70 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

SECTION B

 Environmental Assessment

I. Background

Introduction

This Environmental Assessment for Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife 

Refuge has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act. It discusses the purpose and need for the comprehensive 

conservation plan for the refuge which is located in Concordia Parish, 

Louisiana, (Figure 16), and provides an analysis of the impacts that could 

be expected from each of the management proposals outlined in the plan. 

This analysis assists the Fish and Wildlife Service in determining if it will 

need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the refuge. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is the Nation’s primary conservation agency 

concerned with the protection and long-term management of wildlife 

resources. The Service administers the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

a system of more than 530 national wildlife refuges covering over 93 

million acres, much of which is primarily managed for the enhancement 

of migratory bird populations and federally listed threatened/endangered 

fish, wildlife, and plants. Of particular interest in the Lower Mississippi 

Valley is the plight of migratory bird resources, and the declining 

population of the Louisiana black bear due to the significant loss of 

bottomland hardwood forests. As a result, the Service is directing 

management emphasis on the recovery of these species at Bayou Cocodrie 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Purpose And Need For Action

The purpose of the comprehensive conservation plan and environmental 

assessment is to establish and implement management direction for Bayou 

Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years.

The environmental assessment is needed to determine and evaluate a 

range of reasonable management alternatives for the refuge. Each 

alternative was generated with the potential to be fully developed into 

a final comprehensive conservation plan and to describe the predicted 

biological, physical, social, and economical impacts of implementing each 

alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be 

fully developed for this refuge. 

The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions 

with the public, agency managers, conservation partners, and others. In 

particular, the Service’s planning team identified a range of alternatives, 

evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected 

Alternative B as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the 

Service and the planning team, Alternative B is the best approach to guide 

the refuge’s future direction.

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent 

and integrated management of the refuge, thus necessitating the need 

for this plan. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a comprehensive 

conservation plan in place within 15 years. 

Decisions To Be Made

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service will select an alternative to implement the final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge. A 

Finding of No Significant Impact is a statement explaining why the 

selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. This determination is based on an evaluation of the 

Barred owl

USFWS 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

276

276

536

276

278

278

278

282

282

2:1 2:1

76

82

82

82

8:

:1

:1 :1

22 5:

5:

5:

5:X

62

62

72

72

95

95

:9

93

2:1

6:

91

:7

21

21

23

23

31

31

5:

5:

66

66

66

6:

6:

31

H v m g

p g

N f y j d p

Qfbsm Sjwfs

Qfbm S/

SFE!SJWFS

Ofdift Sjwfs

Tpcjof Sjwfs

NJTTJTTJQQJ SJWFS

NJTTJTTJQQJ

SFE SJWFS

Pvbdijub!S/

Tbcjof S/

Cpfvg S/

Cjh!Cmbdl!S/

TU/!NBS UJO

TU/!NBS UJO

BDBEJB

BMMFO

BTDFOTJPO

BTTVNQUJPO

BWPZFMMFT

CFBVSFHBSE

CJFOWJMMF

CPTTJFS

DBEEP

DBMDBTJFV

DBMEXFMM

DBNFSPO

DBUBIPVMB

DMBJCPSOF

DPODPSEJB

EF!TPUP

FBTU

CBUPO

SPVHF

FBTU

DBSSPMM

FBTU

GFMJDJBOB

FWBOHFMJOF

GSBOLMJO

HSBOU

JC FSJB

JCFSWJMMF

KBDLTPO

KFGGFSTPO

KFGGFSTPO

EBWJT

MBGBZFUUF

MBGPVSDIF

MB!TBMMF

MJODPMO

MJWJOHTUPO

NBEJTPO

NPSFIPVTF

OBUDIJUPDIFT

PSMFBOT

PVBDIJUB

QMBRVFNJOFT

QPJOUF

DPVQFF

SBQJEFT

SFE

SJWFS

SJDIMBOE

TBCJOF

TU/!CFSOBSE TU/!DIBSMFT

TU/

IFMFOB

TU/! KBN FT

TU/! KPIO

UIF!CBQUJTU

TU/!MBOESZ

TU/!NBSZ

TU/! UBNNBOZ

UBOHJQBIPB

UFOTBT

UFSSFCPOOF

VOJPO

W FSNJMJPO

WFSOPO

XBTIJOHUPO

XFCTUFS

XFTU

CBUPO

SPVHF

XFTU

DBSSPMM

XFTU

GFMJDJBOB

XJOO

BEBNT

BNJ UF

BUUBMB

DIPDUBX

DMBJCPSOF

DPQJBI

DPWJOHUPO

GPSSFTU

GSBOLMJO

IBODPDL

IBSSJTPO

IJOET

IPMNFT IVNQISFZT

JTTBRVFOB

KBTQFS

KFGGFSTPO EBWJT

KPOFT

MBNBS

MBXSFODF

MFBLF

MJODPMO

NBEJTPO

NBSJPO

OFTIPCB

OFXUPO

QFBSM!SJWFS

QFSSZ QJLF

SBOLJO

TDPUU

TIBSLFZ

TJNQTPO

TNJ UI

TUPOF

TVOGMPXFS

XBMUIBMM

XBSSFO

XBTIJOHUPO

XJMLJOTPO

XJOTUPO

ZB[PP

KFGGFSTPO

BTIMFZ DIJDPU DPMVNCJB

MBGBZFUUF

NJMMFS

VOJPO

KBTQFS

KFGGFSTPO

NBSJPO

OFXUPO

PSBOHF

TBCJOF

TBO

BVHVTUJOF

TIFMCZ

UZMFS

Nfubjsjf

Bmfyboesjb

Cpttjfs!Djuz

Lfoofs

Mbgbzfuuf

Mblf!Dibsmft

Npospf

Cfbvnpou

Qpsu!Bsuivs

1

1

211!Njmft

211!LN

Cbzpv!Dpdpesjf

Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhf

Ofx!Psmfbot

Tisfwfqpsu

Cbupo!Spvhf

Kbdltpo

B s l b o t b t

N j t t j t t j q q j

U f y b t

M P V J T J B O B

Gjhvsf!27/!!Sfgvhf!Mpdbujpo

!!Cbzpv!Dpdpesjf!Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhf
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter I

72 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Service and refuge system mission, the purposes for which the refuge was 

established, and other legal mandates. Assuming no significant impact is 

found, implementation of the plan will begin and will be monitored annually 

and revised when necessary. 

Planning Study Area

Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge is located in east-central 

Louisiana, 13 miles west of the Mississippi River and Natchez, Mississippi. 

The city of Ferriday is the nearest community located about 4 miles 

northeast of the refuge.

The planning study area for this environmental assessment includes lands 

outside the existing refuge acquisition boundary that are being studied for 

inclusion in the refuge system and/or partnership planning efforts. It also 

includes portions of the Lower Mississippi Valley watershed that affect 

the planning study area. The Fish and Wildlife Service presently owns 

and manages 13,168 acres of the 22,269 acres identified as being within the 

refuge acquisition boundary. The Service will continue to seek to acquire, 

from willing sellers, the remaining acres. This environmental assessment 

will identify management on refuge lands, as well as those lands proposed 

to be acquired by the Service (Figure 17).

 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

And Issue Identification

A mailing list of organizations and individuals was compiled to ensure 

that the refuge was contacting a wide array of interested people. 

Announcements giving the location, date, and time for the first scoping 

meeting appeared in local newspapers and were furnished to local 

residents. Input obtained from the scoping meeting and discussions held 

with state and local officials, civic groups, and conservation organizations 

were used to develop the draft plan. 

Beginning with the development of the draft plan, the planning team 

identified a list of issues and concerns likely to be associated with the 

management of the refuge. These issues and concerns were expanded to 

include ideas generated by citizens from the local community. The refuge 

staff contacted local civic groups, as well as federal, state, and local agency 

representatives to gather additional issues and concerns and to respond to 

preliminary alternatives developed by the planning team in 1999. 

Together with refuge goals, key issues, and a range of options, a basis 

was formed for the development and comparison of the management 

alternatives described in this document. The comments received from 

the internal agency review, open house, and other responses from the 

public will be forthcoming following review of this draft and will assist 

the Service in refining the range of alternatives described in this section. 

Several significant key issues or problems formed the basis for the development 

and comparison of the different alternatives described in Chapter III. 

Managing Fish, Wildlife, and Habitats 

Restoring biological diversity, connectivity, and the ecological functionality 

of bottomland hardwood forests to support forest breeding bird 

populations and the sub-population Louisiana black bear is an important 

issue expressed by the Service and The Nature Conservancy.

Discussing Issues

USFWS 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

!!Cbzpv!Dpdpesjf!Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhf

Gjhvsf!28/!!Qmboojoh!Tuvez!Bsfb

Opsui

N J T T J T T J Q Q J

S J W

F

S

D BUB I P V M B

QB S J T I

U F O T B T ! Q B S J T I

B W P Z F M M F T ! QB S J T I

M P V J T J B O B

C m b d l

S j w f s

Kpoftwjmmf

Mb l f Tu / K p io

Gfssjebz

U f o t b t

S j w f s

Wjebmjb

Obdif{

S f e

S j w f s

C b z p v D p d p e s j f

C b z p v D p d p e s j f

Cbzpv Dsptt Dpdpesjf

Sjehfdsftu

Tu/!Dbuifsjof!Dsffl

Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhf

Cbzpv!Dpdpesjf

Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf

Sfgvhf

Sfe!Sjwfs!Xjmemjgf

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

N J T T J T T J Q Q J

D P O D P S E J B

QB S J T I

Mfhfoe

Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhft

Tubuf!XNB

Qsjwbuf!Mboet!Fospmmfe!jo

Dpotfswbujpo!Qsphsbnt

Qsjwbuf!Mboet!Jefoujgjfe

bt!Qpufoujbm!Cfbs!Ibcjubu

Cjse!Dpotfswbujpo![poft

Qbsjti!Cpvoebsz 1 9!Njmft

1 9!Ljmpnfufst

5

5

M P V J T J B O B
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter I

74 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Controlling Problem Species 

The need to focus management attention on the control of invasive or 

problem species, including deer, beaver, feral hog, brown-headed cowbird, 

cormorant, and raccoon and their effects on other wildlife, crops, and 

catfish production was expressed by Service staff and nearby landowners. 

Managing Facilities and Staff 

The need to move toward designation and management of the old growth forest 

tract in the Brooks Brake Unit as a Research Natural Area was a concern. The 

need to improve management of forest habitats to conserve forest interior birds 

within all management units was considered a major concern.

Increasing Hunting, Wildlife Viewing, and Environmental 

Education Opportunities 

There was an overall concern that the Service did not have sufficient 

staff to effectively manage the refuge for both wildlife and visitors. The 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries would like to see the 

refuge increase white-tailed deer and small game hunting opportunities. 

It was noted by the Service that current access for hunting may be a 

limiting factor. There are limited opportunities to access the refuge for 

fishing opportunities, to view and photograph wildlife, and to learn about 

refuge resources.
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter II

Environmental Assessment 75

II. Alternatives

Formulation Of Alternatives

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management 

objectives and strategies designed to achieve the refuge purpose, vision, 

and the goals identified in the comprehensive conservation plan; the 

priorities and goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystem Team; 

the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and the mission of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the 

significant issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the 

public during public scoping.

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different 

approaches to provide permanent protection and restoration of fish, 

wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources. A major consideration in the 

formulation of the alternatives is the ability to obtain sufficient proprietary 

interest in lands to facilitate a physical and biological connection of 

bottomland hardwood forests, and to restore the function and habitat 

diversity once found in this area. In particular, bottomland hardwood 

forests serve as migration corridors and stop-over habitat for many 

migratory birds. Private landowners and wildlife managers recognize the 

multiple ecological, social, and economic values of functional bottomland 

hardwood ecosystems. 

Refuge managers assessed biological conditions and analyzed external 

relationships affecting the refuge (Figure 19). This information 

contributed to the development of goals and objectives and, in turn, 

alternative formulation. As a result, each alternative presents different 

sets of objectives and strategies for reaching long-term goals. Each 

alternative was evaluated based on how much progress it will make and 

how it will address core habitat issues, problems, and wildlife threats. 

Problems and threats provide important perspective and guidance in 

developing alternatives. Trends in habitat and wildlife uses were 

evaluated, as was the capability of refuge habitat to support these uses. 

The vegetative change of forest structure from past logging activities and 

various water development projects contributed to the loss of wildlife 

habitat. Overall, the greatest risk to fish, wildlife, plants, and wildlife 

habitats in the Lower Mississippi Valley is characterized by the lack of 

forest structural composition and connectivity. As a result, the Service has 

identified reforestation and restoration of forest structure as important to 

address these risks. 

Description Of Alternatives

Serving as a basis for each alternative, goals and sets of objectives and 

strategies were developed by managers which lead to the fulfillment of 

the refuge purpose and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. 

Objectives are desired conditions or outcomes that are grouped into 

sets and for this planning effort, consolidated into three alternatives. 

These alternatives, overall, represent a range of different management 

treatments or approaches for managing the refuge over a 15-year 

time frame. The three preliminary alternatives are summarized below. 

Following the summary descriptions is a table which depicts the goals, 

objectives, and strategies formulated for each alternative. 
76 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Gjhvsf!29/!!Fyjtujoh!Dpoejujpot

Gfssjebz

Opsui

23:

676

23:

676

677

95

676

26

242

95

76

76

95

26

N J T T J T

T J Q

Q

J

S

J W F S 1

1

2 3!Njmft

2 3 4!Ljmpnfufst

C b z p v

D p d p e s j f

I p p w f s T m p v h i

W b e b m j b

D b o b m

N b e l j o C b z p v

G m p b u

C b z p v

Dsptt Cbzpv

C b z p v

C b z p v D p d p e s j f

C s v t i z C b z p v

S f e C b z p v

C b z p v D p d p e s j f

N b s f o h p C f o e

D b o f z C b z p v

C b z p v D s p t t D p d p e s j f

Dp d p e s j f M b l f

X i j u f t C b z p v

Qppmf Se/

Sfgvhf

Ifbervbsufst

C p h h z C b z p v S e /

C p h h z C b z p v S e /

Q b t t n b o S p b e

Q p p m f S p b e

!!Cbzpv!Dpdpesjf!Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhf

Mfhfoe

Dvssfou!Sfgvhf!Pxofstijq

)24-279!bdsft*

Pme!Hspxui!Gpsftu

Qspufdujpo!Bsfb

Nje.Tvddfttjpo!Gpsftu

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Fbsmz.Tvddfttjpo!Gpsftu

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

)Dvssfou!Sfgpsftufe!Bsfb*

Xbufsgpxm!boe!Tipsfcjse

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Fyjtujoh!Gpsftu

Qsjwbuf!Mboet!Fospmmfe!jo

Dpotfswbujpo!Qsphsbnt

Dspqmboe
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter II

Environmental Assessment 77

Alternative A - No Action

This alternative represents no change from current management of the 

refuge. Management emphasis would continue to focus around acquiring 

private properties within the refuge acquisition boundary to sustain 

resident populations, including white-tailed deer, and to serve as a safe 

harbor for black bear movement. Of the total refuge acquisition boundary 

of 22,269 acres, the Service has acquired 13,168 acres thus far. Therefore, 

lands available for acquisition within the current refuge acquisition 

boundary total 9,101 acres. As refuge in-holdings are acquired, all tracts 

will be reforested to improve conditions for migratory birds, especially 

migratory songbirds (passerines). On average, the existing staff can 

plant approximately 500 acres annually. Alternative A represents the 

anticipated conditions of the refuge from 2000 until 2015, if current policies, 

programs, and activities continue. The reader will be able to compare 

Alternatives B and C to conditions as they are likely to be in 15 years 

under Alternative A. Alternative A is a prediction of future conditions and 

land protection efforts by the Service, which serves as a benchmark against 

which the impact of other alternatives can be measured (Figure 20). 

This alternative reflects actions that include supporting recovery efforts 

for the Louisiana black bear; reforesting lands; restoring wetlands; 

improving facilities; and acquiring lands from willing sellers within the 

acquisition boundary. Continued emphasis will be placed on managing 

quality hunting of white-tailed deer, waterfowl, and small game. Wildlifedependent recreation and environmental education activities would 

continue to be encouraged where compatible and as biological staff can 

perform services as a collateral duty. The number of visitor facilities would 

remain the same. An inventory of plants and animals and monitoring of 

forest breeding birds would be limited due to lack of staff. The staff would 

encourage landowners within the acquisition boundary to participate in 

land conservation programs (Figure 6). 

This alternative reflects a continuation of existing programs and activities 

through the year 2015 (Figure 19). High priority actions include 

protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species and 

wetland management directed towards waterfowl and associated species. 

Moderate emphasis would continue on managing other game species, with 

priority placed on recreational hunting. Biological diversity and ecosystem 

management would be a goal, but not a high priority. Prominent habitat 

practices would include water level management and moderate levels 

of forest management. Recreation and educational activities would be 

encouraged, where compatible, and the number of visitor services might 

increase slightly. Limited attention would be given to air and water quality. 

Alternative B - Proposed Action

The primary focus under this alternative would be to add more staff, 

equipment, and facilities in order to manage and reforest greater areas in 

support of biological communities that utilize complex forest structures. 

The Service would manage water impoundments to increase waterfowl 

and shorebird migration habitat. The Service would pursue acquisition 

interests of up to 9,101 acres of in-holdings within the current refuge 

acquisition boundary, and up to 20,000 acres within the proposed expansion 

area. Recreation and education programs would be developed to 

support fishing, an enhanced hunting program, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation activities. 

Land protection priorities would focus on acquiring sufficient proprietary 

interests in properties to sustain endemic populations, including such 

species as the Cerulean warbler, swallow-tailed kite and Louisiana black 

bear (Figures 1 and 4).
78 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Gjhvsf!2:/!!Bmufsobujwf!B!)Op!Bdujpo*!Mpoh.Ufsn!Qspkfdujpo

Gfssjebz

Opsui

23:

676

23:

676

677

95

676

26

242

95

76

76

95

26

N J T T J T

T J Q

Q J S J W F S

1

1

2 3!Njmft

2 3 4!Ljmpnfufst

C b z p v

D p d p e s j f

I p p w f s T m p v h i

W b e b m j b

D b o b m

N b e l j o Cb z p v

Gm pbu

Cbz pv

Dsptt Cbzpv

C b z p v

C b z p v Dp d p e s j f

C s v t i z C b z p v

S f e C b z p v

C b z p v Dp d p e s j f

N b s f o h p C f o e

D b o f z C b z p v

C b z p v D s p t t D p d p e s j f

Dp d p e s j f Mb l f

X i j u f t C b z p v

Qppmf Se/

Sfgvhf

Ifbervbsufst

C p h h z C b z p v S e /

C p h h z C b z p v S e /

Q

Qp p m f Sp b e

!!Cbzpv!Dpdpesjf!Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhf

Mfhfoe

Sfgvhf!Fyqbotjpo!Cpvoebsz

)33-37:!bdsft*

Sftfbsdi!Obuvsbm!Bsfb

Nje.Tvddfttjpo!Gpsftu

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Xbufsgpxm!boe!Tipsfcjse

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Fyjtujoh!Gpsftu

Qsjwbuf!Mboet!Fospmmfe!jo

Dpotfswbujpo!Qsphsbnt
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter II

Environmental Assessment 79

Enhancement and restoration of wildlife habitats and management of 

priority public uses to complement population and habitat management 

objectives are characteristic of Alternative B. This alternative represents 

the proposed management that would make significant progress toward 

achieving long-range goals and objectives and respond to the identified 

issues given current authorities, policies, and other management directives. 

This alternative focuses on ecosystem management, a resolution of 

problems that affect the refuge and the Lower Mississippi Valley and 

providing wildlife-dependent recreation. Significantly greater attention 

would be devoted to the management of landbirds, including migratory 

songbirds; protection and recovery of the sub-population of Louisiana 

black bear; management and protection of unique old growth forests; 

and research and monitoring of biological communities. Six wildlifedependent recreation and education uses would be developed to provide 

some opportunities to residents in Concordia Parish. 

This alternative assesses the effects of management on private lands 

that may be enrolled in the Partners-for-Wildlife program. The Service 

would assume complete administrative and management responsibility 

for private properties enrolled in its conservation programs outright 

and shared responsibility for the properties that are maintained by the 

landowner. Once the refuge boundary is expanded, specific management 

actions would be identified in step-down management plans that identify 

measures and strategies to be taken for wildlife protection, including the 

allowance of certain visitor activities (Figures 10 and 11). 

Major management activities that the Service would undertake include:

n Establishing and managing a wildlife and habitat inventory and 

monitoring program;

n Protecting, enhancing, and managing bottomland hardwood stand 

structure and conditions;

n Establishing and managing a Research Natural Area;

n Restoring forest habitats for specific migratory birds that utilize old 

growth forests;

n Establishing partnerships to conserve and restore wildlife travel 

corridors for Louisiana black bear movement between Red River Wildlife 

Management Area, Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge, and Tensas 

River National Wildlife Refuge;

n Developing a comprehensive wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education program;

n Hiring an interdisciplinary staff that would be fully responsive to 

supporting fish and wildlife needs;

n Improving facilities and infrastructure for maintenance, access, and 

visitor use;

n Purchasing strategic lands to reestablish and improve conditions for 

species that utilize old growth forests in the Lower Mississippi River; 

nParticipating with partners, including U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

to pursue private landowner enrollment in conservation programs.

Alternative C: 

The primary focus under this alternative would be to add more staff, 

equipment, and facilities in order to manage and reforest greater areas in 

support of biological communities that utilize complex forest structures. 

The Service would pursue acquisition interests of up to 9,101 acres of 

in-holdings within the current refuge acquisition boundary and up to 28,000 

acres within the proposed expansion area for an overall acquisition of up 

to 37,101 acres. Recreation and education programs would be developed 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter II

80 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

to support fishing, an enhanced hunting program, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation activities. 

Land protection priorities would focus on acquiring sufficient proprietary 

interests in properties to sustain endemic populations, including priority 

bird species and the Louisiana black bear (Figures 4 and 5).

This alternative would emphasize passively managing all refuge forests 

and managing priority public uses to complement population and habitat 

objectives. Alternative C represents proposed management that would make 

progress towards achieving long-range goals and objectives with emphasis 

on restoring old growth forest. Passive management would perpetuate midsuccession forest structure for the 15-year planning period and beyond. 

This alternative would reflect management actions that emphasize 

restoring and managing a contiguous bottomland hardwood forest that will 

eventually become true old growth forest. Up to 50,269 acres of refuge 

lands would be fully protected, maintained, and restored to sustain fish 

and wildlife diversity. Alternative C may limit active forest management 

practices that affect threatened and endangered species or human-caused 

influences that interfere with natural processes. In keeping with Service 

policy, wildfires would continue to be suppressed. This alternative 

represents management actions that would make significant progress 

towards achieving long-range goals and objectives, with emphasis on 

reestablishing specific species that utilize old growth forests. 

Alternative C would build on proposals identified in Alternative B, but 

with an emphasis on management of biological diversity and ecosystem 

management to support forest dwelling communities. Management would 

focus on restoration and maintenance of natural biological communities 

and ecological processes of forests to benefit high priority species as 

well as developing an extensive land protection and reforestation effort. 

Significantly greater attention would be devoted to protection and recovery 

of the Louisiana black bear, land protection, and reforestation. As lands are 

acquired, the hunting program would be expanded. At times, some hunting 

and fishing for recreational and commercial purposes may be prohibited 

or restricted to the vicinity of administrative and interpretive sites to 

protect Louisiana black bear den areas and ground nesting migratory birds. 

Extensive monitoring and research would occur (Figures 20 and 21).

Comparison Of Alternatives

Each alternative is different in the type of land management and protection 

it would offer to achieve long-term wildlife and habitat goals and objectives. 

However, each is similar in its approach to managing the refuge.

Each alternative would acquire, protect, and enhance a diverse 

assemblage of bottomland hardwood habitat; and would be consistent 

with the following: Partners-in-Flight Plan; North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan; Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture; Louisiana 

Black Bear Protection Plan; Endangered Species Act; National Wildlife 

Refuge Improvement Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act; and mission 

and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Each alternative 

would be a cost-effective mechanism combining fee title ownership and 

partnering with private landowners, and providing management flexibility 

on properties purchased in fee title.

Swallow-tailed kite

L. Page Brown - Cornell Lab of Ornithology
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter II

Environmental Assessment 81

Figure 22 identifies and compares management actions as a means of 

responding to the problems and issues raised by Service managers and 

the public. These management actions were summarized into the three 

alternatives described above to accomplish the refuge system mission, 

the authorized purpose of the refuge, and to address significant threats, 

problems, and issues raised by public agencies and private citizens. 

For further information regarding the rationale used to formulate 

objectives, please refer to Section A, Chapter IV. 

Management Common To All Alternatives

Compatible Secondary Uses

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can 

enjoy refuge system lands and waters. Before activities or uses are 

allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be found to be 

compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the refuge system or the 

purposes of the refuge.” “Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be 

authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with 

public safety.” 

Habitat

USFWS
82 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Gjhvsf!31/!!Bmufsobujwf!D!Tipsu.Ufsn!Qspkfdujpo

Gfssjebz

Opsui

23:

676

23:

676

677

95

676

26

242

95

76

76

95

26

N J T T J T

T J Q

Q

J

S

J W F S 1

1

2 3!Njmft

2 3 4!Ljmpnfufst

C b z p v

D p d p e s j f

I p p w f s T m p v h i

W j e b m j b

D b o b m

N b e l j o C b z p v

G m p b u

C b z p v

Dsptt Cbzpv

C b z p v

C b z p v D p d p e s j f

C s v t i z C b z p v

S f e C b z p v

C b z p v D p d p e s j f

N b s f o h p C f o e

D b o f z C b z p v

C b z p v D s p t t D p d p e s j f

Dp d p e s j f M b l f

X i j u f t C b z p v

Qppmf Se/

!!Cbzpv!Dpdpesjf!Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhf

Mfhfoe

Sfgvhf!Fyqbotjpo

Cpvoebsz)61-37:!bdsft*

Pme!Hspxui!Gpsftu

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Pme!Hspxui!Gpsftu

Qspufdujpo!Bsfb

Nje.Tvddfttjpo!Gpsftu

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Fbsmz.Tvddfttjpo!Gpsftu

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Fyjtujoh!Gpsftu
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Gjhvsf!32/!!Bmufsobujwf!D!Mpoh!Ufsn!Qspkfdujpo

Gfssjebz

Opsui

23:

676

23:

676

677

95

676

26

242

95

76

76

95

26

N J T T J T

T J Q

Q

J

S

J W F S 1

1

2 3!Njmft

2 3 4!Ljmpnfufst

C b z p v

D p d p e s j f

I p p w f s T m p v h i

W j e b m j b

D b o b m

N b e l j o C b z p v

G m p b u

C b z p v

Dsptt Cbzpv

C b z p v

C b z p v D p d p e s j f

C s v t i z C b z p v

S f e C b z p v

C b z p v D p d p e s j f

N b s f o h p C f o e

D b o f z C b z p v

C b z p v D s p t t D p d p e s j f

Dp d p e s j f M b l f

X i j u f t C b z p v

Qppmf Se/

!!Cbzpv!Dpdpesjf!Obujpobm!Xjmemjgf!Sfgvhf

Mfhfoe

Sfgvhf!Fyqbotjpo

Cpvoebsz)61-37:!bdsft*

Pme!Hspxui!Gpsftu

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Pme!Hspxui!Gpsftu

Qspufdujpo!Bsfb

Nje.Tvddfttjpo!Gpsftu

Nbobhfnfou!Bsfb

Fyjtujoh!Gpsftu
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter II

84 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

An interim compatibility determination is one which assesses the 

compatibility of an activity during the period of time the Service first 

acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term management 

plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed 

an interim compatibility determination for the six priority general public 

uses of the system as listed in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

Other Management 

All management activities that could affect natural resources, including 

subsurface mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soil, water, 

and air, and historical and archaeological resources will be managed to 

comply with all laws and regulations. The Service has a legal responsibility 

to consider the effects its actions have on cultural resources. Under all 

alternatives, the Service will manage these resources in accordance with 

public law and agency policy. Individual projects will require additional 

consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

State of Louisiana Historic Preservation Office. Additional consultation, 

surveys, and clearance will be required where project development is 

conducted on the refuge or when activities will affect properties eligible for 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

Special Management Areas

A 750-acre old growth tract in the Brooks Brake Management Unit would 

be managed as a Research Natural Area. Guidance for management would 

derive from the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Figure 22). 

Land Acquisition

The acquisition of larger contiguous forest tracts adjacent to Service-owned 

lands within existing refuge acquisition boundaries would be given the 

highest priority. All land transactions are subject to contaminant surveys.

Funding for land acquisition would come from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Conservation 

easements and leases can sometimes be used to obtain minimum interests 

necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if the refuge staff can adequately 

manage uses of the areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can 

negotiate management agreements with local and state agencies, and 

accept conservation easements. Some parcels within the proposed refuge 

boundary expansion may be owned by other public or private conservation 

organizations. The Service would work with interested agencies to identify 

additional areas needing protection and provide technical assistance if needed. 

The acquisition of private lands is entirely contingent on landowners and their 

willingness to participate (Appendix D). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Annual payments to Concordia Parish would continue at similar rates 

under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the 

payments would increase accordingly.

Education and Visitor Services Management

As the visitor service program is developed, the staff would continue to 

assess the program and its potential impact on refuge resources. Changes 

in the program would be implemented as needed to address any impacts 

identified and to respond to anticipated wildlife population increases. To 

assure a quality wildlife-dependent recreation experience while achieving 

the “wildlife first” mandate, the number of users and conflicts among users 

may be limited by the following: (1) permitting uses; (2) designating roads, 

trails, and sites for specific kinds of wildlife-dependent recreation use; and 

(3) permitting uses at certain times of the year. 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter II

Environmental Assessment 85

If the Service develops a canoe launch or fishing pier on Bayou Cocodrie, 

it would seek the necessary permits as they apply to the State Scenic 

River designation. There are a number of situations where future 

refuge closures or restrictions on access may be warranted. Examples of 

these situations include, but are not limited to, the following: protection 

of endangered species; protection of nesting birds and bear den sites; 

management of a Research Natural Area; restriction of recreation 

activities to achieve specific wildlife population objectives; minimization of 

conflicts with other refuge management programs; and limitations from 

inadequate funds and/or staff to administer a use.

Refuge Administration

The maintenance and operation of refuge administrative facilities would 

continue, regardless of the alternative selected. Periodic updating of 

facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and to support staff 

and management needs. Funding needs have been identified for several 

projects including providing additional facilities and equipment to support 

the existing staff.
86 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective A.1: Songbirds

Fish and Wildlife Population

Goal A: Contribute to the wildlife population goals and objectives established in nationally and 

internationally significant management plans, including Partners-in-Flight Plan; Louisiana 

Black Bear Protection Plan; North American Waterfowl Management Plan; American 

Woodcock Management Plan, and other plans for the Lower Mississippi Valley.

Alternative A

(No Action)

Monitor current populations of 

migratory forest breeding birds within 

the existing old growth forest stand to 

determine nesting success.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Support healthy populations of 

forest-dwelling migratory songbirds, 

specifically 500 pairs of Swainson’s 

warblers, and reestablish populations of 

Cerulean warblers and swallow-tailed 

kites.

Alternative C

Support healthy populations of 

forest-dwelling migratory birds, by 

maintaining a large block of old growth 

forest.

Survey the refuge and determine 

baseline populations for forest-breeding 

non-game birds.

Establish point count stations to 

determine population size changes over 

time.

Conduct nest productivity studies, 

including predator disturbance during 

the nesting season, both in existing 

forests and in areas undergoing 

reforestation to determine actual 

population health for as many species 

as possible. If population objectives 

are not met, then reevaluate 

management actions and other possible 

causes and assess findings to determine 

appropriate corrective measures.

Manage beaver, muskrat, raccoons, and 

feral hogs to protect and target forest 

breeding bird species, including the use 

of such techniques as trapping.

Same as Alternative B.

 Strategies:

Install prothonotary warbler and blue 

bird boxes in the Brooks Brake Unit.

Develop an inventory and monitoring 

management plan.

Initiate annual bird survey.

Develop clear biological goals and 

objectives for management of resident 

wildlife and assure management reflects 

the contribution of these goals to native 

biological diversity.

Figure 22. Comparison of Alternatives
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

 Objective A.2: Black Bear

Strategies:

Coordinate with neighbors, the Black 

Bear Conservation Committee, 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries, and other 

agencies/organizations in Concordia 

Parish to facilitate bear conservation 

and research program.

Conduct outreach efforts involving 

neighbors, local residents, schools, and 

businesses on bear biology and 

conservation and the effect bears will 

have on activities of neighboring 

landowners.

Encourage refuge visitors, as well as 

surrounding landowners, to report bear 

sightings or suspected bear activity.

Assist others with all phases of black 

bear management and nuisance control 

in Concordia Parish.

Provide habitat that supports the 

recovery of the Louisiana black bear.

Participate in black bear studies and Same as Alternative B.

planning initiatives.

Respond to local communities when 

bears are sited. 

Coordinate with the private 

conservation organizations to identify 

and acquire properties for black bear 

protection.

 Strategies:

Alternative A

(No Action)

Assist in the recovery of the Louisiana 

sub-population of federally listed, 

threatened Louisiana black bear.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Assist in maintaining viable populations 

of those species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants endemic to bottomland 

hardwoods, including the federally 

listed threatened Louisiana black bear.

Alternative C

Manage to support on refuge lands, a 

viable population of the federally listed 

threatened Louisiana black bear.
88 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective A.3: Waterfowl and Shorebirds

 Objective A.4: Resident and Other Species

Alternative A

(No Action)

Provide habitat to support about 10,000 

migrating waterfowl, 12,000 migrating 

shorebirds and other important 

associated migratory bird populations, 

including woodcock.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Same as Alternative A.

Alternative C

Manage forest habitats to support 

forest wetland bird species in 

conjunction with forest management 

directed towards migratory songbirds.

Strategies:

Conduct shorebird and other waterbird 

counts using International Shorebird 

Survey protocol on 10-day intervals 

during migration and wintering periods.

Assess food quality and quantity on the 

refuge during peak periods of shorebird 

movement.

Assess food quality and quantity on and 

off the refuge during peak periods of 

waterfowl use.

Develop impoundment units with a 

moist soil component to support 

waterfowl and shorebird use.

Assess wintering and foraging habitat 

on and off refuge during peak periods of 

woodcock use.

Install wood duck boxes as needed and 

monitor annually.

Assess wintering and foraging habitat 

on and off refuge during peak periods of 

woodcock use.

Build and design impoundments to 

utilize the natural flow in the Brooks 

Brake Unit.

Locate water impoundments away from 

neighboring catfish ponds.

Install wood duck boxes where 

appropriate, and monitor annually.

Manage to maintain healthy, viable 

resident populations, including whitetailed deer and turkey.

Manage to maintain healthy, viable 

resident populations, including whitetailed deer (average harvest range 

250-300 deer), turkey, and other 

resident species.

Same as Alternative B

Strategies:

Monitor the population status of key Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

indicator species, white-tailed deer and 

turkey.

Manage white-tailed deer population at 

current levels (average harvest range is 

between 250-300/10,000 acres).

Integrate population objectives for 

resident species into habitat 

management plans.

Establish hunting regulations for 

resident wildlife to maintain population 

health and stability and habitat 

relationships. Coordinate with 

neighbors.

Identify thresholds of disturbance and 

develop associated standards and 

mitigation techniques that can be 

applied, where appropriate, to reduce 

conflicts and achieve balance between 

the public and wildlife.

Designate raccoons as an incidental 

take species.

Prepare and conduct biological/

monitoring plan which includes 

establishing baseline information on 

reptile/amphibian occurrence and 

habitat utilization.

Develop population estimates for 

American alligator and monitor their 

effects on other trust species. 

 Strategies:

 Strategies:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Objective A. 5 Integrated Pest Management 

Alternative A

(No Action)

Use integrated pest management 

techniques to reduce water hyacinth 

and hydrilla infestations to levels that 

do not negatively affect trust resources.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Reduce and/or eliminate invasive, 

exotic, and pest plant and animal 

populations to minimize negative effects 

to native flora and fauna. 

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Strategies:

Inventory and map the distribution 

of invasive and exotic plant species, 

and develop an Integrated Pest 

Management Plan consistent with a 

Nuisance Animal Control Plan.

Use integrated pest management 

techniques to reduce water hyacinth 

and hydrilla infestations to levels that 

do not negatively affect trust resources 

or impede recreational use of water 

bodies.

Inventory feral hog numbers and 

monitor effects on natural habitats and 

crop depredations.

Provide hunter take provisions for feral 

hogs by including them as a incidental 

take species during any established 

refuge hunt.

Use refuge staff and contracted animal 

damage control experts to maintain 

feral hogs at acceptable population 

levels in closed areas and other parts of 

the refuge as needed.

 Coordinate with the Aquatic Plants 

Division of the Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries to implement 

control programs.

Coordinate results of information 

concerning success/failure of control 

treatments within and outside the 

agency, especially in regard to hydrilla. 

Develop an Integrated Pest Same as Alternative B.

Management Plan that will address the 

control of species that pose a threat to 

rare species.

 Strategies:
90 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat Management

Goal B: Conserve, manage, and restore the values and functions of the refuge’s bottomland 

hardwoods to sustain the biological diversity characteristic of the ridge and swale 

topography of the Lower Mississippi Valley.

 Objective B.1: Contiguous Forest

Alternative A

(No Action)

Reforest and connect 1,500 acres of 

existing forest tracts to improve 

diversity for migratory birds and 

resident wildlife.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Assemble, at a minimum, a 20,000- 

acre-block of mixed-age bottomland 

hardwood forests for a diversity of 

species, with special emphasis on 

migratory breeding songbirds and the 

threatened Louisiana black bear.

Alternative C

Assemble, at a minimum, a 50,000-acre 

block of bottomland hardwood forests 

for a diversity of species, with special 

emphasis on interior forest-breeding 

songbirds and the threatened Louisiana 

black bear. 

Strategies:

Develop and implement a forest habitat 

management plan designed to maintain 

a diversity of forest cover types, tree 

species compositions, and tree age-class 

distributions.

Restore hydrology where needed and 

where practical.

Develop clear biological goals and 

objectives for management of resident 

wildlife and assure that management 

reflects the contribution of these goals 

to native biological diversity.

Inventory and establish deer, raccoon, 

beaver and feral hog population 

parameters and baseline indices.

Conduct monitoring surveys.

Develop and maintain geographic 

information system databases to 

monitor forest stand management 

results. 

Limit access through measures such as 

gating roads and minimizing all-terrain 

vehicle trails.

Incorporate timber management 

practices that enhance bear habitat 

such as protection of potential den 

trees, allowing light to penetrate the 

forest floor for soft mast production, 

and managing for hard mast trees. 

Incorporate the enhancement/widening 

of forest corridors that link forested 

tracks through incentive programs, 

easements and/or purchase.

Minimize logging and construction 

activities during periods of bear 

denning.

From willing sellers, acquire inholdings Same as Alternative B.

identified for black bear protection.

Coordinate with adjacent land-owners 

to develop conservation practices, 

including reforestation on adjacent 

properties.

 Strategies:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

 Objective B.2: Old Growth Forest Protection

Alternative A

(No Action)

Protect existing 750 acres of old growth 

forest from development and minimize 

human disturbances. 

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Protect the existing 750 acres of old 

growth forest to support interior forest 

breeding songbirds and manage as a 

Research Natural Area.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Strategies:

Establish baseline monitoring.

Propose designation of the 750 acres as 

a Research Natural Area.

Develop a monitoring plan that will 

standardize data collection, analysis, 

and reporting.

Monitor migratory breeding bird 

habitat conditions and manage for the 

priority species group identified for this 

refuge.

Contact landowners about providing 

limited and/or seasonal public access to 

the site and, if possible, provide a gated 

and improved road over private lands to 

old growth site.

Coordinate research efforts with 

scientists and research community.

Prohibit logging in 750 acres designated 

as a Research Natural Area and 

manage partnerships to monitor 

migratory songbird populations. 

Restore hydrology where needed and 

where practical.

Reforest all open areas within the Same as Alternative B.

refuge acquisition boundary.

Seek partnerships with conservation 

organizations, private industry, etc., to 

reforest refuge properties.

 Strategies:
92 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective B.3: Old Growth Forest Management

Alternative A

(No Action)

Monitor existing forests in the Brooks 

Brake Unit. 

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Manage and enhance approximately 

3,200 acres of the Brooks Brake Unit 

(outside the protected old growth area) 

to move toward old growth conditions 

for interior breeding forest songbird 

populations.

Alternative C

Assemble,at a minimum, 55,000 acres of 

contiguous forest.

Strategies:

Evaluate forest survey requirements 

needed to plan forest management on 

this unit.

Develop a habitat restoration plan that 

will specify desirable stand conditions.

Utilize habitat management techniques 

that will mimic old growth structure 

and function while allowing the forest to 

become self-sustaining old growth.

Inventory and establish deer, raccoon, 

beaver, and feral hog population 

parameters and baseline indices.

Conduct monitoring surveys.

Develop and maintain a geographic 

information system.

Limit access such as gating roads and 

minimizing vehicle/trail access.

Incorporate timber management 

practices that enhance bear habitat 

such as protection of potential den 

trees, allowing light to penetrate forest 

floor for soft mast production, and 

managing for hard mast trees.

Develop a habitat restoration plan that Same as Alternative B.

will specify desirable stand conditions.

Develop an integrated pest 

management plan.

Manage old growth timber as a 

Research Natural Area.

Manage to minimize exotic species.

 Strategies:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

 Objective B.4: Other Forest Management

Alternative A

(No Action)

Protect existing forests in all 

management units to support resident 

species. 

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Manage, at a minimum, 10,000 acres 

of existing mid-succession forests in 

the Wallace Lake and Cross Bayou 

Management units to support 

migratory songbirds and resident 

species.

Alternative C

Manage, at a minimum, 30,000 acres 

of existing mid-succession forests to 

support migratory birds, black bear and 

resident species.

Strategies:

Develop and implement forest and 

water management programs to 

provide needed nesting, foraging and 

resting habitat.

Implement forest management 

approaches that result in the 

development and maintenance of 

understory, midstory, and overstory 

stand components (i.e., complex forest 

stand structure) to meet the needs of 

forest-dwelling, non-game birds.

Where appropriate, manage habitat 

functions and values to improve 

conditions altered by beaver activities 

within the Brooks Brake and Wallace 

Lake Units.

Develop a habitat management plan 

that will specify desirable future stand 

conditions.

Evaluate forest survey requirements 

necessary to plan forest management on 

the refuge.

Develop an Integrated Pest 

Management Plan.

Remove artificial dikes, drainage 

features, fences, and roads where 

appropriate.

Partner with surrounding land 

managers and landowners to create 

wildlife corridors and buffer zones for 

refuge core old growth areas and 

promote restoration of openings and 

roads.

Develop and implement forest and 

water management programs to 

provide needed nesting, foraging, and 

resting habitat.

Develop a habitat management plan 

that will specify desirable future stand 

conditions. Evaluate forest survey 

requirements necessary to plan forest 

management on the refuge.

Develop an Integrated Pest 

Management Plan.

Develop a forest habitat management 

plan that can be implemented by 

existing staff and through partnerships 

with others.

Where appropriate, manage habitat 

functions and values to improve 

conditions altered by beaver activities 

within the Brooks Brake and Wallace 

Lake Units.

Develop an Integrated Pest 

Management Plan.

 Strategies:
94 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective B.5: Reforestation

Alternative A

(No Action)

Reforest all refuge lands (currently 

3500 acres) as they are acquired.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Reforest, at a minimum, 7,000 acres 

of open areas and manage to achieve 

structurally complex mid-succession 

forest conditions and decrease effects of 

fragmentation.

Alternative C

Reforest, at a minimum, 10,000 acres 

of open areas and manage to achieve 

structurally complex mid-succession 

forest conditions and decrease 

fragmentation.

Strategies:

Reforest all refuge lands except those 

areas identified for waterfowl 

management, using appropriate species 

to the site.

Develop and utilize forest management 

techniques to establish disturbance 

and maintain vertical and horizontal 

complexity.

Seek funding opportunities and 

partners to assist in reforesting refuge 

lands.

Seek funding opportunities and 

partners to assist in reforesting refuge 

lands.

Utilize partnerships with private 

industry and others, public agencies, 

and conservation organizations to 

reforest open areas.

Reforest all refuge lands except those 

areas identified for waterfowl 

management, using appropriate species 

to the site.

Utilize forest management techniques 

to establish disturbance to maintain 

vertical and horizontal complexity.

Seek funding opportunities and 

partners to assist in reforesting refuge 

lands.

Utilize partnerships with private 

industry and others, public agencies, 

and conservation organizations to 

reforest open areas.

 Objective B.6: Wetlands 

Restore and enhance 440 acres of 

seasonal wetlands to provide highquality migration and foraging habitat 

for waterfowl.

Restore and enhance 440 acres of 

seasonal wetlands to provide highquality migration and foraging habitat 

for waterfowl and shorebirds.

No management of wetlands for 

waterfowl and shorebirds.

Strategies:

Manage existing impoundments for 

waterfowl and shorebirds.

Monitor waterfowl utilization patterns 

and waterfowl populations.

Develop and implement a Moist Soils 

Management Plan.

Monitor waterfowl and other bird 

utilization patterns and populations in 

seasonal wetlands in the Brooks Brake 

Unit.

Manage impoundments for waterfowl.

Develop a Moist Soils Management 

Plan.

 Strategies:

 Strategies:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Education and Visitor Services 

Goal C: Develop a balanced wildlife-dependent recreation program that will benefit refuge 

visitors and be consistent with the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

 Objective C.1: Hunting

Alternative A

(No Action)

Manage existing harvest level of 

population 250-300 white-tailed deer 

per 10,000 acres on refuge lands to 

support wildlife and habitat objectives.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Where appropriate, increase whitetailed deer hunting opportunities and 

manage deer populations at or slightly 

below carrying capacity and provide 

small game and waterfowl hunting 

opportunities.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Monitor deer populations via browse 

surveys, harvest data, and periodic 

health checks.

 Manage hunt program to achieve 

population management and wildlife 

habitat objectives.

Increase hunting area to include 

reforested habitat for small game and 

big game hunting as lands are acquired 

and managers are available to manage 

additional hunters.

Expand hunting program to include a 

quota modern gun hunt for white-tailed 

deer, and to provide waterfowl hunting 

opportunities.

Improve refuge access by extending 

trails and providing additional entry/

check points.

Revise 1994 Refuge Hunt Plan in 

coordination with Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to 

assist in achieving balanced and healthy 

game populations.

Evaluate potential impacts of hunting 

on other refuge activities and programs.

As forest lands are acquired, develop 

parking and trail access for archery, 

gun, and muzzle loader hunting.

Evaluate potential impacts of hunting Same as Alternative B.

on other refuge activities and programs.

Manage hunt program to achieve 

population management and wildlife 

habitat objectives.

Develop limited season modern gun 

hunt as staff can be available to 

administer hunt.

 Strategies:
96 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective C.2: Fishing

Alternative A

(No Action)

Evaluate and develop sport fishing 

access on Bayou Cocodrie (mainstream).

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Improve areas for limited parking, 

canoe/small skiff launching, and for 

bank fishing at two existing locations 

near Bayou Cocodrie. 

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Inventory and evaluate fishery resource 

potential using Service’s Fisheries 

Division.

In consultation with county, state, 

and federal partners, develop and 

implement a Sport Fishing 

Management Plan to provide a quality 

fishing experience.

Evaluate the costs, logistics, and safety 

considerations in creating suitable sites 

for fishing.

Coordinate development of parking 

facility, structures, and activities with 

the Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries and other appropriate 

entities (permits regarding Scenic 

River status).

Develop bank fishing access on existing 

properties including Bayou Cocodrie, 

Cross Bayou, and Wallace Lake.

Develop a sport fisheries management Same as Alternative B.

plan.

On a permit basis allow fishing access on 

Bayou Cocodrie.

Seek the necessary permits with the 

State of Louisiana to provide canoe 

access at the Cross Bayou in the Brooks 

Brake Unit.

 Strategies:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

 Objective C.3: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Alternative A

(No Action)

Provide safe access in the Brooks 

Brake Unit for wildlife observation and 

photography.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Improve access and opportunities for 

wildlife observation and photography 

region-wide with emphasis on 

improvements in the Brooks Brake 

Unit.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Strategies:

Develop an Education and Visitor 

Service Management Plan.

Evaluate the potential for and the 

impacts of siting a trail head for canoe 

access from the Books Brake Unit.

Develop canoe access areas, trail head 

parking, and foot trail to old growth 

area along with interpretive panels for 

wildlife viewing and photography.

Develop a boardwalk trail loop and 

parking area near the refuge 

headquarters. Design interpretive 

panels and accessible trails.

Maintain a seasonal trail to Wallace 

Lake.

Where appropriate, develop wildlife 

viewing sites.

Encourage the development of 

volunteer services to support 

recreational programs.

Monitor and survey recreational 

programs.

Develop a wildlife tour with 

interpretive panels designed to 

highlight refuge management and 

unique features of the refuge.

Clear and maintain seasonal trails for Same as Alternative B.

bird watching.

Conduct annual tours to the old growth 

area.

 Strategies:
98 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective C.4: Environmental Education

Alternative A

(No Action)

Provide limited environmental 

education to local civic groups, schools, 

and area organizations.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Initiate and develop a community based 

environmental education program with 

area schools and local conservation 

groups to increase awareness of the 

refuge and management activities. 

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Strategies:

Develop a volunteer based Instructor 

Corps Program to provide manpower 

for environmental education and 

interpretive programs, and facilities 

development.

Develop teaching materials and host 

annual teacher workshops to promote 

environmental education based 

curriculum in local schools.

Encourage the development of a refuge 

friends group as well as a volunteer 

program to support environmental 

education programs.

Monitor and survey recreation and 

education uses throughout the refuge as 

an ongoing program.

Develop a visitor education center on 

Poole Road and develop an outdoor 

classroom.

Increase involvement and update local 

public (e.g., Police Jury, School Board, 

Chamber of Commerce) on refuge 

activities.

Increase local awareness of the refuge. Same as Alternative B.

As requested, on an informal basis, 

participate in discussions and inform 

local constituencies about refuge 

activities and Service initiatives.

Periodically update local public (e.g. 

Police Jury, School Board, Chamber of 

Commerce) on refuge activities.

 Strategies:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

 Objective C.5: Interpretation

Alternative A

(No Action)

On a periodic basis, manage interpretation 

that will respond to current management 

activities on the refuge.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Develop an interpretive program that 

will increase awareness of the refuge 

and its unique features and values, 

as well as wildlife associated with 

bottomland hardwood forest 

communities. 

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

Coordinate with staff of St. Catherine 

Creek National Wildlife Refuge to 

develop an interpretive display at the 

Louisiana Hydroelectric Visitor Center.

Develop a series of interpretive 

programs and events that incorporate 

management and research activities. 

Programs and events will be staged so 

as not to disrupt nesting birds or when 

research activities could be disrupted 

by human disturbance.

Increase local awareness of the Lower 

Mississippi River Ecosystem and the 

importance of bottomland hardwood 

forests.

Offer educational classes on wildlife 

observation opportunities and unique 

features of the refuge to local 

community and events coordinators.

Promote ecotourism opportunities in 

conjunction with local partnerships, 

businesses and civic groups. Such 

opportunities may include birding tours, 

festivals, and other special events.

In conjunction with St. Catherine Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge, promote 

opportunities and partnerships with 

local civic groups such as the Natchez 

Visitor Center.

Develop an exhibit for the Natchez 

Visitor Center featuring both Bayou 

Cocodrie and St. Catherine Creek 

National Wildlife Refuges.

Distribute outreach materials to Same as Alternative B.

appropriate landowners and local 

schools.

 Objective C.6: Recreation Facilities

Manage facilities that promote hunting 

and wildlife observation and 

photography.

Develop and improve existing visitor 

facilities throughout the refuge that 

promote year-round wildlife-dependent 

recreation, education, interpretation, 

and viewing opportunities.

Same as Alternative B.

Prepare an Education and Visitor 

Services’ Management Plan.

Develop and implement a Sign Plan.

Develop gated parking facilities with 

interpretation/information signs.

Maintain the existing Wallace Lake trail 

for foot access.

Develop a headquarters/visitor center 

facility.

Develop a refuge friends/support group.

Institute a refuge volunteer program.

Maintain existing trails, trailheads, Same as Alternative B.

and hunter check stations for hunting 

season.

 Strategies:

 Strategies:
100 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective D.1: Staff and New Facilities

Alternative A

(No Action)

Manage current staff and maintain 

facilities to support refuge 

management programs.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Add six additional staff positions, 

develop new facilities and improve 

existing facilities to support a 

comprehensive refuge management 

program.

Alternative C

Add nine additional staff, improve 

existing facilities, and develop new 

facilities to support a comprehensive 

conservation refuge management 

program.

Strategies:

Expand refuge office and maintenance 

facilities near the present facilities, off 

of Poole Road, to support biological 

program objectives and comply with 

safety standards.

Increase professional staff positions 

to include a law enforcement officer, 

forester, forestry technician, biologist, 

biology technician, and outdoor 

recreation planner.

Increase refuge funding to support 

addition of operations and maintenance 

activities, including the purchase of 

computer equipment and software, 

inventory and monitoring equipment 

(Geographic Information System), and 

heavy equipment.

Promote partnerships and seek 

challenge cost share grants for 

construction of recreation facilities.

Develop secured storage for petroleum 

and chemical products.

Develop a radio communication system 

responsive to law enforcement and 

other field operations.

Same as Alternative B, except increase 

professional staff positions to include 

all positions indicated in Alternative B 

plus an additional forester or forest 

ecologist, and two biologists. 

Maintain refuge office and maintenance 

facilities to comply with safety 

standards.

 Strategies:

 Objective D.2: Operations and Maintenance

Manage current staff and maintain 

facilities to support refuge management 

programs.

Improve current operations and 

maintenance capability to support longterm wildlife, habitat, and visitor 

services objectives.

Same as Alternative B.

Strategies:

Seek support of parish and state 

transportation officials to fund, develop, 

and maintain Poole Road, the entrance 

to refuge visitor service facilities, and 

other roads used for refuge access.

Add additional equipment to support 

habitat and wildlife management 

activities.

Promote partnerships and seek 

challenge cost share grants and other 

funding sources for maintenance of 

recreation facilities.

Maintain refuge office and maintenance Same as Alternative B.

facilities to comply with safety 

standards.

 Strategies:

Refuge Administration

Goal D: Develop and implement a comprehensive refuge facility program responsive to 

management and fish and wildlife needs.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Archaeological and Historic Resources

Goal E: Protect refuge cultural resources in accordance with federal and state historic preservation legislation and regulations.

 Objective E.1: Survey/Investigation

Alternative A

(No Action)

Protect archeological sites and historic 

structures from refuge management 

activities.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

By 2005, conduct a refuge-wide 

archaeological survey.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B

Strategies:

Secure funding to conduct a 

comprehensive archaeological survey 

and geomorphic investigation.

Develop databases for the refuge’s 

archaeological and historic sites.

Procure pertinent scientific reports and 

articles and produce an annotated 

bibliography to document the region’s 

history, geomorphology, and the utility 

of the scientific methodology.

Same as Alternative B.

 Objective E.2: Archaeological and Historic Resources Protection

Protect the refuge’s cultural resources 

and to diminish site destruction due to 

looting and vandalism.

Develop and implement law 

enforcement procedures to protect the 

refuge’s cultural resources and to 

diminish site destruction due to looting 

and vandalism.

Same as Alternative B.

Strategies:

Pertinent staff and law enforcement Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

officers will attend Archaeological 

Resource Protection Act training 

course and Section 106/Cultural 

Resources for Managers course.

 Objective E.3: Cooperative Management

Coordinate with others to manage 

cultural resources.

Assist in organizing partnerships to 

manage cultural resources with 

pertinent federal and state agencies 

consistent with the Louisiana 

Comprehensive Archaeological Plan 

(1983).

Same as Alternative B.

Strategies:

Coordinate agreements with 

appropriate agencies to enhance law 

enforcement and facilitate 

investigations in keeping with the 

Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act.

If appropriate, coordinate with 

Louisiana State University or other 

entities for the permanent curation of 

archaeological collections and associated 

documentation.

Same as Alternative B.

 Strategies:

 Strategies:

 Strategies:

Coordinate with the La. State Historic 

Preservation Office on the development 

of new facilities.
102 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective E.4: Visitor Awareness

Alternative A

(No Action)

Assist in distributing educational 

materials that provide an 

understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s ecology and the human 

influence on ecosystems of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Develop and implement an educational 

program that will provide an 

understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s ecology and the human 

influence on ecosystems of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley.

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B

Strategies:

Work with local Native American 

and African American communities to 

develop an education program.

None Same as Alternative B.

 Strategies:

Achieve protection and conservation 

through a combination of lands within 

the current refuge acquisition boundary 

and lands within the proposed expansion 

areas.

Ensure that lands are purchased or 

cooperatively protected based on the 

greatest habitat value to species life cycle 

needs and ecosystem representation. 

Establish acquisition priorities based 

upon habitat values and/or possible 

threats to existing resources.

Initiate and continue contact with all 

landowners within the expanded 

acquisition boundary to determine 

landowner interest and participation.

Develop a coordinated approach with 

partners to appropriately locate areas of 

greatest conservation concern.

Seek partnerships with conservation 

organizations and others to complete 

acquisitions. 

Establish acquisition priorities based Same as Alternative B.

upon habitat values, overall and/or 

possible threats to existing resources, 

and contributions to ecosystem 

function.

Seek partnerships with conservation 

organizations and others to complete 

acquisitions.

Provide technical assistance and when 

appropriate utilize private lands 

conservation programs to develop 

partnerships with landowners to 

achieve wildlife and habitat objectives.

Same as Alternative B.

Land Protection and Conservation

Goal F: Protect and improve conditions for biological and other natural resource values through the use 

of current land protection programs.

Objective F.1: Land Acquisition

Alternative A

(No Action)

Seek to acquire about 10,000 acres of 

inholdings as defined within current 

land protection plans.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Seek to acquire approximately 20,000 

acres of private land tracts to achieve 

the forest habitat requirements in 

support of species including Swainson’s 

warbler, swallow-tailed kite, Louisiana 

black bear, and white-tailed deer. 

Alternative C

Seek to acquire approximately 28,000 

acres of private land tracts to achieve 

the forest habitat requirements in 

support of species including Cerulean 

warbler, swallow-tailed kite, Swainson’s 

warbler, Louisiana black bear and 

resident species.

 Strategies:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

Alternative A

(No Action)

Coordinate land conservation activities 

with private, local, state and federal 

organizations that participate in 

conservation incentive programs for 

local landowners. 

Develop and employ outreach 

strategies to encourage private 

landowners to participate in 

conservation programs.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Coordinate land conservation activities 

with private, local, state, and federal 

organizations that participate in 

conservation incentive programs for local 

landowners.

Conduct an annual seminar for local 

land managers (private and public) on 

habitat management, current research 

and monitoring, and watershed issues.

Develop and distribute a newsletter 

describing conservation programs that 

are available to private landowners.

Communicate with adjacent and key 

landowners and other community 

organizations and participate in local 

Chamber of Commerce to promote 

outreach and cooperation in the 

management of the refuge.

Develop and employ outreach strategies 

to enroll private landowners in the most 

appropriate conservation program.

Where appropriate, protect the 

remaining private lands within the 

refuge acquisition boundary.

Initiate and continue contact with all 

landowners within the existing 

acquisition boundary to determine the 

status of willing sellers.

Establish acquisition priorities based 

upon habitat values and/or possible 

threats to existing resources.

Seek partnerships with conservation 

organizations and others to complete 

acquisitions. 

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.

 Strategies:

 Objective F.2: Private Lands Technical Assistance

Alternative A

(No Action)

Provide biological assistance and 

encourage partnerships with 

landowners to achieve wildlife 

population and habitat objectives.

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Provide technical assistance and, when 

appropriate, utilize private lands 

conservation programs to develop 

partnerships with landowners to 

achieve wildlife and habitat objectives. 

Alternative C

Same as Alternative B.
104 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

 Objective F.3: Private Lands Enrollment in Conservation Programs

Alternative B

(Proposed Action)

Seek to enroll 12,000 acres of high 

priority habitat in private lands 

conservation programs to establish 

migration corridors between the Three 

Rivers/Red River Wildlife Management 

Areas and the proposed Glade Woods 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Alternative C

Seek to enroll 6,000 acres of high 

priority habitat to establish migration 

corridors between the Three Rivers/

Red River Wildlife Management 

Areas and the proposed Glade Woods 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Coordinate Louisiana black bear 

recovery activities with other Service 

offices, state agencies, Black Bear 

Conservation Committee, and local 

landowners.

In conjunction with state and federal 

agencies, develop and implement 

education programs within local 

communities.

Develop land protection priorities and 

inform landowners of available private 

lands conservation programs.

Identify and prioritize potential private 

lands conservation programs such as 

conservation easements managed by 

the Service.

Enroll private lands in incentive 

programs.

Same as Alternative B.

 Strategies:

Alternative A

(No Action)

Seek to enroll 5,000 acres of high 

priority habitat in private lands 

conservation programs as identified in 

the Black Bear Protection Plan.

Coordinate Louisiana black bear 

recovery activities with local 

landowners and Black Bear 

Conservation Committee.

Identify and prioritize potential private 

lands conservation programs, such as 

conservation easements managed by 

the Service.

Enroll private lands in incentive 

programs.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

Estimated Refuge 

Budget

Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Preferred Action

Alternative C

Annual Staffing

(reocurring costs)

7 Staff Positions

$316,000

11 Staff Positions

$630,000

12 Staff Positions

$700,000

One Time Fleet

Heavy Equipment

New Facilities

0

0

0

4 (vehicles and 

ATV)

5 (Grader, mower, 

tractors)

3 (Visitor Center/ 

Headquaters, 

gravel road, and 

pave entrance 

road)

 

$3,688,000

Same as 

Alternative B

 

 $3,688,000

Figure 23. Estimated Refuge Administration Costs 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter III

106 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

III. AffectedEnvironment

Reference

Background information, as well as a description of the environment affected 

by the proposed management actions and activities is described in Section A. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

108 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Overview

Outlined are the predicted impacts that could result from the 

implementation of proposed actions described in Alternatives A, B, and 

C. Each alternative portrays expected outcomes for fish and wildlife 

species through the year 2015, varying in magnitude to the amount of 

land proposed to be acquired and the intensity of management. Proposed 

management actions described in Alternative A, such as acquisition of 

in-holdings and reforestation, would have minimal to no negative effect on 

the environment. Proposed management actions described in Alternatives 

B and C, such as expanding the refuge boundary, acquiring private 

property from willing sellers, and restoring all forests to varying degrees, 

would have minimal short-term negative effects and no long-term negative 

effects on the environment. Implementation of Alternatives B and C 

could influence agricultural production, related employment and income, 

and outdoor recreation and environmental education opportunities. 

Effects Common To All Alternatives

This section assesses the environmental impacts of implementing the 

comprehensive conservation plan on the biological, physical, social, 

economical, cultural, and historical resources of the refuge. Most of the 

predicted impacts are common to all alternatives. A brief discussion of 

these impacts is outlined in the following paragraphs. 

Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat

Each alternative would protect habitat types important to migratory 

birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates including 

threatened and endangered species. All alternatives would provide equal 

protection of the existing old growth habitat. Alternative A would 

manage to maintain the least amount of old growth, while Alternatives 

B and C would manage to expand conditions for the most old growth. 

Alternative A would provide the least amount of habitat protection and 

management emphasis for migratory birds and populations of Louisiana 

black bear, while Alternatives B and C would provide the most protection 

and management. Implementation of all alternatives would benefit and not 

likely adversely affect endangered or threatened species or habitats.

Refuge waterfowl and shorebirds may be impacted by the proposed 

auto tour route discussed in Alternatives A and B. The auto tour 

traffic could negatively affect waterfowl and foraging shorebirds where 

the road parallels the impoundment. However, overall foraging habitat 

for waterfowl and shorebirds should improve under Alternatives A 

and B, because of the improved aquatic habitats and managed water 

impoundments proposed under these alternatives. Wood duck and 

woodcock populations would increase under all alternatives. 

Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Cerulean warbler’s 

former range. This species, now rarely seen, was once present in the 

area that is now the refuge. Cerulean warbler populations occur more 

frequently in large forest patches (>20,000 acres) consisting of old growth 

forests with complex canopy structure, typically choosing stands with 

the largest trees for nesting (Hunter 1999). Swallow-tailed kites nest in 

IV. Environmental Consequences
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

Environmental Assessment 109

similar habitat. Except for the old growth area located in the southern 

reach of the Brooks Brake Unit, the remaining old growth forests have 

been degraded due to years of timber harvest. High levels of crown 

closure interspersed with large, emergent trees are positively correlated 

with nest site location and success of these birds. Forest management 

activities outlined in Alternative B would result in long-term benefits that 

improve nesting habitat for these species. 

Reforesting areas proposed in all alternatives would help to decrease 

the number of nest predators impacting forest breeding birds, and thus 

improve nesting success. 

Each alternative would protect sites important to forest interior breeding 

birds and the populations of Louisiana black bear. Alternative A would 

provide the least protection, while Alternatives B and C have the potential 

to provide the most protection. 

Occasionally, a transient black bear or bear footprints are cited on or near 

the refuge. Common disturbance impacts to black bear include traffic 

from roads, paths, and trails; farm and timber management activities; 

hunting; and residential development. These impacts would be greater 

under Alternative A, due to fragmented land ownership and lack of Service 

management capability. Alternatives B and C propose the expansion of 

hunting opportunities and recreational facilities resulting in more visitors 

to the refuge. Trail density and human disturbances from recreation would 

remain relatively low, but may negatively affect black bear reintroduction 

efforts. Temporary closures to public access may be necessary in some 

management units in order to mitigate impacts to threatened, endangered, 

and rare species, including populations of the Louisiana black bear (e.g., 

den in late successional stands). 

Although there are no known nesting areas on the refuge, eagles have been 

sighted. Bald eagles are vulnerable to human disturbance around nesting 

areas and intolerant of human disturbance during the breeding season. A 

golden eagle was spotted by the staff in 1999, but was found dead of an 

apparent gunshot wound shortly after it was sighted. Swallow-tailed kites 

have been sighted around aquatic habitats near the refuge. Recreation 

activities including hiking, hunting, and the use of all-terrain vehicles and 

small fishing craft can be a major disturbance to these species. The level 

of recreation use is least disturbing to wildlife under Alternative A, and 

most disturbing under Alternatives B and C. The level of recreation 

use expected under Alternatives B and C include disturbances related 

to hiking, hunting, and fishing and could preclude the possibility of eagle 

nesting in parts of the Brooks Brake Unit, where most of the proposed 

recreation activities would occur. Hunting is primarily a winter season 

activity. Over the long term, Alternatives B and C would produce a 

number of suitable nests and roost trees for bald eagles. Alternatives B 

and C, over the long term, would produce suitable nesting and roosting 

habitat for the swallow-tailed kite. 

The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, a species of management concern, is 

associated with late successional forests for roosting and has been cited in 

the old growth area of the Brooks Brake Unit. This species mainly relies 

on tall trees for roosts and commonly feeds on flying insects along forest 

edges, bayous, roads, and open swamps within the forest. Alternatives B 

and C would positively benefit this species, due to management of mature 

and old growth characteristics in forest habitats. Alternative A would 

have no effect on this species.
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

110 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Old growth forests are extremely rare in the Lower Mississippi Valley. 

Under all alternatives, the refuge would fully protect existing old growth 

from timber harvest and would pursue the designation of a Research 

Natural Area at the location of the existing 750-acre old growth stand. 

The deer population on the refuge is currently at a healthy carrying 

capacity. Under all alternatives, forest management actions could increase 

the deer population. Refuge forests and adjacent croplands provide rich 

sources of forage for deer. As the deer population increases, over-browsing 

of woody understory could occur, decreasing an important habitat for 

ground nesting birds. 

Deer are impacted by human disturbance. Increases in the presence 

of people during the winter months and hunting season can cause an 

increased impact. However, without the use of hunting as a management 

tool, increased deer browsing would greatly impact area sensitive forest 

birds. Over the long term, Alternatives A and B would provide for 

management of mid- and late-successional forests likely increasing the 

number of deer which use these forests for cover and winter browse. All 

the alternatives include deer population control through a hunt program.

An integrated pest management plan would be developed under all 

alternatives. Alternative A would provide the least management, while 

Alternatives B and C would provide the most management. Whenever 

possible, all alternatives would use techniques other than pesticides to 

control these species. However, some quantity of pesticides would be used 

on a periodic basis.

Each alternative describes actions that address conversion of agricultural 

lands to bottomland hardwood forests and wetlands. All alternatives 

would provide additional protection to wetlands beyond the protection 

afforded by existing wetland regulations. Alternatives B and C would 

also protect landscape characteristics such as habitat connectivity and 

provide sufficient proprietary interest in properties to restore habitats 

for forest interior breeding birds. Alternative A would provide the least 

protection, while Alternatives B and C both have the potential to provide 

the most protection. Aquatic habitats, including commercial catfish ponds, 

are unlikely to be impacted from management of impoundments in the 

Brooks Brake Unit.

Under all alternatives, riparian areas along the Bayou Cocodrie River 

would be protected and reforested to create travel corridors between the 

refuge and public lands to the north and south. Subject to landowner 

control, wildlife corridors would be restored by private landowners who 

enroll their lands in private land conservation programs. Travel habitats 

and early- and mid-successional stands would be utilized by a variety 

of species, including black bear and white-tailed deer, thus positively 

benefitting these species.

A Research Natural Area would be managed on the south end of the 

Brooks Brake Unit according to Service policy. Access would be allowed 

on a permit basis to ensure that there would be no negative impact to the 

resources within the area.

All of the alternatives address regional climate change and biodiversity 

through reforestation. Each would impact the micro-climatic conditions 

within the existing refuge boundary as well as the proposed expansion 

area and immediate surroundings. Alternative A would provide the least 

biomass protection and Alternatives B and C would provide the greatest 

to offset harmful effects of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

Environmental Assessment 111

Because of extensive reforestation and subsequent increases in biomass 

and decreases in agricultural activities, air quality should improve from 

current levels under all alternatives.

All alternatives would positively impact soil formation processes on lands 

the refuge acquires. Some disturbances to surface soils and topography 

would occur at those locations selected for administrative, maintenance, and 

visitor facilities, as well as in areas targeted for forest management practices. 

Each alternative would protect the natural hydrology of the affected areas. 

Alternative A would provide the least protection, while Alternatives 

B and C would provide the most protection. Each alternative would 

prevent substantial agricultural acreage from being developed if the 

Service acquired properties or provided assistance to landowners and 

local conservation partners. Each alternative describes conservation 

management that would maintain groundwater recharge areas, and 

maintain natural catchments to hold and absorb surface waters, thereby 

minimizing flooding.

All alternatives would positively impact the water quality in individual 

streams. Other positive impacts would result from the protection of 

groundwater recharge areas, runoff prevention, sediment retention, and 

minimizing non-point source pollution. 

Each alternative would protect the aesthetic characteristics associated 

with bottomland hardwood forests.

Under all alternatives, the level of recreation use and ground based 

disturbance from pedestrians would be largely concentrated to the 

boardwalks, trails, refuge office, and maintenance area. This, combined 

with dispersed activities such as hunting, should not have a negative 

impact on nesting bird populations. It is unlikely that bald eagles would 

establish nests near developed facilities.

Under Alternatives B and C, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities would increase as lands are acquired. Under each 

alternative, most of the newly acquired lands would be opened for 

public hunting. Alternatives B and C would also stimulate eco-tourism, 

potentially increasing tourism expenditures. 

The number of hunting days as well as hunters may vary depending upon 

deer populations. High deer numbers are recognized as a problem causing 

extensive habitat and crop damage, therefore, an expanded deer hunt 

program is highly probable. 

The refuge would control access under all alternatives. Alternatives B 

and C would restrict or limit access periodically in the Research Natural 

Area. Access would increase where boardwalks and the waterfowl viewing 

platform would be developed. 

Visitor use management on refuges concentrates on the experience, not on 

the number of visitors. The type and intensity of visitor activities would 

vary from tract-to-tract depending on its size, habitat type(s), and wildlife 

uses. Because most of the land in Concordia Parish is currently in private 

ownership, the general public realizes only minimal access privileges. As 

the Service acquires more land and places it in the public trust, more 

opportunities for access would become available. 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

112 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Under all alternatives hunting opportunities would expand. A gun hunt for 

deer and a limited waterfowl hunt would commence in 2001 under current 

management. Deer populations could be higher and more bucks present due 

to restoration and enhancement activities on the refuge under all alternatives. 

Depending on population levels, turkey hunts may be initiated.

Wildlife-dependent recreation described under Alternatives B and C 

support an increase in economic activity. There was a total of 5,000 visits 

reported in 1999. Economic benefits from the increased visitation should 

directly improve the value of goods and services to local communities 

such as Ferriday. With the exception of the compound area, the refuge 

is open year-round but difficult to access because of local flooding and 

lack of infrastructure. Portions may be closed occasionally because of 

the sensitivity of the habitat and its importance to black bear dens. 

Educational tours, however, would be conducted following the nesting 

season. Some special permits would be issued to conservation groups to 

conduct wildlife monitoring.

Under all alternatives, refuge visitation to support priority public uses 

would generally build over time as lands are acquired and operation funds 

are provided. Initially, much of the refuge usage is expected from local, 

parish, and state residents, although an increase in the number of spring 

and fall tourists is predicted for bird watching tours. The number of 

visitors would depend on the season and would grow as the land base 

increased and more public use programs were provided.

Many of the wildlife-dependent recreational activities offered have yet 

to be discovered by local citizens. As a generator of economic benefit, 

each alternative identifies hunting, birding, and wildlife observation as 

important tourist attractions. 

Each alternative would decrease gross property tax revenues, however, 

there would be an increase in refuge revenue sharing payments. The 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

make payments to local taxing authorities to offset the loss in tax revenue 

when land is purchased for a refuge. Revenue sharing payments are based 

on selecting the highest payment calculated by one of three formulas. In 

1999, Concordia Parish received $49,813. 

Recent trends demonstrate a decline in federal farm subsidies for crop 

production (USDA Economic Research Service, 2000). Crop prices 

nationwide have declined as well. As a result, real estate trends 

demonstrate a marked increase in farm land sales. Wild lands have been 

declining nationwide. There is a positive benefit (including tax relief to 

heirs) for farmers in the Lower Mississippi Valley to restore conditions 

of marginal farm lands and forest lands located in flood prone areas for 

wildlife and enroll properties in conservation easements. Each alternative 

advocates the Service acquiring lands in Concordia Parish to enlarge the 

refuge, thereby reducing the acreage that could be developed. Lands 

adjacent to the refuge would increase in value, largely due to the value of 

those properties to private hunting clubs. 

All alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of 

development, thereby producing little negative effect on the cultural and 

historic environment. Potentially negative impacts could include logging, 

grazing, constructing of new trails or facilities, and developing of water 

impoundments. In most cases, these management actions would require 

review by the Regional Archaeologist and consultation with the Louisiana 

State Historic Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. Determining whether a particular 

action within an alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources 

is an on-going process that would occur with the planning stages of every 

project. Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

Environmental Assessment 113

or historical sites provides two major types of protection for these 

resources - protection from damage by federal activity and protection 

from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires 

than any actions by a federal agency which may impact archaeological or 

historical resources be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office 

and that the identified impact be avoided or mitigated. Service policy is to 

preserve these resources in the public trust, avoiding impact whenever possible.

If significant and historic resources are found on lands within the refuge’s 

proposed expansion area, land acquisition by the Service would provide 

some degree of protection. If acquisition of private lands did not occur and 

remained under private ownership, the landowner would be responsible for 

protecting and preserving cultural resources. Development of off-refuge 

lands has the potential to destroy archaeological artifacts and historical 

data thereby decreasing opportunities for research. There is no designated 

wilderness area within the refuge. 

The proposed actions will not signigicantly affect any unique 

characteristics of the geographic area. 

Effects from Implementing Alternative A

The “No Action” Alternative (Current Management)

Implementing Alternative A is not considered the most effective 

management for meeting the purpose of the refuge. This alternative is 

included for purposes of establishing baseline conditions for comparison.

Alternative A may not achieve long-range goals and objectives within the 

15-year planning period. It is considered the basis from which to compare 

the other alternatives. The “No Action” alternative would maintain 

the status quo and was developed using anticipated conditions in the 

Bayou Cocodrie watershed by the year 2015. It assumes that current 

conservation management and land protection programs and activities by 

the Service, state and local agencies, and private organizations would 

continue to follow past trends over the next 15 years, the planning horizon 

for this environmental assessment. 

Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat

Under Alternative A, the purchase and reforestation of in-holdings and 

the management of winter hunting would be the primary management 

activities. Black bear habitat, including old growth, would be fully 

protected. Only the refuge impoundments would be actively managed. 

For the remaining portion of the refuge, the current habitat mix and 

configuration would remain the same. The forest block would remain 

fragmented or have a significant exposed edge, which is the condition 

that reduces the value of forests for migratory bird species and the 

Louisiana black bear. Overall, these conditions reduce the function of the 

ecosystem to support biologically diverse plant and animal communities. 

Furthermore, nest predators, including brown-headed cowbirds associated 

with the forest edge, would continue to depress breeding success of forest 

interior songbird species. 

Existing forest habitats would receive little treatment under Alternative 

A, thus the quality of forests would not improve conditions for forest 

nesting birds and black bear. Open areas would be reforested as lands are 

acquired and refuge managers would initiate monitoring of forest habitats 

within the Brooks Brake Unit. Efforts would be made to ensure that 

existing canopy structures remain intact wherever possible. 

Brown-headed cowbird

Bob Schmitz - Cornell Lab of Ornithology
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

114 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Management Concern

The black bear would benefit from refuge management actions which 

would include acquiring forest tracts for its recovery. Approximately 5,000 

acres have been identified for acquisition. If acquired, the forest would be 

left alone with outside boundaries posted with refuge signs. New surveys 

and management of threatened and endangered species and species of 

management concern would not be implemented. 

Game Species

The deer population is currently managed at a healthy carrying capacity. 

Small game population levels are primarily dictated by food availability, 

rather than by hunting pressure. Without support from an increased 

staff to provide additional biological services, such as monitoring wildlife 

populations, deer populations cannot be annually surveyed. It is believed 

that some vegetation may be negatively impacted by deer and feral hogs 

which would reduce the food and cover for resident and ground nesting 

species, resulting in a moderate impact overall.

Visitor Services and Environmental Education

The present visitor service and education program includes managing a 

big game, small game, and waterfowl hunting program. On an infrequent 

basis, and as a collateral duty, the staff gives presentations concerning 

refuge activities, such as Louisiana black bear recovery, to local schools 

and civic groups. Other than current trails and hunter check stations, 

the nearest public use facilities to support hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation are found at St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

in Mississippi, about a 30-minute drive from the refuge. No new public use 

facilities would be developed under this alternative. 

Hunting activities are presently managed as collateral duties of the refuge 

managers. Under this alternative, the risks of excess deer numbers 

and damages from over-browsing would be minimally managed. Overbrowsing would remove shrub layers in forests and would cause the loss 

of associated animal species dependent on that habitat component. It 

would also reduce or eliminate forest canopy species targeted for habitat 

restoration, which is preferred by deer as winter browse. Controlling deer 

numbers manages the risks of damage to agricultural crops near the refuge 

and the risks of human injury and vehicle damage due to collisions with 

deer. The small game and waterfowl hunting programs would continue 

to be managed at current levels. The use of all-terrain vehicles would 

facilitate a more uniform deer harvest and increase the quality of the 

hunting experience. The use would be on a permit basis and limited to 

trails in the fall and winter. 

Refuge Administration

This alternative would not change the current staffing level. Management 

of the hunting program and typical violations such as trespassing, 

poaching, and damaging property and habitat is performed by staff as a 

collateral duty. Violations may not be acted upon in a timely manner, 

and damage to property could continue depending on the availability 

and promptness of current staff to respond to problems. Access for 

enforcement and maintenance would continue to be difficult for current staff.

Currently, there is no biological monitoring program. Minimal information 

on values associated with old age timber and associated forest interior 

bird species would be monitored in the proposed Research Natural Area. 

No attempt to identify invertebrates, bats, amphibians, reptiles and/or fish 

would be made under this alternative. These populations would likely 

fluctuate with environmental changes. 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

Environmental Assessment 115

Invasive plant species would not be treated under this alternative. 

Overabundant species may be managed. Consequently, the refuge would 

not provide viable habitat for many native plant and animal species. 

Land Protection and Conservation

Under this alternative the Service would acquire the remaining 9,101 acres 

within the refuge acquisition boundary when and if the lands become 

available for purchase from willing sellers. At the rate the Service is 

acquiring land and at the rate of agricultural development, it is unlikely that 

the Service would be able to acquire the remaining land within the approved 

acquisition boundary and fully meet the purposes for which the refuge was 

established-that of protecting migratory birds, songbirds, and black bear and 

providing for wildlife-dependent recreation. A large, contiguous block of 

forest, requiring lands outside of the current acquisition boundary, would be 

needed for this purpose. Land protection would assist in supporting target 

species of Swainson’s warbler, however, target population levels would not 

be realized by land protection objectives alone, since no forest habitat 

management activities would occur under Alternative A. Lands identified to 

support target species, such as the Cerulean warbler and swallow-tailed kite, 

would not be purchased under this alternative. 

The Service supports recovery efforts of the Louisiana black bear by 

providing one full-time biologist to provide technical assistance and 

educate landowners in three parishes on recovery and management of the 

bear population. If the Service purchases the two forest tracts identified 

for black bear recovery, these protected forest tracts, coupled with existing 

refuge forests, would serve as movement corridors between the Red River 

Wildlife Management Area to the south and the Tensas National Wildlife 

Refuge to the north. However, these lands would not be sufficient to 

support a breeding population of black bear on the refuge. 

Effects from Implementing Alternative B

The Service’s Proposed Action

Implementing Alternative B is considered the most effective management 

for meeting the purpose of Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge 

and for contributing to the ecosystem. This alternative is the Service’s 

proposed management action. 

Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat

The forest restoration program on refuge lands would be initiated and 

maintained under a 15-year time frame. Long-term management to mimic 

the structure and conditions of old growth in the Brooks Brake Unit would 

be maintained under a 20- to 40-year time frame. The overriding benefits 

of the proposed forest management would be the long-term protection 

and productivity of bottomland hardwood forests and wildlife habitat 

complexes characterizing the area. 

The habitat distribution of the envisioned bottomland hardwood forests would 

result in increased benefits to forest interior and wetland species, as well as 

to wildlife populations that are of ecological and local concern. Other benefits 

would include an increase in wildlife species composition and diversity. 

The forest habitats would be actively managed under Alternative B. The 

long-term results would be to restore the forest structure and composition 

to conditions that benefit priority bird species and the recovery of the 

Louisiana black bear, while at the same time providing sanctuary and 

habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and resident species.
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

116 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Forest treatments would increase the proportion of mature forests, maintain 

and enhance the presence of mature and old growth forest components, and 

increase stand vigor. In some instances, trees more than 40 years old could 

be removed, where reduced competition and better spacing would enhance 

the longevity and vigor of neighboring desirable trees. The effect of these 

treatments would be to reduce the overall tree density, favoring larger, 

older trees with characteristics favorable to priority bird species and the 

Louisiana black bear. Such treatments promote the diameter and height 

growth of the remaining stand and accelerate the development of mature 

and old growth conditions or characteristics. 

Spending most of its time near the ground searching for insects, the 

Swainson’s warbler, another species of management concern, represents 

songbirds that inhabit canebrakes and dwarf palmetto. It breeds in large 

swamps and bottomlands and prefers nesting in dense cane near or over 

water. The existing refuge habitat has largely been degraded due to past 

land management practices and clearing of swamps and bottomlands. The 

forest habitat restoration described under Alternative B would positively 

benefit nesting and feeding habitat for this species, as well as other priority 

bird species including white-eyed vireo, prothonotary warbler, American 

woodcock, wood thrush, and hooded warbler. 

Invasive species surveys and control efforts, refuge-wide, would result in 

restoration of native plant species and communities. Wildlife species would 

respond positively to the increased habitat. The refuge may periodically 

use approved pesticides to control invasive or overabundant species. The 

use of an Integrated Pest Management Plan approach specifies using 

techniques other than pesticides whenever possible, and when pesticides 

are used, the least and most specific type would be employed. Some 

quantity of pesticide would be introduced into the ecosystem, with an 

expectation of some impact on non-target species. 

Game Species

Most refuge lands would be open to hunting. Though numbers may be 

seasonally reduced, the deer population would be managed at a healthy 

carrying capacity. Restrictions could occur if human activity were to cause 

disturbance to other wildlife or wildlife habitats. This would depend on 

the type and intensity of human activity, timing and number of activities 

occurring simultaneously, and the wildlife species and habitat impacted. 

Opening areas to deer hunting would increase the recreational opportunity 

and economical benefit, as well as provide greater flexibility in managing 

deer populations. It is believed that some vegetation may be negatively 

impacted by deer and feral hogs which would reduce the food and cover 

for resident and ground nesting species, resulting in a moderate impact 

overall. Small game population levels are primarily dictated by food 

availability rather than by hunting pressure.

Refuge Administration

The inventory and research of forest communities would provide 

incremental benefits to the biological environment. The inventory of 

rare species and communities would result in developing management 

strategies and techniques for existing and potential restoration sites. The 

Research Natural Area would serve as a demonstration and research 

site for academia and land management agencies. Management of 

research programs would improve ecological information and assist in 

improving management for rare species associated with old growth forests. 

Additional populations of species would be identified and, if appropriate, 

managed and enhanced. Habitat restoration may restore and recruit 

rare populations, including Swainson’s and Cerulean warblers, and the 

Louisiana black bear. 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

Environmental Assessment 117

Development of baseline surveys and long-term monitoring programs 

would improve the quality, defensibility, and evaluation of management 

actions, as well as provide information for conservation partners. 

Researching the long-term impacts on wildlife resources from forest 

fragmentation would improve and promote better habitat management 

practices and data utilized by land managers. Development of research 

results and the use of a Geographic Information System, along with 

monitoring data, would ensure cost-effective access and consistency of 

information by staff, partners, and the public. Evaluation of ongoing 

management activities that have the potential to adversely affect biological 

diversity would enable the Service to adapt new strategies in a manner 

least disruptive to other conservation management objectives. Increased 

attention to the prospect of global climate change and its effect on wildlife 

resources has facilitated reforestation efforts on the refuge, cooperative 

habitat enhancement on private lands, and corridor development.

Visitor Services and Environmental Education

Environmental education and recreational activities would be developed 

to complement the types of wildlife management projects on the refuge. 

Facility improvements would include upgrading and developing trails, 

developing wildlife observation areas, and adding a visitor contact station. 

Improving access to the refuge would facilitate public use and provide 

a quality experience for the visitor. Providing facilities and services 

may stimulate an ecotourism industry. Facility improvements and visitor 

use increases have the potential to cause disturbance to fish and wildlife 

species. If demand or use were to approach levels potentially harmful to 

habitat or wildlife, the staff would reevaluate access. Increased visitor use 

may cause temporary disturbance to wildlife in the immediate area. 

The expanded staff would be available to visit and offer educational 

programs on wildlife management to local schools and civic groups. 

Wildlife observation and environmental education activities would be 

developed on an annual basis and coordinated with local school programs. 

This alternative expands areas for deer, waterfowl, and small game 

hunting. Increasing the hunting opportunities should benefit the local 

economy through the sale of hunting licenses, supplies, equipment, and 

services. All-terrain vehicle access for hunting would be on a permit basis 

and limited to designated trails. The potential of conflicts between user 

groups may exist, and hunting may impact the distribution and use of 

various habitats by birds and disrupt foraging and pair/family bonds as the 

refuge would remain open for other activities during the hunting season. 

At times, some portions may be closed to provide needed sanctuary and 

minimize disturbance for migratory nesting birds and black bear. 

Land Protection and Conservation

This alternative would result in the Service protecting up to 20,000 

acres in the proposed expansion area, in addition to the 9,101 acres 

within the current refuge acquisition boundary. Lands acquired under this 

alternative would provide better protection for the entire watershed and 

its processes by ensuring water quantity and quality for wetlands, by 

providing more contiguous habitat for migrating birds, and by allowing for 

genetic exchange between populations of non-migrating species. 

Increased land protection through planning and acquiring would result 

in a variety of economic benefits to Concordia Parish and local towns. 

Effective management and enlargement of the refuge would likely increase 

the value of surrounding lands. Of the three alternatives, Alternative B 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

118 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

would provide the greatest level of resource protection by adding more 

staff. Wildlife and their habitats, as well as archaeological and historical 

sites, would be afforded increased protection. The Service would increase 

staff to develop biological, forestry, recreation, and education programs 

which would add to the local economy. A biologist would provide technical 

assistance to landowners involved in black bear recovery efforts. The 

presence of more law enforcement staff would provide the necessary 

protection for the resources, as well as for visitors to the refuge.

Implementing Alternative B 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 scientific, cultural, or historic resources. 

Alternative B could impact landowners as the Service seeks to expand 

the refuge boundary. If and when the boundary is expanded, specific 

measures and strategies identified in this environmental assessment would 

be initiated to ensure wildlife protection while considering the allowance 

of certain compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation activities. The Service 

would also work with landowners, conservation organizations, and agencies 

to support enrollment of up to 20,000 acres in private land conservation 

programs. Local economic benefits are available to landowners who 

enroll their lands in conservation programs administered by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, including the Wetlands Reserve Program. In 

return for enrolling, farmers receive an up-front payment from the Federal 

Government. The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 

1996, administered by the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, authorized enrollment of 40 acres of land within 

the refuge acquisition boundary in the Wetlands Reserve Program and 

projected an increase of 3,000 acres in the program by the year 2001. If 

the Service purchases land for the refuge after it has been enrolled in 

the Wetlands Reserve Program, there would be no loss in agricultural 

production associated with that purchase, since the land would have 

already been taken out of agricultural production.

Based on the nature of the proposal, the location of the site and the current 

land use, the proposed alternative would not have any significant effects 

on the quality of the human environment, including public health and 

safety. The proposed actions will not have any adverse effects on the area’s 

wetland and flood plains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Implementing Alternative B would increase revenues from expanded 

visitor use as well as increase Service expenditures for equipment, 

supplies, and staffing needs. An enlarged office and visitor contact facility, 

along with storage and maintenance facilities proposed in this alternative, 

would directly impact an additional 1 to 4 acres. The impacts are related to 

a building-created impervious area, graveled entrance roads, and parking 

lots. Enlarging the headquarters office and adding a visitor contact facility 

would increase visitation and benefit the local economy. The refuge would 

consult with local and state officials during planning for, and construction 

of, the new facilities.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. 

Cumulative impacts are actions that may be generated by various entities, 

including other federal or state agencies, local agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, and private landowners. Each of these groups would 

undertake actions related to land uses. The current size, condition, and 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

Environmental Assessment 119

configuration of refuge forests are due to previous commercial harvesting 

impacts, water development projects, and agricultural activities. As a 

result, these actions create a cumulative impact resulting in the lack of 

sufficient protected native bottomland hardwood forests, and the variation 

in forest structures and conditions to support increases in forest breeding 

birds or the recovery of the Louisiana black bear on this site. 

The forest wetland environment is heavily influenced by agriculture 

and water development activities, resulting in diminished quality of the 

water, soils, and air. These actions are cumulative and occur throughout 

the Lower Mississippi Valley. Pollution sources include animal waste, 

agricultural chemicals, construction, logging, mining, hazardous material 

spills, sand and gravel extractions, junk yards, landfills, litter, and debris. 

These pollution sources are generated by human populations and are 

cumulative over time. Threats to the refuge’s fish and wildlife resources 

would primarily be from outside its boundaries through increased habitat 

fragmentation, nutrient loading, and nonpoint source runoff.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects of the Proposed Action

Unavoidable adverse impacts are projected from the changes in levels of 

management activities as described in the Service’s proposed action.

The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to 

be highly contraversial or involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown 

environmental risks to the human environment. Alternative B will not 

lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection 

of the environment. 

Some forest management practices, construction of visitor facilities, 

and increased visitation may affect local air and water quality, natural 

vegetation, and soil compaction. Increased visitation would also mean 

additional disturbances to both resident and migratory wildlife. Increased 

visitation for wildlife-dependent recreational and environmental education 

programs may mean fewer refuge acres for public safety purposes. 

Additional hunting could result in increased conflicts, with some user 

groups opposing such activity. Wildlife harvests through hunting and 

trapping would reduce the number of certain species, enabling other 

species of management concern to increase or recover. Such management 

actions are necessary in order for the Service to carry out its wildlife 

resource protection mandates. Although some unavoidable adverse impacts 

are expected, the benefits to wildlife and habitat outweigh these impacts.

The development potential of the protected land would be precluded 

which could cause the local economy to be adversely affected. Also, local 

governments would not receive the fiscal benefits of increased property 

tax receipts. However, this type of impact is expected to be minor. The 

Service is committed to working only with willing sellers. People would 

not be willing to forego rewards from future development potential if 

the value of the property, adjusted to account for risk and inflation, is 

greater than the value they receive by forfeiting their development rights. 

Therefore, it can be assumed that property owners who give up their 

development rights do not expect the development potential of their lands 

to increase greatly, or are simply more interested in land conservation 

than any monetary gains. Further, the Service makes refuge revenue 

sharing payments.

Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of the Proposed Action

Short- and long-term effects describe the relationship between short-term 

uses of the human environment and maintenance of long-term productivity 

of the environment.
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

120 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Short-term economic effects would occur as a result of land purchases. There 

would be short-term impacts on tax collections for the year in which a 

property is acquired. In the long-term, however, land protection would reduce 

municipal service costs, while providing increased quality of life, essential 

habitat for wildlife, and by outdoor recreation. Any loss in taxes would be at 

least partially offset by the annual refuge revenue sharing payments. 

In the long run, local economies would be positively impacted by increased 

spending on environmental programs. The programs would attract 

visitors and impact tourism and recreation in the region. In the long term, 

the adverse effects would be mitigated or offset by the positive impacts 

from increased open space and quality habitat for plants and animals. 

All long-term impacts on biological resources are expected to be beneficial. 

Sites attracting threatened and endangered species would receive 

the highest priority for protection. Important stopover, feeding, and 

breeding habitat for migratory birds would be targeted for acquisition. 

Aquatic species, wide-ranging species, and species which require active 

management would benefit from habitat improvements, restoration, and 

land protection actions outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Technical assistance, environmental education, Partners-In-Flight grants, 

and Challenge Cost-Share Program grants would enhance area sensitive 

species on dedicated open space, privately owned lands, and refuge 

lands. Inter-jurisdictional fish populations would, in the long term, 

hopefully stabilize and begin recovery as a result of water quantity and 

quality improvements and through improvements in the protection and 

restoration of riparian habitat. 

The development of visitor center facilities, trails, observation platforms, 

hunter check stations, wetland restoration projects, and forest 

management practices would result in both short-term and long-term 

physical impacts on soil and vegetation. These impacts would be localized 

and confined to the immediate area of the development/construction sites. 

Increased attention to environmental education and recreation programs 

may result in more audiences being involved in environmental education 

and recreation and may provide for a greater appreciation of the land.

Long-term beneficial effects include the increased productivity of 

threatened and endangered species, songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, 

white-tailed deer, small game and a myriad of other species dependent on 

refuge habitat. The public would also gain long-term opportunities for 

recreation and education on some refuge tracts.

Short-term use of refuge lands includes forest regeneration and prescribed 

restoration improvements, wetlands enhancement, exotic plant control, 

management for selected species, wildlife inventories, water quality 

monitoring, and the administration of education and visitor use programs 

and facilities. These activities would be implemented with a primary goal 

of assuring the sustained productivity of refuge resources.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources to the 

Proposed Action

Irreversible commitments of resources are those which cannot be reversed 

and results when an area cannot be returned to its natural condition for 

an extended period of time. For example, the depletion of old growth 

forests is irreversible. Irretrievable commitments of resources occur when 

a renewable resource is allocated to a given use and cannot be recovered 

without significant effort. 

The costs associated with land acquisition for the refuge would be 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

Environmental Assessment 121

irreversible. Refuge land acquisition removes acreage from private 

ownership, as well as any potential development benefits. However, such 

land, once placed in public ownership under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, provides a new set of uses and benefits a much broader group 

of people. Traditional public uses may change, since public uses on a 

refuge must be shown to be appropriate and compatible with the purposes 

for which land is acquired. Structural improvements that are purchased 

with any land may be declared surplus to government needs, and sold or 

demolished on site. Federal ownership may affect surrounding land-use 

patterns, local economies and parish tax revenues. Property located 

adjacent to refuge lands generally increases in value, landscapes become 

protected, revenues to local service businesses increase, and costs to local 

parishes for services decrease. 

Management of the refuge and lands acquired would result in an 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of funding for operations, 

administration, and management. Funding and personnel commitments 

by the Service to purchase and manage refuge lands and facilities render 

those resources unavailable for other Service programs and projects. The 

more public use activities and facilities provided, the greater the operating 

and maintenance costs involved.

Any wetland restoration project would be considered irreversible. 

Following restoration, the Clean Water Act would make it very difficult 

to reconvert wetlands on a national wildlife refuge to a drained condition. 

Irreversible loss of habitat, as part of the Service’s proposed action, would 

occur at construction sites of new facilities. 

Animal and plant populations are renewable in different degrees. 

Construction sites and some habitat management practices may 

irretrievably damage natural communities, at least for a period of time. 

These activities would be managed in such a way that the health and 

viability of wildlife populations would not be threatened. 

Effects from Implementing Alternative C 

Implementing Alternative C represents an increase in land and forest 

management activities from Alternative B, with long-term management 

resulting in a significant increase in forest stand structure that mimics 

conditions similar to old growth. This alternative is considered effective 

management for meeting the purpose of Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife 

Refuge and for contributing to the ecosystem. 

Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat

This alternative would result in the development and implementation of 

old growth plant species composition. It would further assist in achieving 

the Service’s Partners-in-Flight goals to increase forest breeding songbird 

habitat and population levels. Because of the increased attention to old 

growth composition, the Service would meet habitat needs of other trust 

species, including black bear. Alternative C would provide an area on 

the refuge to be designated as a Research Natural Area or sanctuary to 

reduce the stress on wildlife species and decrease the potential for conflicts 

between user groups, including researchers. 

The primary benefits of implementing Alternative C are the long-term 

protection, management, and restoration of forest stages that once 

characterized this area. Old growth forests are the most underrepresented forest type in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Old growth 

forests support a large number of species, among which are several high 

priority bird species. 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

122 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

The old growth forest found in the Brooks Brake Unit survives as a 

productive, isolated remnant. The habitat distribution of the bottomland 

hardwood forest envisioned would result in increased benefits to forest 

interior wildlife populations that are of ecological and local concern 

(i.e., populations of Louisiana black bear, swallow-tailed kite). Other 

benefits include an increase in wildlife species populations, composition, 

and diversity. Water impoundments would not be managed under 

this alternative, and as a result, benefits to waterfowl and shorebird 

populations would not be realized.

The forest habitats on most of the refuge, excluding the old growth 

area, are in poor condition. The passive management that would occur 

under this alternative would begin the process of developing an even-aged 

forest stage approach. In keeping with Service policy, wildfires would be 

suppressed. Tree density would remain high and species conversion to 

shade tolerant types would continue. Old growth forests, once abundant 

but currently scarce in the Lower Mississippi Valley, are important to 

native wildlife. Late successional forest communities have declined more 

than 95 percent with only a few isolated stands remaining. 

The riparian areas are in very poor condition between the refuge and 

other public lands due to clearing and the use of pesticides on farm lands. 

Alternative C would promote the restoration and development of riparian 

forests, especially those that have been affected by agricultural production. 

As for invasive and overabundant species, the consequences of 

implementing this alternative would be the same as Alternative B.

The white-tailed deer population would increase over the short term but 

likely decline as forests begin to exhibit closed canopy conditions. 

Visitor Services and Environmental Education

The consequences of implementing this alternative would, for the most 

part, be the same as Alternative B. Exceptions include a likely decrease 

in the white-tailed deer population resulting in a decrease in hunting 

opportunities and a likely increase in wildlife viewing and opportunities to 

photograph forest dwelling species. 

Land Protection and Conservation

This alternative would result in the Service protecting up to 28,000 acres 

in the proposed expansion area, in addition to the 9,101 acres within the 

current refuge acquisition boundary. At the rate the Service is acquiring 

land and at the rate of agricultural development, it is unlikely that the 

Service would be able to acquire the remaining land within the approved 

acquisition boundary and fully meet the purposes for which the refuge was 

established-that of protecting migratory birds, songbirds, and populations 

of Louisiana black bear and providing for wildlife-dependent recreation. A 

large contiguous block of forest would be needed to support target forest 

breeding birds such as Swainson’s and Cerulean warblers, and swallowtailed kite, as well as black bear, while also increasing public visitation for 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

Alternative C could impact landowners as the Service seeks to expand 

the refuge boundary. If, and when, the boundary is expanded, specific 

measures and strategies identified in this environmental assessment would 

be initiated to ensure wildlife protection, while considering the allowance 

of certain appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities. The Service would also work with landowners, conservation 

organizations, and agencies to support enrollment of up to 20,000 acres 

in private land conservation programs. Local economic benefits are 

available to landowners who enroll their lands in conservation programs 
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter IV

Environmental Assessment 123

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the 

Wetlands Reserve Program. In return for enrolling, farmers receive 

an up-front payment from the Federal Government. The Federal 

Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, administered by the 

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

authorized enrollment of 40 acres of land within the refuge acquisition 

boundary in the Wetlands Reserve Program and projected an increase of 

3,000 acres in the program by the year 2001. If the Service purchases land 

after it has been enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program, there is no 

loss in agricultural production associated with that purchase, since the land 

has already been taken out of production.

Through ownership, protection and management of refuge lands, the 

Service can limit adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, and habitats by reducing 

deforestation-the principal threat facing wildlife. Recovery of songbird 

species along their migration routes depends upon the availability of 

sufficient, undisturbed nesting and feeding habitat to allow both juvenile 

and adult birds to carry out their life processes. Alternative C 

proposes to protect and maintain habitat for forest dwelling wildlife. 

Forest management, including the conversion of farmlands to mixed 

bottomland hardwoods, promotes increased hard and soft mast production. 

Preservation and monitoring to improve habitat conditions in mature 

hardwood stands would benefit forest dwelling birds.
 Environmental Assessment

Section B/Chapter V

124 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

V. Consultation and Coordination

Public Involvement Process

Public involvement was sought throughout the planning process through 

meetings, open houses, and personal contacts. In September 1997, notices 

were mailed to landowners, various groups, and agencies announcing 

planning workshops. Comments were received and documented from 

meeting attendees, as well as through discussions with individuals and 

public agencies throughout the planning process. Using the information 

obtained, the team developed an abbreviated list or summary of 

statements reflecting major issues and concerns. This summary is found in 

the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Chapter III. 

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is an important 

partnering agency whose management provides significant benefits toward 

the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. Specific kinds of management 

include reforestation of state and private property and management and 

land acquisition efforts for the recovery of threatened and endangered 

species, including the Louisiana black bear. The State also administers 

scenic stream protection for the Bayou Cocodrie River and manages the Red 

River/Three Rivers Wildlife Management Area Complex in Concordia Parish.

The interest and dedication of private landowners in conservation 

management are resulting in incremental benefits to fish and wildlife. 

The most notable benefits, as a result of the Farm Improvement Act 

of 1996, include partnerships between farmers and the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture using various conservation programs. The Department of 

Agriculture administers such programs as the Wetland Reserve Program 

and the Conservation Reserve Program which are extensively utilized 

by landowners. Landowners who participate in the Wetlands Reserve 

Program record a conservation easement on their property or enter into 

a restoration agreement in exchange for land payments and/or cost-share 

payments for restoration practices. The Conservation Reserve Program 

is administered by taking highly erosive lands out of farm production and 

restoring them to benefit wildlife.

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to discussions related to the Bayou Cocodrie 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

The Service wishes to thank the following individuals who volunteered 

their services.

Kevin Bridgewater The Natural Resource Conservation Service - Wetland 

Reserve Program 

Cindy Brown The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana - land protection and 

conservation, ecosystem management 

Kevin Case Farm Service Agency - Conservation Reserve Program 

Concordia Parish Police Jury Road improvements, access to property 

Keith Ouchley, Ph.D. The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana - avian 

management, land protection and conservation, biological review 

Rena Pitts Farmer, access to property, local history 

Burl Roberts Farmer - access to refuge 

Reggie Wycoff Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biologist - 

Wildlife, fish and game management comments 

Figure 24 lists the planning team members and their expertise.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 125

Figure 24. Planning Team Member Expertise

Don Anderson, Refuge Biologist - Black bear management and coordination

Ray Aycock, Wildlife and Habitat Management Biologist - Wildlife management, writing

Charles Baxter, Joint Venture Coordinator-Ecosystem management, writing, GIS support

Angela Bivens, Visual Information Specialist - Graphic production, cartographic production

Roger Boykin, Forester - Forest management, Goals and objectives, review

Jim Clark, Visual Information Specialist - Graphic production, cartographic production

Mike Dawson, Realty Biologist - Review

Blaine Elliot, Joint Venture Biologist - GIS support, analysis, ecosystem management

Mike Esters, Refuge Manager - Refuge management and operations, goals and objectives

Jerome Ford, Refuge Manager - Public involvement, plan development, review

Anita Goetz, Private Lands Biologist - Private lands coordination, review

Chuck Hunter, Supervisory Biologist - Avian management and monitoring, goals and objectives, 

biological methodology, review

Rose Hopp, Realty Biologist - Writing and review

Deborah Jerome, Planning Team Leader - Writing and plan development, goals and objectives, team 

coordination, review

Pete Jerome, Refuge Supervisor - Refuge management, goals and objectives, GIS analysis, review

Rick Kanaski, Regional Archaeologist - Goals and objectives, writing and coordination

Kurt McMurl, Joint Venture Biologist - GIS support, analysis, ecosystem management

Seth Mott, Lower Mississippi Joint Venture Biologist - Goals and objectives

Evelyn Nelson, Writer-Editor

Tom Prusa, Assistant Refuge Supervisor - Refuge review

Donna Stanek, Outdoor Recreation Planner - Visitor services, goals and objectives, public involvement, 

writing and review, plan development

Bob Strader, Private Lands Biologist - Black bear protection, technical review 
126 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . A process in which projects are 

implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments 

to test predictions and assumptions 

outlined within the comprehensive 

conservation plan. The analysis 

of the outcome of project 

implementation helps managers 

determine whether current 

management should continue as is 

or whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions.

Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternatives are different means of 

accomplishing refuge purposes, goals 

and objectives and contributing to 

the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. A reasonable way to fix 

the identified problem or satisfy the 

stated need.

Approved refuge boundary . . . . . . . . . A project boundary which the Fish 

and Wildlife Service approves upon 

completion of the planning and 

environmental compliance process.

Bayou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A minor river or secondary 

watercourse, usually sluggish or 

back flooding water flow.

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. 

The National Wildlife Refuge 

System focus is on indigenous 

species, biotic communities and 

ecological processes.

Canebrake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cane stand (Arundinaria gigantea) 

that under present day conditions 

grows in disturbed areas and 

frequently persists in small 

closed-canopy patches at Bayou 

Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge. 

Historically cane was in large (could 

be square miles) disturbed areas 

(frequent flooding) under open 

canopies. Habitat is unique and 

valued for ground- mid story 

structure for Swainson’s warbler.
Section C/Appendix I

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 127

Canopy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A layer of foliage; generally the 

upper-most layer, in a forest stand. 

It can be used to refer to midor under-story vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure is an 

estimate of the amount of overhead 

tree cover (also canopy cover).

Categorical Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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.

CFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Code of Federal Regulations.

Compatible Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A wildlife-dependent recreational 

use or any other use of a refuge that, 

in the sound professional judgment 

of the Refuge Manager, will not 

materially interfere with, or detract 

from, the fulfillment of the mission 

or the purposes of the refuge. A 

compatibility determination supports 

the selection of compatible uses 

and identifies stipulations or limits 

necessary to ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. . . A document that describes the 

desired future conditions of the 

refuge; provides long-range 

guidance and management direction 

for the Refuge Manager to 

accomplish the purposes, goals and 

objectives of the refuge; and 

contributes to the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 

and to meet relevant mandates.

Conservation easement. . . . . . . . . . . . . A legal document that provides 

specific land-use rights to a 

secondary party. A perpetual 

conservation easement usually 

grants conservation and 

management rights to a party in 

perpetuity.
Section C/Appendix I

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Cooperative Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . A simple habitat protection action 

in which no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually 

long-term and can be modified by 

either party. Lands under a 

cooperative agreement do not 

necessarily become part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A route that allows movement of 

individuals from one region or place 

to another. 

Cover Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The present vegetation of an area.

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The remains of sites, structures, or 

objects used by people of the past.

Cypress and Tupelo Swamp . . . . . . . . Found in low lying areas - swales 

and open ponds – that hold water 

several months, if not all of the year. 

Large hollow trees are used as bear 

den sites.

Deciduous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pertaining to perennial plants that are 

leafless for sometime during the year.

Ecological Succession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The orderly progression of an area 

through time in the absence of 

disturbance from one vegetative 

community to another. 

Ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their 

associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Management. . . . . . . . . . . . Management of natural resources 

using systemwide concepts to ensure 

that all plants and animals in 

ecosystems are maintained at viable 

levels in native habitats and basic 

ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely.

Even-Aged Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forests that are composed of trees with 

a time span of less than 20 years between 

oldest and youngest individuals.

Emergent growth/Revegetation . . . . . Farmland or logged timber that has 

been reforested (early succession) or 

may be naturally revegetated.
Section C/Appendix I

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 129

Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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.

Endemic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plants or animals that occur 

naturally in a certain region and 

whose distribution is relatively 

limited to a particular locality.

Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . . . A concise 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.

Fauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All the vertebrate or invertebrate 

animals of an area.

Federal Trust Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All species where the Federal 

Government has primary 

jurisdiction including federally 

threatened or endangered species, 

migratory birds, anadromous fish, 

and certain marine mammals.

Fee-title. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The acquisition of most or all of the 

rights to a tract of land. There is 

a total transfer of property rights 

with the formal conveyance of a title. 

While a fee title acquisition involves 

most rights to a property, certain 

rights may be reserved or not 

purchased, including water rights, 

mineral rights, or use reservation 

(the ability to continue using the 

land for a specified time period, or 

the reminder of the owner’s life).

Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . 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.
Section C/Appendix I

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Flood plain Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottomland Hardwood Forests. 

Consists of hardwoods (old growth 

and mid-succession age timber) 

cypress tupelo stands found on low 

ridges that drain slowly and subject 

to flooding. Overcup, willow, water 

oaks, sweetgum, green ash. Old 

growth- Typically exceeding 120 

years of age. Red oaks were removed 

in the 1940’s. Mid-succession- Logged 

timber that may need restoration to 

improve wildlife habitat. Missing 

several key oak species.

Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The process of reducing the size and 

connectivity of habitat patches. The 

disruption of extensive habitats into 

isolated and small patches.

Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Descriptive, open-ended, and often 

broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose but 

does not define measurable units.

Geographic Information System . . . . . A computer system capable of storing 

and manipulating spatial data. 

Ground story (flora) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vascular plants less than one meter 

in height, excluding tree seedlings. 

Herbaceous wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annually or seasonally inundated 

with vegetation consisting primarily 

of grasses, sedges, rushes, and cattail.

Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The place where an organism lives. 

The existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism 

for survival and reproduction.

Indicator Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A species of plant or animals that is 

assumed to be sensitive to habitat 

changes and represents the needs of 

a larger group of species. 

In-holding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Privately owned land inside the 

boundary of a national wildlife refuge.

Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision.

Mid-Succession Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . A forest generally characterized by 

even-age structure resulting from 

human disturbance such as timber 

harvest. Mid-successional forest 
Section C/Appendix I

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 131

may contain mature trees but the 

forest as a whole does not exhibit 

functional or structural 

characteristics associated with old 

growth conditions.

Migratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The seasonal movement from one 

area to another and back.

Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The process of collecting information 

to track changes of selected 

parameters over time.

National Environmental Policy . . . . . . Requires all agencies, including the 

Service, to examine the Act of 

1969 environmental impacts of their 

actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public 

participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate 

this Act with other planning 

requirements, and prepare 

appropriate policy documents to 

facilitate better environmental 

decision making.

National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . A designated area of land, water, or 

an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

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, wildlife ranges, game 

ranges, wildlife management areas, 

or waterfowl production areas.

Native Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Species that normally live and thrive 

in a particular ecosystem.

Neotropical Migratory Bird . . . . . . . . A bird species that breeds north 

of the United States/Mexican border 

and winters primarily south of that 

border, which includes Mexico, West 

Indies, Central America and part of 

South America.
Section C/Appendix I

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Natural levee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural embankment created by soil 

deposited as a stream over-tops its 

banks. Located adjacent to a stream, 

a natural levee is often the highest 

ground in a bottomland or swamp 

type area.

Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An objective is a concise 

quantitative (where possible) target 

statement of what will be achieved. 

Objectives are derived from goals 

and provide the basis for 

determining management strategies. 

Objectives should be attainable and 

time-specific. 

Old growth Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forested areas lacking frequent 

disturbance to vegetation, usually 

characterized by dominant species 

entered into a late successional 

stage; usually associated with high 

diversity of species, specialization, 

and structural complexity.

Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A planning area my include lands 

outside existing planning unit 

boundaries that are being studied 

for inclusion in the unit and/or 

partnership planning efforts. It 

may also include watersheds or 

ecosystems that affect the planning 

area.

Planning Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A planning team prepares the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Planning teams are interdisciplinary 

in membership and function. A team 

generally consists of the a planning 

team leader; refuge manager and 

staff biologists; staff specialists or 

other representatives of Service 

programs, ecosystems or regional 

offices; and state partnering wildlife 

agencies as appropriate.

Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This is the alternative determined 

by the decision maker to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, 

and goals; contributes to the refuge 

system mission, addresses the 

significant issues; and is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and 

wildlife management.
Section C/Appendix I

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 133

Refuge Operating Needs System . . . . This is a national database which 

contains the unfunded operational 

needs of each refuge. Projects 

included are those required to 

implement approved plans and meet 

goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

Refuge Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 subunit.

Seral Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A forest in the mature stage of 

development, usually dominated by 

large, old trees.

Sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A habitat in which local mortality 

exceeds local reproductive success 

for a given species.

Sink Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A population in a low-quality habitat 

in which birth rate is generally less 

than the death rate and population 

density is maintained by immigrants 

from source populations.

Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A habitat in which local reproductive 

success exceeds local mortality for a 

given species.

Source Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A population in a high-quality 

habitat in which birth rate greatly 

exceeds death rate and the excess 

individuals leave as migrants.

Step-down Management Plans . . . . . . Step-down management plans 

provide the details necessary to 

implement management strategies 

and projects identified in the 

comprehensive conservation plan.

Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A specific action, tool, or technique 

or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives.

Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. 
Section C/Appendix I

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Understory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Any vegetation with canopy below 

or closer to the ground than canopies 

of other plants.

Wildlife Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A landscape feature that facilitates 

the biologically effective transport 

of animals between larger patches 

of habitat dedicated to conservation 

functions. Such corridors may 

facilitate several kinds of traffic, 

including frequent foraging 

movement, seasonal migration, or 

the once in a lifetime dispersal 

of juvenile animals. These are 

transition habitats and need not 

contain all the habitat elements 

required by migrants for long-term 

survival or reproduction. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation . . . . . . A use of a refuge involving hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography and environmental 

education and interpretation. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies 

that these are the six priority 

general public uses of the system.
Section C/Appendix II

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 135

Appendix II

References

Bonney, Rick, David N. Pashley, Robert J. Cooper, and Larry Niles, editors. 

1999. Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight 

Planning Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Cornell University, 

New York.

Burdge, Rabel J. 1995. A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment. 

Social Ecology Press. Middleton, Wisconsin.

Cochran, Shawn M., 1999. Draft Roosting and Habitat Use of Bats 

in Southern Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Arkansas State 

University, State University, Arkansas.

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, State of Louisiana. 1998. Scenic 

Rivers Management Plan for Bayou Cocodrie, Concordia Parish. 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Eyre, F.H., Editor. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and 

Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C.

Finch, Deborah M. 1991. Population Ecology, Habitat Requirements, and 

Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. General Technical 

Report RM-205, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Finch, Deborah M. 1992. Status and Management of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds. Management Implications of Cowbird Parasitism 

on Neotropical Migrant Songbirds. General Technical Report 

RM-229, U. S. Forest Service, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Fredrickson, Leigh H., and Donald L Bateman. 1990. Greentree Reservoir 

Management Handbook. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, University 

of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri. 

Hamel, Paul B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. 

The Nature Conservancy and the USDA Forest Service. Atlanta, 

Georgia.

Heard, L. Pete. Conference Co-Chairman, Director. 1996. The Delta 

Connecting Points of View for Sustainable Natural Resources. 

Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, USDA, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Madison, Mississippi. 

Jeter, Marvin D. 1989. Archaeology and Bioarchaeology of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and 

Louisiana. Prepared by the Arkansas Archaeological Survey. 

Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989.

Kaufman, Kenn. 1996. Lives of North American Birds. Houghton Mifflin 

Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Louisiana Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1975. The 

Concordia Parish Plan. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Section C/Appendix II

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Martin, Paul G. 1980. Soil Survey of Concordia Parish, Louisiana. U.S. Soil 

Conservation Service and Louisiana Soil and Water Conservation 

Committee.

Morrison, Merrie. 1998. Bird Conservation B Taking Flight, How Partners 

in Flight is Lifting Bird Conservation to New Heights. American 

Bird Conservancy. Washington, D.C.

Ouchley, Keith. 1997. Bird Species List. Unpublished List on file at Refuge, 

Ferriday, Louisiana.

Putnam, John A. and George M. Furnival, and J.S. Mcknight. 1960. 

Management and Inventory of Southern Hardwoods. U.S. Forest 

Service. Washington, D.C.

Saucier, Robert T., 1994. Geomorphology and Quaternary Geologic History 

of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Mississippi River Commission. 

Vicksburg, Mississippi 

Smith, Loren M., Roger L. Pederson, and Richard M. Kaminski. 1989. 

Habitat Management for Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl in 

North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas.

The Nature Conservancy. 1990. Report of Preliminary Environmental Site 

Assessment, The Fisher Tract. Concordia Parish, Louisiana. 

The Nature Conservancy. 1991. Timber Inventory of the Fisher/Nature 

Conservancy Tract. Concordia Parish, Louisiana.

Twedt, Daniel J. 1999 and Uihlein, William B. Landscape Level 

Reforestation Priorities for Forest Breeding Landbirds in the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

U.S. Congress. Nov. 16, 1990. Public Law 101-593, Section 108, House 

Report 3338.

USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report SO-114. 1994. Smith, 

Winston Paul and Pashley, David N. A Workshop to Resolve 

Conflicts in the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds in Bottomland 

Hardwood Forests. Tensas National Wildlife Refuge, Tallulah, 

Louisiana. 

USDA Economic Research Service. 2000. Website: http://

www.ers.usda.gov./

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1968. Work Plan for Watershed 

Protection, Flood Prevention, Drainage, and Fish and Wildlife 

Improvement, North Concordia Watershed. Fort Worth, Texas

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Water Control Plan for the TensasConcordia Pumping Plant and Related Facilities. Tensas Basin. Red 

River Backwater Areas. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife 

Refuge. Unpublished report, Ferriday, Louisiana. 
Section C/Appendix II

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 137

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service and USDC, Bureau of the Census. 

1996. The 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Environmental Assessment and 

Land Protection. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Leaflet 13.3.14. 1992. Management of 

Habitat for breeding and Migrating Shorebirds in the Midwest. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Leaflet 13. 1988. University of Missouri 

B Columbia. Considerations of Community Characteristics for 

Sampling Vegetation. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Hunter, William C. Handbook 

for Nongame Bird Management and Monitoring in the Southeast 

Region. Atlanta, Georgia

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Timber Inventory of the Fisher/

Nature Conservancy Property. Concordia Parish, Louisiana.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Appraisal of 935 acres of Hardwood 

Bottomland. Concordia Parish, Louisiana. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Project Development Planning 

Report, Establishment of Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge, 

Concordia Parish, Louisiana.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. An Appraisal of Certain Properties 

for the Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Three Rivers Waterfowl Habitat 

Conservation Plan East-central Louisiana. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Bottomland Hardwood 

Preservation Program, Lower Mississippi River Delta.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

Migratory Bird Wetland Conservation Initiative.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Louisiana Black Bear Habitat 

Protection Project, Final Environmental Assessment and Land 

Protection Plan.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the Promise. Visions for 

Wildlife, Habitat, People, and Leadership.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Refuges 2003, Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Update to the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, Expanding the Vision. Report on file, 

Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge, Ferriday, Louisiana.
Section C/Appendix III

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Appendix III

Relevant Legal Mandates 

National Wildlife Refuge System Authorities

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and 

enhance the Nation’s fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary federal agency 

responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain 

marine mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our 

Nation’s fish and wildlife resources is shared with other federal agencies 

and state and tribal governments.

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. This system is the only nationwide system of federal 

land managed and protected for wildlife and their habitats. The mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

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

generations of Americans.

The Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge is managed as part of 

this system in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 

Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System), and other relevant legislation, Executive 

Orders, regulations, and policies. 

Key Legislation/Policies for Plan Implementation

The Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan describes and illustrates management area projects 

with standards and guidelines for future decision making and may be 

adjusted through monitoring and evaluation, as well as amendment and 

revision. The plan approval establishes conservation and land protection 

goals, objectives, and specific strategies for the refuge and its expansion. 

Compatible recreation uses specific to the refuge have been identified 

and approved by the Refuge Manager (Appendix G). This plan provides 

for systematic stepping down from the overall direction as outlined 

when making project or activity level decisions. This level involves sitespecific analysis (e.g., Forest Habitat Management Plan) to meet National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements for decision making.

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities 

on federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects 

taken or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory 

birds as a federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and 

other regulations including the closing of areas, federal or non-federal, to 

the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for 

acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized 

the opening of part of a refuge to waterfowl hunting.
Section C/Appendix III

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 139

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and 

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for acquisition and development 

of refuges.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation 

when such uses are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and 

when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the 

sale of surplus federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and 

other sources for land acquisition under several authorities.

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. (Refuge Administration Act): Defines the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any 

use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for 

which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the refuge system; establishes the legitimacy 

and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography and environmental education and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended 

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or 

funded buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the 

environmental impacts of any major federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all federal agencies to carry out 

programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires that programmatic and physical 

accessibility be made available in any facility funded by the Federal 

Government, ensuring that anyone can participate in any program.

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers for major wetland modifications.

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each federal agency shall provide leadership 

and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact 

of floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by the flood plain.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The purpose of the Act is 

“To promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or 

prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and 

other essential habitat, and for other purposes.”
Section C/Appendix III

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management 

systems to control or contain undesirable plant species; and an interdisciplinary 

approach with the cooperation of other federal and state agencies.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public 

accommodations and services.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, 

and priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also 

presents four principles to guide management of the system.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal land 

management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, 

maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986: This Act authorized the purchase 

of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, removing a 

prior prohibition on such acquisitions. The Act also requires the Secretary 

of the Interior to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, 

requires the states to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund an 

amount equal to import duties on arms and ammunition.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as 

amended: Public Law 93-205, approved December 28,1973, repealed the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of December 5,1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 

Stat. 275). The 1969 act amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act 

of October 15,1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species 

Act provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened 

and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, both through 

federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs. 

The Act authorizes the determination and listing of species as threatened 

and endangered; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and 

transport of endangered species; provides authority to acquire land for 

the conservation of listed species, using land and water conservation 

funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-inaid to states that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for 

threatened and endangered wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment 

of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations; and 

authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading 

to arrest and conviction of anyone violating the Act and any regulation 

issued thereunder.

Environmental Education Act of 1990(20 USC 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325): 

Public Law 101-619, signed November 16,1990, established the Office of 

Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency 

to develop and administer a federal environmental education program. 

Responsibilities of the Office include developing and supporting programs 

to improve understanding of the natural and developed environment, and 

the relationships between humans and their environment; supporting the 

dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting training 

programs and environmental education seminars; managing a federal grant 

program; and administering an environmental internship and fellowship 

program. The Office is required to develop and support environmental 

programs in consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Section C/Appendix III

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 141

Executive Order 11988, Flood plain Management: The purpose of this 

Executive Order, signed May 24, 1977, is to prevent federal agencies 

from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and 

modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of flood plain 

development.” In the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, federal 

agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains.”

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: This act was passed to improve 

the administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier 

laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts and bequests of real 

and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes 

the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs.

Historic Preservation Acts include:

Antiquities Act (16 USC 431 - 433)--The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 

225) authorizes the President of the United States to designate as National 

Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific interests on lands owned or 

controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit be obtained 

for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering 

of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of 

Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties for violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 47011)-- Public 

Law 96-95, approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely supplanted 

the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits 

for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal 

and Indian lands. It also established civil and criminal penalties for the 

unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; for 

any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal and Indian lands 

in violation of any provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign 

commerce in such resources acquired, transported or received in violation 

of any state or local law.

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered 

the threshold value of artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act 

from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit an action prohibited by 

the Act a violation, and required the land managing agencies to establish 

public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological resources 

to the nation.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c)--Public 

Law 86-523, approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220), and amended by Public 

Law 93-291, approved May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174), directed federal agencies 

to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever a federal, federally 

assisted, or licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of 

significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeologic data. The Act authorized 

use of appropriated, donated and/or transferred funds for the recovery, 

protection and preservation of such data.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467)--

The Act of August 21,1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic 

Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 89-249, approved October 9,1965, (79 

Stat. 971), declared it a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects 

of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided 
Section C/Appendix III

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection of 

such sites. Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks 

are designated under authority of this Act. As of January, 1989, thirty-one 

national wildlife refuges contained such sites.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n)--

Public Law 89-665, approved October 15,1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly 

amended, provided for preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the 

states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a 

program of matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d).

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which 

was made a permanent independent agency in Public Law 94-422, approved 

September 28,1976 (90 Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Historic 

Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the 

effects of their actions on items or sites listed in, or eligible for listing in, the 

National Register of Historic Places. As of January 1989, ninety-one such 

sites on national wildlife refuges are listed in this Register.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948: This act provides funding 

through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from 

oil and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources of 

land acquisition under several authorities. Appropriations from the fund 

may be used for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects 

and for land acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 

48 Stat. 452), as amended: The “Duck Stamp Act,” of March 16,1934, 

requires each waterfowl hunter, 16 years of age or older, to possess a valid 

federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in 

a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

and are not subject to appropriations.

National and Community Service Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 12401:104 Stat. 

3127), Public Law 101-610, signed November 16,1990, authorizes several 

programs to engage citizens of the United States in full- and/or part-time 

projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, 

enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. Several 

provisions are of particular interest to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps: A federal grant program 

established under Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for 

young adults between the ages of 16-25, or in the case of summer programs, 

15-21, to engage in approved human and natural resources projects which 

benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. To be 

eligible for assistance, natural resource programs must focus on improvement 

of wildlife habitat and recreational areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, 

erosion, wetlands protection, pollution control and similar projects. A stipend 

of not more than 100 percent of the poverty level will be paid to participants. 

A Commission established to administer the Youth Service Corps will make 

grants to States, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and the Director 

of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 

January 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852) as amended by Public Law 94-52, July 3, 

1975, 89 Stat. 258, and Public Law 94-83, August 9,1975, 89 Stat. 424). 

Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requires that all 

federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for 

“every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other 
Section C/Appendix III

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 143

major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment.” The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered 

in environmental impact statements, and required that federal agencies 

employ an interdisciplinary approach in related decision-making and 

develop means to ensure that unquantified environmental values are 

given appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical 

considerations. Title II of this statute requires annual reports on 

environmental quality from the President to the Congress, and established 

a Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President 

with specific duties and functions.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Public Law 

105-57, amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-ee), and provided guidance for management and public use of the 

refuge system. The Act mandates that the refuge system be consistently 

directed and managed as a national system of lands and waters devoted 

to wildlife conservation and management. The Act establishes priorities 

for recreational uses of the refuge system. Six wildlife-dependent uses 

are specifically named in the Act: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These 

activities are to be promoted on the refuge system, while all non-wildlifedependent uses are subject to compatibility determinations. A compatible 

use is one which, in the sound professional judgement of the Refuge Manger, 

will not materially interfere with, or detract from, fulfillment of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Mission or refuge purpose(s). As stated in the 

Act, “The mission of the system is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans.” The Act also requires development of a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for each refuge and that management be consistent with 

the plan. When writing a plan for expanded or new refuges, and when making 

management decisions, the Act requires effective coordination with other 

federal agencies, state fish and wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge 

neighbors. A refuge must also provide opportunities for public involvement 

when making a compatibility determination.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 

44O1~4412) Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides 

funding and administrative direction for implementation of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement 

on Wetlands between Canada, the United States and Mexico. The Act 

converts the Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, with the interest 

available without appropriation through the year 2006, to carry out the 

programs authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual 

appropriation of $15 million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures 

collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Available funds may be 

expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, 

for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States’ share of the 

cost of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United 

States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on federal lands). At least 

50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are to go to 

Canada and Mexico each year.

 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1952: This Act authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for 

recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary 

purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented 

recreational development or protection of natural resources. It also 

authorizes the charging of fees for public uses.
Section C/Appendix III

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) Section 401 of the Act of June 

15,1935, (49 Stat. 383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, 

using revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges. Public Law 

88-523, approved August 30,1964, (78 Stat. 701) made major revisions by 

requiring that all revenues received from refuge products, such as animals, 

timber and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be deposited in a 

special Treasury account and net receipts distributed to counties for public 

schools and roads. Public Law 93-509, approved December 3,1974, (88 

Stat. 1603) required that moneys remaining in the fund after payments be 

transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition 

under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Public Law 

95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue 

sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service research 

stations. It also included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts 

from the sale of salmonid carcasses. Payments to counties were established 

as follows: on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis 

of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, 

or 25 percent of the net receipts produced from the land; and on land 

withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic 

payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662). 

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference 

between the amount in the fund and the amount scheduled for payment in 

any year. The stipulation that payments be used for schools and roads was 

removed, but counties were required to pass payments along to other units 

of local government within the county which suffer losses in revenues due to 

the establishment of Service areas.

Wilderness Act of 1954: Public Law 88-577, approved September 3,1964, 

directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every 

roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island (regardless 

of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Section C/Appendix A

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 145

Section C/Appendix IV

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 

The federally listed Louisiana Black Bear is the only known listed species 

to occasionally occur on the refuge, although the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat 

is another likely candidate. Formerly listed species such as the American 

alligator and the bald eagle appear on the refuge. The Louisiana black bear 

is targeted for special reintroduction emphasis in the future as part of a 

population recovery effort to delist this species. The refuge will not only 

serve as permanent habitat for this species, but will serve as habitat linkage 

for the Atchafalaya population and the Tensas Basin population which will 

ensure genetic diversity. Other potential candidate species include the 

alligator snapping turtle and the wood stork.

The Florida panther and the red wolf were also former residents of this 

area, but none have been documented in the last 40 years.

Appendix IV

Biota 
146 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Pied-billed Grebe u r u u

White Pelican r r r

Double-crested Cormorant c c a a

Anhinga* u c u r

American Bittern r r

Least Bittern r r r

Great Blue Heron* c a c c

Great Egret* c a c u

Snowy Egret* c a c r

Little Blue Heron* c a c

Cattle Egret* c a c u

Green-backed Heron* c c u

Black-crowned Night-Heron* u u u

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron* u a u

White Ibis u c u

Wood Stork r

Greater White-fronted Goose u

Snow Goose u

Ross’ Goose r

Canada Goose r

Wood Duck* a a a a

Green-winged Teal c u

Black Duck r

Mottled Duck u

Mallard a

Northern Pintail c

Blue-winged Teal c r

Northern Shoveler c

Gadwall u

American Wigeon u

Ring-necked Duck u

Lesser Scaup r

Hooded Merganser* u c u u

Figure 25. Refuge Biota

 Spring Summer Fall Winter

Common Name March – May May–August Sept-Nov

Birds Total species 186

Breeding species 68

a = abundant c = common u = uncommon r = rare 

* species with conrmed breeding records
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 147

Black Vulture* a a a a 

Mississippi Kite* c c c

Bald Eagle r r r

Northern Harrier u u

Sharp-shinned Hawk u u c

Cooper’s Hawk* u r u c

Red-shouldered Hawk* a a a a

Broad-winged Hawk u r u

Red-tailed Hawk* c u c a

American Kestrel c r c c

Merlin r

Wild Turkey* c c c c

Northern Bobwhite* u u u u

King Rail r r

Sora u u

Common Moorhen r r

American Coot u u c

Killdeer* a a a a

Greater Yellowlegs u u r

Lesser Yellowlegs u u r

Solitary Sandpiper c u

Spotted Sandpiper u u r

Semipalmated Sandpiper u u

Least Sandpiper u u u

Pectoral Sandpiper u u

Western Sandpiper u u r

Short-billed Dowitcher u u u

Long-billed Dowitcher r r

Common Snipe u u c

American Woodcock u u c

Ring-billed Gull u u u

Rock Dove r r r r

Mourning Dove* a a a a

Common Ground-Dove r

 Black-billed Cuckoo u r

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* c a u

Common Barn Owl r r r r

Eastern Screech Owl* c c c c

 Spring Summer Fall Winter

Common Name March – May May–August Sept-Nov
148 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Great Horned Owl* u u u u

Barred Owl* a a a a

Common Nighthawk u c u

Chuck-will’s-widow u c u

Whip-poor-will u r

Chimney Swift* c c c

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* a a c

Belted Kingsher c c c c

Red-headed Woodpecker* c c c a

Red-bellied Woodpecker* a a a a

 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker u u c

Downy Woodpecker* c c c c

Hairy Woodpecker* u u u u

Northern Flicker u u u c

Pileated Woodpecker* c c c c

Eastern Wood-Pewee* c c c

Acadian Flycatcher* a a a

Eastern Phoebe u u c

Great Crested Flycatcher* c a c

Eastern Kingbird c c c

Horned Lark* u u u c

Purple Martin c c c

Tree Swallow c c

Northern Rough-winged Swallow c u c

Barn Swallow c c c

Blue Jay* c u c c

American Crow* c c c c

Fish Crow u u u u

Carolina Chickadee* a a a a

Tufted Titmouse* a a a a

Red-breasted Nuthatch r

White-breasted Nuthatch r

Brown-headed Nuthatch r r r r

Brown Creeper u

Carolina Wren* a a a a

House Wren r r u

Winter Wren r r u

Sedge Wren r r r

 Spring Summer Fall Winter

Common Name March – May May–August Sept-Nov
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 149

Golden-crowned Kinglet c u c

Ruby-crowned Kinglet a c a

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher* a a a r

Eastern Bluebird c c c c

Veery u r

Gray-checked Thrush c u

Swainson’s Thrush c u

Hermit Thrush c u

Wood Thrush* c u u

American Robin c r c c

Gray Catbird c r c r

Northern Mockingbird* u u u u

Brown Thrasher c c c c

American Pipit r r u

Cedar Waxwing c r c

Loggerhead Shrike* c c c c

European Starling u u u u

White-eyed Vireo* a a a r

Blue-headed Vireo c u u

Yellow-throated Vireo* c c u

Red-eyed Vireo* a a a

Philadelphia Vireo u u

Blue-winged Warbler c u

Golden-winged Warbler c u

Tennessee Warbler c u

Orange-crowned Warbler c u c

Northern Parula* c a c

Yellow Warbler u c

Chestnut-sided Warbler c u

Magnolia Warbler c u

Yellow-rumped Warbler c u a

Black-throated Green Warbler c u

Blackburnian Warbler c u

Yellow-throated Warbler* c c c

Pine Warbler r r u

Prairie Warbler u u

Palm Warbler u u

Bay-breasted Warbler c u

 Spring Summer Fall Winter

Common Name March – May May–August Sept-Nov
150 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Blackpoll Warbler c u

Cerulean Warbler u u

Black-and-White Warbler c c

American Redstart* c u c

Prothonotary Warbler* a a a

Worm-eating Warbler u u

Swainson’s Warbler* u u u

Overnbird c u

Northern Waterthrush c u

Louisiana Waterthrush c u

Kentucky Warbler* c c c

Common Yellowthroat* c u c u

Hooded Warbler* c c c

Wilson’s Warbler u u

Canada Warbler c u

Yellow-breasted Chat* c c c

Summer Tanager* c c c

Scarlet Tanager c u

Northern Cardinal* a a a a

Rose-breasted Grosbeak c u

Blue Grosbeak c u c

Indigo Bunting* a a a

Painted Bunting* c c c

Dickcissel* c c c

Rufous-sided Towhee* c c c c

Chipping Sparrow u u r

Field Sparrow u u u

Savannah Sparrow c u c

Fox Sparrow u u u

Song Sparrow c u c

Swamp Sparrow c u c

White-throated Sparrow c u a

Dark-eyed Junco c u c

Lapland Longspur u

Bobolink u

Red-winged Blackbird* a a a a

Eastern Meadowlark* c c c c

Rusty Blackbird u u u

Brewer’s Blackbird r r r

Common Grackle* u u u c

Brown-headed Cowbird* a a a a

 Spring Summer Fall Winter

Common Name March – May May–August Sept-Nov
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 151

Orchard Oriole* c u u

Baltimore Oriole c u

Purple Finch u u

House Finch r r r r

Pine Siskin u

American Goldnch u u c

House Sparrow r r r r

 Spring Summer Fall Winter

Common Name March – May May–August Sept-Nov
152 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Mammals

Armadillo

Bats- Southeastern myotis,

Eastern pipistrelle, Big brown,

red, Seminole, Hoary, Northern yellow, Evening, Ranesque’s big-eared, Brazilian 

free-tailed

Beaver

Bobcat

Coyote

Feral hogs

Fox: Grey and red fox

Long-tailed weasel

Mink

Mouse – House, deer, harvest

Nutria

Opposum

Otter

Raccoon

Rats- wood, rice, cotton

Shrew – short-tailed, least

Squirrel: Grey, fox, ying

Striped skunk

Swamp and cotton-tailed 

rabbit

White-tailed deer

Woodland vole

 

Amphibians and Reptiles

Snakes:

Garter snakes

Canebrake rattlesnake

King snake

Mud snakes

Copperheads

Cotton mouth moccasin

Various water snakes

Frogs

Bullfrog

Eastern narrow-mouthed toad

Gray treefrog

Green frog

Green treefrog

King snake

Mud snakes

Northern cricket frog

Rat snake 

Southern leopard frog

Squirrel treefrog

Stripped chorus frog

Woodhouse’s toad

Alligators 

Turtles

Alligator snapping turtles

Cooters

Eastern box turtles

False map turtle

Mississippi map turtle

Musk turtle

Painted turtles

Slider

Snapping turtles

Spiny softshells

Stinkpot

Lizards

Borad-headed skinks

Eastern fence lizards

Five-lined skinks

Green anoles

Ground skinks

Mussels

Fat pocketbook

Flat oater

Giant oater

Mapleleaf

Paper pondshell

Papershell

Pink papershell

Pond mussel

Southern mapleleaf

Texas liliput

Yellow sandshell
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 153

Fish

Order/Family Scientific Names Common Names

Centrarchidae/Sunsh Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunsh

 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill

 Lepomis punctatus Spotted sunsh

Lepomis microlophus Redear

Pomoxis annularis White crappie

 Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie

Percichthyidae/Sunsh Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass

 Micropterus salmoides Large mouth bass

Sciaenidae/Drum Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum

Ictaluridae/Catsh Ameiurus catus White catsh

 Ameiurus nebulosus Brownhead

 Pylodictis olivaris Flathead
154 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Trees - Dominant Vegetation

Black willow

Cherry bark willow

Cottonwood 

Cypress

Drummond red maple

Elms - winged, water, cedar

Green ash

Gum - red, tupelo,

Hackberry

Oaks - overcup, Nuttall, Shumard, water, willow

Pecans - Sweet and bitter 

Red mulberry

Swamp Cottonwood

Sweetgum

Understory - Subdominant vegetation

Black berry 

Black locust

Box elder

Button bush

Deciduous holly

Dew berry

French mulberry

Haws (cretagus)

Honey locust

Honey suckle

Hornbeam

Palmetto

Prickly ash

Smilax

Swamp dogwood

Swamp privet

Switchcane

Vines - rattan, muscudine, 

poison

ivy and oak, Virginia creeper,

pepper vine, cross vine and

grape

Water locust

Wet Sites

pickerel-weed

day lower

water hyacinth

various sedges

iris

spider lily

lizards tail

marsh mallow

cardinal ower
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 155

Appendix V

Decisions and Approvals

Intra-Service Section 7

Biological Evaluation
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 157
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Compatibility Determination

Introduction

This Compatibility Determination describes the wildlife-dependent 

recreation uses that may be included in the public use program under the 

preferred alternative and determines whether these uses are compatible 

with wildlife purposes.

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the Service may not permit public recreational 

uses on a national wildlife refuge unless these uses are first determined 

to be compatible uses. The primary goal of all public use activities on 

this refuge would be to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities for visitors in a manner that does not negatively 

impact wildlife population levels or the natural diversity of the area. 

Wildlife-dependent recreational uses are encouraged on national wildlife 

refuges as long as they are compatible with refuge purposes.

Refuge Uses

This compatibility determination applies to: (1) Recreation hunting of big 

game (white-tailed deer and turkey), upland game (squirrel and rabbit), 

furbearers, and migratory birds in accordance with State of Louisiana 

regulations; (2) Recreational fishing of freshwater fish (bass, perch and 

catfish); (3) Wildlife observation and photography; (4) Environmental 

education and interpretation; (5) All-terrain vehicles use associated 

with wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and (6) Trapping of selected 

furbearers to achieve wildlife and habitat management objectives stated in 

the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Refuge Name

Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established

November 6, 1990

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies)

Public Law 101-593 (Section 108 of H.R. 3338)

Refuge Purpose

The Public Law 101-593 (Section 108 of H.R. 3338) states that the refuge 

would be managed for the purposes of: (1) conservation and enhancement 

of wetlands; (2) management of migratory birds; and fish and wildlife 

recreation activities. In establishing the purpose, Congress recognized 

the significance of this refuge by stating, “...the Bayou Cocodrie area is 

a bottomland hardwood swamp which borders (supports or harbors) over 

one hundred and fifty species of birds and many other types of wildlife, 

including several species threatened with extinction, such as the Louisiana 

population of black bears. The Bayou Cocodrie area includes some of 

the least disturbed bottomland hardwood forest in the Southeast and 

significantly contributes to the biological diversity in the region.

Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System

As set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is: “...to 

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

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

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit 

of present and future generations of Americans.”
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 159

Description of Uses and Anticipated Biological Impacts

This compatibility determination relies on best estimates of current public 

use levels as provided by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Information obtained by the 

refuge staff during the first year of refuge-administered public use activities 

is also incorporated. During subsequent years, the Service would continue, 

as indicated in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, to gather 

definitive public use data, conduct surveys to estimate wildlife populations, 

and assess public use impacts on the resources. If adverse impacts to 

refuge resources associated with public use activities are identified in future 

years, modifications to that part of the program in question would be 

implemented to minimize that impact.

The following is a description of the type and estimated level of wildlifedependent recreation uses that are presently occurring on the refuge, 

their anticipated impacts, and a discussion of whether or not these current 

uses are compatible with refuge purposes. For additional details, see the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge.

Hunting 

Most of the refuge area is a contiguous forest of mature bottomland 

hardwoods. There is a great variety of tree species on the refuge that 

includes oak, hackberry, black gum, hickory, elm, green ash, bitter pecan, 

cypress, tupelo, and willow. This rich forested wetland provides good 

habitat for a number of game species including white-tailed deer, turkey, 

squirrel, raccoon, and waterfowl.

Many of the local resident enjoy an informal, rural lifestyle that includes 

frequent recreational use of the area’s natural resources. Hunting and fishing 

have been, and continue to be popular uses of refuge lands. Implementation 

of the preferred alternative, as described in the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, would ensure that opportunities for various types of 

wildlife-dependent recreation would continue for future generations.

There are very few turkeys in the area and very little hunter effort directed 

toward this species. However, a dramatic increase in the turkey population 

would be expected with the implementation of the preferred alternative. 

Until the turkey population reaches sufficient levels, turkey hunting would 

remain closed.

The flood plain hardwood forests of the area support high squirrel 

populations and have for several years. As a result, fall squirrel hunting 

is one of the most popular activities on the refuge. Squirrel dogs are 

occasionally used in late winter following leaf fall.

The racoon population appears to be very high throughout the area, and 

in the absence of predators, racoon populations rapidly build to levels 

resulting in disease problems and impacts to the reproduction of non-game 

forest breeding birds and wild turkeys. Therefore, in addition to providing 

hunting opportunities, and effective harvest for racoon is particularly 

important to control their population level.

Harvest management for big game (white-tailed deer and turkey) is the art 

of combining wildlife science and landowner objectives for the attainment 

of a specific management goal. Harvest management strategies should 

be based on objectives established as part of hunting plans developed for 

the area. The objective-setting process must be based on a complete 

analysis of biological data. Specific objectives allow the setting of hunting 
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

regulations. Results of each hunting season would be evaluated thoroughly 

so the harvest management program remains dynamic and responsive to an 

evolving management environment (Bookhout 1994).

Harvest management for upland game and furbearers (squirrel, rabbit, 

raccoon, opossum, beaver) is considerably different from that of both big 

game and migratory girds. Current literature suggests that user take 

(<50% of total mortality) of most upland game is compensatory; that 

factors such as immigration from adjacent areas and density-dependent 

production operate in most upland game populations; and that hunting does 

not significantly impact populations. Hunting is substituted for natural 

mortality. Production of large, annual surpluses of young allows for lengthy 

seasons and generous bag limits with little concern for over-harvest and 

minimal chance of population impacts in most areas (Bookhout 1994).

Harvest management for migratory birds (ducks, woodcock) is more 

difficult to assess. Migratory bird regulations are established at the federal 

level each year following a series of meetings involving both federal and 

state biologists. Harvest guidelines are based on population survey data 

with regulations that are subject to change each year, including bag limits, 

season lengths, and framework dates (Bookhout 1994). 

The refuge’s great variety and abundance of high quality wetland areas 

provide outstanding habitat for a variety of wading birds. Wading birds 

frequent these wetlands and four known rookeries are present on the 

property. Primary species include the great blue heron, little blue heron, 

green heron, cattle egret, snowy egret, great egret, anhinga, and night 

herons (Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). The potential of disturbance, 

especially during the nesting season, does exist for these rookeries; 

however, this potential would be virtually nonexistent due to no overlap of 

hunting seasons with nesting season.

Similar to wading birds, the area’s habitat for neotropical migratory birds is 

outstanding (Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Neotropical migrants use the 

interior hardwood forested areas and edges. Disturbance to neotropicals 

would be minimal and temporary as the habitat would be slightly altered for 

the betterment of these species.

Based on available information, no threatened or endangered species, 

other than the Louisiana black bear, have been documented on the area 

that is now Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge. It is anticipated 

that the current levels and expected future levels of hunting or other 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities would not directly, indirectly, 

or cumulatively impact any listed, proposed, or candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Data gathered from future biological 

surveys regarding the presence or potential importance of the refuge 

to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat (or proposed 

threatened, endangered or critical habitat), could result in changes to public 

use activities across time; however, these changes would have no effect on 

listed species.

Incidental take of other wildlife species, either illegally or unintentionally, 

may occur with any consumptive use program. At current and anticipated 

public use levels for this program, this incidental take would be very 

small and would not directly or cumulatively impact current or future 

population levels of other wildlife species either on this refuge or in the 

surrounding area. Implementation of an effective law enforcement program 

and development of site specific refuge regulations/special conditions for 

these uses would eliminate most incidental take problems. 
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 161

The refuge hunter visits have consistently been near 5,000/year. This 

probably reflects an increase in use because this area was hunted by private 

hunting parties prior to the refuge establishment. The harvest information 

annual averages for species taken from 1994 through 1999 are as follows: 

nearly 230 white-tailed deer, 2,000 squirrels, 100 rabbits, 20 feral hogs, 

and 5 raccoons.

Current levels and anticipated future levels of hunting are considered to be 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established.

Fishing

Sport fishing is perhaps the most common public use surrounding the 

refuge. The two refuge lakes (Wallace Lake and Little Wallace Lake) 

offers very limited opportunities for sport fishing. Historically these 

lakes have contained large mouth bass, crappie and catfish. Currently 

access to these remote lakes are virtually nonexistent thereby nullifying 

all public use. However, the scenic river Bayou Cocodrie which meanders 

through the refuge provides a variety of fish species that include bass, 

crappie, gaspergou, bream, buffalo, and catfish. As identified in the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan additional access will be provided, creel 

surveys conducted, and water quality analysis performed in order to 

provide a high quality fishing experience.

Recreational fishing should not have any adverse impacts on either the 

fisheries resource, wildlife resource, endangered species, or other natural 

resources on the refuge. There may be some limited disturbance to certain 

species of wildlife and some trampling of vegetation; however, this should 

be short-lived and relatively minor and would not negatively impact the 

wetland values of the refuge. Known bird rookery sites do not occur 

at locations currently popular for fishing activities, therefore, disturbance 

should not be a problem. If disturbance at these sites is identified as a 

problem in future years, closed areas would be established during nesting 

season to eliminate this concern. Problems associated with littering and 

illegal take of fish would be controlled through law enforcement activities.

The public is a strong advocate of fishing in the area. Allowing the public to 

continue to fish on the refuge would have a positive effect on public opinion 

and would help build support for the Service and for natural resource issues. 

Providing fishing opportunities would also allow the use of a renewable 

natural resource without adversely impacting other resource values.

The estimated current level and the anticipated future level of fishing is considered 

to be compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife Observation/Photography/Environmental 

Education/Interpretation

Nonconsumptive uses such as birdwatching, hiking, nature photography, 

and picnicking are minimal at this time due to the area’s distance from 

large metropolitan areas and the general lack of access. It is estimated that 

2,000 visits/year are totaled for wildlife observation and related activities. 

However, the majority of public use visits to the refuge is associated 

with hunting.

It is anticipated that an increase in nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent 

use would occur over the next few years as facilities are provided and 

the public and conservation groups become aware of the excellent birding 

opportunities. This anticipated increase would be slow in developing, 

however, and because of the remoteness of the area, high numbers of users 

are not expected.
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Although a few refuge visitors have inquired about canoeing opportunities, 

no canoeists have been observed using Bayou Cocodrie. This may be a 

direct result of a lack of access to this watercourse. Canoeing is likely to 

be an infrequent activity at best on refuge waters. However, the scenic 

river Bayou Cocodrie meanders the refuge from north to south and would 

provide an excellent canoe trail during certain times of the year. 

Wildlife observation/photography activities might result in some disturbance 

to wildlife, especially if visitors venture too close to one of the bird rookeries. 

Refuge road systems and all-terrain vehicle trails opened to public use would 

be routed to minimize disturbance that might occur to these sensitive areas. 

If unacceptable levels of disturbance is identified at any time in future years, 

rookery sites would be closed to public entry during nesting season. Some 

minimal trampling of vegetation also may occur. 

Environmental education/interpretation activities have been nonexistent in 

pror years. Refuge efforts to develop this program would be forthcoming 

and would usually be associated with structured activities conducted 

by refuge staff or trained volunteers. Disturbance from environmental 

education activities is expected to be minimal and to have an insignificant 

effect on refuge resources, including fish and wildlife and their habitats and 

wetland values.

The current and anticipated future levels of wildlife observation, 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation activities are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established.

All-Terrain Vehicle Use

A large portion of the refuge is inaccessible to conventional vehicles due to 

either impassible roads or no roads. In order to disperse hunters and access 

remote areas for hunting, refuge users have historically utilized all-terrain 

vehicles throughout the area resulting in a “maze” of trails to virtually 

every possible location. Uncontrolled off-road vehicle use has impacted the 

area in that severe rutting has occurred throughout the area, disturbance to 

wildlife is perhaps very high, and disturbance to refuge users very high.

Considering the topography of the area and its remoteness, the need for 

limited use of all-terrain vehicles by certain refuge users is apparent. 

It would be impossible to develop an effective public use program that 

provides optimum consumptive use opportunities without providing for allterrain vehicle use.

Service policy pertaining to all-terrain vehicle use requires such use be 

in conjunction with wildlife-dependent activities only, and be confined 

to designated areas or trails identified for such use; all off-road use is 

restricted to foot travel only. Approximately 13 miles of trails were 

designated for public use by signs and colored markers. Some modifications 

to this initial trail system would be necessary across time as a refuge public 

use patterns change and/or other public use development occur. With these 

regulations in place, all-terrain vehicle use on the refuge in support of 

wildlife-dependent activities is compatible with the purposes for which this 

refuge was established.

Trapping of Selected Furbearers

Racoon and beaver are the species towards which management activities 

may be directed. Both species are at a sufficiently high level on the 

refuge to adversely affect ecosystem function. As indicated in the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, beaver activities have caused 

significant deterioration and loss of bottomland hardwoods throughout the 

refuge, and excessive numbers of racoons can have negative effects on 

the reproduction of forest breeding birds and wild turkeys. Protection 
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 163

and restoration of bottomland hardwoods and improvements in game 

and nongame populations is a central component of the plan. To this 

end, trapping and/or hunting (as indicated earlier) remain the only viable 

methods to reduce population levels of beaver and racoon. 

The Service would use contracts (Special Use Permits) to administer a 

trapping program consistent with sound biology, refuge purposes, and 

conservation of ecosystem function. This program would mandate accurate 

reports of the number of beaver and racoon taken, which would enable 

refuge staff to assess the impacts of the program on wildlife. No trapping 

program, regardless of how well it is designed, can prevent the possible 

take of other species. Trappers would be required to report the incidental 

take of other species. A negligible impact on other wildlife species 

is expected in both the short and long term. As a trapping program 

is implemented on the refuge, it would be closely monitored to assess 

the potential adverse effects on other wildlife as well as the benefits 

to game and nongame species and their habitats. Modifications to the 

program would be implemented as needed to maintain compatibility. The 

implementation of a trapping program under controlled conditions provides 

and essential population control management tool and is compatible with 

the purposes of the refuge. 

Stipulation Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

Wildlife-dependent recreation uses, uses supporting wildlife-dependent uses, 

and trapping of selected furbearers would be permitted on Bayou Cocodrie 

National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with the following exceptions:

Fishing and hunting would be permitted in accordance with State of 

Louisiana regulations and licensing requirements.

Vehicles would be restricted to existing roads. No vehicles may be operated 

where no improved surface roads exist. All-terrain vehicles would be restricted 

to designated trails/road Off-road travel would be limited to foot travel only. Use 

of horses would be restricted to designated roads and trails and allowed only in 

conjunction with specially permitted wildlife-dependent activities.

Firearms, bows and other weapons would be prohibited except during 

designated hunting seasons.

Hunting deer with dogs would not be allowed on the refuge. Use of dogs 

for hunting rabbit, squirrel, racoon, feral hogs and woodcock will be allowed 

during designed seasons only. Other dogs and pets must be confined or 

on a leash.

Camping overnight on the refuge would be prohibited.

All hunts would be designed to provide quality user opportunities based 

upon known wildlife population levels and biological parameters. Hunt 

season dates and bag limits would be adjusted as needed to achieve 

balanced wildlife population levels within carrying capacities, regardless of 

impacts to user opportunities.

As additional data is collected and a long-range hunt plan developed, 

additional refuge-specific regulations could be implemented. These 

regulations could include, but may not be limited to, season dates that differ 

from those on the surrounding state zones, refuge permit reqduirements, 

and closed areas on a permanent or seasonal basis (to reduce disturbance 

to specific wildlife species or habitats, such as bird rookeries, wintering 

waterfowl or threatened/endangered species, or to provide for public safety).
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Trapping would be permitted in accordance with State of Louisiana regulations 

and licensing requirements. A refuge special use permit would be required for 

trapping which contains conditions designed to meet wildlife populations goals 

and requires, among other things, careful harvest reporting.

National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

Development of a public use program that provides optimum opportunities 

for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, provision of all-terrain vehicles and 

trapping programs focus on selected furbearers would, as evaluated in this 

compatibility determination, have negligible impacts on refuge resources. 

Allowing these uses to continue is not expected to be controversial 

regarding the impacts on refuge resources. Therefore, this action is 

categorically excluded from National Environmental Policy Act (516 DM6 

Appendix 1 B(5)).

In assessing the potential impacts of proposed refuge uses, all available tools 

were utilized (Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). A site-specific document 

(Final Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan for Proposed 

Establishment of Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge), site-specific 

personal communications (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries), 

data collection from 1994-1999, the development of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, and general references 

are considered to be sufficient to make this compatibility determination.

As stated previously, Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge is a new 

refuge and much of the data available covers only a 5-year period. As the 

refuge public use program is developed and fully implemented, refuge staff 

would continue to assess the public use programs and any possible impacts 

to refuge resources/wildlife populations. Changes in the program would be 

implemented as needed to address any impacts identified and to respond 

to anticipated wildlife population changes due to implementation of state-ofthe-art wildlife management activities.

Determination

Based on available information, the proposed hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation, all-terrain vehicle use and trapping uses occurring within the 

refuge are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established.

There has been substantial historical use of this forested wetland area 

for hunting, fishing, and trapping. Based on available information, there 

is no indication of long-term adverse biological impacts associated with 

these activities. Allowing these uses to continue is consistent with these 

objectives and follows current Service policy.

There are a number of situations where future refuge closures or 

restrictions could be warranted. Examples of these situations include, 

but are not limited to, protection of endangered species (flora or fauna); 

protection of colonial bird rookeries; establishment of sanctuary areas 

for waterfowl; establishment of hunter quota systems to provide for a 

high quality hunting experience or to achieve specific wildlife population 

objectives; conflicts with other refuge management programs; and, lack of 

funds to administer hunts.
Section C/Appendix V

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 165

Justification

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

identifies compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as legitimate and 

appropriate uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act further 

recognizes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation as the priority general public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

As described earlier, the purpose of this refuge is to conserve the valuable 

bottomland hardwood wetlands, perpetuate migratory birds, and provide, 

to the maximum extent practicable, compatible wildlife-related public uses 

as evaluated in this determination.

Thus, hunting and fishing are compatible with the refuge’s purpose and 

meet one on the refuge’s objectives to provide for compatible wildlifedependent recreation. Providing a public use program that allows quality 

user opportunities, including hunting and fishing, follows current Service policy 

to expand and enhance opportunities for high quality hunting and fishing on 

refuges. Allowing hunting and fishing to continue also helps to maintain and 

build support for the Service and other wildlife conservation efforts.

Nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent uses (wildlife observation, 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are 

compatible with the refuge’s purpose and meet one of the refuge’s 

objectives to provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Allowing these uses to continue follows current Service policy to provide for 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Allowing thee nonconsumptive 

recreational opportunities to continue helps to maintain and build public 

support for the Service and its wildlife conservation efforts.

All-terrain vehicle use, while not a wildlife-dependent use, is an essential 

use that provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, and are 

judged to be compatible with the purpose of the refuge. Implementation 

of the stipulations mentioned above would assure continued compatibility. 

If the need for these supporting uses increases, the refuge staff would 

carefully evaluate these actions prior to their implementation and monitor 

their effects.

Trapping of selected furbearers is essential to the protection and 

restoration of bottomland hardwood wetlands and ultimate increases of 

game and nongame wildlife species on the refuge. Therefore, trapping is 

considered a compatible use. 

Signature

Refuge Manager:___________________________

Date:___________________________
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Literature Cited

Bookhaut, T.A. 1994. Reasearch and management techniques for wildlife 

and habitats. Fifth edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD 740pp.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986 Refuge Manual - 5 RM 20, Compatibility 

Determinations. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Final Environmental Assessment and 

Land Protection Plan, Proposed Establishment of Bayou Cocodrie National 

Wildlife Refuge, Concordia Parish, Louisiana. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Division of Refuges 

and Wildlife, Atlanta, GA.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 1997 and 1999. Personal 

communication. 

District IV Biologists Reginald Wycoff and John Lincecum, Law 

Enforcement Captain 

Charles Tarver.
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 167

Partnerships

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, helps accomplish its 

mission by offering technical and financial assistance to private landowners 

to voluntarily restore wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats on their 

land. The program emphasizes the reestablishment of native vegetation and 

ecological communities for the benefit of fish and wildlife in concert with the 

needs and desires of private landowners.

The Service also enlists the assistance of a wide variety of other partners 

to help restore wildlife habitat on private lands. These partners include 

other Federal agencies, Tribes, State and local governments, conservation 

organizations, academic institutions, businesses and industries, school 

groups, and private individuals. While not a program requirement, a dollarfor-dollar cost share is usually sought on a project-by-project basis.

Since the program’s inception in 1987, these partnerships have generated 

significant habitat restoration accomplishments on private lands, primarily 

focused on the restoration of wetlands, native grasslands, stream banks, 

riparian areas, and in-stream aquatic habitats. These restored habitats now 

provide important food, cover, and water for federal trust species including 

migratory birds (e.g., waterfowl, shore and wading birds, songbirds, and 

birds of prey) and anadromous fish, threatened and endangered species, 

as well as other fish, wildlife and plant species that have experienced 

population declines in the recent past. Many of these projects are located 

near existing National Wildlife Refuge System lands, or State Wildlife 

Management Areas, providing increased benefits to fish and wildlife that 

rely on these lands for survival.

The assistance that the Service offers to private landowners may take the 

form of informal advice on the design and location of potential restoration 

projects, or it may consist of designing and funding restoration projects 

under a voluntary cooperative agreement with the landowner. Under the 

cooperative agreements, the landowner agrees to maintain the restoration 

project as specified in the agreement for a minimum of 10 years.

Typical restoration projects may include, but are not limited to: 

•Restoring wetland hydrology by plugging drainage ditches, breaking tile 

drainage systems, installing water control structures, dike construction, and 

re-establishing old connections with waterways.

•Installing fencing and off-stream livestock watering facilities to allow for 

restoration of stream and riparian areas.

•Removal of exotic plants and animals which compete with native fish and 

wildlife and alter their natural habitats.

•Prescribed burning as a method of removing exotic species and to restore 

natural disturbance regimes necessary for some species survival.

•Reconstruction of in-stream aquatic habitat through bioengineering techniques.

In addition to providing restoration assistance to private landowners, the 

Service also provides biological technical assistance to U.S. Department of 

Agriculture agencies implementing key conservation programs of the Farm 

Bill. The Service’s assistance helps the Department of Agriculture meet the 

technical challenges presented by these programs while maximizing benefits 

to fish and wildlife resources. The Service also assists in on-the-ground 

habitat restoration actions associated with several of these programs.

Appendix VI.

Management Methods and Procedures
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

Under the Wetlands Reserve Program, conservation easements are required 

to protect and restore formerly degraded agricultural wetlands. The Service 

provides technical assistance to Department of Agriculture agencies and to 

private landowners on site selection, restoration planning, and compatible 

uses for easements offered voluntarily by interested landowners.

The Service provides technical assistance to the Farm Service Agency’s 

Farm Credit Programs in the implementation of three important 

conservation programs. Two of these programs involve conservation 

measures related to disposal of inventory farm property obtained through 

loan failure. The Service reviews these inventory properties and makes 

recommendations for: (1) the establishment of perpetual conservation 

easements for protection and restoration of wetlands and the conservation 

of other important natural resources; and (2) the fee title transfer of 

inventory properties to state or federal agencies for conservation purposes.

The third area in which the Service provides technical assistance involves 

property owned by Farm Service Agency borrowers. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service assists in evaluating natural resource values of property securing 

Farm Service Agency loans and makes recommendations for establishment 

of conservation contracts where borrowers voluntarily set aside the lands 

for conservation in exchange for partial debt cancellation. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service is the primary manager of inventory easements, and 

receives approximately 40 percent of the fee title transfers. These lands 

become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In addition, the 

Service restores wetlands and other important habitats on Farm Service 

Agency easements and transfer properties.

Some of the more widely used government conservation partnership 

programs in central Louisiana are listed in Figure 26.

Avifaunal Analysis

The goal for forest breeding birds in the Lower Mississippi Valley was to 

establish self-sustaining populations for all of the roughly 70 species that 

breed in the valley. Although habitat objectives must ultimately address 

both quality and quantity, the Service initially concentrated on the size and 

number of forest patches in this highly fragmented landscape. A 6-step 

process was established to set habitat objectives and population goals. The 

Partners-in-Flight prioritization process (Hunter et al., 1993) was utilized 

to set breeding bird species priorities in the valley. Six of the seven 

highest priority species breeding in the valley nest in bottomland hardwood 

forests. Based on this and the historical ecosystem structure of the valley, 

bottomland hardwood forests were selected as the highest priority habitat 

type for breeding bird conservation. To determine forest patch sizes, two 

sources of information were used: empirical studies and a mathematically 

derived theoretical genetically viable population. Empirical studies were 

used primarily for the swallow-tailed kite and the Cerulean warbler.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 169

Program Title Management Action Benefits to Landowner Contact Information

Partners for Wildlife Management for Wildlife Technical Assistance Fish & Wildlife Service

 and Timber Bayou Cocodrie National

 Wildlife Refuge

 Reforestation on Cropland Technical Assistance, PO Box 1772

 and Forest Land up to 100 percent Ferriday, LA 71334

 cost share

Wetlands Reserve Reforestation on Cropland Easement purchase and Natural Resource

Program and Forest Land restoration cost-share Conservation Service

 8331 Highway 84

 Marsh Restoration Easement purchase and Ferriday, LA 71334

 75 percent restoration 

 cost-share 

Conservation Reserve Management for Wildlife Annual rental payment, Farm Services Agency

Program and Timber 50 percent cost-share PO Box 686

 Ferriday, LA 71334-0686

 Reforestation on Cropland Rental payment and 

 and Forest Land 50 percent cost-share

 Marsh Protection Rental payment and

 50 percent cost-share

 Cropland Management for Rental payment and 

 Waterfowl or Other Wildlife 50 percentcost-share

Louisiana Natural Areas Existing Forest Land Management plan development, Lousiana Department of 

 Wildlife Fisheries, District 

 IV

Registry Program Protection tax incentives PO Box 426

 Ferriday, LA 71334-0426

 The Nature Conservancy

 PO Box 4125

 Baton Rouge, LA 70821

Technical Assistance Management for Wildlife Information source, Lousiana DWF, District IV

 and Timber technical assistance PO Box 426

 Ferriday, LA 71334-0426

 Marsh Protection Information source,

 and Restoration technical assistance

 Marsh Management Technical assistance,

 Assistance Program signs for posting

 Cropland Management for Information

 Waterfowl or Other Wildlife

Louisiana Waterfowl Cropland Management Technical assistance and Ducks Unlimited

Project for Water free water control structures

Figure 26. Private Lands Conservation Information
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

To determine the forest patch size requirements for the theoretical 

genetically viable populations the following formula was used:

A = (N c D) + B

A = Area of forest patch required to support a source population

N = number reproductive units (usually breeding pairs) required for a 

source population

D = Breeding density (usually expressed as hectares/breeding pair)

B = The area of a one kilometer forested buffer around the forest core 

(N*D).

For each of several populations, the Service adopted a proposed minimum 

effective population size of 500 breeding adults in the recovery plan for the 

Red-cockaded woodpecker. For monogamous species this constitutes 250 

breeding pairs. However, establishing conservation goals at the minimum 

threshold seems fraught with peril. Thus, to buffer breeding populations 

within forest patches, a goal of 500 breeding pairs per forest patch (N=500) 

was adopted. 

For the value of D, average breeding densities from Breeding Bird 

Censuses conducted in the Southeastern United States was used. Even 

under optimal conditions, bird density in bottomland hardwoods is 

determined by the frequency of occurrence of patchily distributed microhabitat features (e.g., thickets for Swainson’s warblers, cypress brakes for 

yellow-throated warblers, etc.). To account for these habitat quality factors, 

it was assumed that birds rarely occur in the valley at densities as high as 

reported in the literature, which is an additional reason for the adoption of 

500 breeding pairs per forest patch as a target population.

The agricultural matrix that dominates the valley is generally considered 

hostile to birds breeding within forest patches. Researchers working in 

fragmented landscapes have found that nest predation and parasitism were 

high even in large forest patches (5,000 acres) in landscapes with a low 

percentage of forest cover. They also have found that female Brown-headed 

cowbirds travel an average of 2 miles between feeding and breeding sites. 

One researcher has found that male Ovenbirds singing on territories less 

than 900 feet from the edge of the forest were more likely to be unpaired 

than males from the interior of the forest. For planning purposes, it 

is assumed that a 0.6-mile forest buffer surrounding an interior forest 

core will reduce these negative impacts. Only those pairs within the 

forest core are assumed to reproduce at a rate sufficient to serve as a 

source population. Because the area of a 0.6-mile buffer will vary with the 

geometric configuration of each forest patch, the area requirements of each 

will differ. For planning purposes, until the actual areas of interior forest 

within each forest patch are determined, doubling the core forest area 

(B=2) will generally result in forest patch requirements that approximate or 

exceed a 0.6-mile buffer around the desired interior forest area. 

As an example, Swainson’s warblers have been noted to occur at densities 

generally ranging of one pair per 6 to 11 acres. Taking the average of 

one pair per 9 acres, if Swainson’s warblers occur over a large area at 

this density, 500 pairs would require 4500 acres. Applying the doubling 
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 171

factor as a surrogate for the 0.6-mile buffer produces a desired forest patch 

size of 9,000 acres. The Service made this calculation for all valley forest 

breeding species. For planning purposes, the Service placed species into 3 

forest patch size groups designed to meet their specific area requirements: 

10,000-20,000, 20,000-100,000, and >100,000 acres.

Having determined the aerial habitat requirements of the high priority 

species and measured the existing habitat using 1992 thematic mapper 

images, specific locations across the valley were identified for habitat 

protection/restoration. In addition to habitat requirements and existing 

forest locations, several other factors such as flooding frequency, current 

land use, adjacent land use, ownership, and reforestation potential were 

used to identify proposed habitat protection/restoration sites. Where 

possible, restoration sites were centered on existing public land. Where 

linkages could logically be created, existing forest patches were combined 

to reach target sizes. This sometimes resulted in several existing 10,000- or 

20,000-acre patches being combined into a proposed 100,000-acre patch.

Ultimately 101 proposed Breeding Bird Forest Patches were identified for 

the valley, but the number and location of these sites are not final, and 

probably never will be. A massive reforestation effort will be necessary 

to meet these objectives and their achievement often will be opportunity 

driven. As new opportunities arise and old objectives become unattainable, 

the locations of the Breeding Bird Forest Patches will change.

For Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge, specifically, present data 

suggest densities for Swainson’s warblers are now about 6/100 acres in 

optimal habitat and that this figure is lower than found at Tensas and 

Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuges in comparable habitat (Ouchley 

unpubl. data, pers. observ.). To support 500 pairs, assuming all acreage is 

suitable or optimal habitat, about 8500 acres (without the buffer included) 

will be needed. However, as stated above it is risky to accept the 

assumption that all habitat is suitable or optimal for any priority species 

within a discrete habitat patch. A better assumption is that no more than 

half of all forested acreage is optimal or suitable (e.g., ridges, within a 

ridge and swale topography) for this species and therefore 17,000 acres 

(with buffer included) may be necessary to support the population target of 

500 pairs. This acreage requirement is well above that suggested for this 

species elsewhere in the valley, but where there are already larger existing 

forest patches Swainson’s warblers occur in higher densities. 

The potential for establishing an acreage target for Bayou Cocodrie 

National Wildlife Refuge at 20,000 acres or more of bottomland hardwoods 

would be made in the hope that eventually Cerulean warblers and some 

swallow-tailed kites may re-colonize the area. As efforts continue to expand 

forested acreage, increasing densities from 6 to 9 pairs/100 acres may be an 

appropriate population objective. Reproductive data collection should also 

be undertaken to measure whether nesting success and fledgling survival 

changes accordingly for this and other species on the above list. 

Food is assumed to be the limiting factor for both southbound migrating 

shorebirds and wintering waterfowl. Following this assumption, the 

amount of energy required to support one bird for one day, the length of 

each bird’s stay in the valley (wintering or transient), was calculated along 

with the amount of energy available from potential food sources.
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

H = P c S c E 

 C c F

H = Amount of habitat (hectares)

P = Population goal (number of birds)

S = Length of stay in the Lower Mississippi Valley (days)

E = Energetic requirement of one bird for one day (kilojoules [kj])

K = Energetic value of food source (kj/gram)

F = Available food (grams/ha)

With some adjustments, this formula was used to calculate the amount of 

habitat needed to support the target populations of shorebirds and waterfowl.

Transient Shorebirds

Typically, mudflat foraging habitat is abundant in the valley during the 

spring northward migration. In early spring the agricultural fields are bare 

and winter flood water is receding; in late spring rice fields are flooded. 

During southward migration, in late summer and fall, fields of maturing 

crops are dry. Therefore, the period from July 15 to September 30, is the 

period when foraging habitat for migrating shorebirds is least available. 

The objective is to ensure that adequate shallow water habitat is available 

in the valley to meet the foraging requirements of the species during their 

southward migration.

Neither census data nor any specific estimates of shorebird populations 

moving through the valley during southward migration currently exist. 

To establish such an estimate, we examined data from the International 

Shorebird Survey and consulted shorebird biologists (D.L. Helmers and 

B.A. Harrington) with knowledge of migration patterns and continental 

population estimates. Based on these sources, about 500,000 shorebirds are 

estimated to move through the valley during fall migration.

Shorebirds using the valley range in size from 30 to 200 grams (g). The 

average mass (weighted by abundance) is 45 g. A 45 g. shorebird requires 

102.77 kilojoules (kj)/day to maintain its existence metabolic rate. For the 

purpose of modeling, we assumed that chironomids are the primary food 

item consumed by shorebirds. A gram of chironomids has a gross energy 

content of 23.8 kj. Because the assimilation efficiency of birds feeding 

on invertebrates is approximately 73 percent, the net energy content of 

chironomids in about 17.6 kj/g. Thus a 45 g. shorebird requires about 6 

g./day (102.77/17.6 = 5.84) of invertebrate forage to maintain its body mass.

In addition, to provide the fat reserves necessary to complete migration, 

shorebirds must gain about one g./day. About 2 g. of invertebrate forage 

must be consumed each day to increase biomass by 1 g. The daily food 

requirement then becomes about 8 g.

We used estimates of 2 g./square meter for invertebrate food density 

and a 10-day stopover period for each shorebird migrating south through 

the Lower Mississippi Valley (D.L. Helmers, pers. comm.). The overall 

habitat objective for shorebird foraging habitat during southward migration 

is 5,000 acres. The 5,000-acre goal was distributed among valley states 

based on their ability to provide managed mudflat habitat during the fall 

migration period. 
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 173

For Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge, specifically, present and 

projected future refuge capabilities suggest that habitat should be provided 

to support about 12,000 southbound shorebirds.

Wintering Waterfowl

The valley-wide goal for waterfowl is to provide enough habitat to support 

4.3 million wintering ducks and 1.0 million wintering geese. The duck goal 

was derived from goals of the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan by determining the proportion of the continental wintering population 

found in the valley and then multiplying the continental breeding population 

goal by this proportion. Duck population levels from the 1970s were used as 

the basis for this goal because those levels are believed to be high enough to 

maintain huntable populations yet attainable in today’s social and economic 

environment. The goose population goal was derived from the number of 

geese observed in the valley during the mid-winter waterfowl inventories 

in the mid-1980s, a period when most goose populations in the Mississippi 

Flyway were at or near historic high levels.

As with shorebirds, it is assumed that food is the limiting factor on 

wintering populations. The energy value and availability of various foods 

(soybean, rice, corn, moist soil, and bottomland hardwood forest) were 

calculated, and the daily energy requirement of a female mallard (292 

kilocalories/day) was used. The wintering period for waterfowl is 120 days.

Approximately 650,000 acres of foraging habitat and an additional 625,000 

acres of naturally flooded habitat are needed to support the wintering 

waterfowl population goal. Within each state habitat objectives are divided 

between public and private ownership, managed and unmanaged lands, 

and three foraging habitats: bottomland hardwood forests, moist soil, and 

agricultural fields. The availability of waterfowl foraging habitat depends 

on adequate precipitation and the resultant ponding or overbank flooding, 

and water control infrastructure (levees, dikes, water control structures, 

pumps) to facilitate flooding.

Archaeological and Historic Resource Protection

With the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Federal Government 

recognized the importance of cultural resources to the national identity 

and sought to protect archaeological sites and historic structures on those 

lands either owned, managed, or controlled by the United States. The 

body of historic preservation laws has grown dramatically since 1906. 

Several themes are consistently present in the laws and the promulgating 

regulations. They include: 1) each agency to systematically inventory the 

“historic sites” on their holdings and to scientifically assess each site’s 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places; 2) consideration of 

impacts to cultural resources during the agency’s management activities 

and seek to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts; 3) protection of cultural 

resources from looting and vandalism to be accomplished through a mix 

of informed management, law enforcement efforts, and public education; 

and 4) the increasing role of consultation with groups, such as Native 

American tribes and African American communities, to address how a 

project or management activity may impact specific archaeological sites 

and landscapes deemed important to those groups. The objectives and 

strategies below outline the Service’s attempt to achieve mandated historic 

preservation responsibilities in a manner consistent with its mission and the 

refuge’s mission.
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

The Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Archaeologist coordinates a 

Memorandum of Understanding with pertinent federal and state agencies, 

such as the Louisiana Fish and Game Commission, to enhance law 

enforcement of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native 

American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, and Section 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as well as to facilitate investigations of 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act violations and unpermitted 

artifact collection on the refuge. 

A review of the State Site Files located at the Louisiana Division 

of Archaeology has provided preliminary information on the known or 

potential archaeological sites and historic structures within and near the 

refuge. Such information will aid the Service in the development of 

a long-term management plan for cultural resources. A comprehensive 

refuge-wide archaeological survey is recommended so that the Service’s 

management options can be fully realized in a cost-effective manner. The 

survey will provide a site predictive model based upon the region’s cultural 

history, known site distribution, oral history interviews, historic documents, 

historic land use patterns, topography, geomorphology, soils, hydrology, and 

vegetative patterns. 

Ecosystem Management

Healthy habitats are necessary to sustain fish, wildlife, and plants on lands 

in the system. In the past, the administrative boundaries of national 

wildlife refuges have often bounded the scope of planning and policy 

decisions. The Service develops conservation strategies at two spatial 

levels in a collaborative process to solve broad scale ecological problems. 

Within a large spatial level, the Service has developed a cross-program 

approach for the Lower Mississippi Valley considering issues within 

the ecological, political, and social boundaries. The Lower Mississippi 

River Ecosystem Team focuses on landscape problems affecting fish and 

wildlife resources and provides specific guidance that will best serve trust 

species and species of concern and reduce impacts associated with forest 

fragmentation. At a smaller spatial level, the comprehensive conservation 

planning team reflects the conservation strategies for national wildlife 

refuges within the ecosystem and identifies select area species on which to 

focus management efforts.

Ecosystems are communities of living organisms interacting among 

themselves and with the physical component of their environment. 

Ecosystems are experiencing increasing impacts from human activities, 

the threat of which will require extraordinary flexibility and innovation to 

successfully conserve and manage them. In recent years conservationists 

have fostered the idea that resource conservation can best be achieved by 

taking a holistic approach to management. The Service is working with 

divergent interests on ecosystem-based approaches to conserve the variety 

of life and its processes in the Nation’s diverse ecosystem.

The Service’s mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation’s fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to more effectively 

achieve this mission. Our objective is to implement consistent policies and 

procedures that will embrace the ecosystem approach in a “management 

environment” which considers the needs of all our resources in decision 

making. This holistic approach to fish and wildlife conservation will enable 

the Service to more efficiently and effectively maintain healthy ecosystems 

on a long-term basis and to conserve the Nation’s rich biological heritage.
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 175

An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation means protecting 

or restoring the function, structure, and species composition of an 

ecosystem while providing for its sustainable socioeconomic use. It involves 

recognizing that, in some way, all things are connected. The ecosystem 

approach emphasizes conservation and management of discrete land units, 

watersheds, or ecosystems and requires the identification of ecosystem 

goals that represent resource priorities on which all programs of the 

Service will collectively focus their efforts. The Service must work closely 

and consistently with external partners, public and private, who share 

responsibility for ecosystem health and biological diversity. This approach 

will enable the Service to fulfill its fish and wildlife trust responsibilities 

with greater efficiency and effectiveness. 

In the Southeast Region, we are approaching our nationally mandated 

leadership role for fish and wildlife conservation on an ecosystem basis, 

partnering with other Service regions, with other Federal agencies, 

with Sates and their local governments and citizenry, and with nongovernmental organizations. Together, we are working to achieve healthy, 

sustainable ecosystems that ensure a continuing legacy of abundant fish and 

wildlife resources for all Americans to use and enjoy. 

Land Protection and Conservation

The Service acquires land and interests in lands, such as easements and 

management rights in lands, through leases or cooperative agreements 

consistent with legislation or other Congressional guidelines and Executive 

Orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to provide wildlifeoriented public use for educational and recreational purposes. These lands 

include national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, research facilities, 

and other areas. The Service’s policy is to acquire land from willing sellers, 

and only when other protective means, such as local zoning restrictions 

or regulations, are not appropriate, available or effective. When land is 

needed to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service 

seeks to acquire the minimum interest necessary to reach those objectives. 

If fee title is required, the Service gives full consideration to extended use 

reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the impact 

on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests 

are encouraged.

The Service, like all federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain, 

which allows the use of condemnation to acquire lands and interest in lands 

for the public good. This power, however, requires congressional approval 

and is seldom used. The Service usually acquires lands from willing sellers. 

In all fee title acquisition cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 

percent of the property’s appraised market value, as set out in an approved 

appraisal that meets professional standards and federal requirements.

Planning for the acquisition of land, water, or other interests is initiated 

with the identification of a need to meet resource objectives that require 

a real property base. At Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge, a 

team of biologists, planners, and realty specialists evaluated a myriad of 

factors, such as fish and wildlife resources, land use, threats to resource 

values, socioeconomic considerations, and cultural resources, to determine 

the original refuge boundary in 1990. This draft plan proposes to protect 

additional habitat from 22,269 acres to 42,269 acres. The acquisition of lands 

adjacent to Service-owned lands within the existing refuge boundary and 

larger contiguous forest tracts (inside or outside the current acquisition 

boundary), would be given the highest priority. 
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

The recommendations in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

provided to decision makers on the expansion of the refuge boundary define 

important and sensitive areas that could be protected and managed as part 

of the refuge system. The plan proposal is eventually forwarded to the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service for approval. During the review of 

the draft plan, the public will have an opportunity to respond by attending 

public open houses, or directing comments to the Refuge Manager before 

the final plan is approved.

Once the expanded refuge boundary is approved and funds are available, 

the Service proceeds to contact all landowners within the boundary to 

determine if they are interested in selling their land. If the landowner 

expresses an interest in selling to the Service, a professional real estate 

appraiser will conduct an appraisal to determine the fair market value of 

the property. Once the value is determined, a meeting is held with the 

landowner and the Service presents its offer. If the landowner agrees with 

the offer, the purchase agreement is signed and the process of acquiring the 

land is set in motion.

Generally, the Service seeks to acquire the minimum interest necessary in 

the land to provide the level of protection needed to achieve management 

goals and needs. Other options may be available on a particular project 

such as conservation easements, leases, cooperative agreements or life-use 

reservations. In the latter, the owner reserves the right to live on and use 

part of the property for the remainder of his/her life. Owners sometimes 

choose to donate all or a portion of their land because of tax advantages or 

as a lasting memorial.

The acquisition methods that could be used by the Service under this 

alternative are described as follows:

1. Leases and Cooperative Agreements

Potentially, the Service can protect and manage habitat through leases 

and cooperative agreements. Management control on privately owned 

lands could be obtained by entering into long-term renewable leases or 

cooperative agreements with the landowners. Short-term leases can be 

used to protect or manage habitat until more secure land protection can 

be negotiated.

2. Conservation Easements

Conservation easements give the Service the opportunity to manage lands 

for their fish and wildlife habitat values. Such management precludes 

all other uses that are incompatible with the Service’s management 

objectives. Only land uses that would have minimal or no conflicts with 

the management objectives are retained by the landowner. In effect, 

the landowner transfers certain development rights to the Service for 

management purposes as specified in the easement. Easements would 

likely be useful when: (a) most, but not all, of a private landowner’s uses are 

compatible with the Service’s management objectives, and (b) the current 

owner desires to retain ownership of the land and continue compatible uses 

under the terms set by the Service in the easement.
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix 177

Land uses that are normally restricted under the terms of a conservation 

easement include:

(a) development rights (agricultural, residential, etc.); (b) alteration of the 

area’s natural topography; (c) uses adversely affecting the area’s floral and 

faunal communities; (d) private hunting and fishing leases; (e) excessive 

public access and use; and (f) alteration of the natural water regime.

3. Fee Title Acquisition

A fee title interest is normally acquired when (a) the area’s fish and wildlife 

resources require permanent protection not otherwise assured; (b) land is 

needed for visitor use development; (c) a pending land use could adversely 

impact the area’s resources, or (d) it is the most practical and economical 

way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit.

Fee title acquisition conveys all ownership rights to the Federal 

Government and provides the best assurance of permanent resource 

protection. A fee title interest may be acquired by donation, exchange, 

transfer, or purchase.

Funds for the acquisition of lands for Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge 

will likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund established by 

law. Sources of revenue for this fund include Federal Duck Stamp sales, refuge 

entrance fees, fish and wildlife fines, import taxes on arms and ammunition, 

offshore oil and gas leases, and Congressional appropriations.

Lands acquired by the Service would be removed from the tax rolls. To 

offset the fiscal impact associated with removal of these lands from the 

public tax rolls, the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 

1978, provides for payments in lieu of taxes. Revenue sharing payments for 

the parish would compare favorably with current tax rates. If fully funded, 

the revenue sharing rate is 1 percent of the fair market value of a property. 

For lands purchased by the Service, the greatest of the following amounts 

is used to determine the annual payment amount to the parish. Payment 

for acquired land is computed on whichever of the following formulas is 

greatest: (1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the fair market value of the lands 

acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 

75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the parish.

Lands subject to refuge revenue sharing payments are reappraised every 

5 years. The appraisals set the fair market value of the land, based on 

the highest and best use. The appraised market value of the fee title lands 

within the refuge, and thus, the revenue sharing payments, would change 

over time in relation to the changing value of non-refuge lands.

The Service’s proposed action (Alternative 2) would result in the acquisition 

of up to 20,000 acres of wildlife habitat as an expansion of Bayou Cocodrie 

National Wildlife Refuge, through a combination of fee title purchases and 

/or donations from willing sellers and less-than-fee interests (conservation 

easements, cooperative agreements) from willing landowners. The Service 

believes these are the minimum interests necessary to preserve and protect 

the fish and wildlife resources in the proposed area.
Section C/Appendix VI

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge

The private property has been prioritized for acquisition using the following criteria:

•Biological significance;

•Existing and potential threats;

•Significance of the area to refuge management and administration; and

•Existing commitments to purchase or protect land.

Three categories of land acquisition have been established, with the highest 

priority being the Priority I lands. A description of the lands within each 

of the three priority groups is given below. Figure 27 summarizes the 

Service’s land protection priorities and proposed methods of acquisition. 

Figure 28 show the locations of the project areas and their respective 

priority groups: Priority Group I, Priority Group II, and Priority Group III.

Priority Group No. of Landowners Approx. Acreage Type of Acquisition

 (minimum interest)

I 6 6,390 Fee Title

II 2 8,350 Fee Title

III 6 4,750 Conservation 

easement, 

cooperative 

agreement, or fee title

Figure 27. Protection Priorities for the Proposed Expansion and Recommended Methods 

of Acquisition
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 179

Figure 28. Land Acquistion Priorities

 Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge