs 

would continue to be developed and implemented with limited baseline biological information and limited 

monitoring, for mainly migratory waterfowl. Wildlife surveys would still be completed for presence and 

absence of species and to alert refuge staff to large-scale changes in population trends. Cooperation with 

partners for monitoring waterfowl, eagle, fish, and deer herd health surveys would continue. Upland forest 

management would continue focusing on red-cockaded woodpecker guidelines for minimizing hardwoods 

and maintaining a grassy understory in a portion of the mixed pine and upland forests. Bottomland 

hardwood forest management would continue at current rate of thinning to maintain a closed canopy forest 

and retain as much water tupelo and bald cypress as possible. The open fields would continue to be 

managed with manipulating water levels for moist-soil and cropland for waterfowl. Management for 

invasives would continue with opportunistic treatment and mapping. Partnerships would continue with 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries for several biological programs, hunting regulations, and law 

enforcement issues. The partners program would still develop projects with interested parties for carbon 

sequestration projects and invasives. Hunting and fishing would continue to be the priority focus of public 

use on Upper Ouachita NWR, with no expansion of current opportunities. Current restrictions or prohibitions 

would remain. Environmental education and wildlife observation and photography would be accommodated 

at present levels, with a few interpretive sites added. Staffing would remain at current level with no new 

positions added, but current vacancies would be advertised and filled. 
202 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Under Alternative B (Proposed Action), biological potential of historical habitats would be restored 

and enhanced with most management actions emphasizing natural ecological processes to foster 

habitat functions and wildlife populations. The biological program would be enhanced with 

inventories and monitoring so that adaptive management could be implemented for primarily 

migratory birds, but other species of wildlife as well. A close evaluation of migratory bird use and 

nesting success on the refuge would be evaluated with granting opportunities and partnerships. 

Partnerships would be developed to establish scientifically, valid protocols and to collaboratively work 

on research projects associated with information needed to manage the habitats and wildlife. Upland 

forest management would focus on restoring the biological integrity of a mixed hardwood/pine forests 

by promoting upland hardwood species and reducing pine basal area. The Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker Habitat Unit would be managed using a more historic fire regime while providing redcockaded woodpecker habitat as required in the recovery guidelines. A historic fire regime would 

ultimately benefit red-cockaded woodpeckers by creating a more herbaceous understory. 

Bottomland hardwood forest management would be developed on an inventory defining current 

condition that could be conducted in a logical and feasible manner. Bottoms would have 

management increased to open the canopy cover and increase understory vegetation. Water control 

structures and pumping capability would be improved to enhance moist-soil and cropland 

management for the benefit of wintering waterfowl. Invasives would be mapped and protocols for 

control established with the addition of a forester. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for 

several biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects. 

Public use would be similar to current management with a few improvements based on additional 

staff and funding. Deer hunting would be allowed while monitoring the availability, diversity, and deer 

use of understory woody and herbaceous plants. This would allow the refuge to better understand 

the pressure being exerted on the habitat, and therefore could make better habitat and harvest 

recommendations. On Upper Ouachita NWR, youth turkey hunting would be allowed. Fishing events 

and boat launch facilities would be improved. Environmental education, wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography would be accommodated at present levels with minimal disturbance to wildlife 

and habitat with an enhanced, interpretive nature trail, interpretive panels, and “check-out kits” for 

teachers developed. Law enforcement would be increased to gain better compliance with refuge 

regulations. Staffing would increase with four positions (e.g., biological technician, forestry 

technician, maintenance worker, and law enforcement) to increase biological inventory and 

monitoring, enhance forest management, increase invasives control, enhance public use program, 

and provide safe and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Alternative C is driven by minimizing funding and staff with less habitat and wildlife management 

and reduced public use program. The biological information would be enhanced and encouraged 

to develop management programs that could be implemented less frequently, yet still accomplish 

the objectives. This plan would be accomplished with less staffing and funding resources. 

Extensive baseline inventories and monitoring programs would be conducted with several 

partners to provide a solid foundation of current conditions of refuge habitat and wildlife, while 

monitoring for changes in trends. Additional research projects would be implemented in the 

alternative by gaining granting opportunities and partnerships with other agencies and 

universities. Upland forest management would focus on red-cockaded woodpecker guidelines for 

minimizing hardwoods and maintaining a grassy understory in the entire mixed pine and upland 

forests, resulting in an intensive prescribed burning program that would include monitoring forest 

conditions. Bottomland hardwood forest management would be developed using an intensive 

inventory to define current conditions and monitoring natural successional changes. 

Management in the bottoms would be limited to promote natural succession, as defined in a 

revised Habitat Management Plan. The open field would be allowed to go through natural 
Appendices 203

succession back to bottomland hardwood forest and the moist-soil units would not be maintained. 

Invasives management would become a priority to establish baseline information of location and 

density, and protocols for control. Partnerships would continue to be fostered for several 

biological programs, hunting regulations, law enforcement issues, and research projects. 

Public use is limited, with custodial-level maintenance. Public use would be monitored more 

closely for impacts to wildlife, and with negative impacts, new restrictions or closures would 

result. Deer hunting would be allowed when data demonstrated the population was exceeding 

the habitat carrying capacity indicating a reduction was necessary. Monitoring of the deer 

population and associated habitat conditions would be implemented. Several species would no 

longer be hunted (e.g., quail, woodcock, feral hog, and coyotes). Fishing would continue as 

under the current management alternative, but the open field would be closed to fishing during 

the wintering period and would be monitored for future impacts. Environmental education, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography would be accommodated at present levels but access 

limited to July – October and February – April to minimize disturbance to migratory birds. Staffing 

would increase with four positions (biologist, forestry technician, two maintenance workers) to 

handle the increase in biological inventory and monitoring, invasives control, and fire program 

associated with implementing the red-cockaded woodpecker guidelines. 

The Service adopted Alternative B as its “Preferred Alternative” to guide the direction of the 

refuges, including the wetlands management district, for the next 15 years. The overriding 

concern reflected in this plan is that wildlife conservation assumes first priority in refuge 

management; wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed if they are compatible with wildlife 

conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) will be emphasized and 

encouraged. 

SELECTION RATIONALE 

Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the purpose and goals of the refuges. Implementing the preferred alternative will result in 

management based on sound science for the conservation of a structurally diverse and species diverse 

bottomland hardwood habitat for migratory birds and resident wildlife. A focused effort will be placed on 

reducing invasive species, which are threatening the biological integrity of the refuges. Wintering 

waterfowl habitat will be maintained as important foraging habitat in the open fields and forested wetlands. 

Baseline inventories and monitoring of management actions will be completed to gain information on a 

variety of species, from reptiles and amphibians to butterflies and several species of concern. Several 

cooperative projects will be conducted with universities, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries, and other agencies and individuals to provide biological information to be used in management 

decisions. When compatible, the wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation will be provided and 

enhanced, while achieving the refuge purposes and remaining consistent with existing laws, Service 

policies, and sound biological principles. 

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

maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, 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. 
204 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

Environmental Effects

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, 

wildlife population management, resource protection, and visitor service activities on Upper Ouachita 

and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges, including the Farm Service Agency tracts, would result in 

increased migratory bird utilization and production; increased protection for threatened and 

endangered species; enhanced wildlife populations; bottomland hardwood forest and upland forest 

management; and enhanced opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental 

education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

1. Duck and shorebird use of the refuge would improve significantly as water management efforts 

would provide dependable flooded habitats to match the migration chronologies of these species. 

Forest breeding birds would benefit from refuge land acquisition, reforestation, and forest 

management actions. Woodcock population numbers and habitat use would be monitored and 

managed and woodcock use of the refuge would be expected to increase. 

2. Migratory bird production would 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, would benefit nesting and feeding habitat 

for neotropical migratory birds. 

3. Refuge land acquisition, reforestation, and protection would benefit the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species. Refuge reforestation and forest management actions would provide improved 

habitat in support of black bear recovery efforts. Farm Service Agency tracts that have been 

prioritized for black bears would also receive special consideration and management. Red-cockaded 

woodpecker recovery efforts would be supported under Alternative B by cooperative habitat 

restoration, historic fire management of uplands, and recovery efforts by the Service. 

4. The refuges’ habitat mix of cropland, mosit-soil, early successional reforestation areas, and 

bottomland hardwood forests, as well as habitat management, would improve food and cover for 

resident wildlife species and enhance wetland communities within the refuges. 

5. Habitat restoration and management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility 

developments, would result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. While public 

use would 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. 

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 would not result in development of buildings and/or structures within floodplain areas, nor 

would 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 
Appendices 205

landowners. Implementing the management action would 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 would take place through carefully 

controlled time and space zoning, establishment of protection zones around key sites, closures of allterrain vehicle trails, and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such 

as nesting bird habitat, etc. All hunting activities (e.g., season lengths, bag limits, number of hunters) 

would 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 would be utilized, and public 

use programs would 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 

would 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 would not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property would be allowed through issuance of special use permits. 

Future land acquisition would 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 would 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 offrefuge 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 would 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 

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 
206 Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges 

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: 

Congressional representatives 

Governor of Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer 

Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana 

Quapaw Tribe 

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

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 CFR 1508.27), as 

addressed in the Environmental Assessment (Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan) for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges and the Louisiana Wetlands 

Management District: 

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 139-152) 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, pages 139-152) 

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 139-152) 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 139-152) 
Appendices 207

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 139-152) 

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 139-152) 

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 148-152) 

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 139-152) 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 139-152) 

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 139-152) 

SUPPORTING REFERENCES 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges, Union, Morehouse, 

Richland, West Carroll, East Carroll, Grant, and Natchitoches 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 

Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges and was made available in March and 

April 2008. Additional copies are available by writing to: North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, 11372 Highway 143, Farmerville, Louisiana 71241.