Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

September 2007

SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX 

LACASSINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

September 2007

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

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

Coastal Zone Management Compliance ............................................................................. 3

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

Overview ............................................................................................................................. 4

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Priorities ..................................................................... 5

Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem Priorities ............................................................................... 5

Ecological Threats and Problems ....................................................................................... 7

Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan ........................................................................... 8

North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................................... 8

Gulf Coast Joint Venture (Chenier Plain Initiative) .............................................................. 8

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan .................................................................... 9

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ........................................................................ 9

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act ............................................. 9

Coast 2050: Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana .................................................... 10

Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan ....................................................... 10

Fisheries Vision for the Future .......................................................................................... 10

American Woodcock Management Plan ........................................................................... 11

II. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 13

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations ................................................................................. 14

Habitats: (Includes Lacassine Pool) .................................................................................. 24

Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 31

Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 34

Coordination/Cooperative Programs ................................................................................. 34

Facilities and Equipment ................................................................................................... 34

Research Natural Areas .................................................................................................... 35

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Planning Process .......................................................................................................................... 1

Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 1

Selection of Alternative ................................................................................................................. 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 1

The National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................................1

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 ......................................................... 1

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................................... 2

Purpose and Need for Plan .......................................................................................................... 3

Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 3

Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 4

Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 4

Conservation Priorities and Initiatives .......................................................................................... 7

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 13

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Priorities ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Refuge Environment and Other Related Information ................................................................. 14
ii Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Review ............................................................................................................ 35

Archaeological or Historical Resources ............................................................................ 36

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 37

Socioeconomic Profile ....................................................................................................... 39

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 41

Undesirable or Invasive Species ....................................................................................... 41

Early Successional Wetlands (Moist-soil Units) ................................................................ 41

Contamination ................................................................................................................... 41

Oil and Gas Activities ........................................................................................................41

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

Boats ................................................................................................................................. 51

Fishing ...............................................................................................................................51

Tournaments ..................................................................................................................... 52

Hunting .............................................................................................................................. 52

Water management ........................................................................................................... 53

Entrance/Use Fees ........................................................................................................... 53

General ............................................................................................................................. 53

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 54

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................54

People ............................................................................................................................... 55

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 55

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

Goal A: Habitat Management ........................................................................................... 58

Goal B: Fish and Wildlife Management ............................................................................ 69

Goal C: Oil and Gas Infrastructure and Activities ............................................................. 81

Goal D: Public Use Management ..................................................................................... 82

Goal E: Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 88

Goal F: Refuge Complex Operations ............................................................................... 89

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 91

Project 1 – Freshwater Impounded Marsh (Lacassine Pool) ............................................ 91

Project 2 – Early Successional Wetlands (Moist soil and Cooperative Farming Units) ..... 94

Project 3 – Unimpounded Freshwater Marsh .................................................................... 96

Refuge Related Problems .......................................................................................................... 41

Refuge Conservation Priorities ................................................................................................... 44

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 49

Scoping Meetings - General ....................................................................................................... 49

Special Fishing focus group meeting .......................................................................................... 49

Special Lacassine Pool Management meeting ........................................................................... 49

Special Hurricane damage meeting ........................................................................................... 50

Issues Identified by the Public During Scoping .......................................................................... 51

Issues Identified During Internal Scoping and the Biological and Public Use Reviews .............. 54

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

Vision .......................................................................................................................................... 57

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 57

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 91

Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 91
Table of Contents iii

Project 4 – Special Habitats: Wilderness, Prairie, and Bottomland Hardwoods .............. 97

Project 5 – Undesirable Plant and Animal Control ............................................................ 98

Project 6 – Inventory and Monitor Wildlife Populations and Responses to 

Management Actions ...................................................................................... 99

Project 7– Improve Visitor Services ................................................................................ 100

Project 8 – Promote and Enhance Priority Public Uses .................................................. 101

Project 9 - Partnerships, Volunteers, Friends, and Interns ............................................. 103

VI. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 109

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A – GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 113

APPENDIX B – REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 123

APPENDIX C – LEGAL MANDATES ................................................................................................. 127

APPENDIX D – BIOTA ...................................................................................................................... 133

APPENDIX E - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 143

APPENDIX F - APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 177

APPENDIX G - COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 191

APPENDIX H INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ...................................... 225

APPENDIX I - BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 231

APPENDIX J - FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 237

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 244

Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 103

Step-down management Plans ................................................................................................ 104

Partnership Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 107

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 108

Plan Performance ..................................................................................................................... 108

Planning Team ......................................................................................................................... 109

Contributors: ............................................................................................................................. 110

Summary of Public Scoping .....................................................................................................143

Focus Group Meeting Report – September 4, 2003 ................................................................. 148

Focus Group Meeting Results – May 8, 2005 .......................................................................... 153

Draft Plan Comments and Service Response .......................................................................... 159
iv Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 ecosystems ........................................................ 6

Figure 2. Location of refuges within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex ............................................................................................................... 15

Figure 3. Major features of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................... 16

Figure 4. Peak duck populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002 ................................................... 21

Figure 5. Peak goose populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002 ................................................. 21

Figure 6. Habitats of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................ 26

Figure 7. Management units on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ............................................... 27

Figure 8. Approved acquisition boundary of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ............................ 30

Figure 9. Current visitor facilities at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... 32

Figure 10. Proposal chosen by the public in May 2005 as the alternative for management 

of the Lacassine Pool ..................................................................................................... 92

Figure 11. Current and proposed staffing for Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Southwest 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex ............................................................... 105

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Birds of management concern to Lacassine Refuge ........................................................ 19

Table 2. Recent Peak Numbers of Waterfowl on Lacassine Refuge .............................................. 20

Table 3. Land cover/habitat types on Lacassine Refuge ................................................................ 25

Table 4. Equipment at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................ 35

Table 5. Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older in Cameron Parish 

(2000) ............................................................................................................................... 39

Table 6. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry in Cameron Parish 

(2000) ............................................................................................................................... 40

Table 7. Estimated cost to improve Lacassine Pool ....................................................................... 93

Table 8. Costs to expand and enhance early successional wetlands’ management units ............. 94

Table 9. Costs to expand and enhance cropland units at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ...... 95

Table 10. Costs to improve and enhance unimpounded freshwater marsh ...................................... 97

Table 11. Costs to improve special habitats, such as wilderness, prairie, and 

bottomland hardwoods ..................................................................................................... 98

Table 12. Costs to control undesirable plants and animals .............................................................. 98

Table 13. Costs to inventory and monitor wildlife populations and responses to adaptive 

management techniques .................................................................................................. 99

Table 14. Costs to improve visitor services .................................................................................... 101

Table 15. Costs to enhance priority public use ............................................................................... 102

Table 16. Costs to enhance priority public use ............................................................................... 103

Table 17. Cost of existing and proposed positions ......................................................................... 104

Table 18. Summary of Costs for 2007 - 2022 ................................................................................. 106

Table 19. Step-down management plans ....................................................................................... 107
Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Executive Summary 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) to guide the management of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron and Evangeline 

Parishes, Louisiana. Lacassine, Cameron Prairie, Sabine, and Shell Keys Refuges comprise the 

Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The CCP outlines programs and 

corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. 

PLANNING PROCESS 

The Service began a pre-planning stage with biological and public use reviews of the refuge's 

management program. The biological review team was composed of biologists from Federal and 

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

diverse teams presented the Service with recommendations to manage habitat, wildlife, and refuge 

resources, such as oil and gas, cultural resources, refuge administration, and visitor services. The 

Service held numerous public meetings to determine issues and solicit public reaction to the 

proposed alternatives. Also, a 30-day public review and comment period of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment was provided. Input received from the public 

was also considered during the development of the CCP. 

ALTERNATIVES 

A planning team comprised of Service personnel, State agency representatives, non-governmental 

agencies, and others then developed an Environmental Assessment to formulate a range of 

alternatives or different approaches to refuge management that the Service would reasonably 

undertake to achieve goals to fulfill the purpose of the refuge. Each alternative consists of different 

sets of goals, objectives, and strategies for management of the refuge. Three alternatives emerged 

for possible management direction and are discussed below. 

Alternative A – No-Action (Current Management Direction) 

Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, is the baseline or status quo of refuge programs and is 

usually a continuation of current planning unit objectives and management strategies, with little or no 

changes or changes that would have occurred without the CCP. 

The refuge would remain at 34,724 acres in fee title (including Farm Service Agency transfer lands), 

and leased land. With “no action,” marsh loss rates of at least 0.23 percent per year would continue 

to be low-to-moderate in the Mermentau River Basin; similar rates are expected in Lacassine Refuge. 

The refuge would continue to manage impounded freshwater marsh (16,000 acres), dynamic Statejurisdictional waterways (Lacassine Bayou and Mermentau River), ephemeral freshwater marsh 

(Streeter Canal, Duck Pond), and upland vegetation to benefit native plants. Acreages of different 

habitats would remain as they are now. 

About 3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway would continue to be formally designated 

as wilderness. 
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative B – Maximize refuge management capabilities in all programs - Preferred Alternative 

Under Alternative B, the Service's proposed alternative, Lacassine Refuge would fulfill its approved 

acquisition boundary. The 3,300-acre Wilderness Area would remain the same size. Gross habitat 

acreages would not change appreciably from those under Alternative A, but habitats, in general, 

would be managed more intensively. 

The refuge would also expand on existing wildlife management programs including: 

• Focus refuge management on improving/extending the value of the Lacassine Pool as a 

waterfowl sanctuary; 

• Provide additional waterfowl food to benefit migratory birds, especially northern pintails; 

• Pursue opportunities to reduce erosion to refuge marshes; 

• Conduct/evaluate prescribed fire in Lacassine Pool and other refuge marshes; 

• Seek support to control invasive plants in Wilderness Area and refuge-wide; 

• Continue partnerships to manage and protect the 334-acre coastal prairie; 

• Improve hunting/fishing experiences; and 

• Manage oil and gas activities in accordance with Service policy (Refer to Chapter II, Refuge 

Related Problems, Oil and Gas Activities). 

Alternative C – Maximize habitat quantity/quality for wintering waterfowl focusing on Lacassine 

Pool only. 

Under Alternative C, the secondary action alternative, Lacassine Refuge would remain at 

34,724 acres, but would refocus the refuge management priority to actively investigating and 

extending the life/value of the Lacassine Pool freshwater impoundment, which serves as a 

migratory waterfowl sanctuary October 15-March 15 annually. Other programs dealing either 

with non-pool areas of the refuge or non-habitat aspects of refuge management (i.e., 

cooperative farming, moist-soil management, upland-vegetation management, visitor services, 

and priority public uses) would be managed at a reduced level, since finite refuge resources 

would be directed to the Lacassine Pool. 

SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE 

The planning team’s proposed action, Alternative B, was selected by the Service as the basis 

for the CCP and is the most reasonable alternative to best achieve Lacassine Refuge’s 

purposes, vision, and goals. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. Responsibilities are 

shared with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

entities; however, the Service has specific 

responsibilities for endangered species, migratory 

birds, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine 

mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered 

by the Service for the management and protection of 

these resources. It also operates national fish 

hatcheries, fishery resource offices, and ecological 

services field stations. The Service enforces Federal wildlife laws; administers the Endangered Species 

Act; manages migratory bird populations; restores nationally significant fisheries; conserves and restores 

wildlife habitat, such as wetlands; and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also 

oversees the Federal Aid Program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars from excise taxes on 

fishing and hunting equipment to State fish and wildlife agencies. 

THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The Service manages the 95-million-acre 

National Wildlife Refuge System, which 

encompasses 545 national wildlife refuges, 

thousands of small wetlands, and other special 

management areas. The majority of these 

lands, 77 million acres, is in Alaska, with the 

remaining acres spread across the other 49 

States and several territories. Approximately 

82 million acres in the Refuge System were 

reserved from the public domain. The 

remainder was acquired through purchase, 

from other Federal agencies, as gifts, or through easement and lease agreements. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997 

An important milestone occurred in 1997 with the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act, which has been called the “Organic Act” of the Refuge System. The Act 

established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

The Act also recognized the outstanding recreational opportunities on refuges. The Refuge System 

has long provided some of the Nation's best hunting and fishing, and our refuges continue to support 

these deeply rooted American traditions. The law established compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation as priority public uses of the Refuge System. 

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 mission of the Service is 

working with others to “conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit 

 of the American people.” 
2 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Among other things, this far-reaching law required comprehensive conservation planning for each 

refuge, and set standards to assure that all uses of refuges were compatible with their purposes and 

the Refuge System's wildlife conservation mission. It also required the Service to conserve the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges, and consider the conservation of 

the ecosystems of the United States in planning the growth of the Refuge System. 

The Service’s planning process is premised on strong partnerships with State fish and wildlife 

agencies. It provides an opportunity to use science in managing refuges, assuring an ecological 

perspective as to how refuges fit into the greater surrounding landscapes. The planning process also 

provides citizens with a meaningful role in helping to shape future management of individual refuges 

and recognizes the important roles they play in the lives of nearby communities. 

The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

• fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

• fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge; 

• consider the needs of wildlife first; 

• fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of the 

Refuge System; 

• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

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

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

• allow refuge managers authority to determine compatible public uses. 

LACASSINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, the 123rd refuge 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System, has been 

prepared as mandated by the Act to guide 

management actions and direction for the refuge for 

the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will 

receive first priority in refuge management; wildlifedependent recreation will be allowed and 

encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and 

does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or 

the purposes for which it was established. 

The mission of Lacassine National 

Wildlife Refuge is to protect, restore, 

enhance, and manage a representative 

portion of freshwater wetland and 

associated habitats for the benefit of 

wintering waterfowl, other migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and people. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN 

The purpose of the CCP is to ensure that each refuge contributes to the Refuge System’s mission to 

provide a 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. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

• provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; 

• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

• ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation and 

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

• ensure that refuge management is consistent with the purpose for which the refuge was 

established; 

• ensure that refuge management is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans and 

contributes to the mission of the ecosystem in which it is located; and 

• provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

INTRODUCTION 

The mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential 

executive orders, and international treaties guide administration of national wildlife refuges. Policies 

for management options of refuges are defined in administrative guidelines established by the 

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

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

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE 

The Service also complies with all Federal, State, and regional policies and regulations for projects 

within the boundaries of national wildlife refuges. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

requires Coastal Zone Permits for work that may affect the land use, water use, or natural resources 

of the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Zone boundary is the northern bank of the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway. Although the Service is exempt from Coastal Zone Permits, it is required to be consistent 

with the Coastal Zone Management Program requirements for work within its boundary that may 

affect resources south of the boundary, regardless of where the project occurs. A No Effect 

Determination to the Coastal Zone area is applicable for projects described in this CCP that will be 

accomplished within the refuge boundary. 
4 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM LANDS 

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

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

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

• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

• conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

• monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

• manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) as those uses benefit the 

conservation of fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and 

• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

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

effective cooperation and collaboration with other Federal agencies and State fish and wildlife 

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

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

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

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is a State-partnering agency with the Service, 

charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds and endangered species, as well 

as managing State natural resources and approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and 

wildlife management areas. The Department coordinates the wildlife conservation program and 

provides public recreation opportunities on Louisiana wildlife management areas. The State’s 

participation and contribution throughout this planning process provides for ongoing opportunities and 

open dialogue to improve the ecological health and diversity of fish and wildlife. A vital part of the 

planning process is integrating common mission objectives, where appropriate. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

OVERVIEW 

The Service is increasing its efforts to adopt collaborative resource partnerships with private 

landowners and local communities, as well as State and Federal governments within ecosystems. 

The purpose is to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity, to 

establish conservation priorities, to clarify goals, and to solve common threats and problems 

associated with fish and wildlife resources. The synergy of all Federal, State, Tribal, and private 

organizations, working together, will ensure that the Service not only protects the more important 

areas, but also reduces redundancy and overlap. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

Lacassine Refuge is a member and active participant of the Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

Team (Figure 1). The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem is the primary wintering habitat for midcontinent waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and migration habitat for songbirds returning from 

Central and South America, and provides high-quality habitat for resident wildlife species. 

Geographically, the refuge lies on the extreme southwestern boundary of the Lower Mississippi River 

Ecosystem and has few opportunities to contribute to many of its goals and objectives. There are 

some common targets applicable to the refuge and to which it contributes, but the refuge would more 

appropriately contribute to the goals and objectives of the Service’s Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem. 

The Texas Gulf Ecosystem lies between the Sabine River and the mouth of the Rio Grande River and 

inland to include the historical coastal prairie. It is considered by many to be part of a larger 

ecological Gulf Coast system that also includes portions of coastal Louisiana and Mexico. The Texas 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem team has requested that Region 4 refuges in nearby Louisiana participate in 

its team meetings. 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES 

Priorities identified by the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem to which the refuge can contribute 

include: 

• continue to work with the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Task Force, private landowners, and 

other entities to protect and restore coastal wetlands, consistent with the Coast 2050 Plan and 

associated project planning, evaluation and implementation activities; 

• consider all grant opportunities available to the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Team and 

partners and work to improve internal coordination of these programs to assure that the 

contributions to these programs are of maximum benefit to the resource; 

• support environmental education efforts underway by Service offices to enhance and expand 

knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of trust resources; 

• restore native prairie; 

• control invasive and exotic species; and 

• build regional and national support for the Service’s Fisheries Program. 

TEXAS GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES 

Priorities identified by the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem to which the refuge can contribute include: 

• restore, conserve, enhance, and maintain approximately 500,000 acres of the historic Gulf 

Coast prairies in Louisiana, Texas, and Mexico to ensure the continued existence of native 

flora and fauna; 

• maintain, restore, enhance, and create wetlands and associated habitats to achieve a net gain 

in wetland quality, quantity (based on National Wetland Inventory data), and natural 

productivity; 
6 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 ecosystems 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

• increase ecological monitoring and research efforts and improve information management 

capabilities in the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem; 

• encourage Region 4 field stations with similar coastal resource objectives to participate in its 

team meetings; and 

• develop partnerships with other Service Regions, Mexico, natural resource agencies, 

universities, and non-governmental organizations to plan and implement outreach programs. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as part of the last safety net to support 

biological diversity—the greatest challenge facing the Service. According to the Lower Mississippi 

River Ecosystem Team, the greatest threats to biological diversity within the Lower Mississippi Valley 

include: 

• the loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland 

hardwood forests; 

• the loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest fragmentation); 

• the effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices; 

• the simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools; 

• the effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and 

• the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities. 

Specific threats applicable to Lacassine Refuge include: 

• gradual filling of Lacassine Pool with sediments and accumulated organic material (e.g., dead 

plant matter), leading to loss of water volume, open water surface area, and excessively 

dense and extensive emergent vegetation; 

• colonization of invasive plant and animal species, which displace natural vegetation and 

degrade those habitats on which native animal species depend; and 

• problems associated with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Bayou Lacassine (Willow 

Cutoff), including soil and marsh erosion caused by wave action and contamination resulting 

from barge accidents. 

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES 

Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on 

threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern. Goals and 

objectives in this CCP are stepped down from the following plans: 

• Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan; 
8 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan (e.g., Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Chenier Plain 

Initiative); 

• North American Waterbird Conservation Plan; 

 

• United States Shorebird Conservation Plan; 

• Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act; 

• Coast 2050 – Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana; 

• Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan; 

• Fisheries Vision for the Future; and 

• American Woodcock Management Plan. 

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation led efforts in the 1990s to form the Partners in Flight 

program to combine resources and the knowledge of many people to protect the natural diversity of 

our continent. Many partners have made the program successful by participating in Working Groups 

to develop Regional Bird Conservation Plans. Lacassine Refuge is located within the Coastal Prairie 

Physiographic Area 6 and can contribute to the plan’s actions for marsh restoration projects to benefit 

migratory landbirds. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed by the United States and Canadian 

governments in 1986, undertook an intensive effort to protect and restore North America’s waterfowl 

populations and their habitats. With its update in 1994, Mexico became a signatory to the plan. 

Restoration of wetlands and associated ecosystems is the main premise of the plan in order to 

restore waterfowl populations to levels observed in the 1970s. 

GULF COAST JOINT VENTURE (CHENIER PLAIN INITIATIVE) 

Regional partnerships or joint ventures composed of individuals, sportsmen’s groups, conservation 

organizations, and local, State, Provincial, and Federal governments were formed under the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan. One such partnership—the Gulf Coast Joint Venture—

formed to conserve priority waterfowl habitat range along the western United States Gulf Coast, one 

of the most important waterfowl areas in North America. The Gulf Coast is the terminus of the 

Central and Mississippi Flyways, which provides both wintering and migration habitat for significant 

numbers of the continental goose and duck populations. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture’s greatest 

contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is to provide wintering grounds for 

waterfowl. A great diversity of birds, mammals, fish, shellfish, reptiles, and amphibians also rely on 

the wetlands of the Gulf Coast for part of their life cycles. 

The Gulf Coast Joint Venture is divided geographically into six initiative areas, one of which is the 

Chenier Plain Initiative area of southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. The goal of the Chenier 

Plain Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for significant numbers of dabbling ducks, 

diving ducks, and geese, especially lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens), and greater white-
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

fronted geese (Anser albifrons), as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula). 

Habitat objectives of this initiative are based on assumptions that food is the limiting factor affecting 

waterfowl populations on the Gulf Coast (Ducks Unlimited 2006). 

The refuge contributes to the objectives of this Initiative by: 

• providing waterfowl foraging habitat through management of impounded freshwater marsh 

(e.g., Lacassine Pool); 

• increasing moist-soil management capabilities on up to 1,000 acres of early successional 

wetlands (e.g., moist-soil units); 

• providing resting and breeding habitat for mottled ducks and banding mottled ducks in 

cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; 

• furnishing nest boxes for wood ducks (Aix sponsa) and black-bellied whistling ducks 

(Dendrocygna autumnalis); and 

• providing approximately 550 acres of croplands as food for wintering waterfowl. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN 

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan was developed under a partnership, the Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas, which is a group of individuals and organizations having interest and 

responsibility for conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas. Lacassine Refuge is 

located in the Southeast U.S. Regional Waterbird Conservation Planning Area. The refuge can 

contribute to a key objective of this region, which is to standardize data collection efforts and analysis 

procedures to allow better tracking of regional movements and the association of these movements 

with environmental or land-use changes. 

UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN 

The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations throughout 

the United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. Lacassine Refuge is located within 

the Lower Mississippi, Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region. On a regional scale, the 

refuge can help ensure that adequate quality and quantity of habitat is identified and maintained to 

support the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate through the area. 

COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION, AND RESTORATION ACT 

In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act that 

generates $50 to $60 million annually for Louisiana coastal wetland restoration projects via an 85/15 

Federal/State cost-share, and which provided for the development of the 1993 Comprehensive 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan. The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Task Force, which is composed of five Federal agencies and the State of Louisiana, 

determine funding of proposed projects. As mandated by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, 

and Restoration Act, the task force developed a detailed Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan in 1993, 

that describes what restoration actions and projects should be implemented to address Louisiana’s 

coastal land-loss crisis. A Priority Project List is developed and approved by the task force each year, 

outlining which projects will receive funding. 
10 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

COAST 2050: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE COASTAL LOUISIANA 

Coast 2050, funded by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, is a 

comprehensive, ecosystem-based plan developed to address coastal wetland loss throughout 

southern Louisiana by private citizens, local, State, and Federal agencies, and the scientific 

community. This plan, recognized by the State of Louisiana, five Federal agencies, and local coastal 

parish governments, serves as the joint coastal restoration plan for the Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration Act. The overarching goal of the plan is to sustain a coastal ecosystem 

that supports and protects the environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana, and that 

contributes greatly to the economy and well-being of the Nation. 

Coast 2050 strategic objectives include: 

• to sustain a coastal ecosystem with the essential functions and values of the natural ecosystem; 

• to restore the ecosystem to the highest practicable acreage of productive and diverse 

wetlands; and 

• to accomplish this restoration through an integrated program that has multiple use benefits 

(Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). Lacassine Refuge is included in Region 4 of 

this plan. 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN 

The Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan evolved from the Coast 2050 Plan, with the 

overarching goal of reversing the current trend of degradation of the coastal ecosystem. This plan formed 

the basis for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study, designed to identify critical 

ecological needs, identify restoration efforts, establish restoration priorities, and identify scientific 

uncertainties to present a strategy for addressing long-term needs of coastal Louisiana restoration. 

Lacassine Refuge is located within Sub-province 4 of the Louisiana Coastal Area. The restoration plans 

identified in the Louisiana Coastal Area relate directly and indirectly to the refuge through long-term efforts 

to explore large-scale restoration projects that will influence the entire coastal zone of Louisiana. 

FISHERIES VISION FOR THE FUTURE 

In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries Program and 

develop a vision. This vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program “is working with partners to 

restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to support Federal 

mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public.” 

To achieve the vision, the Fisheries Program works with its partners to: 

• protect the health of aquatic habitats; 

• restore fish and other aquatic resources; and 

• provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Together, the group developed a series of goals, objectives, and implementation actions to focus on 

key needs. Lacassine Refuge can contribute to the program’s recreational fishing goal to provide 

quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other related recreational enjoyment of aquatic 

resources on Service lands. 

AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan sets 

management goals to restore woodcock population to levels consistent with the demands of 

consumptive and non-consumptive users (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Reliable annual 

population estimates, harvest estimates, and information on recruitment and distribution are essential 

for comprehensive woodcock management, as well as conserving and managing habitat. 
12 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

II. Refuge Description 

INTRODUCTION 

Created in 1937, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge was the 123rd refuge established within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. It is located at the edge of Grand Lake and 15 miles from the Gulf 

of Mexico in Cameron and Evangeline Parishes in Louisiana (Figure 2). The refuge is strategically 

located on the boundary of coastal marsh and agricultural habitats, as well as at the southern 

terminus of the Mississippi and Central Flyways, making the refuge critically important to migratory 

birds, especially wintering waterfowl. 

Most of the 34,724-acre refuge consists of freshwater marsh with only a few natural ridges and levees 

(Figure 3). The dominant feature of the refuge is Lacassine Pool, created by enclosing a 16,000-acre 

marsh with a low levee. The refuge is bisected from east to west by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

and north to south by Lacassine Bayou. Habitat types and approximate acreage on the refuge 

include: 14,700 acres of fresh marsh; 16,000 acres of impounded fresh marsh; 1,048 acres of open 

water; 352 acres of forested wetlands; 348 acres of shrub wetlands; 1,109 acres of croplands (e.g., 

rice and fallow); 307 acres of managed fresh marsh (e.g., moist-soil plant impoundments); and 334 

acres of coastal prairie plus roads, levees, etc. About 3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway are set aside with wilderness designation. The vegetative types occurring on the refuge 

are primarily water-tolerant grasses, sedges, and shrubs. The types vary according to the frequency, 

depth, and length of time water covers the area. Vegetation in the unmanaged marshes is 

predominantly Bulltongue (Sagittaria lancifolia). Vegetation in Lacassine Pool consists primarily of 

Bulltongue, maidencane (Pancium hemitomon), watershield (Brasenia schreberi), waterlily 

(Nymphaea sp.), Spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), and southern bulrush (Scirpus sp.). 

Lacassine Refuge provides valuable habitat for resident and migratory birds (e.g., ducks, geese, 

shorebirds, neotropical migratory birds, and wading birds), mammals (e.g., rabbits, armadillos, 

bobcats, coyotes, foxes, and raccoons), rodents, reptiles (e.g., snakes, turtles, lizards, and alligators), 

and other wildlife. Lacassine Pool serves as a sanctuary for wintering waterfowl with a large 

concentration of birds using the area to feed or rest. Large wintering concentrations of white-fronted 

and snow geese can be found here, along with predominately puddle ducks, such as pintails, blue 

and green-winged teals, mallards, gadwalls, shovelers, and American widgeons. Smaller 

concentrations of diving ducks, and Canada and Ross’ geese also utilize the refuge. 

Refuge habitat is managed for use by all native wildlife, with special emphasis on waterfowl. 

Because of this management emphasis, an outstanding recreational fisheries resource was 

developed. Management techniques used at Lacassine Refuge include prescribed burning, 

managing for early successional wetland and emergent aquatic wetland plants, planting food crops 

(e.g., predominately rice), and water level manipulation. Approximately 2,129 acres are managed for 

early successional wetland (e.g., moist-soil) plants and agricultural crops to provide desirable 

waterfowl food. The refuge also uses several management techniques to provide suitable conditions 

for waterfowl within Lacassine Pool. 

PURPOSE 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge was established on December 30, 1937, as Lacassine Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge by the following: 1) Executive Order 7780, “...as a Refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife...;” 2) the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, “... for use as an inviolate 
14 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

sanctuary, or any other management purpose, for migratory birds,” (U.S.C. 715d). Additional lands 

were added to the refuge under 3) Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “...for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...” [16 U.S.C. 

742f(a)(4)] and 4) “...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its 

activities and services” [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)]. 

PRIORITIES 

Lacassine Refuge aims to conserve and restore desirable habitat and, in Lacassine Pool, to maintain 

a desirable water depth and open water ratio considered valuable for fulfilling the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 

Priorities of the refuge are to: 

• develop and manage the refuge for migratory birds, with special emphasis on waterfowl 

(especially northern pintail and mottled ducks); 

• develop and manage the refuge for native flora and fauna common to the marshes in 

Louisiana and rare and endangered species/habitat types; 

• provide opportunities for research by serving as a demonstration area and outdoor laboratory 

for those studying the ecology of southwest Louisiana wetlands; and 

• encourage wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental educational and interpretation) on the refuge compatible with 

the refuge’s mission and goals. 

REFUGE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT POPULATIONS 

Although established to provide wintering habitat for waterfowl, Lacassine Refuge supports many 

communities of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The refuge actually lies at the interface of higher 

agricultural land and the coastal marshes and includes considerable acreage of marsh and agriculture 

within its boundaries. It has a high plant and animal species diversity due to its different elevations and 

water depths, although in this flat part of the country, these elevation differences are measured in inches 

and feet rather than hundreds or thousands of feet. Wildlife species on the refuge are those indigenous to 

the marshes of coastal Louisiana. Several nesting colonies of wading and water birds, such as ibises, 

roseate spoonbills (Ajaia ajaja), and egrets are found here. A large population of alligators and 

furbearers, such as nutria (Myocastor coypos) and raccoon, are on the refuge. Several hundred 

thousand ducks and geese historically utilize the refuge as wintering habitat, while wood ducks (Aix 

sponsa), mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula), and fulvous (Dendrocygna bicolor) and black-bellied 

(Dendrocygna autumnalis) whistling ducks nest here during the breeding season. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

Figure 2. Location of refuges within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex 
16 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 3. Major features of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Threatened and Endangered Species 

One federally listed threatened species occurs on the refuge – the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus). The refuge may also attract transient Louisiana black bears, also a federally listed 

threatened species. 

The bald eagle was first listed on March 11, 1967, and several recovery plans have been written to 

recover the species. It is currently designated as threatened in its current range of the conterminous 

United States and Alaska. Although the bald eagle was recommended for delisting in 1999, it was 

determined additional data would be needed before taking this action. Current threats are loss of nesting 

habitat due to development along the coast and near inland rivers and waterways. Bald eagles are seen 

on Lacassine Refuge and it has habitat that could contribute to the well-being of this species. 

The Louisiana black bear was first listed on January 7, 1992. It is currently designated as threatened 

in its entire range of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Lacassine Refuge is outside of known 

occupied habitat (i.e., defined as an area with resident reproducing female Louisiana black bears); 

however, it may receive rare use by transient animals. Male Louisiana black bears can travel far from 

occupied habitats and have been documented in every parish in Louisiana at least once. Lacassine 

Refuge does not provide habitat typically used by bears, but such long-ranging individuals may pass 

through and use the area.

Species of Fish and Wildlife Service Management Concern 

The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) is a Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, species of management 

concern. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries personnel have identified Lacassine Bayou and 

the Mermentau River as extremely important areas for paddlefish. Paddlefish populations have declined 

throughout much of their historic range in North America due to habitat changes and over-fishing, mostly 

to supply the caviar market. Due to their scarcity, and to threats posed from over-harvest, no harvest of 

paddlefish is currently allowed in Louisiana. Despite prohibitions on harvest, some incidental take of 

paddlefish in nets and with other tackle sometimes occurs. The refuge prohibits commercial fishing in the 

portions of the streams that are within its boundaries and jurisdiction. 

A 1988 amendment (Public Law 100-653, Title VIII) to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 

mandated the Service to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds 

that without additional conservation actions are likely to become candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973.” Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 is the most recent effort to carry 

out this mandate (USFWS 2002a). The report strives to accurately identify migratory and non-migratory 

bird species, beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered, that represent the 

Service’s highest conservation priorities in order to draw attention to species in need of conservation 

action. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 lists birds of conservation concern at three geographic 

scales – North American Bird Conservation Initiative Bird Conservation Regions, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Regions, and National – to maximize the utility of the lists for partners, agencies, and organizations. 

Three national plans were used to place birds on the lists: Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. Current conservation 

assessment scores for each species were taken from the three plans, which were based on several 

factors, including population trends, threats, distribution and abundance, and area importance. 
18 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

While all the bird species included in Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 are priorities for 

conservation action, the lists make no findings with regard to whether they warrant consideration for 

Endangered Species Act listing. The Service’s goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional 

listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions. 

There have been 236 bird species recorded at Lacassine Refuge (USFWS 2002b, 1989a). The 

refuge’s bird checklist is presented in Appendix D. 

Table 1 lists birds known or expected to occur on Lacassine Refuge that are of management 

concern. Refer to Appendix D for scientific names. 

Species of Refuge Management Concern 

The northern pintail has become a species of special concern to the refuge as populations have 

steadily decreased over the years. The refuge hosted numbers well over 100,000 until the mid1980s, then saw peaks reduced by half in the 1990s. The northern pintail, however, is one of the few 

ducks that continues to lag far behind its North American Waterfowl Management Plan population 

objective. Southwest Louisiana is one of the key wintering areas for pintails, and the open, shallow 

water habitats of flooded and managed rice fields are ideal for the species. Specifically targeting 

pintails as a species of refuge management concern is therefore appropriate. 

Alligator snapping turtles (Macroclemmys temminckii), one of the world largest freshwater turtles, are 

becoming increasingly rare throughout their range. Commercial harvest is allowed in Louisiana, 

despite being outlawed in all other states. These turtles, known to occur in Lacassine Bayou, are 

occasionally taken on trotlines. Although there is currently no Federal or State protection, such 

protection may be needed, since these long-lived creatures do not reach sexual maturity for many 

years. They are vulnerable to over-harvest from which populations may take a long time to recover. 

Waterfowl 

Historically supporting over 500,000 ducks and 150,000 geese at peak population, the refuge serves 

as one of the major wintering grounds for waterfowl in the Mississippi Flyway, and serves as host to 

large concentrations of northern pintails and greater white-fronted geese, two species of particular 

concern in the Mississippi Flyway. Other common wintering species include blue-winged and greenwinged teal, gadwall, American widgeon, northern shoveler, mallard, ring-necked duck (Aythya 

collaris), and snow geese. Table 2 shows peak waterfowl numbers at Lacassine Refuge for three 

recent years. Figures 4 and 5 show peak duck and goose population numbers from 1939 - 2002. 

Lacassine Refuge is in the heart of rice farming country, which supports large numbers of geese. 

The refuge’s largest concentration of white-fronted, snow, Ross, and Canada geese are found on its 

farm units. Small numbers of white-fronted and Canada geese use the Lacassine Pool. The refuge 

provides nesting habitat for wood and mottled ducks, black-bellied and fulvous whistling-ducks, and 

blue-winged teal. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Table 1. Birds of management concern to Lacassine Refuge 

Common Name Bird Conservation 

Region 37 List 

USFWS 

Region 4 List National List 

American Bittern X 

Little Blue Heron X X 

Reddish Egret X X X 

White Ibis X 

Northern Harrier X X 

Peregrine Falcon X X X 

Yellow Rail X X X 

American Golden-Plover X X 

Upland Sandpiper X 

Whimbrel X X X 

Long-billed Curlew X X X 

Marbled Godwit X X X 

Red Knot X X X 

Stilt Sandpiper X X 

Short-billed Dowitcher X X 

Gull-billed Tern X X X 

Common Tern X 

Least Tern X X X 

Black Tern X 

Black Skimmer X X X 

Black-billed Cuckoo X 

Burrowing Owl X X 

Short-eared Owl X X X 

Chuck-will’s Widow X X 

Whip-poor-will X 

Red-headed Woodpecker X X X 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher X 

Sedge Wren X X 

Wood Thrush X 

Golden-winged Warbler X X 

Prairie Warbler X X 

Cerulean Warbler X X 

Prothonotary Warbler X X 

Worm-eating Warbler X X 

Louisiana Waterthrush X 

Kentucky Warbler X X 

Canada Warbler X 

LeConte’s Sparrow X X X 

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow X 
20 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Wading Birds (Water and Marsh Birds) 

Lacassine Refuge provides nesting and feeding areas for large numbers of wading and marsh birds. 

Historically, Black Grove and Blue Grove, located in the southern portion of Lacassine Pool, and Unit 

C have been the main rookery sites and some are still used. Smaller rookeries in cypress (Taxodium 

distichum), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), giant bulrush (Scirpus californicus), and willow 

trees (Salix nigra) and shrubs have also been located around Lacassine Pool. White-faced (Plegadis 

chihi) and white ibis (Eudocimus albus); great (Ardea alba), cattle (Bubulcus ibis), and snowy (Egretta 

thula) egrets; great blue (Ardea herodias), Louisiana (Egretta tricolor), and little blue herons (Egretta 

caerulea); anhingas (Anhinga anhinga); roseate spoonbills; and neotropical cormorants 

(Phalacrocorax brasilianus) are a few of the more common species found on the refuge. 

Table 2. Recent peak numbers of waterfowl on Lacassine Refuge 

Species January 13, 2004 January 5, 2005 January 4, 2006 

Mallard 26,141 2,600 13,773

Mottled 995 1,021 1,935

Blue-winged Teal 211 300 18,563

Shoveler 5,749 2,431 2,725

Gadwall 4,904 1,344 2,710

Wigeon 593 901 1,047

Green-winged Teal 28,150 46,770 47,221

Pintail 17,155 582 14,362

Wood Duck 0 0 0

Ring-necked 14,984 3,394 3,650

Black-Bellied Whistling Duck 369 0 0

Lesser Scaup 42 0 0

Redhead 0 0 0

Canvasback 0 0 0

Bufflehead 0 0 300

Ruddy Duck 0 0 0

Fulvous Whistling Duck 0 0 0

White-fronted Geese 2,104 669 3,425

Snow Geese 0 1,500 0

Canada Geese 0 0 0

Coots 2,392 7,480 3,454

Ducks/Geese Total 101,397 61,512 109,711

Puddle Ducks 83,898 55,949 102,336

Diving Ducks 15,395 3,394 3,950

Source: USFWS, 2006 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

 Peak Geese Populations for 1938-39 through 2001-02

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

Season

Number of Geese

Total Geese

Snow

White-fronted

Canada

 Peak Duck Populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

Season

Number of Ducks

Total Ducks

Mallard

Pintail

Figure 4. Peak duck populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002 

Figure 5. Peak goose populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002 
22 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge has a sizable breeding population of purple gallinules (Porphyrula martinica), common 

moorhens (Gallinula chloropus), bitterns, and rails. Dense marsh vegetation makes surveying 

difficult. Surveys for gallinules and moorhens are conducted in Lacassine Pool each August using an 

airboat and consisting of six transects totaling 14.2 miles. All gallinules and moorhens within 150 feet 

of transects are recorded. 

Lacassine Refuge was designated a Globally Important Birding Area in 1998. The refuge provides 

habitat for globally significant numbers of white-faced ibis and waterfowl, as well as nationally 

significant numbers of roseate spoonbills. 

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species 

The region’s strategic location is enhanced by a diversity of habitat types favored by shorebirds, including 

beaches, marsh, estuarine tidal flats, rice fields, and crawfish ponds. The refuge provides resting and 

feeding habitat mainly for spring migrating shorebirds. However, tremendous numbers of shorebirds are 

attracted each fall to rice fields and crawfish ponds. Surveys are conducted during fall and spring 

migration. Commonly present shorebirds include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), long (Limnodromus 

scolopaceus) and short-billed (Limnodromus griseus) dowitchers, greater (Tringa melanoleuca) and 

lesser (Tringa flavipes) yellowlegs, black-bellied plovers (Pluvialis squatarola), black-necked stilts 

(Himantopus mexicanus), snipe (Gallinago gallinago), and sandpipers. If conditions are favorable, 

Forster’s terns (Sterna forsteri), killdeers, and black-necked stilts nest on the refuge. 

Raptors 

Raptors of Lacassine Refuge include many species of hawks, owls, and vultures. Year-round 

residents include the black (Coragyps atratus) and turkey (Cathartes aura) vulture; osprey (Pandion 

haliaetus); sharp-shinned (Accipiter striatus), red-shouldered (Buteo lineatus), and Cooper’s 

(Accipiter cooperii) hawks; American kestrel (Falco sparverius); and barn (Tyto alba), great horned 

(Bubo virginianus) and barred (Strix varia) owls (USFWS 2002a 1989). Additionally, the golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos), a state-listed rare species, has been routinely recorded from Lacassine Refuge 

and vicinity. 

Other Migratory Birds 

Lacassine Refuge is not as heavily used by migrating neotropical birds as the coast proper of 

Louisiana. The refuge is not the first landfall the birds reach following their migration across the Gulf 

of Mexico. The encroaching, non-native Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) has decreased the value 

of the habitat to neotropical birds. The refuge has limited acreage that can support the preferred 

species of trees and other vegetation important to neotropical migratory birds. Currently, some 

levees are being cleared of tallows and are being replanted with native tree species. Mourning doves 

(Zenaida macroura) are commonly seen along fencerows, levees, roads, and fields of the refuge. 

Yellow-headed (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) and rusty (Euphagus carolensis) blackbirds are 

rare species of the refuge. The red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and boat-tailed grackle 

(Quiscalus major) are found on the refuge in abundance. 

Mammals 

Lacassine Refuge provides suitable habitat for armadillos, rabbits, squirrels, nutria, mink (Mustela

viso), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), skunks, opossums (Didelphis virginiana), otters (Lutra 

candensis), raccoons, coyotes, and whitetail deer (Odocoilus virginianus). It is estimated that the 

deer population on the refuge is approximately 300 individuals. Approximately 50 percent of the 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

refuge, or 16,000 acres, is suitable deer habitat. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

estimates that excellent freshwater marsh habitat can support a potential density of one deer per 30 

acres. On Lacassine Refuge, this species is concentrated on the spoil banks and agricultural fields 

found throughout the refuge. Deer utilize marsh areas primarily for feeding and escape cover. 

Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and swamp rabbits (Sylvilagus aquaticus) are found on the refuge in 

abundance. A recent study shows that rabbits breed throughout the entire year at this latitude and 

the number of rabbits produced annually in this type of habitat is greater than that of rabbits in more 

upland habitats. Even though many predators prey on these rabbits, their population numbers are 

considered high. A proposed annual harvesting of rabbits from the refuge would have no negative 

impact on the population and would allow additional opportunities for recreational hunting. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

As a freshwater marsh, Lacassine Refuge is a haven for reptiles and amphibians. Despite the 

dominance of these creatures in the landscape, little is known about their populations on the refuge. 

The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is the only member of this group that is managed. 

In 2001, the refuge began participating in a statewide monitoring program for frogs, known as the 

Louisiana Amphibian Monitoring Program. Three permanent sites were established and are 

monitored during specific periods of the year. 

In addition to the amphibian monitoring program surveys, drift fences have been in place on the 

refuge since 2001 to monitor terrestrial reptiles and amphibians. The refuge has plans for expanding 

its reptile and amphibian monitoring effort to determine the effects of oil and gas development on 

these sensitive species. Drift fences and other survey techniques are planned to monitor reptile and 

amphibian populations on sites disturbed by oil and gas development, as well as controlled sites in 

the marshes east of Lacassine Pool. 

Little is known about reptile and amphibian populations in Lacassine Bayou. This habitat should 

support a different assemblage of species than is found in Lacassine Pool. The bayou also harbors 

alligator snapping turtles, which have been identified as a species of concern (USFWS 2003). 

Lacassine Refuge provides suitable habitat for a large population of alligators. Alligators are opportunistic 

carnivores and a top predator on the refuge. Alligator populations are controlled in most areas of the 

State by a harvest program that is closely regulated by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries, a program in which Lacassine Refuge has been a participant. The refuge’s harvest program 

has followed the State’s recommendations; in some years, the harvest has been below the allotted quota. 

Nest densities are much higher in Lacassine Pool in comparison to the fresh marshes located outside of 

it. The 5-year average (1997-2001) nest density for Lacassine Pool is one nest per 43 acres, while the 5-

year average nest density outside of it is one nest per 106 acres. 

Aquatic Species 

Fish species present include catfish, bowfin, bass, bream, crappie, and gar. Fish populations of 

Lacassine Refuge have periodically suffered from the negative effects of drought. In the early 1990s, 

levees were upgraded so that the level of the Lacassine Pool could be raised from 4 to 5 feet mean 

sea level. The deeper water areas provide a more stable water quality (e.g., temperature and 

dissolved oxygen) that supports better fish habitat. As a result, fishing grew increasingly popular with 

the public; fishing tournaments became a common, almost weekly, event on the refuge. The severe 

droughts of the late 1990s and early 2000s essentially dewatered Lacassine Pool. Creel surveys are 

conducted at Lacassine Pool during the months the area is open for public fishing. The refuge does 

not closely monitor aquatic species outside of Lacassine Pool. 
24 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Non-native Plant Species 

Also known as exotic species, they pose problems at Lacassine Refuge because they displace native 

vegetation. There are several invasive species present on the refuge, with the Chinese tallow tree 

being the most prevalent. In Louisiana, old fields and pastures that once provided grassland bird 

habitat are replaced with forests of the exotic, invasive Chinese tallow. 

Tallow trees typically grow on elevated and undisturbed ground along fencerows and levees. Refuge 

staff have worked to eliminate Chinese tallow from some levees and to replant with native species. 

Chinese tallow control is a major management concern for the refuge, with prescribed burning and 

herbicides used to control it. However, this exotic is a very resilient species, and tends to re-sprout 

after the herbicide is applied. Its coppicing ability also restricts the usefulness of fire as a control 

measure, although studies have found that in areas with sufficient fuel, such as in prairies with good 

grass cover, summer burns kill or top-kill trees as tall as three meters (TNC 2003). Other non-native, 

including non-invasive, species are water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), water lettuce (Pistia 

stratiotes), common salvinia (Salvinia minima), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), alligator weed 

(Alternanthera philoxeriodies) (USFWS 2000), bamboo (species unknown), Chinaberry (Melia 

azedarach), St. Augustine grass, Bermuda grass, and lantana (Lantana camera). 

Non-native Animal Species 

The most invasive animal on the refuge is the nutria. The nutria is an exotic herbivore that can cause 

significant damage to marsh habitats when populations become elevated, an event referred to as eatouts. Currently, nutria populations throughout the refuge and in the general area are relatively low, 

causing minimal damage to habitats requiring a minimum of population control. Change in vegetative 

communities outside of Lacassine Pool may occur again in future years. With favorable habitat 

conditions and the nutria’s high reproductive potential, the population can expand rapidly. Although 

nutria can be destructive to levees and vegetation, the species is beneficial in that it is available as a 

food source for alligators, coyotes, and bobcats (USFWS 2003). 

No exotic reptiles and amphibians are known to occur on Lacassine Refuge, but a few are established in 

nearby parishes and others are expanding their range out of Florida. Of special concern is the brown 

anole (Anolis sagrei) that displaces native green anoles (Anolis carolinensis). Efforts are made to monitor 

reptile and amphibian populations; however, little may be done to stop species, such as the brown anole, 

once established (USFWS 2003). The domestic cat (Felix catus) has established wild, free-roaming 

populations throughout most of the United States. Feral cats can be devastating to native birds, but they 

also prey very heavily on other native wildlife, such as snakes, lizards, and rabbits. What effect feral cats 

have on the refuge’s wildlife population is unknown. The Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) 

occurs on the refuge, but apparently is harmless to other species. 

HABITATS (INCLUDES LACASSINE POOL) 

Lacassine Refuge is located on the boundary of the costal marsh and agricultural habitats. The 

dominant feature of the refuge is the Lacassine Pool, which was created by enclosing a 16,000-acre 

marsh with a low levee during the 1940s. The refuge consists predominately of freshwater marsh, 

wetlands, and croplands (Figure 6). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Table 3 shows a breakdown of land cover/habitat types on the refuge. 

Much of the refuge is impounded and is divided into management units (Figure 7) that are both 

impounded (Units A, B, C, D, E1, F3, and G) and unimpounded (Units E2, F1, F2, H, I, and J). About 

3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is designated as wilderness. 

Table 3. Land cover/habitat types on Lacassine Refuge 

Habitat/Cover Approximate Acres 

Impounded Fresh Marsh (Lacassine Pool) 16,000

Natural (Unimpounded) Fresh Marsh 14,700

Forested wetlands 352

Shrub wetlands 348

Open Water 1,048

Managed Fresh Marsh (moist soil plant impoundment) 307

Coastal Prairie 334

Croplands (rice and fallow) 1,109

Roads, levees, miscellaneous 526

Total Acres 34,724

Source: USFWS 2003 

Lacassine Pool 

The most prominent feature on the refuge is the 16,000-acre impounded fresh marsh known as the 

Lacassine Pool (Unit G), which provides sanctuary and food for thousands of ducks, geese, 

shorebirds, and wading birds in peak years. Lacassine Pool is also a popular fishing area and is 

heavily utilized during the fishing season. 

Pool levees were constructed to maintain a maximum water elevation of 4.0 feet mean sea level 

(MSL) and staff gauges were installed in Lacassine Pool to monitor water elevations. This elevation 

information was established by interpreting historic data found in refuge files. Lacassine Pool 

elevation water level of 4.0 feet MSL that was established during the 1940s, and carried throughout 

the years in numerous surveys and documents, has always been assumed to be the correct water 

level elevation. To date, research of the historic data to locate the origin of this elevation has proven 

unsuccessful. Whether or not the origin of this elevation datum was surveyed by a professional 

surveyor, estimated from maps, or just visually estimated, can only be assumed. 
26 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 6. Habitats of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Figure 7. Management units on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
28 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

In 2005, John Chance Land Surveys, Inc., performed a new survey to gain better insight into 

management of water levels in the Lacassine Pool area. This survey was conducted using the best 

available science for data acquisition and adjusted to the latest accepted horizontal and vertical data. 

The final adjusted results of this Global Positioning System (GPS) survey revealed that there is a 3.1-

foot difference between the historic accepted Lacassine Refuge vertical datum (assumed to be MSL) 

and the survey contractor's GPS-derived elevations using North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD88). This means when converting the 4-foot MSL to NAVD88, the elevation of the full pool is 

0.8-NAVD88. This will be the new baseline for future management. The latest vertical adjustment at 

Lacassine Refuge was determined from a fully constrained adjustment fixed to three of the National 

Geodetic Surveys Continuously Operating Reference Stations and using the latest validated geoid 

model (Geoid03 - 2004.65) for elevation determination in the Louisiana Coastal Zone. 

New staff gauges have been installed at the three water control structures (within Lacassine Pool) and are 

calibrated to the latest NAD83 horizontal datum and NAVD88 vertical datum. Managers of Lacassine 

Pool will now be using the NAD83 and NAVD88 reference data and will report the accepted datum for 

water levels accordingly. Water levels will still be managed at a level that will not negatively affect the 

dikes and is still conducive to migratory birds and sport fisheries in Lacassine Pool. 

Lacassine Pool has never been managed as a seasonally flooded moist-soil management area. 

There are no capabilities to flood the area other than through natural precipitation. Gravity flow 

dewatering is possible through three stop-log water control structures located on the north, southeast, 

and southwest portions of the Lacassine Pool levee system. Early literature and documents 

discussing Lacassine Pool, since its construction in the early 1940s, have never clearly indicated how 

it should be managed to provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. 

Not being able to take advantage of dry weather conditions and applying prescribed fire to Lacassine 

Pool at the appropriate time of the year has been the downfall of past and current pool management 

actions. In addition, the complexity of managing for waterfowl and fish is a very dynamic public 

process. In the past, if an annual drawdown was artificially induced by refuge management, it had to 

be applied to the entire pool, which significantly affected access to the recreational fisheries resource. 

Trying to manage for waterfowl and recreational fisheries access over the decades has now resulted 

in the accumulation of more than 60 years of dead plant material, which is surfacing as a significant 

management issue. 

In an effort to manage Lacassine Pool for wintering waterfowl and fully aquatic species (e.g., fish for 

recreational fishing), water levels are maintained at full pool, or as close to it as possible, during the 

spring and summer months. In the winter, water levels are lowered so the waterfowl foods that are 

produced can be made more available to waterfowl. This water level regime is highly dependent 

upon weather conditions in any given year. A hurricane or tropical depression can completely flood 

the area for an entire year. A heavy spring rain can do the same. A severe drought can do the 

complete opposite so refuge managers must be flexible and have the ability to work with the dynamic 

weather conditions of the area. 

Though Lacassine Pool is recognized as a feeding area for some species of waterfowl, one of its 

most important contributions to wintering waterfowl is serving as a sanctuary and resting area for 

pintails. Recent research has documented the value of Lacassine Pool as a key diurnal roost site for 

harboring pintails in southwest Louisiana, with pintails making frequent long, round-trip journeys to 

foraging habitat at night (Cox and Afton 1996). Based on an experimental site within Lacassine Pool 

(Unit D), the current water management regime along with 10-year, cyclic water drawdowns followed 

by prescribed burning and then flooding appears to stimulate the growth of the aquatic plant Brasenia 

(e.g., water shield), which is characterized as an excellent food for ringed-necked ducks, but of only 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

fair value for other waterfowl. It also allows for oxidation of dead plant material. This management 

treatment, if continued, should allow for the growth of Brasenia and other beneficial waterfowl food 

plants, create loafing areas for waterfowl, maintain sanctuary for wintering waterfowl, and maintain 

fisheries habitat and customary and traditional access to recreational fishing. This is one of many 

management strategies that may be applied to Lacassine Pool as the refuge develops an adaptive 

water management plan. 

Fire management has played a very important role in maintaining Lacassine Pool in the past. Former 

managers prescribed burned units on a three-year rotation, such that the entire pool was burned 

every three years. However, the majority of these burns were conducted during the winter months 

and it is questionable as to how well the burns did in controlling nuisance vegetation, such as 

maidencane. The burns did aid in controlling hazardous fuels and controlling some woody vegetation 

in Lacassine Pool. 

Forest 

A limited bottomland hardwood forest (e.g., approximately 400 acres) is present on the refuge, 

primarily in the riparian areas along the Mermentau River and Lacassine Bayou. There may be 

opportunities for forest restoration on the existing refuge, and for acquisition of additional bottomland 

hardwood forests within Lacassine Refuge=s acquisition boundary (Figure 8). Additional woody 

vegetation is present on canal and stream banks, and on a series of ring levees in Lacassine Pool 

that are associated with former oil and gas exploration sites. Chinese tallow, an invasive exotic plant 

species, is a dominant woody species on the ring levees. Refuge staff have worked to eliminate 

tallow from some levees, and to replant native species, such as bald cypress, tupelo gum (Nyssa 

aquatica), black gum (Nyssa Sylvatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), common persimmon (Diospyros 

virginiana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), live oak (Quercus virginiana), Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttalli), 

swamp dogwood (Cornus foemina), red mulberry (Morus rubra), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and 

buttonbush. The staff is monitoring the use of treated ring levees as compared to control sites on 

other untreated levees, which remain dominated by Chinese tallow trees. 

Prairie 

The coastal prairie plant community, located along the Gulf Coast of the United States, once 

encompassed an estimated 8.6 million acres. Today, only a tiny fraction survives: less than 100 

acres of upland prairie in small, narrow patches paralleling railroad tracks, and another 100 to 300 

acres of wet prairie in disjunctive remnants on private land. 

Like Midwestern prairies, coastal prairie is dominated by grasses, such as little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium), gamma grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), 

Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). Coastal prairies are 

diverse with over 500 species of grasses, sedges, and wildflowers. However, coastal prairie is 

distinct in several ways, including the presence of species that are not found in the Midwestern 

prairies, such as slender bluestem (Schizachyrium tenerum), brownseed paspalum (Paspalum 

plivatulum), and sweet goldenrod (Solidago odora). Prairie nymph (Herbertia lahue), Oklahoma grass 

pink orchid (Calopogon oklahomensis), and prairie parsley (Polytaenia nuttalli) are a few of the rare 

species found in coastal prairie habitat. 
30 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 8. Approved acquisition boundary of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

The need for restoring and conserving coastal prairie is clear, but the scale of restoration adequate 

for conserving prairie biodiversity has not been determined. A useful approach is to manage for 

sensitive animal species considered indicators of environmental stress. From an ecological point of 

view, recruitment of grassland birds to restored prairie may be an indicator of the restoration of 

ecosystem function (USFWS 2003). 

Croplands 

Management of the 307-acre Unit A began with farming in 1950 and continued with either 

cooperative farming or refuge farming until 1981. The refuge continued farming Unit A in a rotation 

with moist soil, rice, millet, milo, and green browse through 2000. In 2001, the refuge reworked 

levees and water control structures in Unit A to improve water management capability in the eight 

fields that range in size from 12 to 48 acres. Water can usually be gravity-flowed into Unit A from 

Lacassine Pool. A two-way pump is used to drawdown these fields and to provide a reliable method 

for flooding the unit. 

Unit B is a 724-acre area, which includes 579 acres of rice impoundments that have been managed 

since 1990 by a cooperative farmer. Rice is planted in a field every other year, alternating with 

wheat, rye grass, or fallow. The farmer harvests the first crop of rice and leaves the second crop for 

waterfowl, which works out to be about 20-25 percent of the total rice crop. Wheat or rye is planted 

as green browse for wintering geese. 

The refuge acquired the 530-acre Unit F (Coto Unit) in 1996, and, since then, it has been 

cooperatively farmed similar to Unit B. On average, 327 acres of rice are planted in a field every 

other year, alternating with wheat, ryegrass, or fallow. 

Early Successional Wetland Management 

One unit of about 300 acres is available in Unit A and managed as early successional wetlands (e.g., 

moist-soil habitat). Historically, this unit has been managed on a three-year rotation. Grain crops 

have been grown in the unit one year out of three to produce high-value waterfowl food, while setting 

back plant succession. Early successional wetland management is time consuming and often 

requires swift management action to address plant responses during the growing season. 

In Unit C, farming was discontinued in 1981. In 1993, the refuge planted rice in the western portion of 

the unit and began managing it as an early successional wetland. The refuge plans to convert the 

western section of Unit C into early successional wetland habitat. 

EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

The six priority general public uses of Lacassine Refuge are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

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

facilities are shown in Figure 9. 

These wildlife-dependent uses are the Service’s primary focus for the development of visitor 

use programs to increase visitor awareness and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources on 

national wildlife refuges. These priority general public uses are described in more detail in the 

following paragraphs. 
32 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 9. Current visitor facilities at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Lacassine Refuge provides activities for more than 38,000 visitors annually (USFWS 2004). Until 

visitor facilities are improved, the preponderance of visitation will likely continue to be for 

recreational fishing and hunting. Until then, the more adventuresome will still come to drive its 

limited road system and to hike some of its miles of levees. There are no designated hiking trails 

on Lacassine Refuge; however, visitors are permitted on about 30 miles of refuge levees and 

service roads at the Lacassine Pool and Unit B. 

The refuge has no visitor center or tour route and the headquarters area is separated from the refuge 

proper. Some exhibits in the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex Visitor Center, 

located at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, will highlight Lacassine Refuge. 

Hunting and Trapping 

Currently, waterfowl hunting occurs on 10,434 acres. The farm unit on Unit B is a lottery hunt area for 

senior hunters on Wednesdays and youth hunters on Saturdays, and is open during the second split 

of the State's waterfowl season. The Duck Pond lottery hunt is open for adult hunters on 

Wednesdays and Saturdays during both splits of the State's waterfowl season. The general public 

hunt area is open Wednesday through Sunday for teal season and both splits of the regular State 

season. All hunters are required to obtain a hunting brochure, which serves as a permit when signed. 

Archery deer hunting occurs annually during October on the entire refuge, excluding the 

headquarters area and the wildlife drive. 

The refuge receives its alligator trapping quota from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. 

Fishing and Boating 

Fishing has been the most popular recreational activity since the refuge was established. The 

Lacassine Pool, created to provide migratory waterfowl habitat, has become a prime largemouth 

bass fishing area. Fishing tournaments have occurred on the refuge for a number of years. 

Persons participating in past tournaments have been encouraged to practice catch and release 

techniques by tournament sponsors. 

Two boat ramps are available at Lacassine Pool for ingress and egress to interior fishing waters. 

Anglers are required to use launches off the refuge to access areas other than Lacassine Pool. The 

refuge impoundment is restricted to 25 horsepower motors. The Unit D impoundment within 

Lacassine Pool is restricted to non-motorized boats. Canals and major bayous outside the 

impoundments have no restrictions on boat motor size. Only push poles and paddling are allowed in 

the marsh (USFWS 2002c). 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

There is a three-mile auto tour with interpretive signs at the Lacassine Pool public use area (Unit 

D). Pull-offs are located along the drive to allow other visitors to continue along the drive. Visitors 

are encouraged to remain in their vehicles to minimize disturbance of wildlife and to enhance 

viewing. State Highway 14 passes by the refuge and is designated as the Jean Lafitte Scenic 

Byway. Visitors can hike along levees for additional wildlife observation opportunities. A cypress 

swamp observation deck is located at the headquarters. The refuge has two viewing platforms 

located at the Lacassine Wildlife Drive and Unit B. The platforms are ideal to see optimum 

wildlife populations while limiting disturbance to wildlife. 
34 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education programs are not available on-site because limited staff and facilities do not 

allow for such programs. However, limited environmental education programs have been presented 

to local schools. Students view a slide program, participate in a short activity, and receive an 

educational package. No formal training has been conducted to encourage local educators to lead 

and teach environmental education programs on site (USFWS 2002c). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities. 

Refuge Staff 

Lacassine Refuge was administratively combined with nearby Cameron Prairie and Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuges in April 2004, to form the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge was added to the Complex in December 2005. Cameron Prairie 

Refuge serves as the Complex headquarters. Various positions throughout the Complex have been 

or will be targeted as positions with Complex-wide responsibilities. The Complex staff supports, 

directs, and helps manage the needs, resources, and staffs of Lacassine, Cameron Prairie, Sabine, 

and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Lacassine Refuge staff consists of 5 permanent employees, with occasional interns, volunteer 

workers, and term appointments, supervised by the refuge manager. Positions include one refuge 

manager, one wildlife biologist, one law enforcement officer, one heavy mobile equipment operator, 

and one maintenance worker (USFWS 2006). A Complex project leader, stationed at the Complex 

headquarters at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, supervises the Lacassine refuge manager. 

COORDINATION/COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS 

The refuge staff coordinates and cooperates extensively with State agencies, Tribal 

governments, landowners, the public, conservation groups, oil and gas companies, and local 

agencies and organizations. Lacassine Refuge is a component of several important regional or 

ecosystem planning and management efforts, and works with all levels of government and nongovernmental organizations and private citizens to accomplish goals and objectives specific to 

those efforts. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Facilities at Lacassine Refuge include those visitor facilities mentioned above, most of which 

are around Lacassine Pool. The headquarters office is located some distance from the 

Lacassine Pool. The refuge has no visitor center per se and has no plans for one during the life 

of this comprehensive conservation plan. The headquarters area also includes some staff 

housing – two houses and trailers – in addition to a maintenance shed and equipment storage 

area. Table 4 lists the refuge’s equipment. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Table 4. Equipment at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Amphibious Marsh Master Forklift, Pettibone 10,000 LB 

Amphibious Excavator, long reach on pontoons Tractor, Buhler 4WD, 145 PTO HP with cab 

Bulldozer, Caterpillar D-5 Tractor, Ford TW-20, 120 HP with cab 

Bulldozer, John Deere 350 Crawler Wide Tracks Tractor, Ford TW-5, 90 HP with cab 

Dragline, 60’ Boom, Bucket Tractor Truck, Navistar, 4X2 

Crane, Link-Belt LS-98 Crane, Crawler Mounted, 

GM Diesel engine 

Roads 

Illinois Plant Road, Tidewater Road, and Streeter Road (i.e., Highway 127) provide access to the 

refuge. Streeter Road is the only paved road on the refuge and is maintained by the Cameron 

Parish Police Jury. The Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury maintains the portion of Illinois Plant 

Road that is paved, with the graveled portion being maintained by the refuge. Parking lots, 

located at two boat launches (e.g., Old and Tidewater) at Lacassine Pool and Unit B fishing area, 

are graveled. During peak fishing periods, visitors are limited by parking lot capacity. The 

headquarters office is accessed via Highway 3056. 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS 

Research Natural Areas are designated by Federal land management agencies to preserve plant 

and animal communities in a natural state for research purposes. They protect vanishing native 

habitats that exhibit outstanding ecological value by preventing unnatural encroachments and 

activities that might modify ecological processes. At this time, Lacassine Refuge has no 

designated Research Natural Areas. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

As part of the planning process, lands within the legislative boundaries of Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge were reviewed for wilderness suitability. About 3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway were designated as a Wilderness Area in the late 1970s. The Wilderness Area is 

managed under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act as a unit of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. That is, it is “an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (The Wilderness Act, 

September 3, 1964; [16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136]). Other than setting prescribed fires from 

helicopters, the staff carries out no active management in this Wilderness Area. Visitation by the 

public is permitted, but due to the area’s difficult access (by boat only), it is not heavily used. 

No additional lands at Lacassine Refuge were found suitable for designation as wilderness as defined 

by the Wilderness Act. The refuge does not contain an additional 5,000 contiguous roadless area, 

nor does it have any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as wilderness. The 

lands and waters of the refuge have been substantially altered by humans, particularly through 

agriculture, water manipulation, levee and canal construction, pipeline laying, oil and gas 
36 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

development, and seismic exploration. As a result of both extensive modification of natural habitats 

and ongoing manipulation of natural processes, adopting a “hands-off” approach to management at 

the refuge would not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, which is the 

goal of wilderness designation. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

In addition to the natural habitat and wildlife that Lacassine Refuge conserves, it also encompasses 

resources of archaeological and cultural value; these tell of the long story of human habitation and 

endeavor in the area. The refuge is located in a region with a rich human history and pre-history. 

Prior to the arrival of European-Americans, the area was inhabited by the Atakapa Indians. The 

Atakapa occupied the coastal and bayou areas of southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas 

until the early 1800s (Couser 2002). Archaeological evidence suggests that settlements have been 

present in this area since before Native Americans learned to make pottery, approximately two 

thousand years ago. While “Atakapa” means "eaters of men" in the language of the neighboring 

Choctaw, it is unknown whether the Atakapas' supposed cannibalism was for subsistence or ritual. 

Before the arrival of European-Americans, Atakapans were hunters, gatherers, and fishers. Their 

society consisted of loose bands that moved on a regular basis from place-to-place within a given 

territory, gathering, hunting, and fishing. The alligator was very important to them, because it 

provided meat, oil, hides, and even insect repellent (e.g., its oil). The Atakapan language has 

fascinated linguists and is among the better-recorded Native American languages. At one time, it 

was believed to be associated with other languages of the Lower Mississippi River, but later this 

theory was abandoned, and it is now classified as an isolated language. 

Most of what is known about the appearance and culture of the Atakapa comes from eighteenth and 

nineteenth century European descriptions and drawings. The Atakapan people were said to have 

been short, dark, and stout. Their clothing included breechclouts and buffalo hides. They did not 

practice polygamy or incest. Their customs included the use of wet bark for baby carriers and 

Spanish moss for diapers. According to another custom, a father would rename himself at the birth of 

his first son or if the son became famous. In the creation myth of the Atakapa, humans were said to 

have been cast up from the sea in an oyster shell. The Atakapa also believed that men who died 

from snakebite, and those who had been eaten by other men, were denied life after death, a belief 

that may have lent support to the notion that they practiced ritual cannibalism. 

The various bands of the Atakapa were reported to have traded not only with other Indians but with 

early French and Spanish explorers and traders, as well. After the appearance of these Europeans, 

the Atakapa dwindled rapidly. An estimated 3,500 still survived in 1698; by 1805, only 175 remained 

in Louisiana. Just nine known descendants were recorded in 1909. Their downfall was brought 

about primarily by the invasion of and devastation from European diseases, rather than through any 

direct confrontation with European settlers. 

The next major phase of the area’s human habitation occurred after the Treaty of Paris in 1763 

concluded the French and Indian Wars (Feldman 1998). The British had already expelled Frenchspeaking settlers—the Acadians—from Nova Scotia (in what is now one of the Maritime Provinces of 

Canada), in 1755. Their exile occurred because of the widespread turmoil and upheaval sweeping 

through French and British colonies in North America as England gained the upper hand in its 

struggle with France for the control of North America. The Acadians first arrived in “New Acadia,” 

now Louisiana, then a colony of Spain, in 1764, and this migration continued for the next two decades 

(Hebert 2003). Even after all their wanderings after their expulsion from Acadia, the adjustment from 

Maritime Canada, with its sub-arctic climate and rocky, hilly terrain, to the Mississippi Delta, with its 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

nearly subtropical climate and bayous, must have been difficult for the Acadians. Yet, over time, the 

Acadians, later referred to as Cajuns, flourished and developed their own subsistence-based culture, 

which included hunting, fishing, trapping, and some agriculture that produced a unique cuisine and 

music, among other things. 

Southern Louisiana is also known for its Creole culture and cuisine. While the Cajuns were 

specifically French in origin, the Creoles trace their heritage to Spanish, African, Italian, and 

French influences, indeed, to any other peoples who chose to live in New Orleans (Royal Café, 

no date). The roots of Creole culture date to the early 1700s, with the French settlement of La 

Nouvelle Orleans under its founder Jean Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville, governor of the 

Louisiana Territory. In 1763, the Louisiana Territory was traded to Spain, and Spanish influence 

increased. German and Italian immigrants and African slaves also contributed heavily to Creole 

culture, cuisine, and music. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that three Indian middens found on the refuge be 

included in the National Register of Historic Places. One of these sites is a fairly large shell mound 

located at Onion Hill on Bayou Misere, which was partially destroyed during the digging on the 

American-Louisiana Pipeline Canal. Another is located at Lacassine Point near Grand Lake. The 

smallest of these sites is located on Bayou Lacassine near Short Cut-off Island. 

Presently, the refuge does not have a cultural resources management plan. When one is written, it 

will specify what measures need to be taken at Lacassine Refuge to identify, protect, and interpret 

the area’s rich cultural history. 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

In keeping with the purpose for its creation, management efforts at Lacassine Refuge are oriented 

toward the improvement of habitats under its jurisdiction for the benefit of waterfowl, wading birds, 

and shorebirds; threatened and endangered species; and other native fish and wildlife. To this end, 

the refuge staff undertakes a vigorous program of active habitat restoration, management, and 

manipulation that includes levee construction and upkeep, organic layer reduction in Lacassine Pool, 

drainage, prescribed fire, planting, and exotic plant control. 

Left to the whims of the weather, many or most refuge habitats would be either too wet or too dry to 

be optimal for wildlife. Thus, the staff is always attempting to improve water level management on the 

refuge through a variety of means. For example, in 2001, the refuge reworked levees and water 

control structures in Unit A to improve water management capability in the eight fields that range in 

size from 12 to 48 acres. Water can usually be gravity-flowed into Unit A from Lacassine Pool. 

Biologists refer to Lacassine Pool as a closed aquatic ecosystem. This means there are no tidal 

influences or flushing activities to aid in dispersing the tons of dead plant material generated each 

year within Lacassine Pool. Water is replenished by rainfall. When constructed in the early 1940s, 

Lacassine Pool was designed to be managed at approximately 4 feet MSL. There are deeper areas 

(e.g., lakes) within Lacassine Pool that reach 7 feet in depth when its three spillways are set at 

approximately 4 feet MSL. 

Over a period of 60 years, dead plant material has accumulated and altered the entire aquatic 

community. Grasses have thrived and in some areas, woody vegetation has begun to grow. Without 

some form of intervention, Lacassine Pool will continue to fill in, be overtaken by undesirable plants, 

open water areas will disappear, and the utilization of the area by migratory birds will significantly 

diminish. Many local residents have observed these events happening over the years and have 
38 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

voiced their concerns. Over the years, several biologists and teams have gathered to address the 

management of the Lacassine Pool. Investigations and concerns date as far back as 1953. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Biologist, David Fruge (Fruge 1974), reported in August 1974 in a 

wildlife management study titled, “The Vegetation of Lacassine Pool:” 

“The three small, elevated spillways allow a negligible amount of the tremendous annual crop of 

plant matter to escape from the impoundment. The resultant accumulation of this detritus 

therefore will cause aggradations of the substrate with consequent lowering of water levels, and 

continuing emergence of pop-ups, with resultant colonization by emergent species and 

consequent elimination of open water areas and the associated floating-leafed submergent 

community. This process was noted in refuge records as far back as 1953.” 

Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Biologist, Jacob Valentine (Valentine 1979), reported in November 

1979: 

“Lacassine Pool has been in existence for about 36 years. The accumulation of organic material 

laid down by generations of plants is proceeding at a greater rate under impoundment than in the 

adjacent marshes. Under natural conditions, marshes are subject to drying which reduces the 

organic material by oxidation. The accumulation of peat-mucks reduces the water holding 

capacity of the impoundment, and ultimately the vegetation would succeed to a totally emergent 

plant community.” 

In 1993, the refuge manager experimented by raising the water level by approximately 1 to 1.5 

feet to see if the vegetation, which was choking out the boat passageways and the open water 

areas of Lacassine Pool, would be drowned out. After several years, the refuge staff 

discovered that the higher water level did not help and actually may have contributed to the 

problem. Also, the elevated water level was putting pressure on the dikes, which were not 

designed to hold water at that higher elevation. 

Background reading material (USFWS 2002d) prepared by Fish and Wildlife Service staff for a team 

of veteran natural resource managers and biologists gathered to evaluate current management 

practices and provide recommendations about future habitat and water management in 2002 stated: 

“In 1993, the low part of the south levee was raised again and logs were added to raise Lacassine 

Pool to 5.0 msl. This was done to increase water depth to former levels and to test the theory that 

higher water levels would stress emergent vegetation. Success was short lived as the vegetation 

recovered and organic levels continued to increase.” 

During a Wildlife and Habitat Management Review conducted at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

in 2002, it was the general consensus among most biologists familiar with Lacassine Pool that it was 

filling with vegetation, which decreases water depth and diminishes water volume. 

Ring levees constructed in Lacassine Pool for oil and gas exploration have become infested with 

20- to 30-year-old Chinese tallows. These tallows were treated with the herbicide Arsenal in 

2001, and the levees replanted during February 2002 with woody vegetation more preferred by 

passerine birds (e.g., bald cypress, sugarberry, red maple, common persimmon, black gum, 

sweetgum, Nuttall oak, and buttonbush). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

The storm surge from Hurricane Rita in September 2005, which affected all of the marshes and 

waterways of southwest Louisiana, also affected Lacassine Refuge, including the Lacassine 

Pool. Fish kills caused from low dissolved oxygen levels in the water have been observed in 

Lacassine Pool and adjacent marshes. Dikes and water conveyance infrastructure were 

weakened. The entire refuge was inundated by salt water and littered with debris, some 

containing hazardous materials. Strategies found in this document will be implemented to 

reverse the damages caused by Hurricane Rita. 

The refuge currently plays a significant role in coastal prairie restoration and is working closely with 

the Cajun Prairie Habitat Preservation Society to restore this unique, threatened habitat. The refuge, 

with partners, is in the process of actively restoring a significant acreage of coastal prairie on a former 

Farm Service Agency property known as Duralde Prairie. This effort adds to the knowledge of prairie 

restoration technology and increases the sources of plant material, both of which are limited. 

SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge is located in the 1,313-square-mile Cameron Parish, one of the 

largest parishes in the State. Cameron Parish is situated in the extreme southwestern corner of 

Louisiana, abutting the Gulf of Mexico to the south and Texas to the west. In 2003, the population of 

the parish was estimated at 9,708, a slight decline (3 percent) from the 2000 Census (USCB 2004). 

The median household income of the parish in 1999 was $34,232, compared to $32,566 for 

Louisiana as a whole. The same relative prosperity is reflected in a poverty rate below the State 

average. Approximately 12 percent of Cameron Parish residents lived below the poverty line in 1999, 

compared to almost 20 percent for all of Louisiana. Educational attainment is below the State 

average, however, with only 8 percent of the population aged 25 or higher having a Bachelor’s 

degree or higher, as opposed to the statewide average of 19 percent. 

In 2003, transportation and warehousing was the largest of 20 major economic and employment 

sectors in the parish (STATS Indiana 2004). The Census Bureau classified occupations in Cameron 

Parish as shown in Table 5. 

Table 5. Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older in Cameron 

Parish (2000) 

Occupation Number Percent 

Management, professional, and related occupations 772 18.5 

Service occupations 718 17.2 

Sales and office occupations 954 22.8 

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 199 4.8 

Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 594 14.2 

Production, transportation, and material moving 947 22.6 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics 
40 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

In terms of employment by industrial sector, the primary industries lumped as “agriculture, forestry, 

fishing and hunting, and mining” predominate in Cameron Parish, as shown in Table 6. 

In terms of its racial and ethnic breakdown, as reported in the 2000 Census, Cameron Parish is 92.5 

percent white, non-Hispanic, 3.9 percent black or African American, 0.4 percent American Indian, 0.4 

percent Asian, and 2.2 percent Hispanic or Latino origin (USCB 2004). (The percentages do not add 

up precisely to 100 percent because of the difference between designated races — white, black, 

Native American, and Asian — and ethnicities, which are Latino and non-Latino.) In addition, 1.6 

percent in the Census reported some other race or two or more races. Overall, the population of 

Cameron Parish has a greater percentage of non-Hispanic whites (92.5 percent) than the State as a 

whole (62.5 percent). That is, it is less diverse and has fewer minorities. 

Table 6. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry in Cameron 

Parish (2000) 

Industry Number Percent 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 696 16.6

Construction 470 11.2

Manufacturing 295 7.1

Wholesale trade 143 3.4

Retail trade 426 10.2

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 396 9.5

Information 52 1.2

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 155 3.7

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste 

management services 206 4.9

Educational, health, and social services 677 16.2

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services 269 6.4

Other services (except public administration) 213 5.1

Public administration 186 4.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

REFUGE RELATED PROBLEMS 

INTRODUCTION 

Marsh loss is the most ominous problem faced by land managers in coastal Louisiana, and Lacassine 

Refuge is no exception. Lacassine Refuge has to gradually eliminate or at least slow down the 

marsh loss on the refuge or there may not be a Lacassine Refuge for future generations to enjoy. Of 

all the problems faced by the refuge, this is the most expensive to solve. It cannot be done without 

cooperation from adjacent landowners, State and Federal agencies, the academic community, and 

ultimately, the public. 

UNDESIRABLE OR INVASIVE SPECIES 

Non-native invasive species are causing significant damage to the refuge’s natural, managed, and 

agricultural ecosystems. Chinese tallow is the most prevalent and its control is a major management 

concern for the refuge. Water hyacinth, common salvinia, hydrilla, and Macartney rose (Rosa 

bracteata) are other common invasive species that infest the refuge. 

EARLY SUCCESSIONAL WETLANDS (MOIST-SOIL UNITS) 

There is a need to improve the refuge’s capability and flexibility to manage several of the 

impoundments and early successional wetland (moist-soil) sites through better water control and 

vegetative control methods. Optimal early successional wetland management requires very precise 

methods to control water levels, such as pumps, wells, irrigation, and leveling. 

CONTAMINATION 

The greatest contaminant issues are related to agricultural and urban pesticide use and mercury. 

Much of the watershed and area surrounding Lacassine Refuge is agricultural, primarily rice. There 

is a possibility that some of the pesticides proposed and/or used for rice cultivation could have 

impacts on the refuge, as they accumulate in the watershed and flow through the refuge in Lacassine 

Bayou or other surrounding water bodies. Airborne contaminants could find their way into Lacassine 

Pool and accumulate due to the lack of flushing typical of most marshes. 

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES 

General Information 

The Fish and Wildlife Service does not hold mineral rights on the majority of the refuge. 

Consequently, Lacassine Refuge has had oil and gas exploration and production since its inception in 

1937, with a total of 82 wells drilled on refuge property. Currently, only two of those original 82 wells 

are in production. Most of the wells that were drilled have been properly plugged and abandoned, but 

five of the remaining wells are listed in the Ashut-in@ status. A “shut-in” well is not producing and 

either has mechanical problems down hole, or is not economically feasible to produce hydrocarbons. 

Most of the “shut-in” wells on Lacassine Refuge have been in that status for many years. “Shut-in” 

wells can be a problem because wells that have received no attention after long periods of time can 

become potential environmental threats. Pressure can build up down-hole, and if not released, the 

pressure can cause blow-outs. These blow-outs can have major negative environmental implications 

because production, which includes hydrocarbons and highly saline-produced water, can be released 

into the surrounding environment. 
42 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

As the need for oil and gas increases, the refuge will likely find itself with additional oil and gas 

related activities, including wells, storage facilities, and pipelines. Additional coordination between oil 

companies and refuge maintenance staff is required when actively managing the units containing 

these pipelines. Acquisition deeds stipulated that oil and gas operations were not to interfere with the 

purpose of the refuge, but ultimately stated that the refuge could not prevent the sub-surface owner 

from exercising his rights to access and develop his minerals. 

A mutually agreed upon special use permit is issued for all oil and gas operations to communicate 

Service expectations and environmental concerns to all operating companies. 

In accordance with current Fish and Wildlife Service policy, which is derived from a July 17, 1986, 

Department of the Interior Solicitor’s opinion and Louisiana mineral rights law, owners of sub-surface 

oil and gas mineral rights must be granted a reasonable and necessary means of extraction and 

production. In more explicit terms the Solicitor’s opinion states: 

The United States has a number of rights as a surface owner of refuge lands in Louisiana: 

1. It may request the mineral owner to alter its proposed operation to accommodate existing 

and planned uses of the refuge, provided that the burden on the mineral owner is not 

unreasonable. 

2. It may insist that the mineral owner use only the minimum amount of land that is required 

to carry out the operations. 

3. The necessary operations that are performed on the refuge must be carried out in a 

manner which is least injurious to refuge resources. 

4. Upon conclusion of each separable phase of operation, the mineral owner must restore 

the surface to its original condition, insofar as is practicable. This will include filling pits no 

longer required, leveling land, cleaning up spilled oil and salt water, reseeding, and repair 

or replacement of damaged improvements. 

5. Access roads damaged by the mineral operator must be put in a condition for use by the 

United States, although they need not be completely regraded if damage is recurring and 

unavoidable. 

The United States may not: 

1. Charge a mineral operator for excavation of dirt on the lease where the dirt is required in 

order to carry out the operation. 

2. Charge for destruction of timber unless such right was reserved by the United States 

“grantor.” 

3. Interfere with the reasonable and necessary operations of the mineral owner. 

Mitigation 

The refuge completed an invasive plant control mitigation project with oil and gas funds. About 110 

acres were sprayed in Units D and E to control Chinese tallow.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Contamination Issues 

Historically, wells were drilled using open, earthen pits for mud circulation and storage during drilling 

operations. The drilling mud was oil-based and the cuttings that were removed from down-hole have 

been known to contain heavy metals, naturally occurring radioactive material, and other forms of 

contamination. These open-earth pits were closed or capped, but remain on the refuge. Information 

exists on the locations of these closed pits, and plans for testing are being considered to try and 

detect if any leaching or other residual impacts have occurred. 

Transmission Pipeline Rights-of-Way 

Rights-of-way were inherited for transmission lines that traverse the refuge for the purpose of 

transporting oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined petroleum-based 

product. Transmission lines are usually large in diameter and transport product to or from large 

processing plants. These pipelines do not service mineral production from sub-surface minerals, but 

require a corridor of refuge land for transportation. In contrast, flow lines are usually the smallest in 

diameter and transport raw product from individual wells, from sub-surface mineral production, 

through the production separation process. Gathering lines, similar to flow lines, usually “gather” the 

production from multiple wells and transport it to production facilities. Permits for rights-of-way are 

not issued for flow lines and gathering lines. 

Existing oil and gas transmission lines and their associated rights-of-way on the Southwest Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex that have been in place for decades have become manageable 

over the years. Their long-term effects on the environment, which have been identified as creating 

pathways for saltwater intrusion into freshwater marshes, are being indirectly addressed through 

numerous wetlands management programs and laws. These programs and laws include the 

Louisiana Coastal Act, the Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act, the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and many local government and private watershed 

initiatives, such as the Cameron Creole Watershed Management Plan. These laws and initiatives 

have led to the development of significant wetland restoration projects which have mitigated negative 

impacts associated with oil and gas transmission lines and associated rights-of-way. 

Future Management 

Existing oil and gas transmission lines on approved Fish and Wildlife Service rights-of-way currently 

within a national wildlife refuge will be managed as per Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 603 FW 2, in 

general, and explicitly, under section 2.11D, which states: 

Existing rights-of-way: The Service will not make a compatibility determination and will deny any 

request for maintenance of an existing right-of-way that will affect a unit of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System unless (1) the design adopts appropriate measures to avoid resource impacts and 

includes provisions to ensure no net loss of habitat quantity and quality; (2) restored or replacement 

areas identified in the design are afforded permanent protection as part of the national wildlife refuge 

or wetland management district affected by the maintenance; and (3) all restoration work is 

completed by the applicant prior to any title transfer or recording of the easement, if applicable. 

Maintenance of an existing right-of way includes minor expansion or minor realignment to meet safety 

standards. Examples include: (1) expanding the width of a road shoulder to reduce the angle of the 

slope; (2) expanding the area for viewing on-coming traffic at an intersection; and (3) realigning a 

road to reduce the amount of curve. 
44 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

New construction for oil and gas transmission line rights-of-way will not be permitted because they 

can significantly contribute to further land loss on coastal Louisiana national wildlife refuges. Canals 

built for the construction and repair of oil and gas transmission lines allow salt water to penetrate 

further inland, particularly during droughts and storms, and can have severe effects on wetlands 

(Wang 1987). This is evident for the oil and gas transmission line rights-of-way, which were 

established in accordance with the Federal Department of Transportation and Louisiana Department 

of Transportation regulations already established on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. Oil and gas 

transmission lines constructed since the 1940s are still readily apparent. Compaction and 

displacement of hydric soils during oil and gas transmission line repair or construction reduces water 

exchange and can result in increased waterlogging and plant mortality (Swenson and Turner 1987). 

Excavation necessary for oil and gas transmission line construction causes significant hydrological 

changes. Exposing hydric soil to oxygen changes the natural ecological processes, including 

chemical transformations, sediment transport, vegetation health, and migration of organisms. 

Furthermore, by altering salinity gradients and patterns of water flow, the natural process by which 

coastal marshes are replenished and protected cannot occur (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004). 

Restoration of coastal marsh is a priority on national wildlife refuges in the Louisiana coastal zone. 

Approximately $10 million has been spent on the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex in an effort to restore marsh. Extensive changes and alterations due to new pipeline rightsof-way could negatively affect restoration project predictability and life span. The stability created 

through these restoration projects could be jeopardized when major hydrologic changes occur due to 

new pipeline construction. Therefore, managing existing pipelines and rights-of-way in accordance 

with current Service policy and State and Federal law is permissible under current conditions. Any 

expansion beyond the current conditions would be an inappropriate use considering the current 

status of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s role in managing and 

protecting this State’s coastal resources. 

REFUGE CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

During the week of May 20 - 25, 2002, a diverse team of biologists, managers, foresters, and non-Service 

managers/biologists participated in a Biological Review of Lacassine Refuge’s wildlife and habitat. The 

review was multi-purpose in nature, being driven largely by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, requiring each refuge to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and give 

priority to: wildlife first; original purpose of refuge establishment; mission of the Refuge System; biological 

integrity; and the six priority public uses. In addition, the review enabled a more holistic look at how the 

refuge might accomplish numerous system-wide and landscape conservation needs. 

One product of the review was a list of the refuge’s top seven biological needs as determined by the 

biological review team. These are as follows: 

1. Maintain the integrity of Lacassine Pool as a freshwater marsh (e.g., palustrine 

emergent/aquatic bed system) with a primary management focus on habitats and sanctuary 

for aquatic birds (e.g., waterfowl, wading birds, and marsh birds). 

a. Develop management plans for Lacassine Pool that include monitoring and mapping 

vegetation, vegetative communities, soils, water depth, depth of organic layer, etc. 

Completion of the Unit D study will provide important information critical to 

management of Lacassine Pool. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

b. Repair, recondition, or replace and maintain the three major water control structures in 

Lacassine Pool to facilitate water management. Design and operate the structures to 

have a major drawdown every 7 to 10 years to dry and oxidize organic matter to 

extend the life of Lacassine Pool. 

c. Develop and implement a fire prescription plan for Lacassine Pool that will allow the refuge 

to conduct a burn during drought conditions to eliminate the build-up of organic matter. 

This will likely require obtaining the State’s and the Service’s (Regional Office) approval for 

such a burn during a burn ban due to drought conditions in the general area. 

2. Ensure a complex of habitat types (e.g., natural marsh, managed moist-soil or early 

successional wetland communities, and grain crops [preferably rice]) capable of providing the 

foraging, sanctuary, and special life-history needs of ducks, geese, and shorebirds that often 

will approach or exceed 500,000 ducks and geese during the winter season. Pintails will be a 

featured species for habitat management. 

a. Provide 4.5 to 5.0 million mallard-use-days of foraging habitat in Units A, C, B, and F3. 

Improve early successional wetland management capabilities (e.g., pumps, watercontrol structures, levees, and ditches) of Units A and C to consistently produce in 

excess of 400 pounds-per-acre of preferred native plant seed on at least 400 acres 

and 50 to 100 acres of refuge-farmed or contract-farmed grain annually. In Units B 

and F3, cooperatively farm rice (preferably) or other grain crop on at least 550 acres 

(or contract farm at least 300 acres on a three-year rotation in Units B and F) annually. 

Accomplishment of this task will require personnel largely dedicated to moist-soil and 

farm management, and acquisition and maintenance of the necessary equipment. 

b. Unit A provides essential wintering waterfowl foraging habitat. The proposed visitor 

center and prairie demonstration site should not be placed in Unit A. An alternative 

site should be located that will reduce the impact to waterfowl food production and 

cause less disturbance. 

c. Maintain and frequently review public use program and limitations to assure adequate 

protection of waterfowl sanctuary on the refuge. 

d. Integrate fall shorebird habitat into management of Units A, B, C, and F3 to provide 

100 to 200 acres of habitat during fall migration annually. 

3. Work toward restoring and managing native coastal prairie habitats. 

a. Continue working to restore, monitor, and maintain coastal prairie on the 334-acre 

Duralde Prairie. 

b. Continue working with private landowners, the Cajun Prairie Habitat Preservation 

Society, other partners, and the Service’s Realty Office to restore coastal prairie 

communities on private and public lands, preferably in blocks of 40 to 100+ acres. The 

ultimate goal would be to have numerous small tracts and one large 10,000-acre tract 

scattered throughout the historic range of this endangered habitat 
46 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

4. Increase and encourage habitat monitoring (i.e., refuge vegetation/habitat mapping) at very 

fine scales to track and monitor vegetation/water changes associated with management 

treatments and long-term trends. 

a. Obtain fine-scale habitat maps of the refuge as soon as possible and at 10- to 15-year 

intervals thereafter. 

b. Use monitoring to refine management actions that conserve and improve emergent 

fresh-marsh habitat. 

c. Use monitoring and research to evaluate fire management effects on marsh habitats 

and erosion. 

5. Improve scientifically sound biological inventory procedures, including data analysis/archiving 

to improve adaptive management approaches for reaching refuge objectives. 

a. Prepare, maintain, and implement an inventory and monitoring plan. 

b. Inventory refuge waterfowl usage/densities as recommended in Strategy J-1.2. 

c. Locate a refuge pilot-biologist in southwest Louisiana to assist refuges with survey and 

monitoring. 

6. Control exotic plants and animals and associated vegetation problems via management and 

research, especially as it pertains to Chinese tallow. 

a. Work to control invasives, especially Chinese tallow, with education, fire, physical 

removal, and spraying. 

b. Support research that will facilitate control and management of invasives. 

7. Manage healthy fisheries resources and provide recreational fishing in a manner that does not 

detract from or limit the ability to manage the refuge for its primary purposes, which are 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

a. Establish a water management plan that meshes management of Lacassine Pool for 

multiple purposes (including fish), where possible, but assures that water level 

management priorities remain focused on migratory bird management. 

b. Deepen the borrow ditch around the outside of Lacassine Pool, interior ditches, and 

ponds to a depth of 7 to 8 feet and a minimum of 20 feet wide to provide deeper water 

habitat that will support brood fish during severe drawdowns. 

c. Work with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to collect and analyze 

the necessary biological data to establish and maintain a healthy and adequate sport 

fish population. 

d. Maximize family-oriented use of the fishery resource, but limit fishing to the period from 

March 15 through October 15. Nesting wading birds should be protected by keeping 

anglers outside of a 300-foot buffer around rookeries. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

e. Through a public education program, make the fishing users of the refuge aware that 

the primary purpose of Lacassine Pool is for migratory birds. To lengthen the life of 

Lacassine Pool and to benefit all fish and wildlife resources, it will be drawn down to 

mineral soil every 7 to 10 years. Fishery resources will be at least partially protected in 

deep ditches and pools. Fishing will be closed during these intensive management 

activities (USFWS 2003). 
48 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

III. Plan Development 

OVERVIEW 

The process for developing this comprehensive conservation plan first began in May 2002, with a 

Biological Review conducted by representatives of the Service and conservation partners from Louisiana 

State University, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, National Wetlands Research Center, 

and the Gulf Coast Joint Venture Office of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. About 25 

biologists spent a week conducting a critical review of the refuge’s existing biological programs and 

developing a set of recommendations for future desired conditions. A comprehensive Public Use Review 

was held in October 2002, with reviewers representing the Service, Friends of Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Their recommendations helped establish 

the goals, objectives, and strategies found in this document. 

SCOPING MEETINGS - GENERAL 

The Service invited the public to participate in a series of scoping meetings. Meetings were held in 

various communities in Cameron Parish in 2002, as follows: October 1, Carlyss; October 8, Grand 

Lake; October 10, Cameron; October 16, Hackberry; and October 17, Johnson Bayou. 

Approximately 25 people in total attended these meetings. On January 16 and February 4, 2003, 

public open house meetings were held in Lake Charles, with a total of 33 people attending. On 

February 6, 2003, a public meeting was held in Lafayette, with four people attending and on 

February 8, 2003, a meeting was held in nearby Jennings, with two people in attendance. Comment 

forms were placed in the Visitor Center and invitations to comment or provide input were issued at 

various special events. 

Various issues emerged from these meetings and were considered during the preparation of the plan. 

In particular, many of the attendees brought up concerns about fishing on the refuge. 

SPECIAL FISHING FOCUS GROUP MEETING 

An intensive effort to bring together people who were interested in fishing issues at the refuge 

resulted in over 40 members of the public attending a Fishing Focus Group meeting in Lake Charles 

on September 4, 2003. Participants were given an overview of the refuge, the planning process, and 

then randomly assigned to smaller groups to discuss issues. Each group brainstormed, identified 

and prioritized issues, and then each group presented its results to the entire audience. The format 

of the meeting facilitated open discussion among user groups with conflicting interests, and among 

the public and Service staff. Results of the meeting can be found in Appendix E. 

SPECIAL LACASSINE POOL MANAGEMENT MEETING 

More than 100 people attended a meeting on May 18, 2005, at the Lake Charles Civic Center, to 

discuss future management of the Lacassine Pool. Continued interest in Lacassine Pool and 

associated issues with fishing prompted the Service to hold the meeting. The Service presented ten 

management proposals for Lacassine Pool and invited participants to review and select their 

preferred solution. The majority of the participants chose the Service’s preferred action plan, 

Proposal Number 8, which is included in the goals, objectives, and strategies. 
50 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

In summary, Proposal Number 8 will subdivide Lacassine Pool into 4 interconnected units (Unit D 

plus three additional units) approximately 5,000 acres in size, with each unit being treated on a 10- to 

15-year cycle, but not simultaneously; the treatments will be staggered as follows: 

• Once every 10 to 15 years, draw one unit completely down when water level and habitat 

conditions are favorable to allow for oxidation, and conduct a prescribed burn to set back 

natural succession and dispose of accumulated dead plant material. The refuge will obtain 

permission to conduct prescribed burns during severe fire danger conditions. 

• Use mechanized equipment wherever practicable to build fish passage ways and deep ponds 

so that fish will have escape routes to deeper water during droughts or cyclic drawdowns. 

• Restock the fisheries resource as needed based on lessons learned from the 1999-2000 

drought. 

• Provide additional boat launching sites, water control structures, and water pumping devices, 

as needed, to maintain the maximum water management capability possible. 

• Develop a water management plan for each unit, as it is rehabilitated, that benefits migratory 

birds, fish, and other wildlife. 

• The remaining units awaiting their initial sediment treatment will continue to be open to fishing. 

An adaptive management strategy will be employed so that spillways will be set to hold water 

within the designed capabilities of the Lacassine Pool levee system to benefit migratory birds, 

fish, and other wildlife. 

These actions should continue to allow for the growth of Brasenia (e.g., water-shield) and other 

beneficial water food plants, create loafing areas for waterfowl, maintain the diurnal sanctuary for 

wintering waterfowl, and maintain fisheries habitat. 

Additionally, members of the public who participated in this meeting also supported conducting a 

feasibility study for plant removal. The study would focus on the removal of dead plant vegetation 

that has accumulated in Lacassine Pool over the last 60 years. A private entity would potentially 

remove the material and then sell it on the open market as top soil or peat. The study would also 

investigate the feasibility of mechanically removing floating aquatic vegetation with the best available 

technology. The study will determine what the permitting requirements would be and if it could be a 

financially and environmentally viable project. If the project proves viable, it would be implemented. 

SPECIAL HURRICANE DAMAGE MEETING 

Finally, on March 9, 2006, the Service held a meeting at the Lake Charles Civic Center to discuss the 

devastation caused by Hurricane Rita in September 2005, and its impacts on the refuges within the 

Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. In part, a presentation given by the refuge 

manager to the more than 100 people in attendance explained what the damages were, how the 

Service would address them, and when the public could use refuge facilities. A summary of the 

refuge manager’s comments is as follows: 

The Lacassine Refuge marshes, including Lacassine Pool, were most notably affected by the 

inundation of salt water and reduced dissolved oxygen levels. In addition to the forceful surge 

damage throughout all of southwest Louisiana, the resulting salt water and reduced dissolved 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

oxygen levels have damaged plant and animal life. Many species are intolerant to the highly 

saline water from the Gulf of Mexico and have perished. Dissolved oxygen levels were 

decreased or used up by the process of decay and the mixing of silt throughout the water. 

Low dissolved oxygen levels are one of the most common causes of post-storm fish and crab 

kills. When oxygen levels get too low, fish and other species, such as crabs and shrimp, 

cannot get enough oxygen necessary for metabolism and they die. The Service pulled all the 

boards from the water control structures during December 2005 to flush out as much of the 

salt water as possible. 

Although rainfall has been low, water has been pushed out to the extent possible throughout 

the winter by north winds. This action probably saved what fish remain in Lacassine Pool. 

The refuge appreciates the assistance of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and 

local anglers who conducted some sampling to find out what was remaining in Lacassine 

Pool. The good news is that the anglers and a State biologist found and caught numerous 

bass during the February sample period; however, sunfish, crappie, and small bass were 

absent from the fish caught. 

Despite boards being placed back in the water control structures this week, the water levels 

will remain low until there is significant rainfall. The Lacassine Pool will open for fishing on 

March 15, despite these low water levels. Refuge officials remind anglers that surface drive 

motors, 25 horsepower or less, are permitted. The refuge also recommends the use of a push 

pole to help maneuver boats through shallow spots. 

ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PUBLIC DURING SCOPING 

Issues identified by the public included: 

BOATS 

• Concerns for safety while using boats in Lacassine Pool. 

• Require flags on all boats for safety and visibility in boat lanes. 

• Need improvements and control of weeds and vegetation in boat trails. 

• Open and deepen boat lanes and canals. 

• Mark and widen intersections of boat lanes. 

• Mark intersections instead of requiring flags on boats. 

• Require tournament anglers to slow down their boats. 

• Keep horsepower at 25. 

• Improve access to Lacassine Pool. 

• Update maps showing boat trails. 

FISHING 

• Anglers support catch and release policy – let the bass grow. 

• Catch and release only for tournament fishing. 

• Enforce catch and release between March 15 and May 1 to allow fish to spawn. Take photos 

if big fish are caught. 

• Enforce limits of 50 bream and 25 crappie. 

• Against stocking non-native Florida hybrid bass. 

• Support stocking native bass. 

• Enforce slot and creel limits. 

• Enforce a maximum limit of 1 trophy fish (22” or more) per day. 

• Open refuge for fishing later in the year. 
52 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

• Give anglers more days to fish. 

• Spend more time and effort on improving fisheries. 

• During drought, close the refuge to all fishing. 

• Some people have concerns about refuge management and have asked for restrictions that 

are more stringent on fishing on the refuge. We were told research did not support any 

changes in the way things were being done. 

• Although the first priority is waterfowl, the refuge can provide other sportsmen opportunities to 

enjoy other interests, such as fishing. 

• When one form of wildlife is considered more important than others, the use of the refuge 

should be for the enjoyment of those who do not abuse it. Economic impact of angler should 

be considered. 

• I have been lucky to enjoy some fishing on the refuge that most people only dream about. 

Although I may never be able to repeat these experiences, it is frustrating to think my 

daughter may never get the opportunity. 

• Not enough emphasis placed on fish. 

• Close the refuge to fishing 2 days a week (example – Tuesday and Thursday). 

• Keep Lacassine Pool open 7 days a week. 

• Quality of fish has improved over the years but quantity has shown a definite decline. 

• Educate people about releasing small fish (bait-sized fish are being kept). 

• Banks are too steep to fish from. Add docks for family and bank anglers. 

• Have law enforcement officers check anglers more often. 

• Build staging ponds and breeding areas for restocking fish. 

• Control vegetation. Find funding to do this. 

• Too much emphasis placed on protecting waterfowl, not enough on fish. 

TOURNAMENTS 

• Too many tournaments. 

• Limit tournaments - 20 straight weeks on Mondays is too much; once a month is plenty. 

• Allow each group to have only one tournament a year. 

• Don’t stop tournaments but do provide a better facility to record information on the catch. 

• Make a better place to release the fish giving them a better chance to survive. 

• Stop tournaments because afterwards there are dead fish near the boat launch after release. 

• Hold off on tournaments until the fish recover. 

• Not enough public places to fish for families and tournaments will want control of the refuge. 

• Profiting from tournaments is wrong. 

• Tournaments are hurting fish populations. 

• Tournament anglers have helped make Lacassine Pool better through providing fish for 

stocking, helping build pavilion and kiosk, helping keep the boat trails open, helping pick up 

litter. 

• Allow only catch and release during tournaments. 

• Allow and encourage weigh-ins at onsite at the refuge. 

• Tournament anglers are not courteous. 

• Tournament anglers are using motors that are too large. 

HUNTING 

• Hunting has become a rich man’s sport and unless you have money to pay for a lease, you 

have nowhere else but the refuge to hunt. 

• Extend the deer season, such as during the duck season split, or add more time to hunt on 

the refuge at the end of the refuge season. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

• Would like to see a weekend muzzleloader hunt. 

• Would like to see a frogging season for a week with a limit of 20 to keep people from profiting from it. 

• Recent expansion of open areas for hunting on the refuge goes beyond the bounds of 

responsible game management. The area is over-hunted and fosters an unsafe environment 

with liability issues. Enforcement problems exist, such as shooting before legal hours. 

Mission of the refuge is being compromised because of loss of sanctuary and increase of 

crippled ducks by unskilled hunters. 

WATER MANAGEMENT 

• Raise water level in Lacassine Pool to improve fish populations because there is more public 

use for fishing than anything else. 

• Raise water level in Lacassine Pool for safer travel in boats and give fish more chance to 

survive. 

• Raise water levels in Lacassine Pool to save water in case of another drought. 

• There is poor water management. 

• Maintain a happy medium to support both fish and waterfowl. 

• Maintain a minimum “pool” level year-round. If water falls below the minimum, close the 

refuge to fishing until water rises above the minimum. 

• Water level has been lowered repeatedly to allow for more vegetation growth and the water 

levels have affected oxygen supply for the fish population. 

• Predetermine a drought plan. 

• Have a more aggressive water management plan. 

• Install better boards in Lacassine Pool. 

• Install non-removable boards. 

• Document pool levels once a month. 

• Mark low and high spots in pool. 

• Raise water level a foot and it would help both ducks and fish. 

• Maintenance needed on spillways. 

• Maintenance needed at boat launches. 

ENTRANCE/USE FEES 

• Charge fees to get on the refuge and use the fees to restock fish, improve facilities, and 

upkeep of roads and habitat. Do not reduce Federal budget that is supplemented from user 

fees. 

• Eliminate the $50 special use fee to hold a tournament. 

• Allow anglers to conduct fundraisers and donate the money for refuge improvements. 

GENERAL 

• Want to thank State and Federal government for purchasing and maintaining the refuges. 

Without these efforts, there would be no place to bring our kids and grandkids in the future. 

• Littering is a major problem because there are no containers in which to throw trash. 

• Ban alcohol from the refuge. 

• Anglers would like to organize a support group for the refuge. 
54 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING INTERNAL SCOPING AND THE BIOLOGICAL AND PUBLIC USE 

REVIEWS 

Issues identified during internal scoping (i.e., among Service professionals and refuge managers and 

biologists) and the Biological and Public Use reviews can be divided into three general topics: habitat, 

wildlife, and people. 

HABITAT 

• Maintaining the integrity of Lacassine Pool as a freshwater marsh. 

• Monitoring and mapping vegetation, vegetative communities, soils, water depth, and depth of 

organic layer in Lacassine Pool. 

• Repair, recondition, or replace the three major water control structures in Lacassine Pool to 

facilitate water management. 

• Ensuring a complex of habitat types for ducks, geese, and shorebirds. 

• Ability to intensively manage early successional wetland units and croplands. 

• Restoring and managing native coastal prairie habitats on public and private lands. 

• Increase habitat monitoring at very fine scales. 

• Implementation of an inventory and monitoring plan that utilizes scientifically sound biological 

inventory procedures. 

• Control of exotic plants and animals, especially Chinese tallow. 

• Balancing recreational fishing and wintering waterfowl habitats on Lacassine Pool. 

• Deepening the borrow ditch around the perimeter of Lacassine Pool to increase height of 

levee and provide greater water depth. 

• Fire management/monitoring/cycles/effects. 

• Water quality monitoring. 

• Oil/gas and other contaminants. 

• Managing and minimizing habitat effects of oil and gas exploration and development. 

• Land acquisition. 

• Conserving bottomland hardwood habitat (e.g., cypress-tupelo swamp). 

• Improving habitat along levees. 

• Major equipment needs used in habitat management and manipulation (e.g., early 

successional wetlands, croplands, and repairing or raising levees around Lacassine Pool). 

WILDLIFE 

• Fulfilling the refuge’s primary purpose as a sanctuary for migratory birds, including geese, 

ducks, and shorebirds. 

• Providing for the year-round needs of mottled ducks. 

• Continuing to furnish nest boxes for cavity-nesting ducks. 

• Herpetological (e.g., reptiles and amphibians) survey and monitoring. 

• Alligator management and trapping. 

• Furbearer trapping. 

• Fisheries management, including fish disease and paddlefish. 

• Songbirds, both resident and neotropical migratory birds. 

• Protecting nesting colonies of colonial nesting birds. 

• Protecting bald eagles and other threatened and endangered species that may occur on the refuge. 

• Research and special needs. 

• Adaptive management. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

PEOPLE 

• Proposed visitor center location. 

• Improvement of signage. 

• Location/modification of public uses (e.g., hunting and fishing). 

• Coordinating waterfowl hunting season and weekly schedules with other refuges in Southwest 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

• Expansion of deer hunting opportunities. 

• Small game hunting – whether and when and where to allow. 

• Management of recreational fishery, including perceptions and reality of conflict with waterfowl 

purpose of refuge and competition between different user groups (e.g., tournaments vs. 

family fishing). 

• Expanding environmental education and interpretation on the refuge. 

• Managing and increasing opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

on the refuge. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In addition to the above issues identified by the public and the Biological and Public Use reviews, the 

Service identifies the protection and preservation of its cultural resources as an important issue. 
56 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

On national wildlife refuges, the Service manages fish and wildlife habitats by taking into account the 

needs of all resources in decision-making. First and foremost, however, fish and wildlife conservation 

assumes priority in refuge management. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

(16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, clearly establishes that wildlife conservation for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans is the singular National Wildlife Refuge System mission. House Report 105-106 

accompanying the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states “...the fundamental 

mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

However, the Improvement Act also recognizes that wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving 

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

interpretation, when determined to be compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the 

Refuge System and that these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority 

general public uses of the Refuge System. 

Another requirement of the Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, 

diversity, and integrity of refuges. National wildlife refuges in the Chenier Plain of the Gulf Coast 

include both brackish and freshwater marshes, in addition to coastal prairies, agricultural areas, and 

some woodlands and swamps. Valuable coastal marshes in the region have declined tremendously in 

quantity and quality over the past century, due to both human and natural causes. To offset these 

historic and continuing habitat losses within the broader coastal ecosystem, Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge and other public lands provide a biological “safety-net” for migratory waterfowl and non-game 

birds, threatened and endangered species, and resident species. However, as noted previously in this 

document, the primary purpose of the refuge and Lacassine Pool is to sustain high- quality habitats 

necessary for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl, and fulfilling this purpose has the highest priority. 

VISION 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge will continue to be a haven for the protection and management of 

migratory birds, especially waterfowl, in a region of the continent that is critically important for their 

survival. Working with partners, the refuge will protect the habitats of wildlife and fish, focusing on 

conserving the integrity of the vanishing freshwater marshes of the Chenier Plain. Lacassine Refuge 

will improve existing opportunities for visitors to use and enjoy its unique biological resources in a way 

that does not compromise their value and that increases awareness of their importance. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies addressed below are the Service’s response to the issues, 

concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, refuge staff, and public. These goals, 

objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and other special purpose management 

plans, as well as the purpose and vision of the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is an 

extremely important area for migratory birds, especially waterfowl, and the goals, objectives, and 

strategies found below support this purpose. 
58 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

In addition, implementation of the goals, objectives, and strategies will help maintain and restore, 

where appropriate, the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge. The 

refuge will also contribute to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at larger 

landscape scales (e.g., regional, ecosystem, and national levels). Examples of the refuge’s 

commitment to the principles of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health are 

protecting and restoring unimpounded marsh, bottomland hardwoods, and native coastal prairie; 

simulating hydrological processes for habitat restoration; and providing habitat for endemic 

species, such as mottled ducks. 

The refuge staff intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies over the next 15 years. 

GOAL A: HABITAT MANAGEMENT - Conserve, restore, and enhance diverse habitats to provide 

favorable conditions for migratory birds and native terrestrial and aquatic species. 

Objective A-1: Management of Impounded Freshwater Marsh (Lacassine Pool) - Manage the 

Lacassine Pool to achieve a habitat mosaic in an approximate emergent vegetation to open water 

ratio of 50:50, with plants of high waterfowl food value and extensive beds of submerged aquatic 

vegetation, so as to provide roosting and foraging habitat and sanctuary from disturbance for 

migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 

Discussion: The Lacassine Pool was created in 1943 by enclosing a 16,000-acre marsh with a 

low levee. The Lacassine Pool is filled by rainfall only (i.e., no inflows) and lowered by removing 

stoplogs at its several water control structures. This impoundment serves as a daytime sanctuary 

for waterfowl. 

Proper management and enhancement of Lacassine Pool for waterfowl and other aquatic birds 

contribute to the original purposes of the refuge and are its highest priorities. The primary 

emphasis of pool management must be on aquatic birds and their habitats, followed by 

compatible public uses that do not detract from the critical role of this unit for waterfowl and other 

wetland-dependent birds. At times, needed management options under this plan that involve 

drawdowns may conflict with public uses. 

The participants in a public meeting held in Lake Charles on May 18, 2005 (described in Chapter III 

and Appendix E) demonstrated strong support for subdividing Lacassine Pool into more manageable 

components. The Service intends to proceed with this proposal as resources become available. 

On September 24, 2005, Hurricane Rita struck southwest Louisiana with 121-mile-per-hour winds and 

a storm surge ranging from 15 to 20 feet. The storm surge topped the Lacassine Pool dikes and 

water control structures, carrying salt water into it and killing vegetation, some fish, and other aquatic 

organisms. Salinity in Lacassine Pool ranged from 14 ppt to 1.2 ppt during the period September 24, 

2005 - March 6, 2006. Fish sampling conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries indicated that some bass and bowfin were still present, however, 

no sunfish or crappie were in the samples collected. Sampling was done by gill net and angling. 

The restoration of Lacassine Pool will be a very high priority in the future so it can continue to fulfill 

the needs of wintering migratory birds and serve as an excellent area for wildlife-dependent public 

use, such as fishing. A project for this restoration is discussed in Chapter V of this plan. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Strategies: 

(a) Continue repairing and maintaining all spillways and leaking levees. 

(b) Operate the spillway structures to accommodate a pool level that benefits migratory birds and 

takes into consideration fish, other wildlife, and access for recreational fishing. 

(c) Conduct prescribed/hazardous fuel removal burns as environmental factors permit. Secure 

advanced permission from appropriate decision-makers to conduct prescribed burns during 

severe fire danger periods. 

(d) Survey pool elevations to allow for subsidence and the resetting of spillway structure gages 

and stop logs. 

(e) Rehabilitate and maintain a deepwater perimeter ditch around the interior perimeter of 

Lacassine Pool. 

(f) Continue to stock fish as needed and continue to collect fisheries and waterfowl use data. 

(g) Subdivide Lacassine Pool into three additional management units (Unit D, plus three additional 

units). The first phase will be accomplished by separating the southeast 5,000-acre-unit and 

replacing the two existing water passageways with two new water control structures with boat 

passage gates, the placement of pumping units as needed, and the removal of any 

interconnecting culverts so that the unit will have the capability to be fully isolated from the 

remaining 11,000-acre-unit while it is being restored. The southeast unit will be treated in 

accordance with strategies identified in Objective A-1. The next phase, installation of an 

additional dike across the remaining 11,000-acre-unit with associated infrastructure, will occur as 

soon as resources are available. While the first phase is being completed, the remaining 11,000-

acre-unit will be managed using the strategies identified in Objective A-1. 

Studies 

Concurrently with the preceding actions, the Service will: 

(h) Conduct a feasibility study focused on the removal of dead plant vegetation that has accumulated 

over the last 60 years. A private entity would potentially remove the material and sell it on the 

open market as top soil or peat. The study would also investigate the feasibility of mechanically 

removing floating aquatic vegetation with the best available technology. The study would 

determine what the permitting requirements would be and if it could be a financially and 

environmentally viable project. If the project proves viable, it would be implemented. 

Treatment of individual management units once constructed 

First and foremost, the Lacassine Pool and Unit D will be managed to support the purpose of the 

refuge (i.e., to benefit migratory birds, especially waterfowl), but when possible, priority public uses, 

such as fishing, will be allowed. Treatments could include operating water control structures to 

dewater the pool, burning, spraying, and using other means to restore open water and food sources 

in the pool to attract and benefit many species of waterfowl. Water levels in other units not under 

initial rehabilitation will be managed in accordance with an adaptive management strategy that is 

conducive to fulfilling the purposes for which the refuge was established and in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 
60 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Each unit will be treated using the following strategies: 

(1) Within a 10- to 15-year-cycle, dependent upon availability of resources, environmental 

conditions (i.e., such as when drought conditions are most favorable), and under conditions 

described in an adaptive step-down water management plan, individual sub-units will be 

completely drawn down to allow for oxidation and to conduct prescribed burns to set back 

natural succession and dispose of accumulated dead plant material. Prescribed burning will 

continue as needed during the summer months whenever possible. Draw down of the subunit may require multiple years to achieve management goals. No more than two sub-units 

may be under treatment within a 5-year time period. 

(2) Obtain advance permission to conduct prescribed burns during severe fire danger conditions. 

Keep annual records of fire practices and have prescription plans prepared to take advantage 

of drought periods. 

(3) Provide water control structures and water pumping devices, as needed, to maintain the 

maximum water management capability possible. 

(4) Develop an adaptive water management plan for each unit, as it is rehabilitated, that benefits 

migratory birds and takes into consideration fish, other wildlife, and recreational fishing. The 

plan should include: 

• Development and maintenance of an elevation profile throughout Lacassine Pool to 

determine depths to mineral soil, depth of organic matter, and pool contours. 

• Installation of water level gauges at strategic points in Lacassine Pool to allow recording of 

pool water elevations and drawdown schedules. 

• Review of the water quality sampling plan to re-establish sampling objectives and 

procedures that will be sensitive to significant changes (i.e., immediate or long-term) 

inside and outside Lacassine Pool. 

• Acquisition and updating of aerial imagery, ground surveys, and sound sampling 

procedures to track vegetation communities and open water/vegetation ratios and trends 

at 5-8 year intervals (work with U.S. Geological Survey to type map pool vegetation 

communities and repeat every 5-8 years). 

• Monitor changes in Lacassine Pool by utilizing fine-scale plant/habitat aerial imagery 

inventory methods to type map habitats, with an emphasis on identifying aquatic-plant 

types, ratios of open water to vegetation coverage, and comparisons of vegetation/water 

ratio trends over a 5-year time period. 

• Determine vegetation/water ratio changes associated with years following major hurricane 

events and any introduction of higher salinity waters. 

(5) The remaining units awaiting their initial sediment treatment will continue to be open to fishing. 

Water levels will continue to be managed in a manner that is conducive to migratory birds, 

and, to the extent possible, a fisheries resource and recreational fishing. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

(6) Inform the public through refuge brochures (e.g., hunting and fishing) and at kiosks that the 

primary purpose of the refuge is migratory bird management. The message should state that 

measures taken to improve migratory bird habitat are also expected to benefit fish populations 

and anglers by prolonging the life of Lacassine Pool. 

(7) Archive all previous and future management treatments and scientific/biological studies, data 

relating to management actions/results, vegetation maps, impacts of catastrophic events (e.g., 

hurricanes and droughts) in one file or binder for future reference. 

(8) Continue the historical waterfowl sanctuary status of Lacassine Pool for migratory birds, 

especially waterfowl, and limit human disturbances by restricting and closely regulating public 

use of it and its observation route from October through March; by controlling oil and gas 

exploration and development; and by locating and protecting rookeries. 

(9) Use mechanized equipment wherever practicable to build fish passageways and deep ponds 

so that fish will have escape routes to deeper water during droughts or cyclic drawdowns. 

(10) Restock the fisheries resource as needed. 

(11) Provide additional boat launching sites. 

Unit D management 

(i) Keep the 714-acre Unit D, established as an experimental research unit, separated from 

Lacassine Pool. 

(1) Work with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service 

fisheries biologists to manage the area as a special waterfowl and fisheries management 

area. 

(2) Explore providing some form of limited horsepower boating access to the area under a time 

and space management program. If it is determined that this is feasible, implement the 

access. 

(3) Habitat management of this unit will follow the same general management guidelines as 

identified for Lacassine Pool units, with options to implement experimental treatments that 

might be applicable for improving management within the unit. 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

(j) Monitor closely and document the effects of shipping traffic on the south dike of the Lacassine 

Pool, which is adjacent to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 

(k) Implement an engineering study within five years to determine what preventive action needs to be 

taken to avoid erosion potentially being caused by vessels using the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 

Objective A-2: Unimpounded Freshwater Marsh - By 2015, reestablish the shoreline of Willow 

Cutoff to improve water quality, eliminate further erosion, and restore natural marsh conditions. 

Discussion: The marshes adjacent to Lacassine Bayou were converted to shallow open water 

presumably because of the increase in water levels following construction of the locks on the Gulf 
62 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Intracoastal Waterway and the Mermentau River. Restoring wetlands will improve water quality (i.e., 

reduce nutrient and sediment concentrations) in water flowing down Lacassine Bayou, and improve 

habitat quality for migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife. 

Marsh creation via dedicated dredging will restore emergent vegetation but the cost is assumed to be 

prohibitive. Marsh terraces may be a more viable restoration technique for this area because of the 

shallowness of the water; the large expanse of open water; the likely shallowness of firm clay that could 

be excavated to create the terraces; the value of the deep water in the borrow pits for fish and waterfowl; 

the absence of salinity that would stress emergent vegetation; and the possibility of improving growth of 

submersed aquatic vegetation in the open water areas remaining after terrace construction. 

Strategy: 

(a) Prepare a feasibility study by 2017 and, if appropriate, a restoration plan for the marshes adjacent 

to Lacassine Bayou, based on hydrologic modeling and possibly using terraces as a means to 

improve water quality and either restore marshes or submerged aquatics. Consider carrying out 

this project as a mitigation project. 

Objective A-3: Early Successional Wetlands - Establish adaptive management capabilities on up 

to 750 acres in Units A, C, and possibly E to provide shallow water and emergent wetland plant 

species for waterfowl, shorebirds, secretive marsh birds, and wading birds. 

Discussion: Adaptive management is a system used to improve results by documenting 

management actions, measuring and documenting biological response, and adapting (i.e., modifying) 

management actions to improve desired conditions/outcomes. 

Water levels within early successional wetlands, often called moist-soil units by the Service, are 

manipulated seasonally. Groups of birds have different feeding requirements. Dabbling ducks prefer 

enough water to swim easily but shallow enough to allow bottom feeding. Shorebirds concentrate on 

mud flats or very shallow water where invertebrates can be readily found. Wading birds, such as 

herons and egrets, also utilize deeper borrow ditches and shallow water areas. 

Currently, at Lacassine Refuge, 307 acres are managed as early successional wetland habitat in Unit 

A. In Unit C, farming was discontinued in 1981. In 1993, the refuge planted rice in the western 

portion of the unit and began managing it as a moist-soil unit. 

Strategies: 

(a) Maintain early successional wetlands in early successional native plant communities for the 

production of annual seed crops. 

(b) Provide early successional wetlands from mid-August through October for early migrating 

waterfowl and shorebirds. 

(c) Provide early successional wetland habitat from November through March for wintering waterfowl. 

(d) Develop a system of pumps and water control structures in Unit A to intensively manage at least 4 

fields annually to maximize production of native plants recognized as preferred waterfowl food. 

Use various management tools, including manipulating water levels and soil moisture, discing, 

burning, mowing, water buffaloing, and selective herbicide application. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

(e) Re-establish water management capability in Unit C and improve and recondition much of this unit, 

except the rookery area, in an effort to develop high-quality, early successional wetland habitat on at 

least 300 acres by improving water management capabilities (e.g., improved structures and pumps). 

Using various management tools, promote high seed-producing annual plants. 

(f) Consider further subdividing Unit C to achieve the capabilities needed to successfully manage 

early successional wetland plants. 

(g) Plan, monitor, and document plant and wildlife responses to early successional wetland 

management actions by unit, utilizing standardized techniques and refuge-wide 

sampling techniques. 

(h) Install water level gauges on all early successional wetlands (e.g., moist-soil units). 

(i) Manage for early successional wetland plants in Unit E. 

Objective A-4: Coastal Prairie - Work with partners to maintain and restore approximately 1,000 

acres of coastal prairie habitat and conserve prairie plant seed sources at the Duralde Prairie (also 

called Vidrine Tract) and other sites for the benefit of grassland birds and to contribute to the priorities 

of the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem and the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

Discussion: The coastal prairie is a tallgrass prairie ecosystem that once encompassed an 

estimated 3.5 million hectares (8.6 million acres). Today only a tiny fraction remains. This 

critically endangered ecosystem is becoming a high priority for the Service. Like Midwestern 

prairies, the coastal prairie is dominated by grasses, such as little bluestem, switchgrass, 

Indiangrass, and big bluestem, with over 500 species of grasses, sedges, and wildflowers. 

However, coastal prairie is distinct in several ways, including the presence of species that are not 

found in the Midwestern prairies. 

Grassland birds have exhibited a sharper decline in tallgrass prairie during the past 25 years than 

any other group of North American birds. In Louisiana, old fields and pastures that once provided 

grassland bird habitat are being replaced with forests of the exotic, invasive Chinese tallow tree. 

Some of the many species of concern include the Henslow's (Ammodramus henslowi), 

grasshopper (Ammodramus savannarum), savannah (Passerculus sandwichensis), and Le 

Conte's (Ammodramus leconteii) sparrows; eastern meadowlark (Sternella magna); loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); dickcissel (Spiza americana); yellow (Coturnicops noveboracensis) 

and black (Laterallus jamaicensis) rails; bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus); short-eared owl (Asio 

flammeus); and the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). 

Strategies: 

(a) Use management tools to accomplish this objective, such as fire, mowing, transplanting, 

overseeding and postseeding; introduction of additional plant species; and selective herbicide 

application. Mowing or haying (i.e., where clippings are removed) may be used in areas where 

fire is not an option. 

(b) Work with partners to establish a long-term monitoring plan using standardized protocol(s) (e.g., 

Project Prairie Bird) to measure grassland bird use and adapt management to achieve highquality prairie habitat. 
64 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

(c) Make several small prairie plantings, each from a different prairie remnant and each isolated 

genetically from one another (i.e., at least one mile between sites), to serve as diverse seed sources. 

(d) Restore additional coastal prairie, ideally in blocks of one to several hundred acres to support 

winter grassland birds and, ultimately, one large block of 10,000 acres, assuming that propagules 

and operation and maintenance support are available when needed to provide habitat for areasensitive species. 

Objective A-5: Croplands - Maintain approximately 550 acres in Units B and F annually in 

cooperatively farmed crops, such as rice, soybeans, and winter wheat, to provide foraging 

opportunities for wintering waterfowl. 

Discussion: Unit B is a 724-acre area, which includes 579 acres of rice impoundments that have 

been managed since 1990 by a cooperative farmer. Rice is planted in a field every other year, 

alternating with wheat, rye grass, or fallow. The farmer harvests the first crop of rice and leaves the 

second crop for waterfowl, which works out to be about 20-25 percent of the total rice crop. Wheat or 

rye is planted as green browse for wintering geese. 

The refuge acquired the 530-acre Unit F (Coto Unit) in 1996; since then, it has been cooperatively 

farmed similar to Unit B. On average, 327 acres of rice are planted in a field every other year, 

alternating with wheat, ryegrass, or fallow. 

Overall, the objective should be to provide a minimum of 3.4 million mallard-use-days of wintering 

waterfowl foraging habitat annually from second crop rice and 200 to 300 acres of shorebird habitat 

on fallow fields. 

Strategies: 

(a) Maintain the current farm agreement, which requires the farmer to leave the second crop 

unharvested, providing a large volume of quality food for wintering waterfowl. 

(b) Management of fallow rice fields should be modified to provide improved foraging habitat for 

wintering waterfowl by allowing seed maturation of weeds before discing. 

(c) When managing fallow cropland for shorebirds, alter drawdown schedules to provide shallow 

water/mudflats from late-March until early-May and from mid-August through October. Work with 

cooperative farmers to limit discing from August 1 through September 30, and to provide water 

depth suitable for shorebird use. 

(d) As a part of the normal manipulation of early successional wetlands (e.g., moist-soil habitat) in 

Unit A, the refuge should annually produce about 70 acres of rice, or other grain, that will be left 

for wintering waterfowl. 

(e) If cooperative farming is lost as an available management option, contract farming or force 

account farming should always be considered on a minimum of 300 acres of rice production. 

(f) If current farm practices in southwest Louisiana cause significant reductions in wintering waterfowl 

foraging habitat capacities on private lands (e.g., a significant reduction in the rice acreage), the 

refuge should work to offset those losses through a private lands program and increased crop 

production on the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

(g) Continue farming practices, including cooperative farming, as tools to maintain farm units in a 

condition free of Chinese tallow. 

(h) By 2016, update the cooperative farming step-down plan. 

Objective A-6: Artificial Uplands - Increase maintenance, mowing, and spraying of 26 miles of 

levees to discourage Chinese tallow invasion, maintain structural integrity, and reduce depredation on 

resident nesting waterfowl and other migratory birds. Rework 8-10 miles of levees on Units B and C 

by 2014, and rehabilitate 5-7 miles of south levee and west levee at Lacassine Pool by 2014. 

Discussion: Levees are important at the refuge because 1) they are essential to maintaining the 

aquatic and wetland habitats associated with Lacassine Pool and moist-soil units, and 2) they 

comprise rare upland habitat in their own right. Thus, the refuge must maintain its structural and 

functional integrity to ensure the conservation of moist-soil units and Lacassine Pool, and it must 

control invasive plant species and depredation on nesting birds. Resident nesting waterfowl and 

certain other birds utilize the levees for nesting, where they are vulnerable to depredation by 

opossums, raccoons, and coyotes, among other predators. 

Strategies: 

(a) Annually survey levees for both structural integrity and infestation by exotics or invasive plant 

species to determine maintenance priorities for that year. 

(b) Monitor population trends of predators to see if temporary predator control trapping is advisable to 

protect nesting birds. 

(c) Use a combination of fire, herbicides, and mechanical control to confront and reverse infestation 

by invasive plant species. 

Objective A-7: Bottomland Hardwoods/Swamps - Protect and restore existing bottomland 

hardwood swamp habitat on the refuge, specifically cypress-tupelo stands in Upper Lacassine Bayou, 

Brown Island, Blue and Black Groves within Lacassine Pool, Lacassine Point, the Headquarters 

Pond, and the mature live oaks in the refuge headquarters area. 

Discussion: Limited bottomland hardwood forest (approximately 400 acres) occurs on the refuge, 

primarily in the riparian areas along the Mermentau River and Lacassine Bayou. There may be 

opportunities for forest restoration on the existing refuge, and for acquisition of additional bottomland 

hardwood forests within the refuge’s acquisition boundary. Analysis of weather radar imagery shows 

that the Mermentau River is an important migration corridor for neotropical migratory birds. 

Protection of forested corridors is thought to provide essential foraging and resting habitat for 

migratory land birds. 

Strategies: 

(a) Control Chinese tallow tree and other nuisance exotic plant species where they occur. 

(b) Investigate opportunities to restore bottomland hardwood acreage along the Mermentau River 

and Lacassine Bayou. 

(c) Protect existing cypress groves inside and outside of Lacassine Pool; investigate opportunities to 

regenerate cypress within the groves. 
66 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

(d) Work with oil companies to avoid damage from seismic surveys; be vigilant that oil and gas 

exploration can cause permanent impacts to vegetation. 

(e) Plant cypress seedlings and other species and protect them with guards from depredation by 

nutria, rabbits, and deer. 

(f) Continue to document and protect the large live oak trees located in the vicinity of the refuge 

headquarters and staff housing. 

Objective A-8: Wilderness Area - Continue to monitor habitat changes in the Wilderness Area, 

conduct prescribed fire every 3-4 years, and investigate options for managing invasive plants and 

restoring hydrology to ponds. 

Discussion: A tract of about 3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is formally 

designated by Congress as Wilderness, and protected by the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act, 

which prevents any change to its wild, untrammeled character. 

Since its establishment in the late 1970s, waterfowl habitat values have deteriorated in the 

Wilderness Area. Since no motorized boat traffic is permitted, boat trails through the vegetation have 

gradually closed in, restricting outflow of water from small ponds in the Wilderness Area, which have 

also filled in. In addition, invasive plant species have proliferated largely unchecked in the 

Wilderness Area. 

Strategies: 

(a) Conduct aerial surveys at least once every two years to visually monitor and record habitat 

changes and migratory bird presence within the Wilderness Area. 

(b) Experiment with growing season fires that are expected to be more effective in controlling or 

reducing the encroachment of exotic species and undesirable species. 

(c) Fall burning should also be considered on an experimental basis to determine if fall burns will 

increase or decrease waterfowl use. 

(d) By 2014, update the wilderness management plan. 

Objective A-9: Fire Management - Use fire as a multipurpose management tool to reduce 

hazardous fuels and promote habitat diversity. Utilize prescribed fire on approximately 10,000 acres 

per year. 

Discussion: Fire can be a cost-effective and ecologically sound tool in pursuit of management 

objectives, but, if used incorrectly or without consideration, can be dangerous and costly to property 

and even human life. A good fire management plan provides information to the fire manager on the 

purpose, use, and implementation of fire, as well as contingency plans, if and when, fire suppression 

is needed. The fire management plan describes what management objectives are to be 

accomplished with the use of fire. 

Management objectives for prescribed fire use at Lacassine Refuge include: 1) reducing hazard fuel; 

2) controlling exotic species; 3) increasing production of waterfowl food plants; 4) increasing 

availability of “food” (e.g., vigorously growing plants that are normally selected species-specific by 

wildlife; for dabbling ducks, preferred food items within 12-18 inches of the water surface); and 5) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

minimizing the organic accumulation in Lacassine Pool. Lacassine Refuge’s fire management plan is 

currently under revision by the Regional Fire Management Team, as part of a 5-year review cycle. 

Comments and recommendations from this review will be incorporated into the updated fire 

management plan for the refuge. 

Prescribed fire is used at Lacassine Refuge on a 3-year burn interval for marsh habitats, as well as 

an annual burn cycle in prairie habitats to promote native species. In 2003, five or six prescribed fires 

burned 7,000 to 8,000 acres of the refuge. One management objective should be to reduce 

maidencane to an acceptable percentage of the landscape, rather than eliminate it altogether. 

Fire is an integral part of coastal prairie habitats. This fire-maintained grassland community is held in 

a mid-successional stage by fire, which prevents trees from becoming established. 

Fire and the Lacassine Pool 

Being a closed system and with management keeping water depth at a relatively constant level within 

the Lacassine Pool for over a 60-year period, dead plant material has accumulated within it and the 

organic layer has not been allowed to compact and naturally oxidize. Grasses have thrived, open 

water areas have shrunk, and woody vegetation has become established within Lacassine Pool’s 

interior. If this eutrophication of the unit continues without management intervention, the entire area 

will fill in, be taken over by undesirable plants, and covert to an upland habitat type. The utilization of 

the area by migratory birds will consequently continue to diminish with lessening open-water areas. 

In addition, the excellent recreational fisheries resource currently enjoyed by refuge visitors will be 

lost to both them and all future generations. Visitors to the refuge have expressed their concerns on 

the future access and management within this area. Refuge records note similar concern for the 

health of Lacassine Pool as far back as the 1953 Annual Narrative. 

In 1993, the refuge staff attempted to correct the problem within Lacassine Pool by raising the water 

level by approximately 1 to 1.5 feet. The hypothesis was that higher water would drown the 

unwanted vegetation. However, even after this management action occurred, vegetation continued 

to quickly overgrow Lacassine Pool and clog the boat passageways. After more than a 10-year 

period, the loss of open-water areas has continued and it now appears that the higher water level 

may have aggravated the problem by increasing the number of pop-ups. Pop-ups are floating mats 

of organic debris that dislodge from pond bottoms, rise to the water surface, and become colonized 

by emergent vegetation. The elevated water level also placed excessive pressure on the dikes 

designed to hold water at a lower elevation. 

David Fruge (1974) provided insight into why Lacassine Pool’s design has everything to do with this 

problem. He reported that the three small, elevated spillways allow a negligible amount of the 

tremendous annual crop of plant matter to escape from the impoundment. The resultant 

accumulation of this detritus therefore would cause aggradations of the substrate with consequent 

lowering of water levels, and continuing emergence of pop-ups, with resultant colonization by 

emergent species and consequent elimination of open-water areas and the associated floating-leafed 

submergent community. 

Robert Chabreck (1997) experimented with dewatering and prescribed fire within a small subsection 

of Lacassine Pool. In 1987, a 700-acre area of Unit G was partitioned to form Unit D. Within this new 

unit, dewatering occurred during a period from 1990 through 1992, and portions of the area was 

prescribed burned during 1990, 1991, and 1993; up to 1 foot of the substrate was dried by late 

summer 1990. From 1990 to 1997, a 64 percent decrease in the thickness of the organic layer was 

recorded. The vegetative characteristics of Unit D also changed during this period. Prior to the 
68 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

study, maidencane occurred in 90 percent of the sample plots, Bulltongue in 70 percent of the plots, 

and the aquatic plant coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) was in 20 percent of the plots. By 1997, 

maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) was present in only 70 percent of the plots, Bulltongue was 

completely absent, and coontail was in 80 percent of the plots. The 1994 mean elevation for the 

organic level in Unit G (pool) was 11 cm greater than in Unit D. Currently, open water continues to 

cover 70 percent of Unit D, while covering 40 percent of Lacassine Pool. 

During 2002, a Wildlife and Habitat Review was completed. This team of biologists, managers, foresters, 

and non-Service managers/biologists evaluated current management practices and provided 

recommendations about future habitat and water management (USFWS 2003). The team recommended 

the continued management of Lacassine Pool as a freshwater impoundment with the primary focus on 

waterfowl and aquatic birds. Dewatering and prescribed fire, along with chemical control of vegetation, 

were recommended for reaching a suggested 50:50 ratio of open water to vegetation mix. 

For management to begin addressing the lingering problems associated with the Lacassine Pool, the 

first step will be to eliminate the yearly accretion rates and address surface fuel reduction through the 

removal of growing plant materials prior to November of each year. Prescribed fire is a readily 

available management tool that can be used to produce the needed results. Once the elevation of 

the organic layer is stabilized, more drastic management actions will need to take place to gain the 

recommended open water to vegetation ratio. As demonstrated within Unit D, the combination of 

dewatering and prescribed fire can effectively achieve this end. Prescribed fire has been a consistent 

tool to elevate heavy fuel accumulation and to aid in setting back natural succession. When applied 

under the appropriate environmental factors, fire, both with and without dewatering, should work to 

help control accretion. For fire to have the best and most effective impact on the Lacassine Pool, 

burning operations must be performed during summer months and after dewatering; past prescribed 

fires occurred primarily during the winter months and at periods of high water. A draft fire prescription 

for the Lacassine Pool is being written. 

Strategies: 

(a) Implement subdividing Lacassine Pool to create a more manageable wetland. 

(b) Update burn plans and fire management plan to include organic matter consumption burns (i.e., 

ground fires in drier conditions) to meet waterfowl habitat management needs of Lacassine Pool. 

(c) Rework canals along Lacassine Pool to provide a means of water for fire suppression purposes. 

(d) Burn management units in different years to lessen impacts on insects and birds. 

(e) Reduce hazardous fuels and the potential for uncontrollable wildfires by using prescribed fire, 

mechanical, or chemical treatments to protect life, property, industrial oil and gas infrastructure, 

and natural resources on the refuge. 

(f) Wildfires will be addressed in the fire management plan in such a manner as to complement 

habitat management on the refuge. 

(g) Prescribed fires to address hazardous material spills to minimize damage to the environment will 

be addressed in the fire management plan and prescription. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

(h) Hire six additional fire staff and provide support equipment, office space, and bunkhouse space to 

support fire management activities for refuges within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex.

(i) Complete a draft fire prescription for the Lacassine Pool by the year 2007 for moderate and 

severe fire conditions. Ensure that appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

documentation occurs. 

Objective A-10: Undesirable Plants and Animals - Reduce to lowest practical level all undesirable 

plants and animals on the refuge to minimize negative effects on native flora and fauna. 

Discussion: Non-native plant invasions are rapidly spreading across the nation into croplands, 

rangelands, pastures, forests, wetlands, waterways, wilderness areas, parks, refuges, and highway 

rights-of-way. They are causing billions of dollars worth of damage to the natural, managed, and 

agricultural ecosystems. Non-native invasive species have been identified as the second leading 

cause of biodiversity loss in the United States. Invasive noxious plants are an issue in all habitats 

present on the refuge and should be treated individually by habitat. Some indigenous plants, such as 

phragmites (Phragmites communis) and alligator weed, are included in these strategies because they 

are not desirable for management purposes. 

Strategies: 

(a) By 2009, hold a training class to acquaint all refuge personnel with identification of current and 

potential weeds and develop literature that is brief and clear about potential pest problems for 

refuge visitors. 

(b) By 2013, develop an invasive and nuisance species plan recommending methods, such as 

pesticides, mechanical removal, trapping, and fire, to control cogongrass, giant salvinia, water 

hyacinth, phragmites, and alligator weed (indigenous, but undesirable), nutria, feral hogs, and 

feral cats. 

(c) Burn to control Chinese tallow. Continue to use herbicides and mechanical methods to control 

Chinese tallow but restrict its application to injection or bark spray in sensitive areas, such as 

rookeries. 

(d) Maintain alligator hunting as an activity requiring a permit to remove nuisance alligators from the 

refuge as deemed necessary to benefit native habitats and other wildlife, and to provide for the 

safety of visitors. 

GOAL B: FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT - Maintain healthy and viable wildlife and fish 

populations on the refuge to contribute to the purpose for which it was established and to the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Objective B-1: Migratory Waterfowl - Provide wintering habitat for ducks and geese to return to 

their historic 1970s population levels, consistent with the objectives of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan’s Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Chenier Plain Initiative (4,500,000 ducks and 526,000 

geese, respectively). 

Discussion: Coastal Louisiana is one of the most important waterfowl areas in North America, 

providing wintering grounds for huge numbers of waterfowl. Concern over waterfowl population 

declines in the 1980s resulted in the establishment of the North American Waterfowl Management 
70 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Plan, which focused the attention of Federal, State, and private conservation groups on critical 

wintering and breeding areas. The Gulf Coast, including southwest Louisiana, was selected as one 

of the critical wintering areas. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture was established as a 

Federal/State/private partnership to address wintering waterfowl population goals and habitat needs. 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, including the Gulf Coast Joint Venture, has 

expanded to encompass management of all birds. 

Lacassine Refuge pintail counts regularly approach 50 percent of the entire southwest Louisiana total 

and occasionally exceed 80 percent, indicating the significance of this refuge to the regional 

distribution of pintails. Lacassine Pool has been documented as a key diurnal roost site for harboring 

pintails in southwest Louisiana, with pintails making frequent long round-trip journeys to foraging 

habitat at night. 

The high wintering waterfowl densities in the area have resulted in high-cost waterfowl hunting leases 

and incessant hunting that makes sanctuary a high priority for waterfowl in this area. Indeed, the 

significance of Lacassine Pool as a sanctuary site for pintails may be unparalleled in the Mississippi 

Flyway. This sanctuary must be maintained in quality, secure habitat. 

Strategies: 

(a) Refer to strategies listed under Objective A-1 on Lacassine Pool. 

(b) For each waterfowl impoundment, keep records annually of flood and drawdown dates, water 

levels, land treatments (e.g., discing and herbicide), and plant and migratory bird response to 

habitat availability. 

(c) Adjust land treatments to provide a complex of habitat types and maximize migratory bird 

response related to habitat availability. 

(d) Strive to get complete water control on all areas managed for waterfowl. 

(e) Provide optimal water conditions (mid-August through mid-November) for early migratory birds 

and shorebirds. 

(f) Create a partnership between the refuge and the research community to promote monitoring and 

research to determine the most effective methods for waterfowl management. 

(g) Record all management actions and implement adaptive management strategies to evaluate food 

production and wildlife response, and modify management actions to improve wildlife habitat. 

(h) Conduct waterfowl surveys on a unit-specific and species-specific basis from September through 

February. Habitat conditions and waterfowl numbers should be correlated to the degree possible 

to determine preferred habitat conditions throughout the winter period. 

(i) Within Lacassine Pool, note areas preferred or avoided by waterfowl and investigate habitat 

conditions to determine if there is a correlation. Because of differences in species habitat 

preferences both within and among years, data should be recorded, archived, and analyzed over 

a period of years before irreversible actions are taken. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

(j) Expand the objectives of the waterfowl surveys conducted strictly for the purpose of determining 

peak waterfowl populations on the refuge and expand the survey to other southwest 

Louisiana refuges. 

Objective B-2: Mottled Ducks - Provide nesting, brood-rearing, and molting habitat for mottled duck 

populations to contribute to the goals and objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan’s Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Chenier Plain Initiative. Enhance knowledge of this species to 

improve management. 

Discussion: Mottled ducks are a resident species with a range limited to the western Gulf Coast and 

Florida. The Louisiana Chenier Plain population estimate is about 170,000 birds, making this region 

one of the most important in the world for this species. Mottled ducks must meet all their life cycle 

requirements from their year-round home of Gulf Coast marshes and associated agricultural habitats. 

These habitat requirements vary seasonally. As such, special consideration is warranted to ensure 

that the unique needs of this species are met. 

Mottled ducks have a long potential nesting period, from February through mid-July, and as a result 

frequent re-nesting attempts are common. Typical mottled duck nesting habitats are cordgrass ridges 

and other elevated sites within coastal marsh complexes, and cattle pasture and rice production zone 

of the former coastal prairie. Mottled ducks frequently select nest sites with some overhead cover, 

but typically abandon sites once they are overgrown with baccharis, willow, or Chinese tallow. 

Strategies: 

(a) Provide brood rearing water habitat through July, in at least one field of Units A, C, and E, as part 

of a late-summer drawdown. 

(b) Participate in multi-agency efforts to capture and band pre-season mottled ducks consistent with 

coordinated banding objectives. 

(c) With partners, monitor mottled duck population trends on the refuge through summer/fall/winter 

aerial surveys and other rigorous and repeatable surveys as feasible. 

(d) Support mottled duck research that seeks to clarify limiting factors and/or their mitigation. 

Objective B-3: Cavity-nesting Ducks - Conduct a program of 50 to 60 well-maintained nest boxes 

for wood ducks and black-bellied whistling ducks. 

Discussion: Nest boxes can make a positive contribution to the well being of wood ducks and blackbellied whistling ducks. Lacassine Refuge lies within a narrow band where the ranges of wood ducks and 

black-bellied whistling ducks overlap. Both species are cavity-nesting ducks. About 80 percent of the 

duck nests in boxes on the refuge are wood ducks and 20 percent are black bellies. Black-bellied ducks 

are increasing on the refuge with a corresponding increase in nesting pairs utilizing nest boxes. 

Wood ducks are year-round residents in the forest lands of the United States. Preferred habitats 

include forested wetlands, wooded and shrub swamps, tree-lined rivers, streams, sloughs, and 

beaver ponds. Wood ducks feed on acorns, other soft and hard mast, weed seeds, and invertebrates 

found in shallow flooded timber, shrub swamps, and along stream banks. Wood ducks nest in 

cavities in trees within a mile of water and brood survival improves with proximity to water. Due to 

conversion of forestlands to agriculture, forestry practices, and competition for nest sites from a host 
72 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

of other species, natural cavities are considered a limiting factor in reproduction. Nest boxes are 

commonly used to supplement natural cavities. 

Black-bellied whistling ducks are also cavity-nesting ducks but have been documented nesting on the 

ground. They tend to nest later than wood ducks, with first nesting beginning in late-April through 

mid-September. The late nesting reduces competition with wood ducks for nest sites. 

Strategies: 

(a) Operate wood duck nest box program to meet regional guidelines dated May 23, 2003 (USFWS 

2003), taking care that no more boxes than can be adequately maintained over the 

ong-term be erected. 

(b) Evaluate nest use and nesting success in boxes and adjust the program accordingly. 

(c) Use partners, volunteers, interns, refuge personnel, and others to construct, install, and clean 

boxes at least once and as many as 2-4 times annually. 

Objective B-4: Shorebirds - Provide 200-300 acres of late summer/fall foraging habitat for 

shorebirds to contribute to the goals of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan; in addition, coordinate 

cooperative farming program to further enhance shorebird habitat where feasible. 

Discussion: The Gulf Coastal Prairie Region is one of the most important regions in the United 

States for shorebirds. The region is located along a major migration route for many types of 

shorebirds, and numerous species breed and winter along the route. The region’s strategic location 

is coupled with a diversity of habitat types favored by shorebirds, including beaches, marsh, estuarine 

tidal flats, rice fields, and crawfish ponds. Most shorebirds feed largely upon invertebrates, including 

insect larvae, mollusks, crustaceans, and various worms. A combination of invertebrate-rich, nonvegetated to sparsely vegetated and exposed mud flats to shallowly flooded (1/4 to 4 inches) areas 

will satisfy the foraging requirements of many species of shorebirds. 

 

Fall is typically the driest season in southwestern Louisiana. Additionally, most rice fields and 

crawfish ponds have been drained by this time and are largely vegetated. These facts lead to the 

assumption that shorebird habitat is most limited in the region during the fall when any habitat the 

refuge could provide would be heavily used. 

The American woodcock (Scolopax minor) is an atypical shorebird that uses forested habitats and 

moist open areas vegetated with herbaceous plants or shrubs. Woodcock occur throughout the 

forested portions of the eastern United States. Woodcock populations in this region have been on 

the decline in recent decades. 

Preferred wintering habitat for woodcock includes moist bottomland hardwood forests with brush and 

understory often found in overgrown fields and spoil banks, especially when in close association with 

agricultural fields and old field succession. The scrub/shrub and dense bottomland hardwood 

habitats created for migratory songbirds will double as good daytime cover for woodcock. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Strategies: 

(a) Where possible, provide 200 – 300 acres of shallow water and mudflat habitat suitable for 

shorebird foraging during the fall migration period (i.e., July – November). At least one 50- to 

100-acre-block of suitable habitat should be provided at all times for roosting habitat, particularly 

during the driest periods when little other habitat is available in southwest Louisiana. 

(b) In keeping with the American Woodcock Management Plan, develop and/or maintain preferred 

woodcock habitat where it exists on the refuge. Crepuscular (i.e., twilight) cover and foraging habitat 

for woodcock includes thickets and shrub areas with high vertical stem density in the understory. 

Preferred nocturnal habitat includes wet agricultural fields (i.e., not fall disced) and wet “old fields” with 

exposed soil and patchy cover 19 to 39 inches in height created by cool fall burns. 

Objective B-5: Colonial Waterbirds - Maintain and enhance nesting and foraging habitat for 

colonial waterbirds to contribute to the goals and objectives of the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan. 

Discussion: Lacassine Refuge provides outstanding foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of 

waterbird species. Approximately 15 historic colonial waterbird nesting sites are present on the 

refuge, of which 7-8 are active in any given year. Nesting colonial waterbird species include the 

neotropical cormorant; anhinga; great blue, green (Butorides virescens), tricolored, and little blue 

herons; black-crowned (Nycticorax nycticorax) and yellow-crowned (Nyctanassa violacea) nightherons; cattle (Bubulcus ibis), great, and snowy egrets; white-faced and white ibises; and roseate 

spoonbill. Other nesting, non-colonial waterbirds present include the purple gallinule, common 

moorhen, pied-billed grebe, and least bittern. 

Unit C contains a vegetated spoil bank that is consistently utilized as rookery habitat. Some of the 

spoil bank nest trees are declining, presumably from flooding stress and from physical and chemical 

damage inflicted by the nesting birds. Maintenance of existing spoil bank vegetation and periodic 

tree replanting are needed to ensure continued colonial waterbird nesting in the area. 

Colonial nesting waterbirds also use groves of cypress in the Lacassine Pool, as well as other habitats, 

such as extensive stands of giant bulrush. Colonial nesting waterbirds are sensitive to some types of 

disturbance, and may abandon rookery sites if disturbed at critical times during the breeding cycle. 

Strategies: 

(a) Monitor historic rookery areas and survey potential suitable habitat in other portions of the refuge. 

Maintain records of species and estimated numbers. Supplemental data that might be useful to 

collect include dates of nesting initiation; fledging date; water depths below rookery; nest 

substrate vegetation, including vegetative composition; and tree height. 

(b) Protect active rookeries from excessive disturbance during the breeding season. Utilize signs to 

inform the public to respect the buffer zone and minimize disturbance. 

(c) Maintain existing and provide additional colonial waterbird nesting habitat through water level 

management, tree planting, and beneficial dredge spoil placement. 
74 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective B-6: Marsh Birds - Use prescribed fire and mowing to protect and enhance nesting 

habitats in the impounded freshwater marshes for marsh birds, such as the purple gallinule, common 

moorhen, pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), least (Ixobrychus exilis) and American bittern 

(Botaurus lentiginosus), and king rail (Rallus elegans). 

Discussion: The term marsh bird, as used in the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

includes a variety of species from several different families of birds, such as rails, grebes, bitterns, 

coots, and gallinules. Lacassine Refuge provides excellent foraging and nesting habitat for a variety 

of marsh bird species. High-conservation priority marsh bird species known or expected from 

Lacassine Refuge include black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), American bittern, king rail, yellow rail 

(Coturnicops noveboracensis), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), least bittern, and purple gallinule. 

Purple gallinules, common moorhens, and least bitterns breed on the refuge. The refuge conducts 

surveys for purple gallinules and common moorhens during August of each year via boat transects. 

Prescribed fire is a frequently used management tool in marsh ecosystems. The effects of prescribed 

fire on nesting and wintering marsh birds needs further study. The effects of certain other wildlife 

management techniques on marsh birds, such as the timing and extent of water drawdowns or input, 

also deserve further investigation. 

Strategies: 

(a) Continue monitoring purple gallinule and common moorhen and seek to expand monitoring efforts 

to include pied-billed grebe, least and American bittern, and king rail. 

(b) Implement the Service’s secretive marsh bird survey protocol and contribute information to 

regional and national databases. 

(c) Investigate possibilities and methodologies to sample the refuge for high conservation priority 

transient/wintering marsh bird species, such as black and yellow rails. 

(d) Analyze the existing gallinule/moorhen database and compare to management practices in the 

survey unit (e.g., prescribed burns and vegetation/water level management). 

(e) Investigate the potential for providing sandhill crane roosting and foraging habitat on the refuge, 

such as restored prairie, or corn or sorghum stubble fields. 

Objective B-7: Non-game Resident and Migratory Land Birds - With partners on private and 

Service lands, improve habitat values on marshes, impoundment levees, shrub-dominated sites, 

forested areas, and grasslands for non-game migratory and resident landbirds to contribute to the 

Partners in Flight objectives as outlined in the Coastal Prairies (Physiographic area #06) Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation Plan. 

Discussion: Concerns about unfavorable population trends for neotropical migratory land birds led to the 

formation of Partners In Flight, a non-governmental organization dedicated to abating those declines. 

Though the initial focus of Partners in Flight was on long-distance neotropical migratory birds, the group’s 

emphasis has expanded to encompass nearly all species of resident and migratory land birds. Land 

birds, as defined by Partners in Flight, include passerine birds (e.g., songbirds), woodpeckers, raptors, 

cuckoos, and other bird species besides waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds. 

 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Approximately 400 acres of bottomland hardwood forest are present on the refuge, where a 

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival Station has been established to collect data on breeding 

woodland birds. Additional woody vegetation is present on canal and stream banks, and also on a 

series of ring levees in the Lacassine Pool that are associated with former oil and gas exploration 

sites. An invasive exotic plant species, Chinese tallow, is a dominant woody species on the ring 

levees. Refuge staff have worked to eliminate tallow from some levees, and to replant native 

species, such as bald cypress, tupelo gum, black gum, red maple, common persimmon, sugarberry, 

live oak, Nuttall oak, swamp dogwood, red mulberry, wax myrtle, and buttonbush. 

Though forest bird habitat is currently limited on the refuge, there is additional privately owned 

forested habitat within its acquisition boundaries, along Lacassine Bayou and the Mermentau River. 

Analysis of weather radar indicates that forested river bottoms in southwestern Louisiana host 

significant numbers of migrating land birds during the spring. 

Lacassine Refuge has ample opportunities to create, restore, and enhance habitat for grasslanddependent land birds. Louisiana hosts grassland-breeding bird species, such as dickcissel and 

eastern meadowlark, while other grassland-dependent species, such as Henslow’s and LeConte’s 

sparrows, winter in the State. The refuge’s on-going restoration of the Duralde Prairie site has 

benefited grassland and scrub/shrub bird species, such as eastern meadowlark, northern bobwhite, 

and loggerhead shrike. 

Strategies:

(a) Establish points and conduct point counts throughout the refuge to monitor bird species and 

document change related to management actions. 

(b) Investigate opportunities for protection of existing forested areas within the approved acquisition 

boundary along Lacassine Bayou and the Mermentau River. 

(c) With partners or other means, seek to restore forested areas along river corridors in southwestern 

Louisiana. 

(d) Work with partners to create, restore, and enhance habitat for grassland-dependent land birds 

(Objective A-4, Coastal Prairies). 

Objective B-8: Fisheries - In cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

and other partners, manage habitat consistent with the purposes of the refuge, and monitor and seek 

ways to improve water quality and fishery resources to benefit migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife. 

Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognizes fishing as 

one of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System. The Act also clearly indicates that, if a 

conflict exists between the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System or other 

management objectives, the conflict shall be resolved to first protect the purpose of the refuge, and, 

to the extent practicable, accomplish the mission of the Refuge System. The executive order and 

congressional actions authorizing establishment and expansion of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

clearly identify its purpose as managing and protecting migratory birds and other wildlife. 
76 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Lacassine Pool supports a most important fishery on the refuge. Sampling reports over the decades 

indicate good-to-fair fish populations, which periodically suffer the negative effects of drought. 

Recommendations over the years include holding water levels as high as possible and reducing the 

several-decade accumulation of organics by dewatering, drying, and possible burning of this bottom 

material, which cannot be flushed from the impounded pool. 

In the late 1980s, a 700-acre sub-impoundment called Unit D was created at the north end of Lacassine 

Pool to test the idea of dividing it into smaller, more manageable units. Although the drying/burning 

process was not completed before rains returned, the results showed promise in providing greater water 

depth and in eliminating maidencane, a widespread aquatic plant of low value to waterfowl but beneficial 

for alligator nesting. The perimeter levee was also raised, resulting in a higher water level and deeper 

water, a better fishery, and increased popularity of fishing, including tournaments. Another idea for the 

creation of deeper water habitats involves the deepening of existing canals, which could provide access 

for anglers and refuge for fish during low-water conditions. 

However, accumulated organics and inadequate depth continue to be problematic, reducing the 

wildlife value of Lacassine Pool, especially to fish in times of drought. Most recently, the severe 

drought(s) of the late 1990s and early 2000s essentially dewatered Lacassine Pool, a benefit to 

longevity of it and subsequent fall/winter waterfowl populations but detrimental to fish and fishing. 

Some conflicts are inevitable between waterfowl and fishing programs due to differing water level 

requirements. However, as noted at the outset, the primary purpose of the refuge and Lacassine 

Pool is to sustain high-quality habitats necessary for migratory birds, in particular waterfowl, and 

fulfilling this purpose has the highest priority. Nevertheless, expert opinion holds that pool 

management for fish/fishing and waterfowl can be compatible for at least 7 to 8 of every 10 years. 

However, if Lacassine Pool is subdivided, the problem will likely diminish. The key objectives for 

maintenance and longevity of Lacassine Pool are to maintain a palustrine emergent/aquatic system 

as a high-quality waterfowl sanctuary/foraging area that will require drawdowns and possible 

prescribed fire to control vegetation to open water ratios and excessive buildup of organic matter. 

Critical to the accomplishment of these objectives is the ability to replace, maintain, and operate three 

key water control structures. However, as a result of the public meeting held in Lake Charles, 

Louisiana, and the proposed corrective actions that will be taken to enact management of Lacassine 

Pool, fishing should be available to anglers on an annual basis without interruption. An exception to 

this will be if a hurricane resulted in significant saltwater intrusion. If this occurs, a drastic measure, 

such as a long-term drawdown, will be required to push saline water out of Lacassine Pool. 

Strategies for making the infrequent major drawdowns more compatible for sustaining some fish 

populations are listed below. 

Strategies: 

(a) Deepen the borrow ditch all around the flood side of Lacassine Pool levee to achieve 7- to 8-foot 

water depths in some areas to improve fisheries habitat and increase the levee height. 

(b) Deepen other ditches and ponds in Lacassine Pool to 5-8 feet deep and a minimum of 20 feet 

wide to improve fisheries habitat. 

(c) Extend the life of Lacassine Pool through drawdowns that will result in soil compaction and 

oxidation of accumulated organic matter when dry periods or drought allows. Fire should be 

used to reduce the organic matter accumulation when opportunities become available. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

(d) Provide family-oriented public use of the fishery resource, but limit fishing to the period from 

March 15 through October 15 inside Lacassine Pool and year-round on customary and traditional 

fishing areas within the refuge to minimize disturbance to wintering waterfowl. Rookeries 

should be protected. 

(e) Establish and maintain healthy and adequate sport fish populations by working with the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Service’s Fisheries Assistance Office 

personnel to obtain fish population data on an annual basis through electro-fishing, controlled 

angling, netting, angler surveys, and other standard sampling techniques. 

(f) Take all the preventive measures possible to reduce or eliminate the largemouth bass virus 

within refuge waters. 

(g) Stocking of fish in refuge waters will be limited to measures aimed at maintaining balanced fish 

populations or replacing populations decimated by unusually severe or atypical losses due to 

climatic or environmental factors. Native species of fish will be the first choice for introductions. 

The refuge will work with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and with the 

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery to produce native bass fry for stocking. If native species 

cannot be used, non-native species may be used. Stocking refuge waters with catchable-sized 

sport fish specifically to support recreational fishing is prohibited. 

(h) By 2015, update the fisheries management plan. 

Objective B-9: Alligators - In coordination with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 

monitor alligator populations, establish a desirable alligator density objective for the refuge within five 

years of the date of this plan, and cooperate with the Department in setting annual harvest quotas. 

Discussion: American alligators are opportunistic carnivores and a top predator on the refuge. 

Smaller alligators (i.e., less than five feet long) primarily feed on crustaceans, fish, and insects. 

Larger alligators primarily feed on mammals (e.g., nutria and muskrat), birds, fish, reptiles, and 

crustaceans. 

The alligator population on the refuge needs to be monitored and population objectives established. 

Population management of alligators is recommended to maintain healthy alligators and other wildlife, 

as well as the ecosystem in general on the refuge. To date, alligator populations have been kept in 

check in most areas of the State, including the refuge, by a harvest program that is closely regulated 

by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Prior year harvest statistics indicate that the 

refuge’s harvest program has followed the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

recommendation some years and in other years harvested below the allotted quota. 

Alligator nest densities are much higher in Lacassine Pool compared to other fresh marshes on the 

refuge. The 5-year average (1997-2001) nest density for Lacassine Pool is 1 nest per 43 acres while 

the 5-year average nest density outside of it is 1 nest per 106 acres. Alligator densities are much 

higher inside than outside Lacassine Pool. Alligators appear to prefer maidencane for nesting in 

Lacassine Pool. 

The harvest program on Lacassine Refuge was initially authorized because of reported low weightlength ratio for alligators, indicating possible overpopulation and the need to increase harvest rates to 

maintain a healthy population. Harvest on southwest Louisiana refuges generally consists of trappers 

selling their alligators to processors whole at the boat ramp, limiting the “historic Cajun tradition” of 

families skinning the alligators locally. In an attempt to retain the benefits of alligator harvest in the 
78 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

local community, community members have initiated an alligator hide cooperative to buy and process 

hides. This program, in theory, will create local jobs, provide increased revenue, and 

de-commercialize the harvest program. In the 2001 trapping season, one of Lacassine Refuge’s 

alligator trappers participated in the alligator hide cooperative and was paid significantly more than 

trappers selling to the traditional buyers. 

Strategies: 

(a) Continue consulting with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to monitor annual 

harvest, conduct more intensive aerial alligator nest surveys, and collect all data necessary to 

make sound biological decisions. 

(b) Consult with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to develop a customized harvest 

strategy that will focus on achieving target population goals, including desired age/sex 

composition. 

(c) By 2018, revise the alligator and furbearer harvest plan. 

(d) Continue prohibition of alligator egg collection on Service-owned refuge lands. 

Objective B-10: Resident Wildlife (Mammals, Amphibians, Reptiles) - With partners, maintain 

and develop diversified habitats and promote management actions that will support healthy 

populations of indigenous wildlife species to meet the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Discussion: Lacassine Refuge supports a variety of habitats typical of southwest Louisiana and, 

consequently, hosts the full range of wildlife species common to the area. Sound management of the 

fresh marshes, agricultural areas, and various other habitats will allow the refuge to maintain current 

population levels. Population monitoring and a number of control measures can be implemented to 

provide recreational opportunity and maintain wildlife populations at or slightly below carrying 

capacity (i.e., the population level that can be sustained over the long term by the available habitat). 

White-tailed deer are the largest mammals on the refuge and are well adapted to its habitats. Refuge 

habitat can support a population of +300 deer. Deer numbers should be reduced annually to 

minimize the impact on both the habitat and problems caused by parasites/diseases within the deer 

herds. With few predators controlling deer population, hunting provides recreational opportunity and 

is the preferred method to control the deer population. A recommended harvest of 30 percent of the 

deer herd should be taken annually and consist of a 50:50 ratio of bucks and does. 

Two species of rabbits, cottontail and swamp, are found on the refuge in abundance. A recent study 

shows that both rabbits breed throughout the entire year at this latitude, and the number of rabbits 

produced annually in this type habitat is greater than that of rabbits in more upland habitats. Even 

though many predators prey on these rabbits, population numbers are considered to be high. The 

proposed annual harvesting of rabbits from the refuge will have no negative impact on the population 

and will allow the opportunity for recreational hunting of these under-utilized species. 

As a freshwater marsh, Lacassine Refuge is also a haven for reptiles and amphibians. Despite the 

dominance of these creatures on the landscape, little is known about their populations on the refuge. 

In 2001, the refuge began participating in a statewide monitoring program for frogs known as the 

Louisiana Amphibian Monitoring Program. Three permanent sites have been established and are 

monitored during the monitoring-specific period of the year. In addition to the amphibian monitoring 

program surveys, drift fences have been in place on the refuge since 2001 to monitor terrestrial 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

reptiles and amphibians. The refuge has plans to expand its reptile and amphibian monitoring effort 

to determine the effects of oil and gas development on these sensitive species. 

Strategies: 

(a) Continue to use hunting as a tool to manage wildlife populations where it is compatible with other 

refuge purposes and activities. 

(b) Continue and expand the monitoring program for reptiles and amphibians. Incorporate control 

sites for the oil and gas disturbance study into a long-term monitoring program. 

(c) Protect and monitor alligator snapping turtle populations on the refuge. Identify and protect their 

nest sites. Determine the methods and frequency of intentional and incidental harvest and their 

importance to the local community. 

Objective B-11: Species of Special Concern - With partners, manage populations and habitats to 

support and increase numbers of threatened and endangered species and species of concern to 

meet the objectives of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Discussion: Species of concern found on the refuge include the bald eagle, federally listed as 

threatened, and the paddlefish, a species of management concern in Region 4 of the Service. 

Lacassine Refuge may also attract transient Louisiana black bears, federally listed as threatened. 

The bald eagle was first listed on March 11, 1967, and several recovery plans have been written to 

recover the species. Louisiana’s nesting bald eagle population declined during the 1960s and 1970s, 

presumably due to pesticide-induced reproductive failure, habitat loss, and the illegal take of adult 

birds. The State’s nesting population has rebounded since the mid-1970s, due in large part to 

prohibitions of DDT use in the United States, increased environmental awareness, and the efforts of 

State and Federal agencies to conserve and restore habitat and to enforce wildlife regulations. 

Although the bald eagle was recommended for delisting in 1999, it was determined that additional 

data were needed before taking this action. It is currently designated as threatened in its current 

range of the conterminous United States and Alaska. Current threats are loss of nesting habitat due 

to development along the coast and near inland rivers and waterways. 

Bald eagles are common in areas with large expanses of aquatic habitats (e.g., coastal areas, rivers, 

lakes, and reservoirs) with forested shorelines or cliffs. Within Louisiana, they are typically associated 

with forested wetlands adjacent to marsh or open water. There are historic records of nesting bald eagles 

on private land near the refuge headquarters. The Lacassine Pool potentially provides excellent foraging 

habitat for bald eagles, but large trees for perching and nesting are currently limited. 

Paddlefish are a Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 species of management concern. Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Inland Fisheries personnel have identified Lacassine Bayou and 

the Mermentau River as extremely important areas for paddlefish. 

Paddlefish populations have declined throughout much of their historic range in North America due to 

habitat changes and over-fishing, mostly to supply the caviar market. Due to their scarcity, and to 

threats posed from over-harvest, no harvest of paddlefish is currently allowed in Louisiana. Despite 

prohibitions on harvest, some incidental take of paddlefish in nets and with other tackle sometimes 

occurs. The refuge prohibits commercial fishing in the portions of waterways that are within the 

refuge’s boundaries and jurisdiction. 
80 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Both Lacassine Bayou and the Mermentau River have experienced water quality impairment, with 

turbidity thought to be one of the major water quality issues. The watersheds are subject to 

significant non-point source pollution from agricultural run-off. 

The Louisiana black bear was listed on January 7, 1992. It is currently designated as threatened in 

its entire range of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The Louisiana black bear is a habitat generalist 

and often over-winters in hollow cypress trees either in or along sloughs, lakes, or riverbanks in 

bottomland habitat of the Tensas and Atchafalaya river basins. 

Lacassine Refuge is outside of known occupied habitat (e.g., an area with resident reproducing 

female Louisiana black bears); however, it may receive rare use by transient animals. The closest 

occupied habitat is in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. The male Louisiana black bear can travel far from 

occupied habitats and has been documented in every parish in Louisiana at least once. Lacassine 

Refuge does not provide habitat typically used by bears, but such long-ranging individuals may pass 

through and use the area.

Other wildlife and plant species of concern that are known or suspected to occur on the refuge 

include the alligator snapping turtle, northern pintail, roseate spoonbill, glossy ibis (Plagadis 

falcinellus), about 25 other wildlife species (e.g., mostly birds) of management concern in Region 4 of 

the Service, and four plant species listed in the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program database of rare, 

threatened, and endangered plant species. 

Strategies: 

(a) Continue to monitor bald eagle use of the refuge as part of the Mid-Winter Bald Eagle Survey. 

(b) Protect turtles and paddlefish by continuing prohibition on the use of commercial fishing gear 

within the refuge boundaries. 

(c) Help conserve paddlefish by improving water quality in the streams through reforestation 

incentives via the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, or through acquisition of streamside 

habitat within the approved acquisition boundary. 

(d) Provide assistance to Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries on State jurisdictional 

waters within the refuge boundaries with population monitoring and restoration efforts, and work 

with the Department to ban trammel, gill, and hoop nets. 

(e) With partners, investigate opportunities to protect the paddlefish spawning area on Bayou 

Nezpique through landowner incentives or acquisition. 

(f) Continue to monitor wading bird nesting colonies for presence of roseate spoonbill and glossy 

ibis; provide information on numbers and locations to Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 

(g) Where appropriate and feasible, initiate surveys for other Federal species of management 

concern or State-listed rare species, such as winter surveys for Henslow’s sparrow and 

grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) on the Duralde Prairie. 

(h) Where appropriate and feasible, undertake management actions to provide habitat for other 

Federal species of management concern or State-listed rare animal species, such as installation 

of nest platforms for osprey. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

(i) Report any occurrences of other State-rare animal species on the refuge to Louisiana Natural 

Heritage Program. 

GOAL C: OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES - Manage petroleum infrastructure 

and activities to protect migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife and their habitats. 

Objective C-1: Protection and Management - Increase protection and management of petroleum 

activities to minimize impacts on migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife and their habitats. 

Discussion: Lacassine Refuge has had oil and gas exploration and production since its creation in 

1937, with a total of 82 wells drilled on refuge property. Currently, only two wells are in production. 

Most have been properly plugged and abandoned, but five of the remaining wells are listed in the 

“shut-in” status. A “shut-in” well is not producing and either has mechanical problems down hole, or 

is not economically feasible to produce hydrocarbons. “Shut-in” wells can become potential 

environmental threats. 

Oil and gas exploration companies now use seismic surveys to detect petroleum resources. These 

surveys can temporarily disrupt habitat and disturb wildlife. 

Approximately 15 oil and gas transmission pipelines traverse the refuge. These pipelines require a 

right-of-way agreement with the Service. It is important to establish good communications with the 

different companies that have these rights-of-way and require them to report directly to the refuge all 

releases of any size on refuge property. Efforts should be made to determine the route that each 

pipeline covers and what products are passing through the refuge so that, if a leak did occur, a 

responsible party could be identified and the cleanup process could begin as soon as possible. Oil 

and gas policy is described in Chapter II. 

Strategies: 

(a) Maintain good communication with oil and gas exploration and development companies so that 

they are well aware that the refuge is closed to most surface activities from October through 

March to minimize disturbance to wintering waterfowl. 

(b) Require all spills of any quantity to be reported to the refuge so proper and prompt cleanup can 

be assured. 

(c) By 2015, update the oil and gas management plan. 

(d) Ensure that all future management for existing oil and gas transmission lines and operations are 

managed per Fish and Wildlife Service Policy. (Reference Fish and Wildlife Manual: FWS 603, 

Section 2.11 D, and Chapter II of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Refuge Related 

Problems, Oil and Gas Activities). 

Objective C-2: Reclamation - Increase surface reclamation at former petroleum extraction sites to 

improve habitat for wintering migratory birds and other species. 

Discussion: As the surface owner, Lacassine Refuge has the right to require any old, out-of-use 

equipment and wells that are not in production to be removed so that sites can be returned to wildlife 

habitat. 
82 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Ring levees built around wells have typically been left behind by oil companies when extraction 

ceases and the well is abandoned. The ring levees then become nuisances because they displace 

native habitat and are reservoirs of non-native and invasive species like Chinese tallow. 

Strategies: 

(a) Identify wells that need to be plugged and abandoned, remnant equipment that needs to be 

removed, and possible related contamination issues and communicate these needs to the 

responsible oil and gas companies. 

(b) Allocate the staff time necessary to coordinate new activities and cleanup. 

(c) Develop a database to track well status and pipeline locations, along with current ownership. 

GOAL D: PUBLIC USE MANAGEMENT - Encourage outdoor wildlife-dependent public use of 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge to the extent that it is compatible with the refuge purposes. 

Objective D-1: Visitor Services - By 2012, complete steps to enhance the refuge’s infrastructure 

and operations to provide for quality, wildlife-dependent public use. 

Discussion: The current public use development plan was prepared in 1987. The plan will be 

revised as a step-down management plan for visitor services. It will address the needs of refuge 

visitors and current and future demands for visitor services and recreation. All visitor service activity 

programs and facilities will be wildlife-dependent and compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 

The plan will include a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the visitor service 

program annually. 

Directional signs to the refuge along Highway 14 are placed and maintained by the State highway 

department. These signs are nonstandard Fish and Wildlife Service signs and will be replaced. All 

refuge roads are graveled and are maintained (i.e., graded) on a regular basis by refuge staff. 

Graveled parking lots are located at two boat launches at Lacassine Pool and at the Unit B fishing 

area. During peak fishing use periods, visitors are limited by parking lot capacity. There are no 

permanent public restroom facilities available at Lacassine Pool or Unit B; however, portable toilets 

are available. 

The refuge does not have a visitor center or an audio/visual program designed for welcoming and 

orienting visitors. The visitor center at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge serves as the visitor 

center for all refuges that make up the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Renovations at Cameron Prairie Refuge will provide for exhibit space to interpret and highlight the 

unique features of Lacassine Refuge. 

Strategies: 

(a) By 2012, develop an up-to-date step-down visitor services management plan that includes 

recommendations for wildlife-dependent recreation. The visitor services plan will encompass 

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

outreach. 

(b) Develop the means to obtain accurate visitor counts and projected visitation. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

(c) Improve quality and quantity of information about the refuge, including signs and radio messages. 

(d) Continue to maintain the road to Lacassine Pool. 

(e) Develop a law enforcement step-down plan by 2008. 

(f) Hire one full-time law enforcement officer. 

(g) Hire a park ranger for visitor services (e.g., environmental education and interpretation) to work 

under the direction and guidance of the Complex outreach coordinator. 

(h) Make various specific improvements to the refuge facilities and operations over the coming five 

years, including the following: 

• Work with the State of Louisiana Highway Department to standardize all highway signs 

regarding look and information; use Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge on all signs. 

• Keep kiosk/public contact/boardwalk areas clean and gate areas well-mowed. 

• Rebuild the kiosk at the office. 

• Place an informational kiosk at fishing area at end of Streeter Road. 

• Build public restrooms at Lacassine Pool. 

• Devise a plan to deal with litter as visitation increases. 

Objective D-2: Hunting - Offer quality hunting experiences for hunters; review the refuge hunting 

program on an annual basis to monitor its success and to consider ways of improving the program. 

Discussion: Lacassine Refuge has an active hunting program for waterfowl and white-tailed deer. 

There is not much hunting pressure during teal season; instead, winter waterfowl hunting for ducks, coots 

(Fulica americana), and geese is more popular. Currently, 10,434 acres are open to waterfowl hunting. 

The Unit B farm unit is a lottery hunt area for youth and senior youth hunters open only during the second 

split of the State waterfowl season on Saturday (youth) and Wednesday (senior). All hunters are required 

to obtain a hunting brochure, which also serves as the permit when signed. There is not a central check 

station for hunters to check in bagged birds, except for lottery hunters. Hunters are able to access the 

refuge from various locations, making it difficult to get hunter use numbers. 

Archery-only hunting for white-tailed deer is also allowed by permit during the month of October. 

Hunters may utilize the entire refuge excluding the headquarters area. Deer hunters are requested to 

provide harvest information, but it is not mandatory. 

No trapping has occurred on the refuge since the winter of 1988, because nutria and muskrat 

populations have not warranted a harvest. 
84 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

(a) Allow the harvesting of white-tailed deer with archery equipment from approximately October 1 

until approximately October 31, or the beginning of duck season, to control deer numbers and 

maintain a healthy deer herd. Consider expanding the season to include a 1- to 2-day, shotgunonly hunt for deer herd control. 

(b) Adjust waterfowl hunting schedule to coordinate with Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. Both 

refuges will be open four days a week. This action will eliminate one day from the current 

schedule for Lacassine Refuge and add one day for Sabine Refuge. 

(c) Continue the lottery waterfowl hunt for youths and seniors during second split of duck season and 

general adult lottery hunt for both splits. 

(d) During the lottery hunts, place a temporary sign at head of Streeter Road that reads: “Observation 

Tower Closed until Noon - Hunt in Progress.” Also, improve the crossovers/bridges used during 

the lottery hunt. 

(e) Consider a special lottery season for rabbit hunting during the month of February, within the 

agricultural area and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway levee systems. Any such hunt must be sensitive 

to waterfowl disturbance and should be delayed until after the waterfowl season. 

(f) Assess the feasibility of allowing commercial guiding. If guiding is allowed, it will be under the 

auspices of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

(g) Modify lottery hunt blinds to make them safer and more accessible. 

(h) Consider participating in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program to charge fees for the lottery 

hunt and the refuge hunting permit. 

(i) By 2012, update the hunting management plan with appropriate notification published in the Code 

of Federal Regulations, Title 50, and other means to notify the public. 

Objective D-3: Fishing - Offer quality fishing experiences for anglers and review the refuge fishing 

program on an annual basis to monitor its success. 

Discussion: Fishing has been the most popular public use on the refuge since it was established. 

Lacassine Pool, initially created to provide migratory waterfowl habitat, has become a prime 

largemouth bass fishing area. Problems associated with the fishing program include opening day 

traffic and parking congestion, auto speeding, fishing tournaments, and littering by anglers. 

Anglers line both sides of the entrance road on opening day of fishing season awaiting their turn to launch 

into Lacassine Pool. Parking facilities at launches are adequate on normal use days, but on opening day 

there is congestion. Law enforcement patrols the area and remedies situations as needed. 

Speeding on Lacassine Pool access roads is a major safety issue, especially during fishing season. 

The easement road leading to the entrance road and the entrance road are zoned 45 mph and 35 

mph, respectively. Speed limits are strictly enforced by using radar devices. The refuge will adjust 

speed limits as needed to deter speeding and to protect wildlife. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Fishing tournaments have occurred on the refuge for a number of years. Tournament participants 

are encouraged to practice catch and release by tournament organizers. There have been conflicts 

between other refuge users and tournament anglers. Fish caught by tournament anglers were put 

back in the water after weigh-in at the boat launch. Complaints were made to staff about the sight of 

dead and dying fish left at the launch areas by other users. Tournament anglers are now required to 

release fish in the interior areas of Lacassine Pool after weigh-in. Tournaments in the past were 

usually held on Mondays and parking and road traffic congestion mirror opening day issues. Other 

user groups tend to avoid Lacassine Pool on tournament days. Several user conflicts have occurred 

due to fishing tournaments. 

However, current Fish and Wildlife Policy states tournaments will be permitted as long as a 

determination has been made that events are compatible with the refuge purpose and the Refuge 

System mission. Well-planned tournaments can promote recreational fishing opportunities on 

refuges and be a source of conservation information and education for an angler. 

Littering is widespread at Lacassine Refuge and it has become more of an issue at bank fishing sites. 

There are no trash receptacles on the refuge. Litter deposited in the Lacassine Pool sinks to the 

bottom and has no escape route since it is a closed system of levees. It is likely that littering will 

worsen as more people fish in Lacassine Pool. A yearly increase in the number of people using 

Lacassine Pool may occur in the future. 

Lacassine Refuge follows all State fishing regulations and in some cases may be more restrictive; 

regulations are available in the brochures located at the public use areas and headquarters. Creel 

surveys are used to estimate the number of boats and catch per effort. Electrofishing surveys are a 

tool used to assess the fishery in Lacassine Pool. Findings have indicated the need to enhance the 

fisheries through supplemental stocking. In an effort to increase angling opportunities, largemouth 

bass and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) have been stocked in Lacassine Pool. 

Lacassine Pool is restricted to 25 hp motors and includes surface drive motors. The Unit D 

impoundment within Lacassine Pool is restricted to boats without motors. Canals and major bayous 

outside the impoundments have no restrictions on boat motor size. 

Strategies: 

(a) Fishing tournaments will be permitted under a regulated schedule to minimize conflicts with other 

users. Permit fees will be assessed per tournament day and be commensurate with fees charged 

by other host landowners in the Southeast Region. 

(b) Develop more specific recommendations in a step-down management plan on fishing that will 

pursue a balance between the needs of “average anglers” and organized events so as to 

minimize conflicts between the two groups. 

(c) Maintain communication between the refuge and individuals with fishing interests. 

(d) Investigate safety measures to avoid boating accidents, such as requiring use of “Bike Safety” 

flags in boats in Lacassine Pool. 

(e) With partners, strive to keep bank fishing area clean through a combination of education, signage, 

and litter pickup. 
86 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

(f) Assess the feasibility of allowing commercial guiding. If guiding is allowed, it will be under the 

auspices of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

(g) Charge a daily or annual launch fee with the proceeds dedicated to the refuge. 

(h) By 2011, update the sport fishing plan. 

Objective D-4: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Enhance existing opportunities for wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography by upgrading certain facilities over the coming decade. 

Discussion: There is a 3-mile auto tour route with interpretive signs at the Lacassine Pool public use 

area. Pull-off areas are located along the drive to allow other visitors to continue along the drive 

safely. Visitors are encouraged to remain in their vehicles to enhance wildlife viewing. State 

Highway 14 passes by the refuge and is designated as the Jean Lafitte Scenic Byway. Although 

there are no designated hiking trails, visitors can walk along levees for additional wildlife observation 

opportunities. A short boardwalk through cypress swamp is located near the refuge headquarters. 

The refuge has two viewing towers located at the Lacassine Wildlife Drive and Unit B. Both towers 

have scopes and wheelchair accessibility. These areas are optimally located to see wildlife 

populations while limiting disturbance to wildlife. There are no photography blinds. 

Regulatory brochures, interpretive signs, and kiosks provide information and promote wildlife 

observation opportunities. Staff is involved in interpretation both on- and off-refuge. Lacassine 

Refuge participates in National Wildlife Refuge Week in conjunction with the Jeff Davis Parish Fair 

and the Migration Sensation Festival in support of International Migratory Bird Day to promote and 

support wildlife observation and photography on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

(a) Concentrate on birders as an audience to promote wildlife observation. 

(b) Identify areas to enhance as hiking/bird watching locations. 

(c) Work with Friends Group to sponsor refuge photo contest. 

(d) Work with local photographer to generate list of good photo spots. 

(e) Develop a parking lot at Unit B, Wildlife Observation Trail North, and interpretive signs for wood 

duck and warbler boxes. 

(f) Through partners, install observation tower at Duralde Prairie. 

(g) Allow commercial guiding if determined feasible. Guiding, if allowed, will be under the auspices of 

the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

Objective D-5: Environmental Education and Interpretation - Coordinate with other refuges within 

the Complex and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to implement environmental 

education and interpretation. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Discussion: The current level of environmental education meets the minimum requirements. The 

refuge is striving to meet the standard-enhanced level of service. A minimum of one full-time staff 

member is needed to ensure a quality environmental education program in the future. 

Environmental education programs are not offered on-site because facilities and staff levels do not allow 

for such programs. Environmental education programs are currently brought into local school 

classrooms. Students view a slide program and do a short activity and receive an educational package. 

Primary themes interpreted on the refuge include the ecology of the area, the native flora and fauna, 

and Service-wide mission and reasons for managing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Since 

the refuge lacks facilities, most interpretation occurs at Lacassine Pool. 

Strategies: 

(a) With partners, such as the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and Friends Groups, 

find a volunteer cadre to manage the environmental education program within the Complex for a 

variety of audiences. 

(b) With partners, develop kits and material for environmental education, conduct teacher training, 

and provide kits/materials to the teachers on a check-out basis. 

(c) Use interns and Student Temporary Employment Program hires to develop and conduct 

environmental education programs. 

(d) As the outdoor interpretive program is enhanced, the following themes/topics should be 

considered: 

• Coastal prairie; 

• Purpose/importance of this refuge for migratory waterfowl (e.g., pintails); 

• Management of freshwater wetlands; 

• Management of invasive species; 

• National wildlife refuges in Louisiana; and 

• Paddlefish in Mermentau River. 

(e) Interpret value of large, old live oaks in headquarters area. 

Objective D-6: Friends, Volunteers, Partners, Interns - Provide additional opportunities for friends, 

volunteers, partners, and interns to assist the refuge and extend the reach of refuge staff. 

Discussion: The refuge has a volunteer program administered by the wildlife biologist. To date, it 

has not been fully utilized but the refuge intends to expand the program and build a cadre of 

individuals to provide much needed support for refuge programs. 

Staff has located and recruited volunteers as interns through contacts with colleges and universities 

and by word-of-mouth. Potential volunteers are interviewed, skills and work experiences are 

reviewed by staff, and references are checked. Training occurs by on-the-job supervision and oneon-one orientation. 
88 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge has a Friends Group, the Friends of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Inc., established in 

1999. The Friends Groups has hosted a Migration Sensation Festival for several years. The refuge will 

encourage the Friends Group to emphasize environmental education, volunteers, and other visitor service 

activities. The Friends Group may also assist with refuge efforts for facility development, improving 

interpretation and environmental education programs, and improving maintenance of public use areas, 

such as trails and fishing areas. The group has been supportive of the budding Friends of Southwest 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuges and Wetlands group. The two groups have consulted with one 

another and have the potential to develop cooperative projects for the refuge. 

Refuge partners include Jean Lafitte Scenic Byway District, Lafayette and Jennings Visitor Bureau, 

Friends of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Inc., Future Farmers of America, Cajun Prairie Habitat 

Preservation Society, and the Jeff Davis Parish Fair Board. 

Strategies: 

(a) Nurture and strengthen Friends Groups to include Friends of Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge and Friends of Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuges and Wetlands. 

(b) Partner with the Cajun Prairie Habitat Preservation Society for management of the 

Duralde Prairie tract. 

(c) Continue partnership with local school groups for wood duck box project. 

(d) Continue to cooperate closely with the Friends Group; work with the group to manage 

a volunteer program. 

(e) Have staff identify projects that can be done by volunteers; develop specific job descriptions 

and timelines (e.g., develop volunteer group to do wood duck box monitoring); 

(f) Promote the need for friends and volunteers through local media. 

(g) By 2012, update the volunteers, friends, and partnerships plan. 

(h) Encourage the Friends of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge and the budding Friends of 

Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuges and Wetlands to work together and partner 

on mutual projects of interest. 

GOAL E: CULTURAL RESOURCES - Protect refuge cultural resources in accordance with Federal 

and State historic preservation legislation and regulations. 

Discussion: With the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Federal Government 

recognized the importance of cultural resources to the national identity and sought to protect 

archaeological sites and historic structures on those lands owned, managed, or controlled by 

the United States. The body of historic preservation laws has grown dramatically since 1906. 

Several themes recur in the laws and the promulgating regulations. They include: 1) each 

agency is to systematically inventory the “historic properties” on their holdings and to 

scientifically assess each property’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places; 2) 

Federal agencies are to consider the impacts to cultural resources during the agencies’ 

management activities and seek to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts; 3) the protection of 

cultural resources from looting and vandalism are to be accomplished through a mix of informed 

management, law enforcement efforts, and public education; and 4) the increasing role of 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

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 its mandated historic 

preservation responsibilities in a way consistent with the agency’s and the refuge’s mission. 

Objective E-1: Survey - Over the life of the comprehensive conservation plan, assess the feasibility 

of conducting a refuge-wide archaeological survey. 

Strategies: 

(a) Contact the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine if any known archaeological sites 

exist within the vicinity of the refuge. 

(b) Determine the cost of conducting the study and seek resources to accomplish the work. 

(c) Consult the Regional Historic Preservation Officer for guidance. 

Objective E-2: Education - Develop and implement an educational program that will provide an 

understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s ecology and the human influence on the region’s 

ecosystems. 

Strategy: 

(a) Work with local ethnic groups (e.g., Native American, African American, Creole, and Cajun) to 

develop education programs regarding cultural heritage and history. 

Objective E-3: Cultural Resources Management Plan - By the year 2020, develop a step-down 

cultural resources management plan. 

Strategy: 

(a) Consult the Regional Preservation Officer for guidance. 

GOAL F: REFUGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS - Develop and maintain the Southwest Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex Headquarters to: 1) support, direct, and manage the needs, 

resources, and staff of Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, Sabine, and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuges 

and their relationship with each other; 2) manage in accordance with existing agreements and 

management plans in the multi-agency Cameron Creole Watershed Project; and 3) interact with the 

State-managed Rockefeller Refuge in accordance with existing agreements. 

Discussion: Each refuge that comprises the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex is 

known throughout the area for its distinctive features. Because the four refuges are identified by their 

individuality, each one will focus on the priorities that best represent its individuality. See the objectives 

and strategies for wildlife, habitat, and visitor services earlier in this section for this refuge’s priorities. 
90 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

During winter migration, visitors flock to the Lacassine Pool to observe large concentrations of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Its 3-mile wildlife drive is interpreted with educational signs and 

is ideal for visitors to learn about wildlife and habitat. This refuge will serve as the Complex’s focal 

point for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretive programs. Habitat and wildlife 

management programs will complement these interpretive programs. 

Objective F-1: Complex Staffing - By 2010, any Lacassine Refuge staff members with 

responsibilities for Complex-wide programs and general administration will be stationed at the 

Cameron Prairie Refuge headquarters, as appropriate. 

Strategies: 

(a) Personnel actions will be performed as appropriate to assign positions currently at the refuge that 

have Complex-wide responsibilities and general administration to the Complex headquarters. 

(b) Staff members within the entire Complex will be provided adequate equipment, such as 

computers, vehicles, and supplies, as well as training needed to perform their jobs. 

(c) Staff members will be provided a safe and healthy working environment. 

Objective F-2: Complex Support - The Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex will 

encourage and support each refuge’s major focus (e.g., environmental education, interpretation, and 

research) and the relationship of these programs to wildlife and habitat management objectives and 

strategies. 

Strategies: 

(a) Resources needed to attain success in achieving the objective will be allocated to address the 

highest priority needs of the Complex. 

(b) Complex staff will support individual refuge needs and will provide expertise and assistance as 

needed to each refuge’s staff. 

(c) The Cameron Prairie Refuge Visitor Center will serve as the Southwest Louisiana National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex Visitor Center and will include interpretive displays and exhibits about 

Lacassine Refuge. It will be modified to interpret the purpose of Lacassine Refuge, other refuges 

in the Complex, the multi-agency Cameron Creole Watershed Project, and the interaction 

between the Service and the State-managed Rockefeller Refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

The following projects reflect the basic needs of the refuge as identified during the development of 

this comprehensive conservation plan. The refuge’s role in providing habitat for waterfowl in 

southwest Louisiana is important and fulfills the mission of the refuge. 

Implementation of these projects will contribute to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

for the Gulf Coast Joint Venture’s Chenier Plain Initiative; the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan; the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan; the Partners in Flight Coastal Prairie Conservation 

Plan; Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act; Coast 2050: Towards a 

Sustainable Coastal Louisiana; and the Louisiana Coastal Area-Ecosystem Restoration Plan. 

PROJECTS 

PROJECT 1 – FRESHWATER IMPOUNDED MARSH (LACASSINE POOL) 

The Lacassine Pool is a 16,614-acre freshwater wetland impoundment (i.e., closed system) 

completed in 1943. It comprises approximately 48 percent of the refuge acreage. About 30 miles of 

levees surround and/or bisect Lacassine Pool. Units D, G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5 are fire 

management units within Lacassine Pool. These are burned on a 3-year rotation with a goal being to 

reverse plant succession and establish open water/short vegetation--open water to plant ratios more 

desirable to waterfowl, preferably close to 50:50. 

The Lacassine Pool is the most prominent feature of the refuge and serves as a waterfowl sanctuary 

and breeding area for resident birds, including mottled ducks, wood ducks, and fulvous whistling 

ducks. Lacassine Pool is open to public recreational fishing March 15-October 15, annually, and has 

at times represented a significant portion of overall annual visitation. A primary objective of the 

refuge is to optimize quality wintering waterfowl habitat while offering quality fishing to the public. 

Currently, active management includes water level management (fall drawdown), prescribed fire (late 

fall; 3-year rotation), and invasive plant control on adjacent and surrounding uplands. 

Several factors impede the implementation of best management practices specifically for waterfowl in 

Lacassine Pool. These include: 1) impoundment size; 2) inability to dewater and flood as needed; 3) 

vegetation management; 4) sediment accretion; 5) public opportunities (e.g., fishing); and 6) cost. 

The Lacassine Pool is currently divided into three semi-separate units, although they remain 

connected hydrologically via two open box culverts and two screw-gates. Units G1, G2, and G3 lie 

west of Tidewater Road and Frankfurt Levee (11,597 acres) and can be dewatered through a single 

126-foot spillway (southwest spillway). Units D, G4, and G5 lie east of Tidewater Road and Frankfurt 

Levee (5,017 acres) and can be dewatered through a 126-foot spillway (southeast spillway) and a 42-

foot spillway (northeast spillway). Currently, Lacassine Pool is divided into approximately two-thirds’ 

and one-third portions and the existing structures that enable dewatering are not proportionate with 

available acreage. Existing spillways are inadequate for draining Lacassine Pool for effective 

vegetation management (i.e., prescribed burning of the peat-like layer). Unit D is a 713-acre 

impoundment within 5,017 acres on the east side of Lacassine Pool (east of Tidewater Road) and 

served as an experimental research unit in the early 1990s, when it was dewatered by pumping and 
92 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Legend

Unit D, already existing

Levee with Water 

Control Structures

Create Levees 

and center canal

Outer Boundary of 

Waterfowl Mgt. Unit 

Water Control Structure 

with boat access

Unit D

Proposed Unit 3

Proposed Unit 1

Proposed Unit 2

Lacassine Pool Proposal

subsequently burned. Unit D now has more desirable vegetation in contrast to other pool areas. 

Unit D has a year-round auto tour route around its circumference. 

Southwest Louisiana has an average rainfall of 58 inches per year. Precipitation is the primary 

source of water into Lacassine Pool. Because the Lacassine Pool bottom is equal to or higher than 

the surrounding outside water bodies, gravity water flow into it through existing water control 

structures is virtually unachievable, except during high water (flood) events. Only with the aid of 

pumps can water be placed into Lacassine Pool from sources other than rainfall. Insufficient water 

has only on rare occasion been a concern (i.e., drought of 1998-2000). The primary management 

concern/challenge has and will continue to be finding feasible ways to remove water from within 

Lacassine Pool in an expeditious manner to aid in prescribed burning. 

Subdividing Lacassine Pool into three additional compartments plus Unit D (Figure 10) will be 

accomplished as resources become available. The first phase will be accomplished by separating 

the southeast 5,000-acre-unit and replacing the two existing water passageways with two new water 

control structures with boat passage gates, the placement of pumping units as needed, and the 

removal of any interconnecting culverts so that the unit will have the capability to be fully isolated from 

the remaining 11,000-acre-unit while it is being restored. The southeast unit will be treated in 

accordance with strategies identified in Objective A-1. The next phase, installation of an additional 

dike across the remaining 11,000-acre-unit with associated infrastructure, will occur as soon as 

resources are available. While the first phase is being completed, the remaining 11,000-acre-unit will 

be managed using the strategies identified in Objective A-1. 

Figure 10. Proposal chosen by the public in May 2005 as the alternative for management of 

the Lacassine Pool 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Prescribed burning of vegetation within the Lacassine Pool and chemical and mechanical means of 

controlling undesirable upland vegetation will remain the primary tools of choice for vegetation control 

in and surrounding it. Mowing improves vehicle access along the 30 miles of levees in and around 

Lacassine Pool. Mowing both sides of the levees will deter woody vegetation encroachment, 

particularly invasive Chinese tallow trees. 

Sediment deposition is a normal process in a freshwater wetland system. Dead plant matter 

(e.g., detritus) accumulates at the bottom of the impoundment each year. Over time, bottom 

sediments become closer to the surface and the water-holding capacity of the impoundment 

diminishes. A research investigation in 2003 sought to determine the thickness of the detritus 

layer of Lacassine Pool. Although user-specific variation occurred in the study, an overall 

average depth was ascertainable. Presumably, under ideal conditions, a 5,000-acre section of 

Lacassine Pool could be dewatered fully and dried sufficiently so that a prescribed fire could burn 

the detritus layer (e.g., peat), reclaim water-holding capabilities, and increase the sustainability of 

the wetland. A primary objective of the refuge is to establish the capabilities for achieving this 

end, improving the values of Lacassine Pool for waterfowl, and extending the life of the wetland, 

all the while maintaining the fishery resource in its current state, making it available for the high 

numbers of anglers that seek to utilize it each spring/summer. 

Fishing is the predominant recreational activity on the refuge. Inside Lacassine Pool, annual 

visitation for fishing, particularly for largemouth bass, can far exceed use of the refuge by visitors for 

all other activities (e.g., hunting and wildlife viewing). Improving waterfowl habitat in Lacassine Pool 

is the primary management objective. However, the refuge will ensure that all alternatives are 

considered to improve waterfowl habitat and provide quality recreational fishing. Further partitioning 

of Lacassine Pool should improve, and/or make feasible, dewatering efforts to better manage 

waterfowl habitat and fishery resources and provide recreational fishing. 

Despite numerous constraints, improving the wetland habitat values and extending the longevity of 

Lacassine Pool is an extremely important endeavor for habitat conservation purposes. Lacassine 

Pool should provide long-term opportunities to enhance wetlands for waterfowl and provide 

compatible wildlife-dependent outdoor recreation opportunities. See Table 7 for the estimated costs 

to improve Lacassine Pool. 

Table 7. Estimated cost to improve Lacassine Pool 

Project 

Number Projects 

Estimated Costs (Excludes 

Mandatory Engineering Fees 

of 17.5 percent of Project 

Total) 

RONS or 

SAMMS Title One-time Costs 

 Restoration of Lacassine Pool $8,300,000.00

Total $8,300,000.00
94 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

PROJECT 2 – EARLY SUCCESSIONAL WETLANDS (MOIST-SOIL AND COOPERATIVE 

FARMING UNITS) 

Water levels within early successional wetlands, often called moist-soil units by the Service, are 

manipulated seasonally for two main reasons. First, different groups of birds have different feeding 

requirements. Dabbling ducks prefer enough water to swim easily but shallow enough to allow 

bottom feeding. Shorebirds concentrate on mud flats or very shallow water where invertebrates can 

be readily found. Wading birds utilize shallow water and prefer the deeper borrow ditches along the 

edges of the impoundments. 

Currently, 300 acres are managed as early successional wetland habitat in Unit A; future 

management of this unit will involve a system of pumps and water control structures to intensively 

manage at least four fields annually to maximize production of preferred native plants for waterfowl. 

A variety of management techniques will be used, including manipulating water levels and soil 

moisture, discing, burning, mowing, water buffaloing, and selective herbicide application. 

Farming was discontinued in 1981 in Unit C. In 1993, rice was planted in the western portion of the 

unit and it was managed as a moist-soil unit. In Unit C, re-establishment of water management 

capabilities and improvements were completed in 2004. Reconditioning much of this unit is needed 

in order to develop high-quality early successional wetland habitat on at least 300 acres. This will 

promote high seed-producing annual plants using various management tools. 

In Unit E (i.e., School Board Tract), the refuge will work with the Service’s Ecological Services Office 

and the Corps of Engineers to obtain a permit to set back succession to re-establish moist-soil 

conditions. It is also the refuge’s goal to secure a long-term agreement with the Cameron Parish 

School Board, the owners of this tract of land, which better secures the Service’s interests in the land, 

such as the Wildlife Drive around its circumference. 

Estimated costs to expand and enhance moist-soil management units are shown in Table 8. 

Table 8. Costs to expand and enhance early successional wetlands’ management units 

Project Number Projects 

Estimated Costs 

(Excludes Mandatory 

Engineering Fees of 17.5 

percent of Project Total)

RONS/SAMMS Title One-time 

03006 Moist-soil Management/Farming Implements $ 77,000

00005 Decrease Erosion and Protect Important Wetlands $150,000

01001 Improve Moist-soil Management at Unit A $ 89,000

03002 Equipment/Implement Storage Shed $135,000

04001 Equipment/Backhoe Front End Loader $125,000

04002 Chain Link Fence around Maintenance Facility $ 39,000
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Project Number Projects 

Estimated Costs 

(Excludes Mandatory 

Engineering Fees of 17.5 

percent of Project Total)

97002 Improve the Farming for Wildlife Program $150,000

97013 Improve Refuge Farming Program $135,000

97032 Enhance Farming for Wildlife Program $121,000

99008 Enhancement of Wading Bird Nesting Habitat $121,000

3125675 Rehabilitate Unit A Pumping Station (Pump and Engine) $73,000

96101993 Repair Unit A Pump Shed and Fuel Tank $26,000

97102013 Rehabilitate 2.25 Miles of Unit B Roads $71,000

Total $1,312,000.00

Approximately 550 acres in Units B and F will be cooperatively farmed with rice, soybeans, and/or 

winter wheat to provide foraging opportunities for wintering waterfowl. 

Unit B is a 579-acre tract, which is rotated yearly in rice production (approximately 300 acres each 

year). A cooperative farmer has managed this unit since 1990, by rotating half in rice production and 

half in fallow, wheat, or rye grass. The farmer harvests the first crop of rice and leaves the second 

crop flooded for waterfowl, which works out to be about 20 to 25 percent of the first rice crop. 

The refuge acquired the 530-acre tract of land known as Unit F (Coto Plot) in 1996. This unit is 

managed exactly like Unit B. A cooperative farmer has also managed this unit since 1996. 

Costs to expand and enhance cropland units at Lacassine Refuge are shown in Table 9. 

Table 9. Costs to expand and enhance cropland units at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Project Number Projects 

Estimated Costs 

(Excludes Mandatory Engineering 

Fees of 17.5 percent of Project 

Total)

RONS Title One-time 

97002 Improve Farming for Wildlife Program $150,000

97013 Improve Refuge Farming Program $135,000

97032 Enhance Farming for Wildlife Program $121,000

Total $406,000.00
96 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

PROJECT 3 – UNIMPOUNDED FRESHWATER MARSH 

In 1951, the Catfish Locks (i.e., weirs) were completed at the southwest end of Grand Lake across a 

portion of the original channel of the Mermentau River. These weirs initiated the conversion of all 

marshes (outside the Lacassine Pool) from brackish to freshwater. Flora and fauna changed 

significantly as a result. With the change in salinity and loss of hydrological connection to the Gulf of 

Mexico, the refuge marshes no longer ebbed and flowed as before. This structure, constructed to 

provide reliable fresh water to benefit agriculture (e.g., rice production), resulted in much more stable 

water levels in unimpounded marshes within and outside the refuge. Therefore, the “unimpounded 

freshwater marsh,” described herein but not within control of the refuge, is subject to Army Corps of 

Engineers’ water level management practices. 

Unimpounded freshwater marsh is located in the following fire management units on the refuge: 

portions of Unit E1 (approximately 200 acres); Unit E2 (2,536 acres); Unit F1 (1,919 acres); Unit F2 

(865 acres); and F3 (1,663 acres) all lie adjacent to the Lacassine Bayou, north of the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway; Unit H (2,200 acres) and Unit J (566 acres) lie south of the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway. Unimpounded freshwater marshes described here total approximately 13,173 acres. 

Unimpounded freshwater marsh has been the habitat type most impacted by petroleum exploration 

and transportation on the refuge. The majority of the 82 wells drilled on the refuge have occurred in 

the ephemeral marshes east of the Lacassine Bayou (particularly Unit F1). As a result of these oil 

and gas activities, numerous canals were dredged to facilitate access for drilling barges. Spoil banks 

were subsequently created, which converted portions of the marsh to open water (channel) and 

uplands (spoil banks). Subsequently, the open water has facilitated access into portions of the marsh 

that previously required a mudboat or airboat and it also benefits some waterfowl species. The 

uplands are the site of greatest concern as they have evolved to now harbor monotypic stands of the 

invasive Chinese tallow tree. This tree provides little or no benefit to migratory songbirds and is an 

unnatural component to historic unimpounded freshwater marshes in this area. Invasive Chinese 

tallow trees quickly out-compete native hardwoods, are much more abundant, and have greatly 

impacted the openness of the marsh that waterfowl prefer. 

The Corps-installed locks and gates in the Mermentau River basin have increased water levels and 

accelerated land loss in and adjacent to the refuge. Inundated ephemeral marshes, originally prone 

to flooding and drying events, now remain saturated for extended periods. Soil types present (e.g., 

silt-like soils) cannot withstand the perpetual wave-, wind-, and human-generated splashing, 

particularly those coming from large boats. There is evidence, refuge-wide, of the impacts of this 

traffic (e.g., vertical, sloughing, unstable banks; uprooted trees and vegetation; and aerial 

photography depicting land loss through time). This evidence, however, will likely be dismissed as 

largely anecdotal due to poor documentation and no real efforts to pinpoint key sources that have 

accelerated bank destabilization. 

The constant inundation of the unimpounded freshwater marsh, accelerated natural- and humancaused erosion sources, and additional canals through the marsh have created additional 

hydrological connections between Lacassine Bayou and the Mermentau River. Plans are underway 

to investigate financial opportunities to re-establish (i.e., rebuild/create) a section of the east bank of 

Lacassine Bayou, and consider plugging of one or more unneeded canals in the Streeter’s area so 

that further land loss south of the Willow Cutoff (east of Willow Island) can be curtailed. Evidence is 

now available which demonstrates well that if no actions are taken to reverse the rate of land loss in 

this area, additional marsh will probably be lost. The seriousness of this issue is paramount and the 

long-term maintenance of the refuge for the benefit of wintering migratory waterfowl in this area is 

highly dependent upon the refuge’s ability to institute immediate land protection measures. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Lastly, the plight of the refuge as it becomes increasingly invaded with Chinese tallow trees is extremely 

alarming. In some areas, the roots of Chinese tallow trees reduce land loss and increase bank 

stabilization. In other areas, the refuge has taken drastic measures to chemically treat monotypic stands 

of Chinese tallow, since their presence impacts the ability of native vegetation to colonize. 

Costs to improve and enhance unimpounded freshwater marsh are shown in Table 10. 

Table 10. Costs to improve and enhance unimpounded freshwater marsh 

Project Type 

and Number Projects 

Estimated Costs 

(Excludes Mandatory 

Engineering Fees of 

17.5 percent of Project 

Total 

RONS/SAMMS Title One-time 

00003 Restoration of Abandoned Oil and Gas Production Areas $ 86,000

03005 Lacassine Bayou North Washout Area Restoration $400,000

97037 Decrease Erosion and Protect Important Wetlands $150,000

Total $636,000.00

PROJECT 4 – SPECIAL HABITATS: WILDERNESS, PRAIRIE, AND BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS 

In order to adequately conserve, restore, and enhance diverse habitats to provide favorable 

conditions for migratory birds and terrestrial and aquatic species, a variety of actions specific to each 

desired habitat should occur and are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Waterfowl habitat values have deteriorated in the Wilderness Area, largely due to closing the area to 

boat traffic, and the subsequent restriction of water outflow and filling in of boat trails and ponds. In 

addition, invasive plants, mainly Chinese tallow trees, have become established during drought 

periods, and need controlling by herbicide application. Prescribed burning is required, emphasizing 

experimentation on seasonality and frequency to find which combination(s) produce the most 

favorable results. Also, a bulkhead on the western end of the Pipeline Canal that forms the north 

boundary should be considered for removal to permit a more natural flow of water out of the marshes. 

The Louisiana coastal tall grass prairie ecosystem once encompassed an estimated 3.5 million hectares 

(8.6 million acres), of which currently only a fraction remains. The Lacassine Refuge prairie of 334 acres 

is basically restored and is currently a good source for experimentation and seed collection for future 

prairie restorations. Management techniques, such as prescribed fire (while experimenting with 

seasonality and frequency), mowing, transplanting, and herbicide application, are used to control invasive 

species. Mowing or haying may be used where fire is not an option. The Cajun Prairie Habitat 

Preservation Society currently manages this 334-acre tract under a cooperative agreement. 
98 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Lacassine Refuge has only approximately 400 acres of bottomland hardwood habitats found primarily 

along the Mermentau River, Grand Lake, the Intracoastal Waterway, Lacassine Bayou, and in Lacassine 

Pool. Chinese tallow trees need to be controlled to prevent further loss of native trees, and opportunities 

need to be investigated to restore bottomland hardwoods and prevent further erosion along the abovementioned waterways. Lacassine Pool groves are used by nesting wading birds. New cypress groves 

should be established to increase wading bird nesting sites. Costs to improve special habitats (e.g., 

wilderness, prairie, and bottomland hardwoods) are shown in Table 11. 

Table 11. Costs to improve special habitats, such as wilderness, prairie, and bottomland 

hardwoods 

Project Type and 

Number Projects Estimated Costs ( 

RONS/SAMMS Title One-time 

00002 Prepare a Prairie Restoration Handbook $ 25,000

99004 Coastal Prairie Restoration Biologist $147,000

99014 Prairie Restoration Enhancement $ 40,000

Total $212,000.00

PROJECT 5 – UNDESIRABLE PLANT AND ANIMAL CONTROL 

Non-native species pose problems at Lacassine Refuge, as they do at many national wildlife refuges. 

Invasive plants cause billions of dollars of damage to our natural and managed ecosystems and 

agricultural lands. Invasive plant species include the Chinese tallow tree, water hyacinth, hydrilla, 

common salvinia, phragmites, and alligator weed. Invasive plants will be controlled by discing, 

prescribed burning, herbicides, flooding, and by other mechanical means. 

Trapping and shooting will be used to control nutria (Myocaster coypus). Nutria damage levees by 

burrowing and consume newly planted trees. 

Costs to control invasive species are shown in Table 12. 

Table 12. Costs to control undesirable plants and animals 

Project Type and Number Projects Estimated Costs 

RONS/SAMMS Title One-time 

 0001 Control Invasive Species $150,000

Total $150,000.00
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

PROJECT 6 – INVENTORY AND MONITOR WILDLIFE POPULATIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

Adaptive management is dependent on having current information on the resource being managed 

prior to the time management decisions are made. Inventories, surveys, and censuses are methods 

of providing information on wildlife population trends and health of wildlife resources. Monitoring of 

habitat also provides managers with information needed to manage wildlife. Performing this basic 

wildlife management function should be a high priority for the refuge. The refuge will work with 

universities, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies and partners to establish effective 

monitoring techniques and statistical analysis of data for decision-making purposes. 

The refuge’s biological program needs trained technicians to conduct each of the required activities 

discussed above. The program should include, at a minimum, one biologist and two bio-technicians. 

Monitoring protocols and procedures should exist for all biological activities and should be based on 

scientifically designed methods involving standardized collection procedures. 

The first priority of the biological program should be to identify those resources requiring monitoring. 

Monitoring those resources should direct future management actions (i.e., water drawdowns, fire, 

water levels, and timing of mechanical treatments) in such a way that the methods are repeatable 

and suitable for proper evaluation. Computer resources should include field computers, GIS 

databases, and statistical software. 

The refuge should consider habitat and population monitoring and evaluation a priority factor in 

assessing how it is meeting its mission. Staff should develop protocols for sampling habitat and 

incorporate them into the refuge’s goals and objectives. When resources allow, the refuge should 

conduct inventories, surveys, and population assessments of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and 

mammals. National protocols should analyze ecosystem-wide trends. 

Costs for this project are shown below in Table 13. 

Table 13. Costs to inventory and monitor wildlife populations and responses to adaptive 

management techniques 

Project Type 

and Number Projects Estimated Costs 

RONS/SAMMS Title One-time 

 Supplies, Water Level Monitoring Equipment, 

Vehicle Fuel $21,000

 Waterfowl (Flights, Fuel, Supplies) $5,000

 Colonial Nesting Birds (Misc. Supplies, Fuel) $1,000

 Grassland birds (Fuel, Equipment) $2,000

 Marsh birds (Misc. Supplies, Fuel) $2,000

97036 Develop Oil and Gas Monitoring Program 

(Biology/CCP) $134,000

97040 Expand Refuge Biological Monitoring Programs $75,000

97042 Enhance Refuge Management Capabilities Using 

GIS $30,000

Total $270,000.00
100 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

PROJECT 7– IMPROVE VISITOR SERVICES 

Lacassine Refuge can take various steps to improve its visitor facilities. Various projects are 

identified to make the refuge even more “visitor-friendly” than at present. One of the first priorities of 

the refuge is to develop an up-to-date step-down management plan for visitor services that includes 

recommendations for outdoor wildlife-dependent recreation. A means to obtain accurate visitor 

counts and projected visitation will be developed and included in the visitor services plan. 

Presently, the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex outreach coordinator provides 

direction and guidance for visitor services at the refuge. In order for the visitor services program to be 

more effective, the refuge will need to hire a park ranger. This will allow expansion of the 

interpretation of refuge habitat and wildlife and public use programs. This employee will be able to 

provide interpretive talks to visiting students or other groups. Under the direction of the Complex 

outreach coordinator, the park ranger will supervise volunteers, interact with a Friends Group, and 

help with other outreach opportunities. 

Currently, the entry road to Lacassine Pool is owned by the Lacassine Land Company. The refuge 

has easement rights through this road, including public access. The refuge is responsible for general 

maintenance and upkeep of the graveled road. This task involves grading and mowing on a regular 

basis, but due to limited staff is a task difficult to tackle. Paving the road will reduce staff 

maintenance, as well as increase public safety. 

Standardized highway signs are used to direct visitors to the refuge. Placing Lacassine National 

Wildlife Refuge on each sign will aid in clarifying the difference between State and Federal wildlife 

areas. There are three routes one can take to get to the refuge; however, only one is signed. Adding 

signs to the two other routes may increase refuge visitation. 

Kiosks, public contact areas, and boardwalks are kept clean and gate areas well-mowed. This seems 

to be a never-ending task, especially in the spring and summer months. An additional full-time 

maintenance person will alleviate the high demands currently placed on the staff. 

An informational kiosk is needed at the fishing area at the end of Streeter Road. The Streeter Road 

Public Use area is the only area that remains open year-round to fishing. Currently, refuge visitors 

can obtain information at the refuge office or from kiosks at Lacassine Pool. 

General maintenance of blinds, signs, etc., for the lottery hunt program is necessary. The 

lottery hunt blinds should be made safer and the crossovers used to access them should be 

made more accessible. 

Parking at the Unit B birding trail is limited to two vehicles, posing a safety issue since it is in the 

curve of Streeter Road. Enlarging the parking area will remedy the safety issue and increase visitor 

parking. Development of a parking lot and interpretive signs for wood duck and warbler boxes will 

enhance this trail. The use of interpretive signs will inform the public of how the refuge is performing 

wildlife management on the refuge, as well as inform visitors on how to build projects in their own 

backyards to benefit wildlife. 

Costs to improve visitor services are shown in Table 14. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Table 14. Costs to improve visitor services 

Project Type 

and Number Projects Estimated Costs 

RONS/SAMMS TITLE One-time 

03003 Gravel Roads 

(Public Access/Parking Improvements) $ 60,000

03004 Radio Equipment Additions $ 45,000

97014 Improve Public Access $140,000

97034 Improved Visitor Use Facilities $46,000

98003 Improve Environmental Education/Outreach/Public Use 

Opportunities $75,000

98102031 Pave Refuge Headquarters Entrance Road 

(Route 10; 0.4 mi) $118,000

4136178 Rehabilitate Headquarters Front Parking (Route 900) $25,000

3125682 Replace Kiosks for Headquarters and Streeter Road 

Visitors $35,000

96101987 Replace Refuge Boundary Signs $26,000

3125713 Remove Concrete Wharf (unserviceable boat dock) $80,000

1112744 Replace Non-compliant Radio System to Meet 

 Federal Standard and Enhance Safety. $68,000

3125716 Replace Interpretive/Directional Signs $31,000

98102033 Rehabilitate Deficient Wildlife Drive $522,000

Total $1,271,000.00

PROJECT 8 – PROMOTE AND ENHANCE PRIORITY PUBLIC USES 

A radio message should be developed that will allow visitors to hear about the refuge and its 

programs and invite them to visit as they pass by. 

The addition of a full-time law enforcement officer will dramatically increase law enforcement 

effectiveness. The current officer is responsible for protecting Lacassine Refuge and other refuges 

within the Complex. 

An additional park ranger will be an asset and hiring one should be a high priority. The Complex outreach 

coordinator is located at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, making it difficult to conduct environmental 

education and interpretive programs at Lacassine Refuge. Current demands are higher than the staff 

available to fulfill requests for outreach programs in nearby schools and communities. 
102 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

The environmental education program at Lacassine Refuge could be expanded and improved by 

using Friends Group, interns, or Student Temporary Employment Program hires to manage the 

program for a variety of audiences. Development of kits and materials, teacher training, and 

providing kits/materials to the teachers on a check-out basis could be accomplished by hiring an 

additional park ranger. 

The new observation pond boardwalk outside the refuge office provides visitors excellent wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities. The large oaks near the refuge headquarters are a 

highlight and unique feature of the refuge. This boardwalk also allows for interpretive signs to tell the 

story of these “special trees.” 

Cost to enhance priority public uses are shown in Table 15. 

Table 15. Costs to enhance priority public use 

Project Type 

and Number Projects Estimated Costs 

RONS/SAMMS Title One-time 

98003 Improve Environmental Education/Outreach/Public Use $75,000

03001 Refuge Law Enforcement/Safety Capabilities $85,000

97007 Provide Necessary Law Enforcement Equipment $30,000

97026 Improve Refuge Law Enforcement Patrol Capabilities $40,000

99006 Establish Cooperative Education Manager Trainee FTE $114,000

4130579 Replace Headquarters Display Pond Boardwalk/Deck $26,000

96101990 Rehabilitate Deteriorated Unit A Roads $54,000

96101991 Renovate Deficient Unit D Parking Area $11,000

98102019 Repair Deficient Unit B Fishing Pier Parking Lot $49,000

98102025 Rehabilitate Deficient Pool Kiosk Gravel Parking Lot $22,000

98102026 Construct Unit A Parking Lot $72,000

98102027 Rehabilitate the Deficient Parking Lot at the West Boat Launch $90,000

98102034 Rehabilitate Unit B Observation Tower Parking Lot $35,000

98102035 Rehabilitate Deteriorated Streeter Road $81,000

98102037 Rehabilitate Parking Area at Tidewater Boat Launch $77,000

3126121 Rehabilitate Unit A North Road (widen for Safety/Staff and Public 

Access) $230,000

4135720 Rehabilitate Deficient Unit D Observation Tower Parking $25,000

4136156 Rehabilitate Lacassine Pool Entrance Road $100,000

4136183 Pool Main Kiosk Parking Area $25,000

4136192 Rehabilitate Streeter Road $200,000

Total $1,441,000
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

PROJECT 9 - PARTNERSHIPS, VOLUNTEERS, FRIENDS, AND INTERNS 

The refuge utilizes the services of volunteers, student interns, partners, and members of The Friends 

of the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, as well as the Friends of Southwest Louisiana National 

Wildlife Refuges and Wetlands, both 503 (c) non-profit organizations. These groups and others 

assist staff in activities such as management and biological monitoring, studies and research, facility 

maintenance, and conducting education and outreach programs for schools, civic groups, libraries, 

and other entities requesting presentations about fish and wildlife (refuge) issues. Partnership 

opportunities are large but the volunteer base has been limited. The refuge must find ways to 

improve and increase awareness of these important needs, locate appropriate outlets to advertise 

opportunities for short-term employment, student projects, scout projects, and better advocate the 

quantity and types of volunteer activities that are available. In addition, the refuge must maintain and 

enhance capabilities to house and attract outside assistance. 

Many outside organizations and agencies have promoted and supported activities and programs at the 

refuge. The refuge must continue to foster healthy partnerships with non-profit organizations, universities 

and schools, parish officials, other elected officials, and civic groups to expand upon the partnerships. 

Cost to promote partnership opportunities are shown in Table 16. 

Table 16. Costs to enhance priority public use 

Project Type and Number Projects Estimated Costs 

RONS/SAMMS Title One-time 

 0001 Promote Partnerships $5,000

Total $5,000

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Approved staffing at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge consists of five full-time positions as shown 

in Table 17. In early 2004, Lacassine, Cameron Prairie, and Sabine Refuges merged into a Complex 

under the supervision of a GS-14 Project Leader stationed at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife 

Refuge, the Complex Headquarters. Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge joined the Complex in 2005. 

Additional staffing will be necessary for the refuge to fully implement the goals, objectives, and strategies 

identified in this comprehensive conservation plan. Table 17 identifies costs of existing and proposed 

staffing. Figure 11 is an organizational chart of current and proposed staffing for the refuge. 
104 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 17. Cost of existing and proposed positions 

Existing Positions Annual Costs – 

Existing Positions* 

Refuge Manager, GS 13 $103,000

Heavy Equipment Mechanic, WG 10 $75,648

Maintenance Worker, WG 8 $64,397

Refuge Biologist, GS 11 $71,103

Park Ranger (LE), GS 9 $64,068

Sub-total – Salary for Existing Positions $378,216.00

Proposed Positions Annual Costs – 

Proposed Positions* 

Biological Technician, GS 5/7 $52,000

Biological Technician, GS 5/7 $52,000

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS 9 $55,000

Park Ranger (Public Use), GS 7/9 $55,000

Fire Technicians (5), GS 5/7 $260,000

Fire Specialist, GS 9/11 $71,000

Sub-total for proposed positions $545,000.00

Total (Existing and Proposed) $923,216

Implementation of projects identified in this plan will be achieved when possible. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

Lacassine Refuge has the following step-down management plans: Alligator Harvest Plan (1993); 

Annual Water Management Plans (updated yearly); Commercial Trapping Plan (1983); 

Comprehensive Plan to Resolve Resource Problems (1986); Cooperative Farming Management Plan 

(1995); Fishery Management (1982); Fishing Plan (1989); Hunting Plan (1984); Oil and Gas 

Management Plan (1987); Public Use Development Plan (1985); Southwest Louisiana Lease Areas 

Management Plan; Vidrine Farm Service Agency (formerly Farmers Home Administration) Fee Title 

Management Plan (1993); and Wilderness Management Plan (1985). Table 19 lists plans that need 

to be revised or written and proposed completion dates. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

Figure 11. Current and proposed staffing for Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, 

Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
106 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

The costs of completing all projects described in this chapter are summarized in Table 18. 

Table 18. Summary of Costs for 2007 - 2022 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE ONE-TIME COSTS 

1 FRESHWATER IMPOUNDED MARSH 

(LACASSINE POOL) $8,300,000

2 EARLY SUCCESSIONAL WETLANDS 

(MOIST-SOIL AND COOPERATIVE 

FARMING UNITS) $1,718,000

3 UNIMPOUNDED FRESHWATER 

MARSH $636,000

4 SPECIAL HABITATS: WILDERNESS, 

PRAIRIE AND BOTTOMLAND 

HARDWOODS $212,000

5 UNDESIRABLE PLANT AND ANIMAL 

CONTROL $150,000

6 INVENTORY AND MONITOR WILDLIFE 

POPULATIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

TECHNIQUES $270,000

7 IMPROVE VISITOR SERVICES 

$1,271,000

8 PROMOTE AND ENHANCE PRIORITY 

PUBLIC USES $1,441,000

9 PARTNERSHIPS, VOLUNTEERS, 

FRIENDS, AND INTERNS $5,000

EXISTING STAFF COSTS, REFUGE – 

5.5 FTE’S (BASED ON FY06 SALARY 

COSTS) $378,216

PROPOSED STAFF COSTS – 10 FTE’S 

(BASED ON FY06 SALARY COSTS) $545,000

BASE OPERATIONS - VARIES 

TOTAL $14,926,216.00
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107

Table 19. Step-down management plans 

PLAN NAME FISCAL YEAR PROPOSED 

COMPLETION/REVISION DATE 

ALLIGATOR HARVEST 2013 

COOPERATIVE FARMING 2014 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 2020 

EXOTIC SPECIES 2013 

FIRE MANAGEMENT/FIRE EFFECTS MONITORING 2005 

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 2015 

HUNTING 2012 

LAW ENFORCEMENT 2008 

OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT 2015 

SPORT FISHING 2012 

VISITOR SERVICES MANAGEMENT 2012 

VOLUNTEERS, FRIENDS, AND PARTNERSHIPS 2011 

WATER MANAGEMENT ANNUAL 

WILDERNESS 2010 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge has historically partnered with many others to improve 

management of the refuge. It is anticipated that these partnerships will continue and opportunities to 

develop additional partnerships will be pursued. Partnerships are very important to the refuge to 

achieve its goals, objectives, and strategies, leverage funds, minimize costs, and bridge relationships 

with others. 

Presently, the refuge has cooperated with the Louisiana Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey Wetlands Research Center, 

National Resources Conservation Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, North 

American Wetlands Conservation Council, City of Lake Charles, Lake Charles Visitors and 

Convention Bureau, Cameron Parish Police Jury, Creole Nature Trail, Miami Corporation, Sweet 

Lake Land and Oil, McNeese State University, Louisiana State University, Ducks Unlimited, Coastal 

Prairie Conservancy, and Texas Parks and Wildlife. 

The refuge also has a significant partner in its Friends Group – the Friends of Lacassine National 

Wildlife Refuge, Inc., which was founded in 1999. The Friends Group has hosted several Migration 

Sensation Festivals in consecutive years. This Friends Group, as well as the newly formed 

Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex Friends Group, can play an even greater role in the future by 
108 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

emphasizing environmental education and other visitor service activities that raise public awareness. 

These groups may also assist in refuge efforts for facility development, improving interpretation and 

environmental education programs, and improving maintenance of public use areas, such as trails 

and fishing areas. Lacassine Refuge will also be striving to initiate a more active volunteer program. 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

The goals and objectives found in this comprehensive conservation plan have designated various 

strategies that will improve the refuge’s capability to apply adaptive management techniques and 

monitor the success of management actions. Monitoring is critical to successful implementation of 

this plan and is necessary to evaluate the progress toward achieving objectives and to determine if 

refuge conditions are changing. 

PLAN PERFORMANCE 

This plan will be reviewed annually to determine if any revisions are necessary. Priorities will be 

assessed. Step-down management plans will be developed to address completion of strategies that 

support goals and objectives. Any revision or major variances to this plan will be carried out under 

policies set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and will include opportunities for 

public review. A new plan is required after 15 years. 

Annual narratives will contain documentation of successful implementation of the goals, objectives, 

and strategies within the plan. Various means to inform the public of accomplishments may also be 

carried out through news releases, newsletters, and personal communications. 
 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109

VI. List of Preparers 

PLANNING TEAM 

Judy McClendon, Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Bell City, Louisiana - Planning Team Leader, 

Co-writer and Editor 

Leon Kolankiewicz, Environmental Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group, 

McLean, Virginia - Co-writer and Editor 

Donald J. Voros, Refuge Complex Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Bell City, Louisiana – Writer and Editor, Provided overall 

guidance and oversight. 

Larry Narcisse, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lake Arthur, Louisiana – Provided overall guidance and oversight. 

Bryan Winton, Former Assistant Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacassine 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Arthur, Louisiana; Now Refuge Manager, Cache River National 

Wildlife Refuge, Dixie, Arkansas – Writer and Editor, Provided overall guidance and oversight, 

contributed goals, objectives, and strategies. 

Wayne Syron, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lake Arthur, Louisiana – Writer, Provided overall guidance and oversight, contributed goals, 

objectives, and strategies. 

Brad Bordelon, Former Refuge Operations Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacassine 

National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Arthur, Louisiana, Contributed goals, objectives, 

and strategies. 

Steve Reagan, Complex Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Southwest Louisiana 

Refuge Complex, Bell City, Louisiana – Writer, Provided input and oversight on 

biological sections. 

Diane Borden-Billiot, Outreach Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Louisiana 

Refuge Complex, Hackberry, Louisiana - Provided guidance and oversight on visitor services. 

Dawn McMillin, Former Biological Science Technician, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sabine 

National Wildlife Refuge, Hackberry, Louisiana – Assisted in typing, proofreading, and plan 

development; maintained databases; provided biota lists. 

Roy Walter, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge, Hackberry, Louisiana – Provided maps and editing. 

Robert Greco, GIS Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lafayette, Louisiana – 

Provided GIS assistance. 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archaeologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Savannah, Georgia – 

Provided writing and guidance on cultural resources. 
110 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

CONTRIBUTORS: 

Pre-planning for this comprehensive conservation plan began in early 2002, when Biological and 

Public Use Reviews of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge were conducted. Experts and specialists 

submitted recommendations for future management. These recommendations were used extensively 

during the development of this plan. Contributors include: 

Frank Bowers, Chief (Retired), Office of Migratory Birds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 

Gay Brantley, Park Ranger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Monroe, Louisiana 

David Chisolm, Fire Management Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hackberry, Louisiana 

Terry Delaine, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hackberry, Louisiana 

Mark Ford, Former Professor, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana 

John Forestor, Fisheries Biologist/Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Byron Fortier, Park Ranger, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell, Louisiana 

Jamie Gaines, Consultant, The Gaines Group, Lake Charles, Louisiana 

Sue Grace, Fire Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell, Louisiana 

Michael Harbison, Biologist Manager for Marine Fisheries, Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Paul Jackson, Retired Educator, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 

Lake Charles, Louisiana 

Ray Paterra, Park Ranger, White River National Wildlife Refuge, St. Charles, Arkansas 

Chris Pease, Former Complex Manager, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Hackberry, Louisiana 

Kelly Purkey, Deputy Refuge Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia 

Bobby Reed, Biologist Manager for Inland Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

John Robinette, Biologist Manager for Wildlife Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries 

Erik Shanks, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lake Charles, Louisiana 

Pat Stinson, Former Migratory Bird Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi 

Bob Strader, Migratory Bird Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi 

Garry Tucker, Chief, Visitor Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia 
 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111

Barry Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Lafayette, Louisiana 

Mark Woodrey, Former Assistant Regional Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi 
112 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix A. Glossary 113

APPENDICES 

Appendix A – Glossary 

Adaptive Management A process in which projects are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test 

predictions and assumptions outlined within the 

comprehensive conservation plan. The analysis of the 

outcome of project implementation helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue as is or whether 

it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alternative 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 Acquisition Boundary A project boundary which the Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service approves upon completion of a detailed planning and 

environmental compliance process. 

Bayou A minor river or secondary watercourse, usually sluggish or 

back flooding water flow. 

Beneficial Dredge Also known as beneficial use of dredge material. Material 

dredged (removed) from waterways used in a positive manner. 

(See Pumped and Excavated Dredge.) 

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. 

Brackish Marsh An area of soft, wet, low-lying land characterized by grassyvegetation and water containing some salt, but less than 

seawater. 

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. 
114 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection and Restoration Act 

(CWPPRA) 

Passed in 1990, by Congress, this act funds wetland 

enhancement projects to preserve and restore Louisiana’s 

coastal landscape. The act is also known as the “Breaux Act.” 

Colonial Waterbirds Waterbird families generally containing seabirds, coastal 

waterbirds, and wading birds that congregate at breeding sites 

in numbers ranging from many to hundreds of thousands of 

birds. 

Compatibility Determination A required determination for wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or any other public uses of a refuge. 

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 (CCP) 

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. 

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. 

CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan 

Cultural Resources The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people of 

the past. 

Duck Season Split A planned interruption during the 60-day hunting season to 

extend the season to allow hunting when waterfowl are still 

abundant. 

Early Successional Wetland Wetlands managed for the production of annual plants that 

produce both vegetation and seeds for use by geese, ducks, 

and other wetland bird species. (See also Moist- Soil 

Management.) 
Appendix A. Glossary 115

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 system-wide concepts 

to ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are 

maintained at viable levels in native habitats and basic 

ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely. 

Ecotone A transitional zone between two communities containing the 

characteristic species of each. 

Ecotourism Visits to an area that maintains and conserves natural 

resources as a basis for promoting its economic growth and 

development. 

Emergent Marsh Wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants. 

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. 

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. 

Environmental Education A process of building knowledge in students through hands-on 

activities that promotes discovery and fact-finding. It involves 

the integration of environmental concepts and concerns into 

structured educational activities. 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

Excavated Dredge Removal of material from a waterway bottom using excavating 

equipment. The dredged material is usually high in clay 

content and can be used for the creation of levees or earthen 

terraces. See beneficial dredge. 

Fauna All the vertebrate or invertebrate animals of an area. 
116 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

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, which 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. 

Fire Regime The characteristic frequency, intensity, and spatial distribution 

of natural fires within a given ecoregion or habitat. 

Geographic Information System 

(GIS) 

A computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data. 

GCJV Gulf Coast Joint Venture 

Goal Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of 

desired future conditions that convey a purpose but does not 

define measurable units. 

Grassland birds These birds use prairie habitat to meet their biological needs. 

This group of birds includes over 300 species and over 75 

percent of the breeding bird species of the United States. 

GIW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

Hemi-marsh Areas of mixed open water and emergent vegetation at a ratio 

of one part open water to one part vegetation preferred by 

many species of wildlife. Interspersed areas of dense 

emergent vegetation provide nesting areas and cover for many 

species. 

Herbaceous Wetland Annually or seasonally inundated with vegetation consisting 

primarily of grasses, sedges, rushes, and cattail. 
Appendix A. Glossary 117

Habitat The place where an organism lives. The existing 

environmental conditions required by an organism for survival 

and reproduction. 

Impoundment A body of water, such as a pool, confined by a levee or other 

barrier, which is used to maintain a freshwater marsh area. 

Rainfall is usually the only means of providing water into the 

area. 

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. 

Intermediate marsh This marsh type is found on the sea-ward of freshwater areas. 

Intermediate marsh is characterized by a diversity of species, 

many of which can be found in both freshwater and brackish 

marshes. Plants found in these marshes can tolerate slightly 

salty water. Intermediate marshes are also important for 

waterfowl, wading birds, and furbearers, and provide nursery 

habitat for brown shrimp, blue crab, and a variety of other 

commercially and recreationally valuable fishery resources. 

Interpretation A teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating 

explanatory information. 

Invasive species An alien species whose establishment does, or is likely to, 

cause economic or environmental harm. 

Inventory Accepted biological methods to determine the presence, 

relative abundance, and distribution of species. 

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. 

Kiosk A small structure with one or more open sides that is used to 

display or provide information. 

LCA Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

LMRE Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

Migratory The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 
118 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Moist Soil Unit Management Refers to the way water is used to create a desired plant 

community habitat. This habitat is manually disturbed using 

mechanical equipment, tractors and disk. Following this 

disturbance, native plant seeds already existing within the soil 

are allowed to germinate and then the soil is flooded to a 

shallow depth. Once plants reach maturity, fields are again 

disturbed to create a 50:50 ratio of open water to standing 

vegetation. (See early successional wetland.) 

Monitoring The process of collecting information to track changes of 

selected parameters over time. 

National Environmental Policy Act Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the 

planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate 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 and 

Mexican border and winters primarily south of that border, 

which includes Mexico, West Indies, Central America, and part 

of South America. 

Natural Levee Natural embankment created by soil deposited as a stream 

overtops its banks. Located adjacent to a stream, a natural 

levee is often the highest ground in a bottomland or swamp 

type area. 

Non-game migratory landbirds Commonly known as Neartic-Neotropical Migratory Birds, 

these birds breed in temperate latitudes but winter in tropical 

latitudes. 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix A. Glossary 119

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. 

Parish An administrative district in Louisiana, corresponding to a 

county in other states. 

Planning Area A planning area may include lands outside existing refuge 

planning unit boundaries that are being studied for inclusion in 

the unit and 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. 

Prescribed Burn Fire intentionally ignited by refuge fire personnel for natural 

resource management under strict guidelines to meet specific 

objectives. 

Pumped Dredge As shipping channels need to be maintained for depth to allow 

for passage of large vessels, it is necessary to remove 

accumulated material from the bottom. A suction dredge 

brings the fine organic material to the surface where a pump 

system mixes the material with water and creates a slurry. 

This slurry can be used in coastal restoration projects to 

replace material lost in open-water marsh areas. See 

beneficial dredge. 

Refuge Boundary Lands acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service within the 

current approved acquisition boundary. 

Refuge Complex Four National Wildlife Refuges which include Cameron Prairie, 

Lacassine, Sabine and Shell Keys were administratively 

combined into the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Complexing allows for better management 

oversight. 

Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS) 

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. 
120 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

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 sub-unit. 

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System is a national 

database and management tool used for planning and 

budgeting unfunded maintenance, improvements, repairs, 

replacement, and construction projects required for on-going 

support of resource management. 

stem 

Seismic survey A means of gathering subsurface geological information 

through the generation and receipt of impulses from an 

artificially generated shockwave (usually a dynamite charge), 

which predicts oil and gas deposits for further exploration. 

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. 

Survey A general term for any type of inventory or monitoring 

procedure. 

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. 

TGCE Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Undesirable Species A plant or animal species whose introduction does or is likely 

to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human 

health. These species can be native or non-native. 

Water Buffalo The use of mechanized farm equipment in combination with 

land rolling equipment to improve seed-soil contact, as well as 

to pulverize soil aggregates and leave a smooth surface. 
Appendix A. Glossary 121

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. 

Wildland Fire A fire that is caused naturally (lighting strike) or human caused 

that is unwanted. 
122 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix B. References and Literature Citations 123

Appendix B – References and Literature 

Citations 

American Bird Conservancy. 2000. Partners in Flight, Conservation of the Land Birds of the 

United States. 

Barras, J. A., S. Beville, D. Britsch, S. Hartley, S. Hawes, J. Johnston, P. Kemp, Q. Kinler, A. 

Martucci, J. Porthouse, D. Reed, K. Roy, S. Sapkota, and J. Suhayda. 2003. Historical and 

projected coastal Louisiana land changes: 1978-2050: USGS Open File Report 03-334. 

Brown, S.; C. Hickey; B. Harrington; and R. Gills, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 

2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Chabreck, R. H. 1997. Experimental Dewatering of Unit D on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 19 pp. 

Chenier Plain Initiative Team. 1990. Chenier Plain Initiative, Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast Joint 

Venture, North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Couser, D. 2002. Atakapa Indians. Handbook of Texas Online. 

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/AA/bma48.html . 

Cox, R.R.; Afton, A.D. 1996. Evening Flights of Female Northern Pintails from a Major Roost Site. 

The Condor 98: 810 – 819. 

Esslinger, C.G. and B.C. Wilson. 2001. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast 

Joint Venture: Chenier Plain Initiative. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

Albuquerque, N.M. 28pp + appendix. 

Feldman, L.H. 1998. The Last Days of British Saint Augustine, 1784-1785. A Spanish Census of 

the English Colony of East Florida 

Fruge, D.W. 1974. Report of Wildlife Management Study. Final Report. The Vegetation of Lacassine 

Pool, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Lafayette, LA. 50 pp. 

Gulf Coast Prairie Working Group, Mississippi Alluvial Valley/West Gulf Coastal Plain Working 

Groups. 2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast 

Shorebird Planning Region. 

Hebert, T. 2003. “The First Acadians in New Acadia, 1764-1784.” History of the Cajuns: Cajuns in 

the 18th Century. http://www.acadian-cajun.com/hiscaj2b.htm . Acadian-Cajun Genealogy 

and History. 
124 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Kushlan, J.A.; M.J. Steinkamp; K.C. Parsons; J. Capp; M.A. Cruz; M. Coulter; I. Davidson; L. 

Dickson; N. Edelson; R. Elliot; R.M. Erwin; S. Hatch; S. Kress; R. Milko; S. Miller; K. Mills; R. 

Paul; R. Phillips; J.E. Saliva; B. Sydeman; J. Trapp; J. Wheeler; and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version I. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, D.C. 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority. 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal 

Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, LA. 161p. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 2001. Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Chenier Plain 

Initiative. August. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 1991. Louisiana Waterfowl Action Plan, A Strategy for 

Implementing the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in Louisiana. 

Royal Café. No date. The distinction between Cajun and Creole. Accessed on the World Wide Web 

at http://www.royalcafe.com/cc.html. 

(STATS Indiana, 2004) Indiana Department of Commerce. 2004. USA Counties IN Profile. Accessed 

at: http://www.stats.indiana.edu/uspr/a/usprofiles/22/us_over_sub_pr22023.html . 

Swenson, E.M. and R.E. Turner. 1987. Spoil banks: Effects on a coastal marsh on coastal marsh 

water-level regime. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 24, 599-609. 

(TNC, 2003). The Nature Conservancy. 2003. Wildland Invasive Species Team, Invasives on the 

Web. Website accessed on February 2004: 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/sapiseb.html . 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana – Ecosystem Restoration 

Study – July 2004. Draft Report. 

(USCB, 2004) U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Louisiana Quick Facts: Cameron Parish. Accessed at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22023.html . 

(USFWS 2006). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Waterfowl Survey Files. 

(USFWS, 2004) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Accessed: 

January 2004. Accessed at http://lacassine.fws.gov . 

(USFWS, 2003). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Wildlife 

and Habitat Management (Biological) Review, May 20-24, 2002 

(USFWS, 2002a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 

(BCC 2002). Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 

(USFWS, 2002b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Bird List. 

(USFWS, 2002c). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Public Use Review report. Region 4. 
Appendix B. References and Literature Citations 125

(USFWS 2002d) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Biological 

Review Briefing Book. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(USFWS 2000). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Annual 

Narrative Report, Calendar Year 1999. 

(USFWS 1998). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Annual 

Narrative Report, Calendar Year 1997. 

(USFWS 1998). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Expanding the Vision, 1998 Update, North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

(USFWS 1997). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Brochure. November. 

(USFWS 1995). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Comprehensive Plan to Resolve Resource Problems 

(USFWS 1995). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Cropland 

Management Plan. 

(USFWS 1993). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Refuges 2003, Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, A Plan for the Future of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

(USFWS 1993). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Alligator Harvest Plan. 

(USFWS 1993). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Vidrine FmHA Fee Title Management Plan. 

(USFWS, 1990) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American Woodcock Management Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

(USFWS, 1989a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989a. Birds of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpaginated. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. Accessed at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/r4/lacassine.htm . 

(USFWS 1989b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989b. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Fishing Plan. 

(USFWS 1987). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Oil and 

Gas Management Plan. 

(USFWS 1986). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Comprehensive Plan to Resolve Resource Problems. 

(USFWS 1985). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Public Use 

Development Plan. 

(USFWS 1985), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Wilderness Management Plan. 
126 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

(USFWS 1984). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Hunting Plan. 

(USFWS 1983). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Commercial Trapping Plan. 

(USFWS 1982). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Fishery Management Plan. 

(USFWS No Date a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Bayou Cocodrie Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

(USFWS No Date b). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Natural Resource Management 

Priorities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along the Texas Gulf Coast. 

(USFWS No Date c) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Date. Southwest Louisiana Lease Areas 

Management Plan. 

U.S. NABCI Committee. 2000. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States: 

A Vision of American Bird Conservation. 

Valentine, J. M. 1979. Report of Wildlife Management Study. Vegetation Succession on the Lake 

Misere Marsh. U.S. Wildlife Service, Lafayette, LA. 17 pp. 

Vogl, Richard J. 1973. Effects of fire on the plants and animals of a Florida wetland. American 

Midland Naturalist. 89: 334-347. 

Wang, J.D. 1987. Hurricane effects on surface Gulf Stream currents. Ocean Engr14(3): 165-180. 

Wilson, B.C. and C.G. Esslinger. 2002. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast 

Joint Venture: Texas Mid-Coast Initiative. North American Waterfowl management Plan, 

Albuquerque, NM. 28pp + appendix. 
Appendix C. Legal Mandates 127

Appendix C – Legal Mandates 

This comprehensive conservation plan has been prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider all 

environmental factors related to their proposed actions. This includes effects on the natural, 

economic, social, and cultural resources of the area. 

The Service will comply with the following laws and regulations as it implements the comprehensive 

conservation plan. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Authorities: 

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. 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. 89669, 80 Stat. 926): The 1973 Endangered Species Act 

provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, 

wildlife, and plants depend, both through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of 

state programs. The act authorizes the determination and listing of species as threatened and 

endangered; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 

provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for threatened and endangered wildlife 

and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or 

regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest 

and conviction of anyone violating the act and any regulation issued there under. 

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. 

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 

agreement with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

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 
128 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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): 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 wildlifedependent 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-wildlife-dependent uses are subject to compatibility determinations. 

A compatible use is one which, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, 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 
Appendix C. Legal Mandates 129

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. 

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 use 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. 

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. 
130 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual: 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual: 612 FW 2, Oil and Gas; FWM#: 107 (new), Series: Natural and 

Cultural Resources Management, Part 612: Minerals Management. This chapter provides standard 

policy guidance and background information on management of oil and gas activities on Service 

lands and provides the basic information regarding the statutes, regulations, and procedures relating 

to all oil and gas activities conducted on Service lands. The policy of the Service is governed by 

authorities for leasing oil and gas on Federal lands as found in the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 

Lands of August 7, 1947, as amended; for public domain lands, the Mineral Leasing Act of 

February 25, 1920, as amended; and in Alaska, Section 1008 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3148). Leasing is at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior who 

has delegated the Bureau of Land Management authority to administer the laws, but has by 

regulation restricted oil and gas leasing on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System to those 

involving drainage (43 CFR 3101.5-1 and 3100.2). In conformance with the policy set forth in 50 CFR 

27 (National Wildlife Refuge System), 50 CFR 60.3 (Patuxent Wildlife Research Center), and 50 CFR 

70.4 (National Fish Hatcheries), the Service usually recommends against leasing when the Bureau of 

Land Management asks for comments. In the case of non-federally owned oil and gas rights, it is the 

policy of the Service to protect project resources to the maximum extent possible without infringing 

upon the rights of sub-surface owners. 

 

Historic Preservation Mandates: 

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 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 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 archaeological data. The act authorized use of appropriated, donated, or transferred 

funds for the recovery, protection, and preservation of such data. 

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. 
Appendix C. Legal Mandates 131

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. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464467): The Act of August 21,1935, 

(49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 89-249, 

approved October 9,1965, (79 Stat. 971), declared it a national policy to preserve historic sites and 

objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It provided procedures for 

designation, acquisition, administration and protection of such sites. Among other things, National 

Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this act. As of January 1989, thirtyone 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. 468468d). 

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. 

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. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 83 

Stat. 852) as amended by Public Law 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and Public Law 94-83, 

August 9,1975, 89 Stat. 424). Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act: Requires that all 

federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for “every recommendation or 

report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of 

the human environment.” The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in environmental 

impact statements, and required that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related 

decision-making and develop means to ensure that unquantified environmental values are given 

appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical considerations. 

Other Relevant Legal Mandates: 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities 

to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 
132 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990(20 U.S.C. 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 101-619, 

signed November 16, 1990: Established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a Federal environmental education 

program. Responsibilities of the office include developing and supporting programs to improve 

understanding of the natural and developed environment, and the relationships between humans and 

their environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The office is required to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management: The purpose of this Executive Order, signed 

May 24, 1977, is to prevent federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated 

with occupancy and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 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.” 

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. 

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 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. 

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. 
Appendix D. Biota 133

Appendix D – Biota 

Species previously identified as occurring on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge are listed below: 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Birds 

Grebes 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus

Pelicans and their Allies 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Double–crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Neotropic Cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 

Herons, Egrets, and Allies 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea 

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor 

Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green Heron Butorides virescens 

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax violacea 

Ibis, Spoonbill, and Stork 

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus 

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi 

Roseate Spoonbill Platalea ajaia 

Wood Stork Mycteria americana 

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 

Waterfowl 

Fulvous Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna bicolor 

Black-bellied Whistling Duck Dendrocygna autumnalis 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Ross’s Goose Chen rossii 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

American Black Duck Anas rubripes 

Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula 

Mallard Anas platyrhynvchos 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 

Gadwall Anas strepera 
134 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Canvasback Aytha valisineria 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Vultures, Hawks, and Allies 

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus 

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippeinsis 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

Crested Caracara Caracara cheriway 

Gallinaceous Birds (Quail, Turkey, and Allies) 

Northern Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus 

Rails, Gallinules, Coots, and Cranes 

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis 

King Rail Rallus elegans 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinica 

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 

American Coot Fulica americana 

Shorebirds 

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola 

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 
Appendix D. Biota 135

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 

Red Knot Calidris canutus 

Sanderling Calidris alba 

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 

American Woodcock Scolopax minor 

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla 

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan 

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus Philadelphia 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 

Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 

Royal Tern Sterna maxima 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri 

Least Tern Sterna antillarum 

Black Tern Childonias niger 

Black Skimmer Rynchops niger 

Pigeons and Doves 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica 

Cuckoos 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Groove-billed Ani Crotophaga sulcirostris 

Owls 

Barn Owl Tyto alba 

Eastern Screech Owl Megascops asio 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 

Nightjars 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Chuck-will’s widow Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous 

Swifts and Hummingbirds 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris 

Kingfishers 

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon 

Woodpeckers 

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 
136 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Flycatchers 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris 

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Vermilion Flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus 

Martins and Swallows 

Purple Martin Progne subis 

Tree Swallow Iridoproche bicolor 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 

Jays and Crows 

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 

Fish Crow Coruus ossifragus 

Nuthatchers 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta Canadensis 

Creepers 

Brown Creeper Certhia ameicana 

Wrens 

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon 

Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis 

Kinglets and Gnatcatchers 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 

Bluebirds, Thrushes and Robins 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

American Robin Turdus migratorius 

Thrashers 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 

Pipits 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens 

Waxwings 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Starling 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 

Shrike 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 
Appendix D. Biota 137

Vireos 

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus 

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius 

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus 

Warblers 

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrine 

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia 

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina 

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens 

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca 

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica 

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor 

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum 

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea 

Blackpole Warbler Dendroica striata 

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea 

Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla 

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus 

Mourning Warbler Oporonis philadelphia 

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia Canadensis 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens 

Northern Parula Parula americana 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypos trichas 

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla 

Tanagers 

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra 

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

New World Finches 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Blue Grosbeak Passerina caerulea 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Sparrows 

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 
138 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

LeConte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii 

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus caudacutus 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza Georgiana 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonatrichia leucophrys 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerine 

Blackbirds, Grackles, Cowbirds and Orioles 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelais phoeniceus 

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Boat-tailed Grackle Quiscalus major 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurious 

Altamira Oriole lcterus galulris 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus 

Old World Finches 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

Weaver Finches 

House Sparrow Passer domesticus 

Mammals 

Marsupials 

Virginia Opossum Didelphis marsupialis 

Edentates 

Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus 

Insectivores 

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva 

Bats 

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis 

Seminole Bat Lasiurus seminolus 

Yellow Bat Lasiurus ega 

Carnivores 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Mink Mustela vison 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 

River Otter Lutra canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Ungulates 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Rodents 

Marsh Rice Rat Orysomys palustris 
Appendix D. Biota 139

Fulvous Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys fulvescens 

Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

House Mouse Mus musculus 

Black Rat Rattus rattus 

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus 

Nutria Myocastor coypus 

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 

Lagomorphs 

Swamp Rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus 

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Alligator 

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis 

Lizards 

Green Anole Anolis carolinensis 

Ground Skink Scinella lateralis 

Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus 

Broadhead Skink Eumeces laticeps 

Turtles 

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina 

Alligator Snapping Turtle Macroclemys temminckii 

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta 

Mississippi Map Turtle Graptemys kohnii 

Slider Trachemys scripta 

Chicken Turtle Deirochelys reticularia 

Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene carolina 

Stinkpot Turtle Sternotherus odoratus 

Eastern Mud Turtle Kinosternon subrubrum 

Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera 

River Cooter Pseudemeys concinna 

Snakes 

Southern Water Snake Nerodia fasciata 

Western Green Water Snake Nerodia cyclopion 

Plain-bellied Water Snake Nerodia erythrogaster 

Diamondback Water Snake Nerodia rhombifer 

Brown Snake Storeria dekayi 

Western Ribbon Snake Thamnophis proximus 

Glossy Crayfish Snake Regina rigida 

Graham’s Crayfish Snake Regina grahamii 

Mud Snake Farancia abacura 

Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta 

Common Kingsnake Lampropeltis getulus 

Cottonmouth Agkinstodon piscivorus 

Rough Green Snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Salamanders 

Three-toed Amphiuma Amphiuma tridactylum 

Western lesser Siren Siren intermedia 

Central Newt Notophthalmus viridescens louisianensis 

Frogs and Toads 

Gulf Coast Toad Bufo valliceps 

Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans 

Green Treefrog Hyla cinera 

Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 
140 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Pig Frog Rana grylio 

Southern Leopard Frog Rana utricularia 

Squirrel Tree Frog Hyla squirella 

Bronze Frog Rana clamitans 

Gray/Cope’s Treefrog Hyla versiocolor/chrysoscells 

Fish 

Gars 

Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 

Alligator Gar Lepisosteus spatula 

Bowfins 

Bowfin Amia calva 

Herrings 

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 

Lizardfishes 

Inshore Lizardfish Synodus foetens 

Carps 

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Suckers 

Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 

Freshwater Catfishes 

Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas 

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Sunfishes 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus 

Banded Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma zonatum 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 

Bantam Sunfish Lepomis symmetricus 

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Longear Sunfish Leopomis megalotis 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Drums 

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Mullets 

Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus 

White Mullet Mugil curema 

Pike 

Chain Pickerel Esox niger 

Temperate Bass 

Yellow Bass Monore mississippiensis 

Invertebrates 

Crustaceans 

White River Crayfish Procambarus acutus 

Red Swamp Crayfish Procambarus clarkii 
Appendix D. Biota 141

Isopods and Amphipods 

Wood-boring Isopod Sphaeroma terebrans 

Rock Louse Ligia occidentalis 

Fish Louse Argulus spp. 

Wharf Roach Ligia spp. 

Beach Flea Orchestia grillus 

Marsh Hopper Talorchestia spp.

Plants 

Alligator Weed Alternanthera philoxeroides 

American Lotus Nelumbo lutea 

Baccharis Baccharis halimifolia 

Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 

Banana Water Lily Nymphaea mexicana 

Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crusgalli 

Black Needlerush Juncus roemerianus 

Black Willow Salix nigra 

Beggar’sTick Bidens laevis 

Bird’s Eye Bush Ochna serrrulata 

Blue Water Lily Nymphaea elegans 

Brazilian Verbena Verbena brasiliensis 

Brownseed Paspalum Paspalum plicatulum 

Bulltongue Sagittaria lancifolia 

Bullwhip Scirpus californicus 

Bushy Bluestem Andropogon glomeratus 

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 

Cattail Typa spp 

Chinese Tallow Sapium sebiferum 

Chocolate Weed Melochia corchorifolia 

Coastal Water-Hyssop Bacopa monnieri 

Coffeeweed Sesbania macrocarpa 

Common Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris 

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum 

Curly-leaf Dock Rumex crispus 

Duckweed Lemna minor 

Dog Fennel Eupatorium capillifolium 

Dwarf Spikerush Eleocharis parvula 

Eurasian Watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum 

Fall Panicum Panicum dichotomiflorum 

False Garlic Nothoscordum bivalve 

Fanwort Cabomba caroliniana 

Flatsedges Cyperus spp.

Floating Water Primrose Ludwigia peploides 

Frogbit Limnobium spongia 

Frogfruit Phyla nodiflora 

Giant Cutgrass Zizaniopsis miliacea 

Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida 

Grasslike Fimbry Fimbristylis miliacea 

Horned Beakrush Rhynchospora corniculata 

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata 

Iris Iris virginica 

Jungle Rice Echinochloa colonum 

Maidencane Panicum hemitomon 

Marshhay Cordgrass Spartina patens 

Mosquito-Fern Azolla caroliniana 

Muskgrass Chara spp.
142 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Parrot Feather Myriophyllum aquaticum

Pennywort Hydrocotyle spp 

Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata 

Rattlebox Sesbania drummondii 

Red Rice Oryza functata 

Roseau cane Phragmites australis 

Sago Pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus 

Saltmarsh Mallow Kosteletzkya virginica 

Saltmarsh Morning Glory Ipomoea sagittata 

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense 

Seashore Paspalum Paspalum vaginatum 

Smartweed Polygonum spp.

Softstem Bullrush Scirpus validus 

Southern Naiad Najas quadalupensis 

Southern Swamp Lily Crinum americanum 

Spadderdock Nuphar luteum 

Spikerushes Elecocharis spp. 

Sprangletop Leptochloa fascicularis 

Squarestem Spikerush Eleocharis quadrangulata 

Sumpweed Iva annua 

Thalia Thalia dealbata 

Thin-leaf Pondweed Potamogeton pusillus 

Three-cornered Grass Scirpus olneyi 

Toothache Tree Zanthoxylum calva-herculis 

Vasey Grass Paspalum urvillei 

Walter’s Millet Echinochloa walteri 

Water Hyacinth Eichornia crassipes 

Water Lettuce Pistia stratiotes 

Water Pepper Polygomum hydropiperoides 

Water Shield Brasenia schreberi 

Wax-Myrtle Myrica cerifera 

White-topped Sedge Rhynchospora colorata 

White Water Lily Nymphaea odorata 

Wigeongrass Ruppia maritima 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 143

Appendix E - Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING 

A series of scoping meetings and focus groups were held to obtain input from the general public on 

the comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge in the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, including Lacassine. Meetings were held in various communities in Cameron 

Parish in 2002 as follows: October 1, Carlyss; October 8, Grand Lake; October 10, Cameron; October 

16, Hackberry; and October 17, Johnson Bayou. 

Approximately 25 people in total attended these meetings. On January 16, and February 4, 2003, 

public open house meetings were held in Lake Charles with a total of 33 people attending. Comment 

forms were placed in the Refuge Visitor Center and invitations to comment or provide input were 

issued at various special events. Various issues emerged from these meetings and were considered 

during the preparation of the plan. 

An intensive effort to bring together people who were interested in fishing issues at the refuge 

resulted in over 40 members of the public attending a Fishing Focus Group meeting in Lake Charles 

on September 4, 2003. Participants were given an overview of the refuge and the planning process 

and then randomly assigned to smaller groups to discuss issues. Each group brainstormed, and 

identified and prioritized issues, and a representative of each group presented its results to the entire 

audience. The format of the meeting facilitated open discussion among user groups with conflicting 

interests and among the public and Service staff. 

Over 50 people attended a meeting on May 18, 2005, at the Lake Charles Civic Center to discuss 

future management of the Lacassine Pool. Continued interest in Lacassine Pool and associated 

issues with fishing prompted the Service to hold the meeting. Various management alternatives were 

presented and participants were invited to review and select their proposed solution. The majority of 

the participants chose the Service’s proposed action plan. 

News releases were sent to local media to inform the public about opportunities to comment and are 

shown below. Meetings scheduled for October 4, 5, and 6, 2002, were cancelled by notifying the 

media by telephone due to local communities evacuating during the landfall of Hurricane Lily. 

Meetings were rescheduled (see News Release #2). A worksheet, comment form, and brochure 

were also available and are shown below. 

News Release # 1 

9/23/02 

Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex Hosts Open House 

Public Invited to Help Develop Management Plan

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will hold six public open house sessions for the Southwest Louisiana 

Refuge Complex in early October to gather input to help prepare a new comprehensive conservation 

management plan (CCP). The Refuge Complex is comprised of Sabine and Cameron Prairie National 

Wildlife Refuges which are two of more than 500 refuges nationwide within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The System is dedicated entirely to the conservation of wildlife and their habitats. 
144 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

The public is invited to the open houses to be held at various locations: October 1, Carlyss Lions Club; 

October 3, Community Center, Hackberry; October 4, Community Center, Johnson Bayou; 

October 5, Civic Center, Lake Charles; October 8, Fireman Center, Grand Lake; and October 9, 

Police Jury Annex, Cameron. Hours for all meetings with the exception of Lake Charles will be from 

1:00 - 8:00 pm; Lake Charles=s meeting will be from 9:00 am - 4:00 pm. (See Table at end of article). 

Those attending may come at any time during the open house to view maps and other displays, consider 

refuge purpose and mission statements, visit one-on-one with Service representatives, and give their 

personal suggestions for future management of the refuge. The input received will be used to evaluate the 

refuge=s effectiveness toward meeting its obligations to the public and the Nation=s natural resources, 

and to plan for future refuge programs and operations. Comments may also be made at the two Refuge 

Visitor Centers, by email, fax, or through the mail. According to Project Leader Chris Pease, "we need the 

public's input and the best way to use it is to receive it in writing." 

The Service is updating management plans for all lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

planning effort is part of the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1997 which requires national wildlife 

refuges to reassess their capabilities to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

while also providing compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. The Refuge Complex is in the initial 

stages of preparing its comprehensive conservation plan that will guide refuge activities and 

operations for the next 15 years. The new plan will likely include most of the current refuge programs, 

but unlike previous plans, there will be extensive effort to obtain ideas and concerns from the public, 

refuge users, neighbors, and partner agencies. Other opportunities for open house meetings for 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge and the other two refuges will be announced at a later date. 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron Parish was established in 1937 by Executive Order for 

the protection of wintering waterfowl. The Refuge protects vast areas of coastal marshland which help 

support significant wildlife and fisheries resources. These resources are important to SW Louisiana - 

both biologically and economically. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, also located in 

Cameron Parish, was established to provide for nesting, migrating, and wintering birds and their 

critical habitat. It was the first refuge established under the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan in 1988 with funding provided by the sale of Duck Stamps. The refuge=s marshes annually 

attract a diverse array of migratory birds and other wildlife. After the open house meetings, a draft 

plan will be written and presented to the public. During the CCP process, a planning team will 

develop goals, objectives, and strategies to define management actions. The team will develop a 

reasonable range of alternatives to determine a proposed management action. All alternatives will be 

reviewed to assess the environmental effects of each one. During the public=s review, comments 

may be made regarding the Service=s preferred alternative. After considering comments, the Service 

will amend the plan if necessary and then will prepare and adopt a final plan. 

For further information regarding the meetings, contact Natural Resource Planner Judy McClendon at 

Southwest Louisiana Refuges Complex, 1428 SH 27, Bell City, LA 70630. Phone: 337-598-2216, 

Fax: 337-598-2492, or email judy_mcclendon@fws.gov 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System 

comprised of more than 500 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special 

management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fish and wildlife management 

assistance offices and 78 ecological services field stations. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 145

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Public Scoping 

Meetings Schedule 

(For information the day of meetings, 

call 337-526-3667) 

Thursday, October 3 Tuesday, October 8 

Hackberry Community 

Center 

986 Main Street 

Hackberry 

1:00 pm to 8:00 pm 

Fireman Center 

957A Hwy 384 

Grand Lake 

1:00 pm - 8:00 pm 

Friday, 

October 4 

Thursday, 

October 10 

Recreation Center 

Hwy 82 

Johnson Bayou 

1:00 pm to 8:00 pm 

Police Jury Annex 

110 Smith Circle 

Cameron 

1:00 pm - 8:00 pm 

Saturday, October 5 

Civic Center 

900 Lakeshore Drive 

Lake Charles 

9:00 am - 4:00 pm 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southwest Louisiana Refuges 

Contact Information 

Project Leader 

Sabine NWR 

3000 Holly Beach Highway 

Hackberry LA 70645 

Phone: 337-762-3816 

Fax: 337-762-3780 

email: chris_pease@fws.gov 

Refuge Manager 

Cameron Prairie NWR 

1428 SH 27 

Bell City, LA 70630 

Phone: 337-598-2216 

FAX: 337-598-2492 

Email: glenn_harris@fws.gov 

Project Leader 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

209 Nature Road 

Lake Arthur LA 70549 

Phone: 337-774-5923 

Fax: 337-774-9913 

email: bryan_winton@fws.gov 

Natural Resource Planner 

Southwest Louisiana Refuges Complex 

1428 SH 27 

Bell City, LA 70630 

Phone: 337-598-2216 

Fax: 337-598-2492 

Email: judy_mcclendon@fws.gov 
146 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

News Release #2 

Electronically mailed to all media on October 7, 2002. 

Due to all the Hurricane Hoopla, we would like to remind the public about their opportunities to make 

comments/suggestions regarding their local National Wildlife Refuges at this week’s open house 

meetings. Thank You for your assistance. 

NEWS RELEASE 

SW LA REFUGE COMPLEX 

Cameron Prairie NWR Sabine NWR 

1428 Hwy. 27 3000 Holly Beach Hwy 

Bell City LA 70630 Hackberry LA 70645 

Phone: 337-598-2216 Phone: 337-762-3816 

Fax: 337-598-2492 Fax: 337-762-3780 

___________________________________________________ 

For Immediate Release 10/07/2002 

Contact: Diane Borden-Billiot, 337-762-3816 

Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex Open House Reminder 

Public Invited to Help Develop Management Plan 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be holding two public open house sessions for the Southwest 

Louisiana Refuge Complex this week to gather input to help prepare a new comprehensive conservation 

management plan (CCP). The Refuge Complex is comprised of Sabine and Cameron Prairie National 

Wildlife Refuges which are two of more than 500 refuges nationwide within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The System is dedicated entirely to the conservation of wildlife and their habitats. 

The public is invited to the open houses to be held: October 8, Fireman Center, Grand Lake; and 

October 9, Police Jury Annex, Cameron. Hours for the meetings will be from 1:00 - 8:00 pm. Those 

attending may come at any time during the open house to view maps and other displays, consider 

refuge purpose and mission statements, visit one-on-one with Service representatives, and give their 

personal suggestions for future management of the refuge. The input received will be used to 

evaluate the refuge’s effectiveness toward meeting its obligations to the public and the Nation’s 

natural resources, and to plan for future refuge programs and operations. Comments may also be 

made at the two Refuge Visitor Centers, by email, fax, or through the mail. According to Project 

Leader Chris Pease, "we need the public's input and the best way to use it is to receive it in writing." 

The Service is updating management plans for all lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

planning effort is part of the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1997 which requires national wildlife 

refuges to reassess their capabilities to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

while also providing compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. The Refuge Complex is in the initial 

stages of preparing its comprehensive conservation plan that will guide refuge activities and 

operations for the next 15 years. The new plan will likely include most of the current refuge programs, 

but unlike previous plans, there will be extensive effort to obtain ideas and concerns from the public, 

refuge users, neighbors, and partner agencies. Open house meeting opportunities for Lacassine 

NWR in Lake Arthur, LA will be announced at a later date. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 147

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron Parish was established in 1937 by Executive Order for 

the protection of wintering waterfowl. The Refuge protects vast areas of coastal marshland which help 

support significant wildlife and fisheries resources. These resources are important to SW Louisiana - 

both biologically and economically. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, also located in 

Cameron Parish, was established to provide for nesting, migrating, and wintering birds and their 

critical habitat. It was the first refuge established under the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan in 1988 with funding provided by the sale of Duck Stamps. The refuge’s marshes annually 

attract a diverse array of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

After the open house meetings, a draft plan will be written and presented to the public. During the 

CCP process, a planning team will develop goals, objectives, and strategies to define management 

actions. The team will develop a reasonable range of alternatives to determine a proposed 

management action. All alternatives will be reviewed to assess the environmental effects of each one. 

During the public’s review, comments may be made regarding the Service’s preferred alternative. 

After considering comments, the Service will amend the plan if necessary and then will prepare and 

adopt a final plan. 

For further information regarding the meetings, contact Natural Resource Planner Judy McClendon at 

Southwest Louisiana Refuges Complex, 1428 SH 27, Bell City, LA 70630. Phone: 337-598-2216, 

Fax: 337-598-2492, or email judy_mcclendon@fws.gov 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System 

comprised of more than 500 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special 

management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fish and wildlife management 

assistance offices and 78 ecological services field stations. 

News Release #3 

Issued to media via e-mail on January 7, 2003 

National Wildlife Refuges in southwest Louisiana managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are 

participating in a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process and invites the public to 

participate. The CCP is developed with partners such as state wildlife agencies, elected officials, nongovernmental conservation agencies, and interested public. 

Refuges in Cameron Parish undergoing the process include Sabine, Cameron Prairie, and Lacassine 

National Wildlife Refuges. These Refuges are three of more than 535 nationwide within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System which is dedicated entirely to the conservation of wildlife and their habitats. 

One of the first steps in the CCP process is to solicit public input regarding management of the 

refuges. An open house meeting will be held on January 16, 2003, at the Best Suites Inn, 401 

Lakeshore Drive, in Lake Charles to give people an opportunity to discuss or comment on 

management issues. The public may drop by anytime between 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm to view 

displays, pick up information, or talk with Refuge personnel. Formal presentations will be given at 

2:30, 4:30, and 6:30 p.m. A question and answer session will follow each formal presentation. 
148 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act which set the stage 

for ensuring that wildlife refuges continue to be managed for the benefit of both wildlife and the 

American people. The Act articulates a clear conservation mission for fish, wildlife, and plant 

conservation and also mandates CCP=s be prepared for every national wildlife refuge. 

The plans will specify management direction for the refuges for the next 15 years while ensuring that 

each refuge=s uses are compatible with its mission and purpose for being established. The CCP 

process will encourage greater involvement by partners and neighbors in wildlife refuge management 

decision-making and public use programs. Anyone who is interested in the future of the Refuges is 

invited to participate. 

For further information on the meeting, please call Natural Resource Planner Judy McClendon at 337-

598-2216 or 337-526-3667. 

FOCUS GROUP MEETING REPORT – SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 

An intensive effort to bring together people who were interested in fishing issues at the refuge 

resulted in over 40 members of the public attending a Fishing Focus Group meeting at McNeese 

State University in Lake Charles on September 4, 2003. Participants were given an overview of the 

refuge and the planning process and then randomly assigned to smaller groups to discuss issues. 

Each group brainstormed, identified and prioritized issues, and each group presented its results to 

the entire audience. The format of the meeting facilitated open discussion among user groups with 

conflicting interests and among the public and Service staff. 

Participants were divided into five smaller working groups after general presentations by Judy 

McClendon, Planner, SW LA Refuges; Leon Kolankiewicz, Project Manager, Mangi Environmental 

Group; and Bryan Winton, Assistant Manager, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Each group had 

approximately 90 minutes to brainstorm, discuss, and prioritize issues and then elected a 

representative to address the entire audience and present the group’s issues and proposed 

recommendations. Many groups had similar issues and recommendations. Listed below are the 

major issues and themes raised during the evening. 

Safety: 

1. Make it mandatory to use bicycle flags on boats. 

2. A false sense of security may occur if fishermen assume all boat users are using flags and 

some are not complying. 

3. Marking intersections would be better than requiring boat flags. 

4. Mark intersections on boat runs/trails. 

5. Widen all intersections. 

6. Require boats in tournaments to slow down. 

7. Keep horsepower at 25 mph. 

8. Banks are too steep. Put some wharfs that go out in water for bank fishermen and family 

fishermen. This would help keep kids out of the roads and parking areas which is 

dangerous when traffic is heavy. 

9. Do not go to 40 horsepower motors in pool. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 149
150 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 151

Law Enforcement: 

1. Need to check fishermen more often. Many in room had never been checked. 

2. More checks would result in better experiences for all and eliminate problems. 

3. Litter is a major problem. No containers available to throw trash in. 

4. Ban alcohol from refuge. 

5. More visible enforcement. 

6. Enforce “NO WAKE ZONES.” 

Creel/Slot Limits: 

1. Enforce a creel limit of 5 fish per person with a slot size of 14-17” length. 

2. Enforce a creel limit of 5 fish per person with a slot size of 14” length. 

3. Enforce a creel limit of 5 fish per person with a slot size of 16– 21” length; 12“minimum. 

4. Allow a creel limit of 5 fish per person with no slot limit. 

5. No limit on white perch and chinquapins. 

6. Enforce catch and release during spawn only, March – April 15; March 15 – April 30. 

7. Due to overcrowding of users on opening and other heavy use days, restrict what can be 

kept to improve quality. 

8. Have a later opening date. 

9. Give fisherman more days to fish, open March 1 through October 15. 

10. Catch and release for one more year. 

Water Levels: 

1. Pre-determine a drought plan. 

2. Have a more aggressive water management plan. 

3. Install better boards. 

4. Install non-removable boards. 

5. Document levels at least once a month. 

6. Mark low and high spots in pool. 

7. Need better management regarding water levels. 

8. Raise water level a foot which would help both ducks and fish. 

9. Maintenance is needed on the spillways. 

10. Maintenance is needed at the boat launches. 

11. Deepen areas inside impoundment. 

12. Designate water level recording sites using staff gauges based on GIS study results. 

Boat Trails: 

1. Widen boat lanes. 

2. Deepen boat lanes. 

3. Open up the boat lanes. 

4. Improve access to pool. 

5. Update maps showing boat trails. 

6. Control vegetation. 

7. Develop incentive program for volunteers to come out and clear trails. 

Tournaments: 

1. Tournaments are hurting fish populations. 

2. Tournaments are more good than bad. 

3. Very strongly for tournaments because participants have helped make Lacassine Pool 

better, i.e., fish stocking, helped build pavilion/kiosk, help keep the boat trails open, and help 

pick up litter. 
152 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

4. Not against the premise of tournaments but concerned about safety – tournament fisherman 

go too fast in boats. 

5. Against tournament fishing on the refuge. 

6. Allow tournaments with catch and release only. 

7. Encourage weigh-ins on site. 

8. Eliminate the $50 fee since some clubs don’t pay anyway. 

9. Tournament fishermen need to have better outdoor ethics. 

10. Tournament fishermen have good ethics. 

11. For tournaments. 

12. Allow one trophy fish to be kept. 

13. Tournaments help survey fish populations. 

14. Tournaments promote fishing and the refuge. 

15. Provide advance notice to public (non-tournament anglers) about scheduled tournaments 

through press releases or an information area at Lacassine Pool. 

Fish Stocking 

1. Research the benefits of stocking fry vs. fingerling. 

2. Build staging ponds and breeding areas for restocking program. 

3. Continue to restock with Florida bass. 

Bank Fishing 

1. Control litter problem by providing trash cans. 

2. Grassy areas along bank need to be better maintained. 

General: 

1. Keep pool open 7 days a week. 

 (Rumor in community that pool would be closed 2 days per week). 

2. Control vegetation; it is manager’s job to do this but realize there is lack of funding. 

3. Charge user fees for all uses if money would be returned to refuge for improved facilities 

and budget would not subsequently be cut causing a break-even situation. 

4. Fishermen would like to conduct fundraisers for refuge if money would be spent on 

improvements. 

5. Fishermen would like to organize as a support group for the refuge. 

6. Do not charge a fishing fee. 

Ongoing concerns by anglers about allegedly dwindling fishing opportunities in Lacassine Pool 

continued to dominate all other management issues on the refuge. These concerns prompted the 

Complex to hold a public meeting in Lake Charles on May 18, 2005, to give the public critical 

background information and provide a chance to select from among a range of potential solutions. 

The electronically distributed news release follows: 

For Immediate Release

May 4, 2005 

Contact: Judy McClendon, Natural Resource Planner, SW Louisiana National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex 

337-598-2216 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Host Meeting on Habitat and Water 

Management of the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Pool 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 153

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) will hold a meeting at the Lake Charles 

Civic Center, Lafitte Room on May 18, 2005, at 12:00 noon to obtain public 

input about proposed habitat and water management programs on the Lacassine 

Pool (Pool). Lacassine Pool is located on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, 

one of three refuges administered by the Southwest Louisiana National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

The Service is developing a 15-year Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), 

mandated by law in 1997, to direct management actions on the Refuge. The 

CCP is developed with involvement by partners and the public. The CCP that 

evolves from this process will ensure that refuge uses are compatible with 

Lacassine’s mission and purpose for being established. Recently many 

individuals have identified Lacassine Pool as one of their primary concerns. 

According to Don Voros, Complex Project Leader, “saving Lacassine Pool will be a 

tremendous challenge as we attempt to remove 60 years of dead vegetation to 

restore it to a healthy thriving ecosystem that will benefit both migratory 

birds and fish.” 

Rainfall is the only source of freshwater used to maintain Pool water 

level, and there are no tidal influences or flushing actions to aid in 

dispersing accumulating dead plant material. Without active management 

closed systems eventually fill in and the habitat changes. These changes 

include less open water areas, additional shallow areas and an increase in 

shrubs and other woody vegetation. 

The public is invited to participate in the meeting which will consist of 

background presentations, small group question and answer sessions with 

Service and State specialists, and opportunities for the public to review 

and help identify potential solutions to recover Lacassine Pool. Presentations 

will be given by Complex Project Leader Don Voros, Complex Biologist, Dr. 

Steve Reagan, and LDWF Fisheries Biologist Bobby Reed. Fourteen potential 

solutions for Pool recovery will be displayed throughout the room and 

participants may comment on any or all of the solutions. 

For information, please call Judy McClendon, Natural Resource Planner, at 

337-598-2216. 

Judy McClendon 

Natural Resource Planner 

Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

1428 Hwy 27, Bell City, LA 70630 

Phone: 337-598-2216 

Fax: 337-598-2492 

FOCUS GROUP MEETING RESULTS – MAY 8, 2005 

Complex Project Leader Don Voros opened the meeting, attended by about 125 members of the 

public, with an overview of the problems Lacassine Pool faces. In recent years, these problems have 

been impinging on the quality of the sport fishing experience, limiting both access to the fishery and 

the quality (size) and quantity of fish caught. Mr. Voros began the meeting by showing a PowerPoint 
154 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

slide of a recent scene at the Southwest spillway where critical repair work was underway. A 

temporary coffer dam had been erected to dewater the site, a common and necessary 

engineering/construction technique, so that work could proceed. Unfortunately, this action was 

misunderstood by a local reporter and certain members of the public to mean that refuge staff was 

lowering the level of water in Lacassine Pool as a whole, which of course would have an adverse 

effect on fish stocks and fishing. A series of subsequent newspaper articles and reports in the 

broadcast media in the following month discussed and debated refuge management of Lacassine 

Pool, and the threats to fish and fishing it confronts. 

Mr. Voros then summarized the problem with the following question: 

“What can we do over the next 15 years to address over 60 years of accumulated dead plant 

material in the Lacassine Pool to protect and sustain migratory bird and fisheries habitat?” 

He reviewed a succession of studies that as far back as 1953 identified the process of detritus 

accumulation as one that would limit the life of Lacassine Pool. This process would ultimately result 

in its succession from open water and emergent marsh to scrub-shrub habitat, with the concomitant 

loss of all wetlands and hence its value to migratory waterfowl and fish. In an effort to address the 

problem, in 1993 the low part of the south levee was raised, stop logs were added to the spillways, 

and the water level was raised to 5.0 msl. This expanded Lacassine Pool’s water volume and 

increased the water column in an effort to stress emergent vegetation and prevent or at least slow its 

encroachment. However, success was short-lived: vegetation recovered and organic levels 

continued to increase. 

Fisheries Biologist Bobby Reed of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) then 

presented highlights of the recent history of the State’s management of Lacassine fisheries. He 

reviewed changes in fishing regulations from 1990 to 2005, provided figures on stocking of 

largemouth bass and bluegill since 2001, and discussed sampling and data gathering techniques like 

electrofishing. He concluded that the major factors limiting fisheries production in Lacassine Pool are 

water quality and depth, loss of habitat, poor quality spawning substrates, reduced forage availability 

and foraging efficiency, and Largemouth Bass Virus (LMBV). 

Mr. Reed stated LDWF’s recommendations for 2005, which included a regular opening and season 

length (March 15 to October 15), 10 bass per day limit with no minimum length, harvest open to all 

species of pan fish (there is an excellent year class of black crappie), stock largemouth bass and 

bluegill fingerlings, educate fishermen concerning LMBV by asking them to avoid holding and culling 

fish in live wells, continuing to monitor Lacassine Pool for the spread of invasive aquatic plant 

species, and supporting Service efforts to control excessive emergent plant growth and accumulated 

organic muck. Mr. Reed finished up by promoting the use of drawdowns as a management tool, 

noting that LDWF manages about 60 reservoirs with drawdown capacity. Drawdowns are carried out 

on about 10-12 of these water bodies annually; drying out the organic substrates oxidizes and 

compacts organic matter and controls undesirable aquatic growth. 

Complex Biologist Dr. Steve Reagan began by reviewing the National Wildlife Refuge System’s 

Organic Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and its bearing on the 

fishing question in Lacassine Pool. When the refuge was established in 1937, the area contained 

only natural marsh; all impoundments including Lacassine Pool were established later. He then 

showed the audience a schematic of the three spillways that release water from Lacassine Pool, 

going on to explain how stoplogs in the spillways hold water in it and describe recent repair efforts at 

the southwest spillway. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 155

Dr. Reagan showed a slide graphically depicting seasonal and annual variations in historic water 

levels for selected years from 1942 to 2004. He also explained to the assembly the relationship 

between these water levels and the loss of open water surface area and water volume in Lacassine 

Pool. In sum, ecological changes in Lacassine Pool over the past decades have led to decreasing 

habitat quality and quantity for fish and waterfowl, as well as greater difficulty in accessing Lacassine 

Pool for management and recreational fishing purposes. The target of refuge and Complex 

management is a 50/50 ration of open water to emergent marsh. 

Complex Project Leader Voros then asked the attendees for their input on potential solutions to Lacassine 

Pool’s problems and on possible feasibility studies. Complex staff had developed a list of nine proposals 

and two possible feasibility studies based on discussions with and suggestions by stakeholders and 

experts. The nine proposals were described in handouts and on posters affixed to the walls of the 

meeting room. Each proposal was described in writing and shown in a diagram; likely pros and cons of 

each were also listed on the handouts and the wall posters. Mr. Voros also invited the public to submit 

their own proposals to the Complex planner by June 1, 2005. The nine proposals were: 

• Take no action – continue to manage Lacassine Pool level at full pool or higher and hope 

for the best. 

• Rebuild the entire dike system to accommodate the highest water level possible (wait for 

natural events to draw down Lacassine Pool). 

• Manage Lacassine Pool at full pool (wait for natural events to draw it down) and carry out 

certain other actions (e.g., repair all spillways and levees; use prescribed fire during droughts; 

build fish passageways to deeper water and maintain a deep water interior perimeter ditch 

around the entire pool). 

• Attempt to manage Lacassine Pool level far above full pool (1 foot above full pool or higher) 

and wait for natural events to draw it down). 

• Experiment with managing Lacassine Pool between full pool level and 6 inches above full pool 

from February to October to see if the levees can withstand the pressure (conduct managed 

draw-down). 

• Continue to manage Lacassine Pool level at full pool (conduct managed drawdowns). 

• Subdivide Lacassine Pool into 2 interconnected units (5,000 acres and 11,000 acres). 

• Subdivide Lacassine Pool into 3 interconnected units approximately 5,000 acres in size. Treat 

each unit of a 7- to 10-year cycle. 

• Subdivide Lacassine Pool into 6 interconnected units of varying size (1990 Proposal). 

Mr. Voros then reminded everyone of the three sticky, orange dots they had previously been given 

upon entering the room. He asked them to vote for their three favorite proposals by placing one dot 

each on three of the nine shown on the wall posters. The results of this voting are as follows, ranked 

in order of the number of dots received: 

1st place - Proposal #8. Subdivide Lacassine Pool into 3 interconnected units approximately 5,000 

acres in size. Treat each unit on a 7- to 10-year cycle as follows. (41 dots) 

2nd place - Proposal #7. Subdivide Lacassine Pool into 2 interconnected units that would result in an 

approximately 5,000-acre pool and an 11,000-acre pool. (31 dots) 

3rd place - Proposal #9. Subdivide Lacassine Pool into 6 interconnected units of varying size (1990 

Proposal). (24 dots) 
156 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Subdivide the pool into 3 interconnected units approximately 5, Subdivide the pool into 3 interconnected units approximately 5,000 acres in size. Treat each unit on a 7 to 10 000 acres in size. Treat each unit on a 7 to 10 

year cycle as follows. year cycle as follows. 

Treat each unit on a 7 to 10 year cycle as follows. Once every 7 Treat each unit on a 7 to 10 year cycle as follows. Once every 7 to 10 years draw one unit completely down to 10 years draw one unit completely down

during the spring to allow for oxidation and conduct a prescribe during the spring to allow for oxidation and conduct a prescribed burn to set back natural succession and d burn to set back natural succession and

dispose of accumulated dead plant material. Get advance permissi dispose of accumulated dead plant material. Get advance permission to conduct prescribed burns during severe on to conduct prescribed burns during severe

fire danger conditions. fire danger conditions. 

Use mechanized equipment wherever practicable to build fish pass Use mechanized equipment wherever practicable to build fish passage ways and deep ponds so that fish age ways and deep ponds so that fish

would have escape routes to deeper water during droughts or cycl would have escape routes to deeper water during droughts or cyclic draw downs. ic draw downs.

Restock the fisheries resource as needed based on lessons learn Restock the fisheries resource as needed based on lessons learned from the 1999 ed from the 1999-2000 drought. 2000 drought. 

Provide additional boat launching sites, water control structure Provide additional boat launching sites, water control structures and water pumping devices as needed to s and water pumping devices as needed to

maintain the maximum water management capability possible. maintain the maximum water management capability possible.

Develop a water management plan for each unit as they are rehabi Develop a water management plan for each unit as they are rehabilitated that benefits fish and wildlife. litated that benefits fish and wildlife.

The remaining units awaiting their initial sediment treatment wo The remaining units awaiting their initial sediment treatment would continue to be open to fishing. uld continue to be open to fishing.

Spillways will be set to hold water 6 inches above full pool or Spillways will be set to hold water 6 inches above full pool or at full pool from February 28 to November 1. at full pool from February 28 to November 1.

From November 1 until February 28 water control structures will From November 1 until February 28 water control structures will be set to hold water at 1ft below full pool. be set to hold water at 1ft below full pool. 

Once a unit is treated it will be held at full pool February 28 Once a unit is treated it will be held at full pool February 28 to November 1 and from November 1 until to November 1 and from November 1 until

February 28 lowered as needed for migratory bird management . February 28 lowered as needed for migratory bird management .

PROPOSAL 8 PROPOSAL 8

4th place - Proposal #5. Experiment with managing Lacassine Pool level between full pool and 6 

inches above full pool during the period February through October to see if the levees can sustain the 

pressure (conduct managed draw-down). (6 dots) 

5th place - Proposal #6. Continue to manage Lacassine Pool level at full pool (conduct managed 

drawdowns). (3 dots) 

The following proposals received no support: 

Proposal #10. I will provide a written proposal by June 1, 2005. 

Proposal #4. Attempt to manage Lacassine Pool level far above full pool (1 foot above full pool or 

higher, wait for natural events to draw it down). 

Proposal #3. Manage Lacassine Pool level at full pool (wait for natural events to draw it down). 

Proposal #2. Rebuild the entire dike system to accommodate the highest water level possible (wait 

for natural events to draw it down). 

Proposal #1. Take no action. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 157

Mr. Voros informed the participants that the higher-ranked proposals will be remolded into 

management alternatives, which will appear in the draft comprehensive conservation plan that the 

public will have an opportunity to comment on later this year. 

Meeting participants also had the chance to comment on the following feasibility study proposals: 

1. Conduct a feasibility study for plant removal. (52 dots) 

Conduct a feasibility study focused on the removal of dead plant vegetation that has accumulated 

over the last 60 years. This would be through a private entity that can sell the material as topsoil or 

peat on the open market. Concurrently the study should also investigate the feasibility of 

mechanically removing floating aquatic vegetation with the best available technology. The study 

would determine what the permitting requirements would be and if it can be a financially and 

environmentally viable project. If the project is viable, implement it in conjunction with one of the 

other alternatives identified. 

Options

Unit D, already 

existing

Levee with Water 

Control Structures

Create Levees 

and center canal

Outer Boundary of 

Waterfowl Mgt Unit-G

Water Control Structure

With boat access

Proposal 8 Proposal 8
158 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

2. Conduct a feasibility study relating to the use of explosives to blow holes in the marsh and 

spread the organic material around. (3 dots) 

Conduct a feasibility study focused at how the use of explosives can be used to manage Lacassine 

Pool. The study would include an analysis of the distance that various explosive charge shock waves 

will travel below ground in all directions and above ground. The study would also provide examples 

of how this technique has been effectively used in the past in Louisiana coastal marshes that support 

oil and gas infrastructure. The study should include an analysis of potential impacts to oil and gas 

facilities above and below ground, oil and gas reservoirs, adjacent dikes, spillways, the Intracoastal 

Waterway and other facilities and infrastructure within the shock wave area. 

3. Do not conduct feasibility studies. (6 dots) 

Participants were informed that the potential feasibility studies are intended to be used in conjunction 

with one of the above management proposals. Support or non-support for a given feasibility study 

will aid in determining if the Fish and Wildlife Service moves forward with this initiative in conjunction 

with one of the above proposals or an alternative proposal, which may be developed in the future. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 159

DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSE 

Ser vice 

Service Response

Thank you for your 

comments. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

cooperates and 

complies with all State 

of Louisiana and 

Federal agency 

requirements 

regarding permits for 

construction activities. 
160 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 161

 

Service Response:

Thank you for your 

comments. The 

Service has enjoyed 

and benefited from 

our partnership with 

the Louisiana 

Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

and we look forward 

to working with you in 

the future. 

The Service has 

removed language 

regarding alligator 

egg collection on the 

School Section 

property from the 

CCP.

Editorial comments 

from LWDF have 

been addressed in 

the Plan. 

In cooperation with 

your agency, the 

alligator harvest at 

Lacassine has been 

conducted for the 

purpose of removing 

nuisance animals in 

the interests of public 

safety and to benefit 

native habitats and 

other wildlife.
162 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response: 

Alligator harvesting 

and egg collection 

is an economic 

activity that does 

not fall under the 

priority six public 

uses (a wildlifedependent 

recreational 

activity); 

The Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, 

and Environmental 

Health Policy (601 

FW 3) states that 

we (FWS) must “strive to maintain 

populations of 

breeding 

individuals that are 

genetically viable 

and functional” and 

that we “will first 

and foremost, 

maintain existing 

levels of biological 

integrity, diversity, 

and environmental 

health”...and

“strive to manage 

in a holistic 

manner the 

combination of 

biological integrity, 

diversity, and 

environmental 

health”. 

Policy for egg 

collection is based 

on Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge’s 

1995 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 163

Service Response: 

Alligator egg collection 

was found to be 

incompatible with 

refuge purposes 

Additionally, the 

severity of alligator 

mortality and effects to 

the population is 

unknown after 

Hurricane Rita 

devastated national 

wildlife refuges in 

Cameron Parish in 

September 2005. At 

this time it would be 

biologically responsible 

to gather several years 

of intense nest survey 

data for a thorough 

population assessment 

and minimize the 

exposure of the 

population to an 

additional mortality 

factor. 
164 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 165

Service Response: 

Thank you for your 

comments. We have 

clarified management 

strategies for units of 

Lacassine Pool as 

follows: 

Each unit of 

Lacassine Pool will 

be treated within a 

10- to 15-year cycle 

dependent upon 

availability of 

resources, 

environmental 

conditions (i.e., such 

as when drought 

conditions are most 

favorable), and under 

conditions described 

in an adaptive stepdown water 

management plan, 

individual sub-units 

will be completely 

drawn down to allow 

for oxidation and to 

conduct prescribed 

burns to set back 

natural succession 

and dispose of 

accumulated dead 

plant material. 

Prescribed burning 

will continue as 

needed during the 

summer months 

whenever possible. 

Draw down of the 

sub-units may require 

multiple years to 

achieve management 

goals. No more than 

two sub-units may be 

under treatment 

within a 5-year time 

period. 
166 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 167

Service Response: 

Thank you for your 

comments. 

Lacassine National 

Wildlife Refuge and 

the Lacassine Pool 

will be managed for 

the purpose for which 

the refuge was 

established. The 

Service has identified 

northern pintails as a 

species of refuge 

concern. Two of the 

refuge’s cooperative 

farming units are 

managed to provide 

food for pintails. 

Changes in 

agricultural practices 

in the area adjacent 

to the refuge has 

resulted in production 

of sugar cane on 

lands that formerly 

produced rice; and 

this has surely 

contributed to lower 

number of pintails 

observed on the pool. 

The Service believes 

that restoration and 

rehabilitation of the 

Lacassine Pool will 

benefit migratory 

birds, such as 

northern pintails, and 

also aquatic species. 

Managing the refuge 

for migratory birds is 

identified in the CCP 

as the Service’s 

highest priority for 

Lacassine.
168 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response

Past water level 

management was 

based on historical 

data from refuge 

files; A 2005 survey 

conducted by a 

professional surveyer 

indicated a 3.1-foot 

difference in 

historical elevations 

and GPS-derived 

elevations. The final 

adjusted results of 

this GPS survey 

revealed there is a 

3.1-foot difference 

between the historic 

accepted Lacassine 

Refuge vertical 

datum (assumed to 

be MSL) and the 

contractor's GPS 

derived elevations 

using North American 

Vertical Datum of 

1988 (NAVD88). 

This means when 

converting the 4-foot 

MSL to NAVD88, the 

elevation of the full 

pool elevation is the 

0.8 NAVD88. This is 

now the baseline for 

future management 

of the pool’s aquatic 

system. Once pool 

restoration is 

complete, future 

water levels will be 

defined in a water 

level management 

plan that will 

articulate best 

management 

practices to first 

benefit migratory 

waterfowl, but 

secondarily improve 

the pool’s aquatic 

system. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 169

Service Response: 

We have clarified 

management 

strategies for units of 

the pool as follows. 

Each unit of 

Lacassine Pool will 

be treated within a 

10- to 15-year cycle 

dependent upon 

availability of 

resources, 

environmental 

conditions (i.e., such 

as when drought 

conditions are most 

favorable), and under 

conditions described 

in an adaptive stepdown water 

management plan. 

Individual sub-units 

will be completely 

drawn down to allow 

for oxidation and to 

conduct prescribed 

burns to set back 

natural succession 

and dispose of 

accumulated dead 

plant material. 

Prescribed burning 

will continue as 

needed during the 

summer months 

whenever possible. 

Draw down of the 

sub-units may require 

multiple years to 

achieve management 

goals. No more than 

two sub-units may be 

under treatment 

within a 5-year time 

period. 
170 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response: 

Historic survey data 

have been included 

in the plan. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 171

Public Letter # 1 Service Response 

Thank you for your comments. 

The Service recognizes the 

problem of vegetation in the pool 

and hopes proposed 

management actions in the plan 

will alleviate the problem. The 

Service also will assess the 

feasibility of enrolling in the 

Recreation Fee Program, which 

would allow for certain fees to be 

charged with proceeds returned 

to the refuge to improve public 

use facilities. 

(Editor’s Note: According to the 

Department of French Studies at 

Louisiana State University, 

lagniappe is something extra 

given at no cost. [From the 

Spanish "la ñapa," meaning 

"something extra," originally 

borrowed from Quechuan.]) 
172 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Letter #2 Service Response 

 

Thank you for your 

comments. As the 

Service restores 

the Lacassine Pool 

over the next 15 

years, water 

management 

options, such as 

drilling deep wells, 

will be explored. 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 173

Public Letter #3 Service Response 

 Thank you for your comments. 

The refuge will not be expanded 

beyond its approved acquisition 

boundary, which has not been 

fulfilled. Any acquisition within 

this boundary would be 

contingent upon the present 

landowner being willing to sell, 

the Service's interest in 

expanding refuge size, and 

other factors. The Service is 

committed to partnering with 

others, such as the Coastal 

Protection and Restoration 

Planning Team, to protect 

habitat from hurricanes and 

other storms. The feasibility of 

allowing commercial guiding will 

be assessed over the next 15 

years. 
174 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Letter #4 Service Response 

Thank you for your comments. 

As the Service restores the 

Lacassine Pool over the next 15 

years, water management 

options, such as drilling deep 

wells, will be explored. 

 
Appendix E. Public Involvement 175

 

Public Letter #5 Service Response 

 

Thank you for your comments. 

The staffing charts have been 

revised for consistency. As the 

Service restores the Lacassine 

Pool over the next 15 years, 

water management options, 

such as location of water control 

structures, will be explored. 
176 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 177

Appendix F - Appropriate Use Determinations 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use 

is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, 

we will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

• Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

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

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still 

determine if these uses are compatible. 

• Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider take of wildlife under such 

regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Administration Act). This law provides the 

authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to prohibit 

certain harmful activities. The Administration Act does not authorize any particular use, but rather 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and “under such 

regulations as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses that, when 

compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states “. . . it is the 

policy of the United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate 

general public use of the System . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority 

general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management; and . . . when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use 

is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . ensure 

that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other general public 

uses in planning and management within the System . . . .” The law also states “in administering the 

System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: . . . issue regulations to carry out this 

Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Administration Act by providing enhanced 

consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability 

to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
178 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Recreation Act). This law authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of the System] or parts thereof for public recreation when 

in his judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use.” While the 

Recreation Act authorizes us to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use 

is an “appropriate incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act provides the Refuge System 

mission and includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge System. 

Other statutes that establish refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, and 3101 - 3233; 43 

U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. We must comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among 

the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or 

rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, E.O. 

11989 requires us to close areas to off highway vehicles when we determine that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic 

resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use 

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions: 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 1.11. 

Native American 

American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including Aleuts, Eskimos, 

and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use 

A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Quality 

The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

• Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

• Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

• Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

• Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 
Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 179

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

• Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

• Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

• Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

• Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use 

As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Use: Berry Picking 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 
180 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Use: Recreational Freshwater Sport Fishing Tournaments 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 
Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 181

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 
182 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Use: Research and Monitoring 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 
Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 183

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Use: Commercial Alligator Harvest 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 
184 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 
Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 185

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Use: Commercial Video and Photography 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 
186 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Use: Commercially Guided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, and 

Interpretation 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 
Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 187

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 
188 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Use: Cooperative Farming 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and 

Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan 

or other document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the 

use has been proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources? 

X 
Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 189

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 

FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [no to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [no to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the 

refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge 

supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use 

is: 
190 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 191

Appendix G - Compatibility Determinations 

Introduction 

The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the process of 

developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Descriptions and anticipated impacts of each of these uses are addressed separately. However, the 

Refuge Uses through Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies sections, the Literature Cited 

section, and the Approval of Compatibility Determinations section apply to each use. If one of these 

uses is considered outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge, then those sections become part of that compatibility determination. 

Refuge Uses 

The following compatibility determinations apply to: 1) Berry Picking; 2) Environmental Education and 

Interpretation; 3) Recreational Freshwater Sportfishing; 4) Recreational Freshwater Sportfishing 

Tournaments; 5) Recreational Hunting; 6) Research and Monitoring; 7) Wildlife Observation and 

Photography; 8) Commercial Alligator Harvest; 9) Commercial Video and Photography; 10) 

Commercially Guided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation; 

and 11) Cooperative Farming. 

Refuge Name 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established 

December 30, 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Executive Order 7789; Migratory Bird Conservation Act; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

For lands acquired under Executive Order 7780, dated December 30, 1937, the purpose of the 

acquisition is “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife ...” 

For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d, the purpose of the 

acquisition is “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds.” 

For lands acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the purpose of the acquisition is”... for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources 

...” [16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4)] and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

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

or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” [16 U.S.C. 742f (b) (1)]. 
192 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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.” 

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Criminal Code provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Department of Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, 

Subchapter C; Title 43, 3101.3-3) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat. 884) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat. 1119) 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Refuge) Manual 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-718h; 48 Stat. 451) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; 83 Stat. 852) 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee; 

80 Stat. 927) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-570) 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S. C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive 

Order 10989) 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S. C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Laws and Regulations of the State of Louisiana relating to hunting 

Additional refuge-specific regulations as published 

Description of Use: 

(1) Berry Picking 

The refuge will allow berry picking and collection of other fruits and nuts on select areas of the refuge 

for personal use only. Blackberries are the most widespread berry along refuge levees during spring 

and summer. Collection of berries for the purpose of human consumption has occurred at a very low 

level on the refuge in the past. Therefore, the removal of berries for human consumption is not 

significantly impacting the availability of this naturally occurring food for wildlife, due to its widespread 

distribution on refuge levees. Collecting berries, fruits, or nuts from the refuge for commercial 

purposes (e.g., selling for a profit) is not allowed or covered by this compatibility determination. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 193

Availability of Resources: At the current level of participation, resources for this use are adequate. 

Berry picking occurs at such a low level that additional resources are not needed or justified at this 

time, or in the foreseeable future. 

Enrollment in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program could enable the refuge to recover 

overhead expenses to oversee and administer berry picking and other public uses in the future. 

Participation in this program is currently being fully evaluated. It could provide a potential source of 

revenue to offset increasing costs to promote and manage existing and future public use 

opportunities, particularly the priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The incidental disturbance of wildlife species, either illegally or 

unintentionally, may occur with any public use program. Berry picking, and collecting of fruits and/or 

nuts will remove food for wildlife, but due to their abundance, when present on refuge levees during 

spring and summer, it is not anticipated that this action will negatively impact wildlife species. The 

refuge staff has observed in years when berries are plentiful, many go un-eaten due to their 

abundance where present. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Public access for berry picking will be allowed in 

designated areas only during spring and summer when berries are available. An increase in law 

enforcement patrols will minimize illegal or undesirable activities resulting from allowing this use. 

Berry picking will be monitored to document any negative impacts. If and when negative impacts to 

wildlife are identified, corrective action will be taken to reduce or eliminate them. Public access to 

berry picking sites may be closed during extremely wet periods to ensure road protection and visitor 

safety, and to minimize wildlife disturbance. 

Given the limited access (e.g., primarily by foot) berry picking is viewed as compatible with the 

purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Justification: According to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, berry 

picking is a secondary public use activity that can be considered if priority public uses are evaluated 

first. It is through compatible public uses, such as this, that the public becomes aware of, sees, 

enjoys, and provides support for national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/20/2017 
194 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: 

(2) Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Kiosks play a key role in our capabilities to provide environmental education and interpretation at the 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Informational panels are present at two kiosk locations at the 

Lacassine Pool, at the Streeter Road “Farming for Wildlife” overlook, and on a small one-sided kiosk 

available at the Unit B Bank Fishing Area. The refuge headquarters unit is constructing a new kiosk 

to replace and improve environmental education and interpretation capabilities at this office/visitor 

contact station, with up-to-date information on wildlife presence and opportunities available. 

Refuge brochures provide information about particular fish and wildlife species present, other natural 

resources, public opportunities available, and appropriate conduct while visiting. Brochures are 

available at four locations at the Lacassine Pool, at the Streeter Road Unit B Bank Fishing Area, and 

at the refuge headquarters. Brochures are also provided to Gary’s Landing and Myers Landing in 

Lowry—two nearby private boat launches within 1-2 miles of the refuge, and at “T’s” Grocery and 

Belinds Grocery in Hayes. Refuge brochures are also provided to the Southwest Louisiana 

Convention and Visitors Bureau in Lake Charles, to the Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge in 

Holmwood, and to the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, south of Hackberry. 

Although a designated staff member is not available to conduct presentations and programs in 

nearby schools, refuge staff have met the current demand. The refuge currently conducts visits to the 

schools and libraries in Jennings, Elton, Lake Arthur, Welsh, Iowa, Bell City, and Lake Charles; 

accommodates field trips and tours; organizes volunteer groups from schools; and has provided 

opportunities for the Boy Scouts of America. Environmental education and interpretation are key 

components of all activities involving schools and Acadiana youths. At all opportunities, the refuge 

highlights the Fish and Wildlife Service, refuges, and wildlife and their habitats and how important 

conservation is in southwest Louisiana. Staff often respond to and answer questions from these 

groups and the public. 

Availability of Resources: At the current participation level for this use resources are slightly 

inadequate. With implementation of the comprehensive conservation plan, use will increase and 

additional resources will definitely be required. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The incidental disturbance of wildlife species may occur with any 

public use program. Environmental education and interpretation may result in some additional wildlife 

disturbance and temporary displacement of wildlife. Habitat destruction (e.g., mostly trampling) by 

approved or unapproved activity may also occur. Boardwalks, auto-tour routes, kiosks, and 

observation platforms are designed and placed to minimize disturbance. Visitors using the Lacassine 

Pool Wildlife Drive can cause considerable wildlife disturbance, particularly waterfowl in winter, if they 

exit their vehicle rather than remain inside as they travel the 3-mile loop. Improved education 

concerning the benefits of staying in and using a vehicle as a blind and periodic law enforcement 

patrols during peak visitation should minimize this disturbance factor. 

Environmental education and interpretation does not negatively impact the refuge and provides the public 

an important opportunity to connect with the natural world, and learn about fish and wildlife in this area. 

Environmental education and interpretation are not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact refuge 

resources although some incidental and short-term disturbance or trampling may occur. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 195

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Environmental education and interpretation will 

be confined to designated sites within the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. Outreach and 

education can be taken into the classroom, incorporated into presentations, and will be used at other 

forums—all of which have no deleterious affect on fish and wildlife at the refuge. Educational 

programs with groups will be organized and supervised in a manner to reduce impacts to wildlife, 

disturbance, and unacceptable destruction to refuge habitat (i.e., trampling vegetation). 

Justification: According to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 

environmental education and interpretation are priority public use activities that should be 

encouraged and expanded where possible. It is through compatible public uses such as these that 

the public becomes aware of and provides support for national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/202022 

Description of Use: 

(3) Recreational Freshwater Sport Fishing 

Freshwater sport fishing with pole and line has traditionally been allowed inside the 16,000-acre 

Lacassine Pool freshwater impoundment from March 15 – October 15. 

Only fishing with rod and reel or pole and line is permitted in refuge waters. The use or possession of 

any other type of fishing gear, including trotlines and juglines, is prohibited in all waters. 

Individuals or representatives of organizations seeking to sponsor or participate in fishing 

tournaments on the refuge should contact the refuge manager for special restrictions. 

All side canals, coves, bays, marshes and ponds off State of Louisiana waterways that traverse and 

surround the refuge are subject to refuge fishing regulations. 

Special informational note: Freshwater sport fishing is allowed year-round in State of Louisiana 

waterways that traverse and surround the refuge. Certain State waterways that flow through the 

refuge are subject to State of Louisiana fishing regulations. These waterways include the Lacassine 

Bayou, Streeter Canal between the Mermentau River and Lacassine Bayou, and the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway. Anglers should consult State regulations for special restrictions in these waterways. 
196 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: Freshwater sport fishing represents about 75 percent of the consumptive 

users on the refuge (~30,000 visitors annually). A considerable portion of the refuge budget is spent 

annually managing the Lacassine Pool for benefit of freshwater fisheries, conducting law enforcement 

patrols inside and outside Lacassine Pool, and ensuring refuge visitors are in accordance with boater 

safety and following other refuge regulations. 

Administration of the freshwater sport fishing program will require considerably more resources, 

particularly if and when fishing tournaments (also referred to as fishing derbies, clinics, or dog fights) 

are permitted. Currently, regulations are being evaluated to consider proper management of 

commercial-type fishing events due to public interest identified in the comprehensive conservation 

plan scoping meetings. Bass fishing anglers using the Lacassine Pool represent one of the most 

vocal segments of the public. Therefore, the refuge is evaluating all options to permit a limited 

number of tournaments, sufficient to maintain support from this segment of the public, but not in 

excess so that other users (e.g., recreational anglers, bird watchers, bank anglers, and others) will 

not be negatively affected. Currently, staff and resources can marginally cover management of 

freshwater sport fishing. If and when tournaments are allowed, additional resources will be needed to 

adequately manage this opportunity. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Boat traffic inside the Lacassine Pool is beneficial due to the current 

abundance of dense submergent plants and lack of open water areas available for access by anglers. 

Boat traffic opens up travel lanes thereby creating open water, which is needed by anglers and for 

which is highly valuable during the sanctuary period of the year (October 16-March 14) when the 

Lacassine Pool is closed due to its importance for migratory waterfowl (particularly ducks). Boat 

traffic creates more open water in the Lacassine Pool and this is valuable to both anglers and ducks 

(mutually beneficial). 

Boat traffic outside the Lacassine Pool in refuge waters has a negative impact on the refuge. Bank 

erosion, loss of adjacent upland vegetation (e.g., trees that stabilize the bank), and disturbance to 

aquatic vegetation, which occurs in only 5 percent of the marshes on the refuge outside Lacassine 

Pool, are occurring due to boat traffic and excessive boat speeds. The refuge is experiencing 

significant land loss as a result of boat traffic from fishing, hunting, commerce, oil and gas exploration, 

and other sources. Fishing in itself does not impact the refuge. Freshwater sport fishing is a 

wholesome, enjoyable, and wildlife-dependent public use opportunity that the refuge plans to 

continue to promote. However, the means for which anglers must access the refuge (i.e., via boat) is 

having a negative impact on the refuge. 

Freshwater sport fishing is a sedentary activity, in part, and participation in this activity generally 

results in litter on the refuge (e.g., fishing line, food, bait containers, soda/beer cans, and other 

“trash”). The refuge is required to retrieve trash numerous times per year in order to keep the refuge 

looking presentable. Trash is detrimental to the aesthetics of the refuge and can impact the digestive 

tract of birds, turtles, fish, alligators, and other resident and migratory wildlife. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 197

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Freshwater sport fishing will be allowed March 

15–October 15 in refuge waters, the time of year with the lowest migratory bird use, and only during 

the hours of one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset. Fishing from a boat, although 

having a negative affect outside the Lacassine Pool, will continue to be the primary method of access 

for anglers. 

Law enforcement patrols to enforce littering and refuge fishing regulations will be a high priority need. 

Current and future levels of fishing pressure are considered to be compatible with the purpose for 

which the refuge was established. 

Justification: According to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, fishing is 

a priority public use activity that should be encouraged and expanded where possible. It is through 

compatible public uses such as this that the public becomes aware of and provides support for 

national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/202022 

Description of use: 

(4) Recreational Freshwater Sport Fishing Tournaments 

Freshwater tournament fishing with pole and line has occurred on refuge waters for an unknown 

amount of time and has been handled since 1993, subject to special use permit conditions specific to 

each tournament. Most tournaments are catch and release with the largest fish kept for weighing. 

Fish that the angler wants to keep for the weighing are kept in a live well and culled as larger fish are 

caught. This use is mainly associated with the 16,000-acre Lacassine Pool. There is limited demand 

for fishing tournaments on other portions of the refuge. 

Through the years the staff of Lacassine Refuge has identified three classes of fishing tournaments 

that occur on refuge: Multiple Water Tournaments; Off-site Tournaments, which focus on taking fish 

from the refuge, and On-site Tournaments. Descriptions of these tournaments are as follows: 

Multiple Water Tournaments: These tournaments are usually sponsored by large organizations. 

All organizational, administrative, and judging activities occur off the refuge, usually in a centrally 

located municipality. These tournaments are highly publicized and have a large number of 

participants. Some participants may be professional anglers. The fishing activity occurs over a large 

geographical area, such as southwest Louisiana or a specific watershed, which may include national 

wildlife refuges. Numerous species of fish may be targeted or it could be a species-specific 

tournament. Refuges are not singled out by the tournament operators. Prizes are both monetary and 

material and can be of substantial value. Participants involved in the tournament may or may not 

choose to fish on a refuge. Local examples of these tournaments are the STAR (multiple species 

tournament) and National Red Fish Tournament. Because these tournaments are not targeting 
198 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

refuge water but a large geographical area and have a time honored tradition of managing the 

tournament as described above, the refuge will not regulate this form of fishing tournament. 

Off-site Tournaments (target taking fish from the refuge): These tournaments tend to fall in a 

gray area in that you are not always sure if the tournaments are occurring, and the participants are 

indistinguishable from other individuals fishing on the refuge. The host of the tournament may be a 

declared non-profit organization, a local entrepreneur, or an unaffiliated individual. Locally, these are 

often referred to as a “dog fight,” ”rodeo,” and “derby.” Oftentimes these events are advertised locally 

within a very small geographical area. Advertisement is by word of mouth, posters in store windows, 

or in lesser known publications. Prizes are usually monetary. The target area for these tournaments 

is very explicit, such as the Lacassine Pool, where many bass of record size have been taken. The 

target species is Florida largemouth bass. Organizational, administrative, and judging activities occur 

off-refuge. When possible, the refuge will work with sponsors of such tournaments to advise them 

that the activity they are conducting requires a special use permit from the refuge. 

On-Site Tournaments: These tournaments may have the same characteristics as the tournaments 

identified above except organizational, administrative, judging, and the fishing activities occur onrefuge. These tournaments will be managed through a recreational special use permitting program. 

Availability of Resources: Tournament fishing represents a small portion of all recreational users 

on the refuge. Management activities associated with tournaments include: law enforcement patrols 

that ensure tournament participants are in compliance with state and federal boater safety regulations 

and are following permit and other refuge-specific regulations; administrative personnel involved in 

managing the permitting process; biologists needed to plan and conduct habitat management; 

monitoring and fish stocking; and maintenance personnel needed to conduct litter control, boat ramp, 

sign, and road and other maintenance. Currently, resources are available to manage a limited 

duration tournament program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: As tournaments became popular on the refuge, they highlighted the 

fisheries resource on the refuge. They became a time-honored tradition that overshadowed managing 

the refuge to fulfill the purpose for which it was established. For many years this has caused some 

conflict between the public and refuge management officials. However, recent efforts to work closer with 

the public seems to have tempered former negative relationships, and a more positive working 

relationship with tournament sponsors and the sport fishing community have emerged. 

Certain segments of the fishing community find fishing tournaments disruptive on the refuge and have 

complained about tournament participants dominating the waterways, roads, and parking areas, 

creating safety problems and in some cases exhibiting poor ethical boating and fishing behavior. 

Some anglers complain about finding dead fish at the weigh-in location. Other segments of the 

fishing community enjoy the competition and camaraderie of fishing tournaments and claim to 

encourage good fisheries management. 

To address the various concerns among anglers, limited-duration tournaments will need to be 

authorized in a manner that will have minimal impacts on recreational fishing enthusiasts who are not 

involved in the tournaments and other natural resources. 

Many tournament fishing enthusiasts come to the Lacassine Pool to fish exclusively for the Florida 

largemouth bass. This species has been stocked in Lacassine Pool by the Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries for over 10 years. With continuing stocking efforts, the species continues to 

interbreed with the native northern bass. The public generally accepts that Florida bass and its 

hybrids are resident bass within the Lacassine Pool. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 199

The practice of holding fish in live wells and culling smaller fish in exchange for holding larger fish for 

tournament purposes has caused concern among some anglers and Federal and State biologists. The 

major concern is the spreading of largemouth bass virus. Research indicates that live-release angling 

tournaments cause a significant physiological disturbance in largemouth bass, specifically with plasma 

cortisol, glucose concentrations, and plasma osmolarity in largemouth bass sampled five minutes 

following weighing (Suski et al., 2003). Tournament-caught fish are often kept in live wells for several 

hours, and if bigger fish are caught, the smaller fish, stressed from being in the live wells, are released. 

Largemouth bass virus has been found to date to only produce disease in largemouth bass, even though 

other fish can carry the disease. The disease can slow growth and fish that are stressed by poor water 

quality, crowding in live wells, and frequent handling are more likely to die from the disease. 

Live release angling tournaments can expose largemouth bass to periods of hypoxia (Furimski et al., 

2003). Also, it has been shown that temperature is an important determinant in host survival to 

largemouth bass virus (Grant et al., 2003). 

Roads and travel corridors to boat launching sites on the refuge can be injurious or fatal to wildlife. 

Vehicle incidents involving wildlife, such as reptiles, amphibians, and some migratory and resident 

mammals and birds, have been observed on the roadways to and from boat launching sites. This 

situation can be partially corrected by enforcing speed limits on the refuge and making the public 

aware of wildlife crossing the roads. 

Tournament participant’s boats and trailers could accidentally release invasive aquatic plant species 

into Lacassine Pool and certain species, such as Salvinia molesta, could be extremely detrimental if 

introduced. Signs are currently posted at all boat launching sites, making anglers and boat owners 

aware of the problem and providing recommendations on how to address the matter. 

During tournaments, overzealous anglers could cause disturbance to nesting resident and migratory 

birds in Lacassine Pool. Time and space zoning will be needed to address this impact. 

Some tournaments, if managed proactively, could be a benefit to biologists if staff or volunteers are 

made available to properly handle fish and collect valuable data, such as weight, length, age, and, 

when appropriate, take body samples for genetic identification purposes. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Limited duration off-site largemouth bass 

tournaments, which focus on taking fish from the refuge, and on-site largemouth bass tournament

fishing will be allowed in refuge waters from March 15–September 30, on specific dates by special 

use permit only and will not exceed over three tournaments per month. This is the time of year with 
200 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

the lowest migratory bird use on the refuge. Tournament slot dates will be identified in early February 

and a competitive process will be used to allocate slot dates. 

The program will be managed as a Refuge Recreation Fee Program in which a portion of the funds 

generated from the competitive allocation process will be used to maintain the public use facilities on 

the refuge. The zoning of tournament activities may be used to protect nesting water birds and to 

alleviate congestion. 

Tournament sponsors will be required to conduct their tournaments as follows: 

• All bass captured will be retained and removed from the refuge at the end of the tournament. 

All anglers will be discouraged from holding fish in live wells and culling fish for size to aid in 

controlling the spread of largemouth bass virus. 

• Law enforcement patrols to enforce special use permit and refuge fishing regulations will be a 

high-priority need. 

• Will be required to exhibit proof of insurance for potential damages to facilities or habitat as a 

result of tournament activities. 

Justification: Sport fishing tournaments, as regulated by special use permit, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purpose(s) of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge.

Mandatory 10-Year Re-Evaluation Date: 05/202017 

References: 

Furimsky, M, Cooke, S. J., Suski, C. D., Wang, Y., and B. L. Tufts. 2003. Respiratory and circulatory 

responses to hypoxia in largemouth bass and smallmouth bass: implications for “live release” 

angling tournaments. American Fisheries Society. Transactions, 132(6): pp. 1065-1075; 2003 

ISSN: 0002-8487. Allen Press. 

Grant, E. C., D. P. Philipp, K. R. Inendino, and T. L. Goldberg. 2003. Effects of temperature on the 

susceptibility of largemouth bass to largemouth bass virus. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 

15(3): pp. 215-220; ISSN: 0899-7659. Allen Press. 

Suski, C. D., Killen S. S., Morrissey, M. B., Lund, S. G., and B. L. Tufts. 2003. Physiological changes in 

largemouth bass caused by live-releasing angling tournaments in southeastern Ontario. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23(3): pp. 779-786; ISSN: 0275-5947. Allen Press. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 201

Description of Use: 

(5) Recreational Hunting 

Waterfowl hunting and white-tailed deer hunting opportunities are available on the refuge. Waterfowl 

hunting is available in conjunction with the annually set (variable) duck season, although the refuge 

currently allows hunting on Wednesday-Sundays (5 consecutive days a week). Proposed modification to 

the hunting dates for waterfowl season may be changed to Wednesday-Thursday and Saturday-Sunday 

only per week in the near future. The refuge is closed during the goose-only hunting season. Whitetailed deer hunting is available October 1-31 annually using archery equipment only. The beginning of the 

State of Louisiana archery season may begin prior to 

October 1, but the refuge does not allow archery hunting on the refuge prior to October 1. Waterfowl 

hunters and white-tailed deer archers must remove hunting equipment from the refuge daily (i.e., no deer 

stands, blinds, decoys, piroques, or other hunting-related equipment may be stored on the refuge). 

Waterfowl hunting is available on 10,434 acres, which includes an 850-acre site that provides walk-in 

hunting access for youths/seniors selected via a special drawing lottery hunt. The notification and 

selection of participants for the hunt and lottery are held from September-October each year. The refuge 

provides 4-8 blinds annually. Youth hunts occur on Saturdays and senior hunts occur on Wednesdays 

during the State-designated waterfowl season. The refuge does not provide decoys or materials to further 

camouflage the pit blinds. The blinds are capable of holding 3 hunters each (two youths or seniors; and 

one adult 21 years of age or older). A minimum of one youth must possess proof of completing a State 

certified hunter safety course (can be the applicant or an identified guest). Successful applicants are 

offered one or more scout days prior to the opening of the hunting season. In addition to the special 

youth/senior lottery hunt, a lottery drawing is held for the 400-acre Duck Pond--a managed hunt area. A 

drawing is held in conjunction with the youth/senior lottery drawing to select participants for a managed 

hunt occurring only on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Applicants/guests are not required to meet refuge 

personnel the morning of their hunt. The hunt is a self-regulated lottery hunt. However, all participants 

are required to complete the harvest form in order to be considered for future hunts. This information is 

critical to the proper evaluation of the special lottery hunt. 

The white-tailed deer harvest is limited to an archery season only. Archers may harvest a maximum 

of one buck or one doe per day. The State allows deer hunters to harvest six deer total (all methods) 

per year. The refuge archery season is open annually for all dates in October. The entire refuge is 

open to archery hunting except for the headquarters unit and 45-acre field surrounding the 

maintenance facility at the Lacassine Pool. Areas closed are posted. Bowhunters participating in the 

refuge white-tailed deer archery hunt must possess a signed copy of the refuge hunting permit and 

proof of completing an accredited Louisiana Bowhunters Safety Course. 

All-terrain vehicle use is restricted to disabled hunters on designated routes of travel only. Disabled 

hunters using all-terrain vehicles on the refuge must possess proof of a State certified disability. 

Availability of Resources: There are adequate resources to ensure and administer the use at its 

current level of participation. However, additional resources may be required for resource protection 

and administration as participation grows. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The incidental taking 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 will be very small, and will not directly or cumulatively 

impact population levels on the refuge or in the surrounding area. Currently, the refuge does not 
202 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

have any threatened or endangered species so concerns about incidental take of protected species 

are non-existent. Implementation of a highly effective law enforcement program and continued 

development of special regulations for this use will eliminate most incidental take problems. 

Hunter access to the hunt areas is limited to walking only, with the exception of all-terrain vehicle use 

by disabled hunters, so impacts such as trampling and noise disturbance should be minimal. 

Hunting is not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact refuge resources negatively. As a 

consumptive use, hunting will have some minimal and short-term direct impacts on refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Waterfowl hunting is open to the general public, 

although special lottery and managed hunts are available to youth and seniors. All youth, no more 

than two per blind, must be supervised by an adult 21 years of age or older. Hunters must hunt from 

designated blinds only. The waterfowl season will follow the framework of the State regulated 

season. Waterfowl hunting dates and shooting hours ending times are refuge-specific. Permits are 

required and a post hunt information card must be completed following each hunt. 

The archery only white-tailed deer season will be open only for a period that corresponds with a 

closed State waterfowl season. Parking is allowed in designated areas. Boat access from inside the 

Lacassine Pool for archery season is available only between October 1 and October 15. 

Current and future levels of hunter participation are considered to be compatible with the purpose for 

which the refuge was established. 

Justification: According to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, hunting is 

a priority public use activity that should be encouraged and expanded where possible. It is through 

compatible public uses such as this that the public becomes aware of and provides support for 

national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/202022 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 203

Description of Use: 

(6) Research and Monitoring 

Research includes experiments and monitoring to increase one’s knowledge of ecosystem function 

and local responses to management actions to attain the goal of more efficient and productive habitat 

management. This activity will allow university students and professors, and non-governmental and 

governmental researchers to conduct both short- and long-term research projects. Results of this 

research will allow managers to assess the success of management activities and develop a library of 

“Best Management Practices” on a refuge-specific basis. All research requests will be evaluated on a 

project-by-project basis to determine merit and applicability to refuge programs. 

Availability of Resources: Research conducted by other organizations will assist refuge staff to 

establish baseline monitoring at or above the current level to improve data management, analysis, 

interpretation, and implementation. Current staffing levels are not adequate to fully monitor all refuge 

programs and responses. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: There can be negative impacts from scientific research and monitoring 

on the refuge. Impacts, such as trampling vegetation, all-terrain vehicle use, and temporary 

disturbance to wildlife, will occur. Individual plants or animals may be handled, collected, and/or 

removed from the refuge permanently for further study. These collections will not likely adversely 

affect refuge plant and animal populations overall. Removal of plants and animals from the refuge, or 

conversely, introduction of non-native plants and animals must be carefully monitored and controlled. 

Other important impacts from research and monitoring may include: (1) noise disturbance from 

helicopter, airplane, airboat, truck, or car could likely temporarily displace wildlife; (2) physical 

presence of people or equipment could temporarily displace wildlife; (3) ground and marsh 

disturbance by stirring sediments from walking on site or the use of equipment; (4) water 

disturbance from equipment or walking; and (5) increased predation on animal species being 

investigated due to trails, human scent, and frequent activity in an identifiable area. Despite these 

impacts, the knowledge gained from carefully considered and properly exercised scientifically 

defensible research will provide information and justification to improve management techniques and 

better meet the needs of trust resource species. 

Research and monitoring activities on the refuge are not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact 

refuge resources negatively even though some minimal short-term and direct impacts may occur. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 
204 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All researchers will be required to obtain and 

possess a special use permit from the refuge. Individual requests to use specialized equipment (e.g., 

all-terrain vehicles and airboats) will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and justified or not on 

each permit. Researchers will periodically be evaluated for compliance of all special use permit 

requirements. Periodic progress reports will be required and final copies of all reports and 

publications will be provided to the refuge. The refuge will not directly supply personnel or equipment 

unless arrangements were made prior to issuance of the special use permit. The refuge manager 

reserves the right to delegate a staff member to accompany permittee(s) at any time. All plants or 

animals sampled, collected, or released must be done so in a scientifically accepted manner as 

specified by professional scientific societies, such as the Society for the Study of Amphibians and 

Reptiles, the American Society of Mammologists, the American Ornithological Society, the 

Icthyologists League, the Entomological Society of America, and the Botanical Society of America. 

Under the guidance listed above for the appropriate species, incidental take and inadvertent 

trampling is expected to be minimal and will be addressed with each permit request. 

Given compliance with the restrictions set in each special use permit, research conducted on the 

refuge is considered to be compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Justification: The benefits from sound research and monitoring provide a better understanding of 

species, habitats, and the environmental communities present on the refuge. Implementation of the 

comprehensive conservation plan will require additional monitoring and/or research to evaluate and 

re-evaluate the management programs used on the refuge. The benefits, however, greatly outweigh 

any short-term disturbance or loss of individual plants or animals that may occur. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/202017 

Description of Use: 

(7) Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The refuge will allow wildlife observation and photography on select areas of the refuge. 

Photography is encouraged while engaging in other permitted public use activities. The refuge has 

no photography blinds available; however, the temporary use of a portable blind is permitted. The 

refuge offers a 3-mile wildlife drive (i.e., automobile-accessible tour road) at the Lacassine Pool Unit. 

This wildlife drive circumnavigates an area with abundant wildlife (e.g., waterfowl in winter; rookery, 

wading birds, and alligators in summer) and provides an outstanding opportunity for the public to view 

wildlife at a safe, close range. 

Observation platforms and/or boardwalks are provided at the headquarters site, Streeter Road, and 

at the Lacassine Pool to enhance public participation and to minimize disturbance to wildlife. 

Spotting scopes are provided on all elevated observation platforms and most facilities are 

handicapped-accessible. Much of the refuge is adjacent to and associated with major State 

waterways (i.e., Mermentau River, Lacassine Bayou, Grand Lake, and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway), 

which are accessible by boat. 

Given the refuge’s proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, neotropical migratory songbirds may spend 

considerable time using refuge resources during their trans-gulf flight. When this occurs, bird 

watchers are permitted and encouraged to hike into other accessible areas on the refuge. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 205

Availability of Resources: At the current level of participation, resources for this use are adequate. 

Enrollment in the Refuge Recreation Fee Demonstration Program and/or initiating fees for leaflets 

and brochures supporting existing and future hunting and fishing programs, including fees for boat 

launch, special hunts, commercial hunting and fishing guides, etc., will all be considered as a 

potential source of revenue to offset costs to promote and manage existing and future public use 

opportunities, particularly the priority public uses of the Refuge System. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The incidental disturbance of wildlife species, either illegally or 

unintentionally, may occur with any public use program. Wildlife observation and photography may 

result in some additional wildlife disturbance. Habitat destruction (mostly trampling) by approved or 

unapproved activity may also occur. Boardwalks, auto-tour routes, observation platforms, and photo 

blinds (if made available) are designed and placed to minimize wildlife disturbances. Wildlife in these 

areas frequently become accustomed to usage patterns and over time become tolerant of normal 

observation techniques. Signs and interpretive panels are placed on the auto-tour route and other 

public use areas, informing the public of this fact. Frequently, users of the Lacassine Pool Wildlife 

Drive will get out of their vehicle and disturb wildlife. Effective educational and law enforcement 

programs should seek to minimize this disturbance factor. 

Wildlife observation and photography are not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact refuge resources 

negatively even though there may be some minimal and direct short-term disturbance or trampling. 

Photography as described in this compatibility determination refers to amateur photography only. 

Professional photographers seeking to capture images of wildlife or nature for purposes of distributing them 

for profit are not covered or authorized to proceed under this compatibility determination. A special use 

permit is required for commercial activities or any income-generating activity on a national wildlife refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Public access for wildlife observation and 

photography will be allowed in designated areas only. An increase in law enforcement patrols will 

minimize illegal or undesirable activity. Wildlife observation and photography will be monitored to 

document any negative impacts. If and when negative impacts to wildlife are identified, corrective 

action will be taken to reduce or eliminate them. Public access of many of the key observation and 

photography areas may be closed during extremely wet periods for road protection and visitor safety. 

Newly constructed viewing areas will be designed to minimize disturbance impacts to wildlife and 

other refuge resources while providing the best possible opportunity to view wildlife in their 

natural environments. 
206 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Given the limited access (primarily by foot), wildlife observation and photography are viewed as 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Justification: According to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, wildlife 

observation and photography are priority public use activities that should be encouraged and 

expanded where possible. It is through compatible public uses such as this that the public becomes 

aware of and provides support for national wildlife refuges. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/202022 

Description of Use: 

(8) Commercial Alligator Harvest 

Since the re-establishment of alligator harvests in Louisiana in 1983, the refuge has cooperated with 

the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in the commercial harvest of alligators. The 

attachment, titled “Justification for the Commercial Harvest of Alligators,” describes alligator ecology 

and harvest history for this species in southwest Louisiana and on the refuges on the Southwest 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The attachment also discusses refuge objectives and 

goals as they relate to the management of alligators. 

Availability of Resources: Adequate refuge personnel and other resources are available to 

manage alligator harvest activities at present levels. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Commercial harvest of alligators could result in some disturbance to 

wildlife adjacent to the hunted areas, especially those areas associated with canals. Some minimal 

trampling of vegetation may also occur near harvest sites. However, it is anticipated that this 

disturbance will be minimal. Hunt areas are designed and placed to minimize disturbance potential. 

Alligator harvests are not expected to indirectly, or cumulatively impact refuge resources negatively 

even though there may be some minimal and direct short-term disturbance or trampling. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Commercial harvest of alligators will be allowed 

in designated areas only. Activities will be monitored to document any negative impacts to alligator 

populations and other wildlife. If negative impacts are found, corrective action will be taken to reduce 

or eliminate these impacts. Access to key hunt areas may be closed during adverse weather 

conditions for protection of infrastructure (i.e., roads and levees) and hunter safety. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 207

To minimize impacts on refuge lands and resources, law enforcement patrols, in conjunction with a 

mandatory check system for biological information, will be routinely conducted in an effort to 

maximize compliance with policies, rules, and regulations. The following stipulations apply to specialuse permits issued for commercial harvest of alligators: 

• Quotas will be assigned yearly. Permittee must take all alligators harvested until his/her quota 

is filled, beginning with the day after Labor Day and extending continuously for a total of 

a 10-day period. 

• The refuge manager has the authority to cancel this permit and/or reduce quotas based on 

alligator population data and refuge management objectives. Special conditions and quotas 

will be issued prior to the season. Violation of any Federal, State, or refuge regulation, or 

special condition will result in immediate cancellation of the permit and all alligators 

will be seized. 

• Permittee will furnish all needed equipment, including licenses and tags, which must be ready 

prior to the season. Permittee may not use refuge equipment. 

• Permittee will be allowed to use mudboats, go-devils, and motors over 25 horsepower during 

the hunting season, and while scouting and baiting hooks, unless otherwise authorized. No 

airboats will be allowed. Any other form of transportation will require prior refuge approval. 

General access to harvest units will be as defined by the refuge manager. 

• Each alligator set must be made clearly visible by marking each alligator set pole with orange 

surveyor’s flagging 12 to 15 inches long, making sure all sets are well flagged to ensure daily 

checking and removal of sets. Permittee will provide the refuge with a map of sets when 

requested by refuge officials. 

• No alcohol possession while on the refuge. 

• Boats operated on the refuge before sunrise and after sunset must be operated with 

running lights. 

• Permittee must personally hunt the unit each morning, and arrive on the refuge one hour 

before sunrise to begin harvesting alligators at official sunrise. The permittee must check all 

refuge lines before hunting in other areas. No nighttime hunting is permitted. Permittee’s 

assistants must have a State helper's license if they shoot. In the event of illness or injury, a 

designated assistant may hunt the unit for the permittee with prior approval. If permittee 

decides not to hunt, he or she must notify the refuge manager no later than one week before 

the start of the season. When this occurs, an alternate hunter will be given the opportunity to 

assume the permit for the remainder of permit (3 years maximum). The permittee will be 

eligible for subsequent permit drawings under these circumstances. 

• Permittee may take alligators by using set pole, line, and baited hooks only. Wildlife is not 

permitted to be used as bait. Firearms (minimum caliber of 22 magnum) may only be used to 

kill hooked alligators. If shotguns are used, only non-toxic shot will be permitted. All weapons 

must be unloaded and encased while in refuge parking areas, boat launches, or in route to 

and from designated harvest areas. Caution must be used when using firearms because of 

the presence of fishermen and other individuals on the refuge during the season. Permittees 

are responsible for human safety near their sets and are encouraged to ask the refuge 
208 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

manager for guidance. No sets will be allowed in areas that jeopardize the health of other 

refuge users. Sets placed near areas of public use (i.e., active boat travel ways, roadside 

canals, and boat launches) need to be placed in such a way so not to jeopardize human 

safety or alternative sites should be used. 

• All hooked alligators will be killed immediately. Each alligator must be tagged immediately 

after being killed. No high grading will be permitted. If a hooked alligator has been chewed or 

partially eaten by another alligator, it will be tagged regardless. No cuts will be allowed behind 

the head or at the base of the tail. Under no circumstances will permittee transport an 

untagged alligator. 

• Each permittee is responsible for collecting information on each alligator caught. Data sheets 

will be provided on which each permittee must record the State tag number he or she placed 

on the alligator along with the length, tail girth, sex, the numbers from any metal tags found in 

the feet of each animal, location of missing scutes, and comments on the general condition of 

the animal (e.g., missing legs, scars, and missing tails). Completed alligator data sheets will 

be provided daily to the refuge where permittee is hunting. Each alligator will be identified by 

its State tag number. 

• If permittee uses all tags and has extra alligators on lines, he or she is responsible for notifying the 

refuge law enforcement officer or refuge manager. Permittees who still need alligators will be 

notified by the refuge law enforcement officer or refuge manager and will take other permittee’s 

alligators as instructed. If the quota is filled on a weekend, notification can be on the next 

business day. Sale manifest must be provided to the refuge office within three days. 

• Permittee will remove all alligator sets and markers within 24 hours of either the close of the 

season or after their assigned quota is reached, whichever comes first. 

• Permittee will remove all personal equipment, such as boats, trailers, or other gear, from the 

refuge within 24 hours of the end of the season or after their assigned quota is reached, 

whichever comes first. Permittees are allowed to leave a maximum of two boats and/or 

equipment on the refuge while harvesting, although the refuge is not responsible for theft, 

damage, loss, etc. 

• Meat and all other merchantable parts of the alligators will be disposed of according 

to State regulations. 

• Permittee may sell either whole alligators or alligator hides and meat. 

• When whole alligators and hides are sold, the permittee must sell for no less than the 

minimum market price. Alligator hides must be sold to the highest bidder. Financial 

irresponsibility is justification for grounds in revoking this permit. Selling below the current 

market value constitutes a waste of natural resources. Permittee is responsible for all 

alligators taken and for paying the Fish and Wildlife Service 40 percent of the gross value at 

time of sale. When an alligator(s) and/or its hide(s) are destroyed, ruined, or determined as 

missing, or no payment is received from the buyer, insufficient checks are issued by the 

buyers, or any other similar circumstances, the Bill for Collection will be based on 40 percent 

of the expected gross sales price per foot during that particular alligator season. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 209

If the Service does not receive payment for any hide(s) and/or alligator(s), the permittee will be in 

violation of the special use permit and will be subject to civil prosecution, as well as termination of the 

special use permit. 

Permittee is responsible for carrying a flexible tape measure to ensure all bonus tags are on alligators 

less than six feet and proper biological measurements are taken. All unused Louisiana sale tags will 

be turned over to the refuge. 

Given limited access and timing restrictions, commercial harvest of alligators is viewed as compatible 

with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Justification: Following the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, 

many refuge operation policies and uses have been reviewed. One such activity currently being 

reviewed for Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, consisting of Cameron Prairie, 

Lacassine, Sabine, and Shell Keys Refuges, is the commercial alligator harvest. 

Current policies preclude commercial operations on refuges other than for biological reasons. The 

following report was written to assess biological reasons for continuing the current alligator harvest or 

to identify required changes to the current alligator harvest strategy. 

Ecology

Alligators are opportunistic feeders (McIlhenny 1935). McIlhenny (1935) stated that at some time 

in an alligator’s life it will eat every living thing coming in range of its jaws. Many authors agree 

that a relationship exists between alligator size and the type of food eaten (Giles and Childs 

1949; Valentine et al., 1972; McNease and Joanen 1977; Wolfe et al., 1987). Studies have 

indicated that alligators less than 1.5 m (4.9‘) in length feed primarily on crustaceans, fishes, and 

insects (Giles and Childs 1949; Fogarty and Albury 1968; Valentine et al., 1972; McNease and 

Joanen 1977; Wolfe et al., 1987; Elsey et al., 1992), while larger alligators eat primarily 

mammals, fishes, crustaceans, and birds (Valentine et al., 1972; McNease and Joanen 1977; 

Wolfe et al., 1987; Shoop and Ruckdeschel 1990; Borden-Billiot, unpub. data). 

McNease and Joanen (1977) reported that alligator diets are mainly determined by availability 

and vulnerability of the prey species. If these factors are equal for prey species in an area, then 

selecting the largest food available should maximize feeding efficiency (Wolfe et al., 1987). 

Nutria (Myocaster coypus) and muskrats (Ondatra zibethica) fulfill theses criteria for much of the 

alligator’s range. Because of the high reproductive rate of both prey species (Perry 1982; Willner 

1982), it is unlikely that alligator predation has a long-term effect on their populations (Wolfe et 

al., 1987). It is likely that substantial numbers of muskrats and nutria are taken in areas where 

they coexist with alligators (Wolfe et al., 1987). 

Food habit studies that considered prey volume rated birds among the major food items for alligators 

(McIlhenny 1935; Valentine et al., 1972). Birds taken by alligators have been predominantly common 

resident water birds including: gallinules and rails (Gruiformes) (Borden-Billiot unpub. data), herons, 

egrets, and bitterns (Ciconiformes), and mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) (Giles and Childs 1949; 

Valentine et al., 1972, Elsey et al., 2004). The alligator may be the single, most efficient predator of 

adult mottled ducks and ducklings (Stutzenbaker 1984, Elsey et al., 2004) and is one of the most 

common predators of Rallidae species and their nests (Griej 1994; Reid et al., 1994). Migratory 

waterfowl generally do not arrive on the Complex until cooler temperatures exist. This cooler weather 

leads to winter dormancy and reduced feeding activity by alligators (Neill 1971, Delany 1986). 
210 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Amphibians are rarely reported as alligator foods, but reptiles, especially turtles and snakes, are 

frequently eaten (Wolfe et al., 1987; Gibbons 1990). It has been suggested that prey items, which 

are resistant to digestion, such as mammals, birds, and crustaceans, may tend to be overrepresented while rapidly digested prey species, such as amphibians and fish, may be underrepresented in food studies (Delany and Abercrombie 1986). 

Alligators are cannibalistic (Giles and Childs 1949; Valentine et al., 1972; Nichols et al., 1976; Taylor 

1980; Delany and Abercrombie 1986; Rootes and Chabreck 1993). The most recent evaluation of 

cannibalism was conducted on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, where Rootes and Chabreck 

(1993) discovered that this behavior is an important population regulating mechanism. It was 

estimated that cannibalism accounted for 50.2 percent of total hatchling mortality and 63.7 percent of 

total mortality in alligators 11 months and older (Rootes and Chabreck 1993). Mortality due to 

cannibalism may be distributed proportionately among all cohorts in the 0.4-2.1 m (1.2-6.9‘) total 

length (TL) size classes (Rootes and Chabreck 1993). Males and females were eaten in the same 

proportions as they occurred in the population (Rootes and Chabreck 1993). 

History of Louisiana Alligator Harvest

Numerous accounts of alligator hunting dating as far back as 1718 can be found in Joanen and 

McNease 1987. McIlhenny (1935) estimated that 3 to 3 1⁄2 million alligators were harvested in 

Louisiana from 1880 to 1933. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge harvested about 1,000 alligators per 

year from 1946 to 1951(SNWR-ANR 1946-1951). The alligator population showed signs of decline 

during the early 1950s. With the larger alligators becoming difficult to harvest following population 

declines, tanners established new markets for smaller sized skins. 

Exploitation of the alligator continued in Louisiana until 1962 when the State of Louisiana prohibited 

the taking of alligators. Since then, Louisiana has made a concentrated effort to scientifically manage 

this valuable resource. Alligator numbers today are estimated to be near those which existed at the 

turn of the century (Joanen and McNease 1987). 

 

After 15 years of research, extensive law enforcement efforts and the enactment of effective State 

and Federal laws governing the taking, possession, and transportation of alligators and their 

products, Louisiana’s first scientifically managed alligator harvest was initiated in 1972, with the 

purpose of providing a sustainable yield of alligators in to the future. Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge’s first alligator harvest since 1951 was held in 1983. 

Annual harvest of the alligator is based upon population estimates derived from aerial nest censuses 

conducted each year. Aerial surveys of the coastal marsh zone have been conducted annually since 

1970. Coastal alligator habitat is subdivided into three major subdivisions according to origin: the 

Chenier Plain, Sub-Delta and Active Delta Zones. Each subdivision is further divided based on 

vegetation and salinities. Over the years, approximately 4 percent of the annual population estimate 

has been allotted for harvest. 

The overall alligator population increased dramatically (10.1 percent annually) in the Chenier Plain 

(southwestern Louisiana) zone between 1970 and 1983. Alligator densities of the Chenier Plain were 

estimated at 1 alligator per 5.4 acres (Joanen and McNease 1987). Privately owned property, 90 

percent of which was hunted, showed an increase of 11.0 percent, whereas refuges and wildlife 

management areas, where only limited hunting occurred, had an increase of 9.7 percent over the 

same 14-year period (Joanen and McNease 1987). 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 211

There were 100,712 alligators harvested throughout Louisiana between 1972 and 1983. Harvest 

strategies are geared to harvest primarily males and immature animals of both sexes. Telemetry 

studies (Joanen and McNease 1970, 1972; McNease and Joanen 1974) suggest that a September 

hunt, restricted to daytime hunting and open water areas, will result in a harvest that protects 

reproductive female alligators. 

Refuge Alligator Harvest Goals

The goal of the refuge alligator harvest is to maintain a viable alligator population while limiting the 

alligator’s influence on other species and/or user groups on the refuge. Actual alligator population 

goals have not been formally established at any of the refuges within the Complex. According to the 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan (1963) and the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Hunt 

Plan (1980) the recommended population range for the refuge was 5,000 - 7,000 alligators. When 

the plans were written there were an estimated 9,000 alligators on the refuge. Current population 

estimates for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge range from 22,000 - 39,775. Alligator populations 

statewide and on the refuges have increased dramatically over the past 40 years. It is apparent that 

alligator population goals need to be established or updated for each of the three refuges. 

Available population estimates for the Chenier Plain could be used as a reference to set goals. The 

alligator population increased at a dramatic rate (10 percent per year) between 1970 -1983. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries estimated an average of one alligator per 5.4 acres 

from 1970 through 1983. The following table uses this alligator density estimate to calculate a 

possible population goal for each of the refuges. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries alligator density estimate (1970 – 1983) used 

to calculate refuge population goals 

Refuge Acres Ratio of alligators to 

acres 

Calculated 

Population Goal 

Cameron Prairie 9,621 1:5.4 1,782

Sabine, East Cove Unit 14,927 1:5.4 2,764

Sabine 125,790 1:5.4 23,294

Lacassine 27,035 1:5.4 5,006

The 1970 -1983 average population numbers were 60 percent greater than 1972 populations when 

the State set its first alligator harvest season. The population numbers at that time were considered 

sufficient to allow alligators to recover from catastrophic events. 

Based on the annual estimated number of nesting females on each refuge, the Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries estimated that the 2004 alligator population for each of the refuges was: 

Refuge Number of alligators 

Cameron Prairie 12,735

Sabine, East Cove Unit 8,440

Sabine 86,464

Lacassine 23,905
212 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

These numbers are far above the calculated population goals for the refuges and with State take 

being limited to less then 5 percent of the estimated number of alligators, there appears to be 

little chance for overharvest and decreased opportunities for public viewing of alligators. Since 

the establishment of the sustainable alligator harvest program (1972), the Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries has concluded that the alligator population has generally continued to 

increase (LDWF 1999). Nest count trends continue increasing with each year, which in turn may 

indicate a growing population. 

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, in cooperation with the Complex, conducts 

intense surveys of Federal refuges as part of its regular state-wide surveys. This ecosystem-wide 

approach has built working relationships among the agencies, and accomplishes the refuge 

objectives. These coordinated surveys provide the refuges the opportunity to determine if the refuge 

alligator population trends coincide with State population trends. If discrepancies are discovered in 

population trends, harvest modifications could be implemented. 

Biological Implications of Alligator Harvest

If alligator harvest is reduced or removed from refuges, alligator populations may continue to increase 

to a point that may negatively impact both their populations and populations of other fish and wildlife. 

As populations increase, growth rates decline, affecting survivorship. Rootes (1989) indicated that 

growth rates in young alligators can greatly affect survivorship. Survivorship in sub-adult alligators 

has been shown to be a function of size, with survivorship increasing as size increases (Nichols et al.,

1976). Jacobsen and Kushlan (1989) suggest that if an alligator grows slower, it will take longer to 

reach sexual maturity and increase its susceptibility to predation, disease, and cannibalism. A study 

of growth levels in juvenile alligators at different stocking densities indicated that all alligators 

continued to grow during the experiment, but alligators maintained at lowest stocking density were 

significantly heavier and grew significantly faster than alligators at the highest stocking density (Elsey 

et al., 1990). These results indicate that crowding of juvenile alligators inhibits maximum growth 

rates. Studies of other crocodilian species have also shown this reduction in growth in overcrowding 

situations. In a study on growth of C. johnstoni in a controlled environmental chamber, Webb et al., 

(1983) noted that density was an important determinant of mortality and food conversion rates, with 

animals at the lowest density showing the highest food conversion rate. 

Several studies on levels of reproduction hormones due to acute stress have also been conducted. 

Over-population or crowding has been shown to cause stress. Elsey et al., (1990) reported that 

elevated levels of plasma corticosterone levels in alligators maintained at high stocking densities had 

a direct correlation with lower nesting success. Elsey et al., (1991) indicated that females had 

elevated levels of hormones (plasma estradiol-ß and corticosterone) due to stress. Elsey et al., 

(1990a) showed lower levels of testosterone in male alligators when subjected to acute stress. Lower 

levels of testosterone in males would also have a negative correlation with reproduction. 

Continued harvest of alligators on refuges may be compensatory to natural losses and can ensure 

wise use and management of a renewable natural resource. Harvest may also reduce predation 

impacts on native and migratory animals. By maintaining or reducing the alligator population, 

biological diversity could be maintained or improved by reducing predation and the public’s 

opportunity to see a greater diversity of species may increase as a result. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 213

Public Safety Issues

Increased alligator numbers in conjunction with increasing public use on the Complex will most likely 

only increase the number of negative human/alligator encounters. This could lead to increased 

alligator attacks on humans. Few attacks and no deaths from alligators have been reported in 

Louisiana. However, Florida reported that since 1970, 177 unprovoked alligator attacks have been 

documented, of which 99 have been severe and 9 have been fatal (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 2000). Due to these encounters, Florida implemented a nuisance alligator 

control plan in 1978, but the frequency of attacks has remained stable. Louisiana currently does not 

have the human population densities of Florida; however, this could change in the future. The 

nuisance program in Florida has shown some benefits, but attacks continue to occur. By 

implementing a scientifically managed population-wide alligator harvest, human/alligator encounters 

may be controlled. Current and future harvest efforts should be in areas most accessible to the 

visiting public. Alligators also attack and eat domestic livestock and pets, and create traffic hazards 

when crossing roads. Vehicular and boat collisions with alligators on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

have decreased during the eight years of intensive harvest (Borden-Billiot, pers. comm.) 

Socioeconomic importance to Southwestern Louisiana 

Alligators have been harvested in Louisiana commercially since the early 1800s (Joanen and 

McNease, 1987). During the late 1800s through the early 1950s, alligator harvest was uncontrolled 

for years, and was conducted virtually year-round and advocated by the general public throughout 

southwestern Louisiana. By the 1950s, alligator harvesting had become a tradition in the local culture 

and heritage of southwestern Louisiana. Following the closure of the season in 1962, illegal harvest 

of alligators continued as the hides could be readily sold on the black market for great profits. 

However, with the implementation of a regulated alligator harvest program, illegal harvest has been 

substantially lowered. Alligators have proven to be a valuable renewable resource. 

While the alligator harvest is conducted for commercial gain, many hunters view the hunt as a 

recreational and social event each year. Many of the local hunters have limited access for hunting 

alligators and the national wildlife refuge lands provide a unique opportunity for the general public. 

Dollars derived from the sale of alligator hides is secondary to the actual harvest experience and 

subsequent use of meat from the animal. A strictly recreational harvest could be used to harvest 

alligators but would be administratively and logistically difficult to conduct at current management 

removal rates. The State alligator harvest program was established as a commercial harvest and 

does not allow for recreational take of alligators. 

Economic importance of the alligator in Louisiana cannot be overlooked. The annual sale of wild 

alligator hides harvested in Louisiana is in excess of $3 million dollars and has accounted for sales as 

high as $10 million plus. Cameron Parish is the largest (acreage) parish in Louisiana and it contains 

vast amounts of wetland habitat for which the annual alligator harvest is a very important contributor 

to the local economy. The 40 percent proceeds collected from each hunter annually by the local 

Federal refuges have also contributed to the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act fund. This fund is 

distributed to local counties or parishes in lieu of property taxes. 

Harvest of alligators on the Federal refuges is well supported in the community and viewed as very 

beneficial to the public. Reduction or removal of the alligator harvest on the refuges could create 

public animosity towards the refuges. The three refuges are also some of the only areas within 

Cameron Parish and southwest Louisiana in which alligator tags are allotted by public lottery rather 

than by landowner designation. 
214 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Conclusion

In the opinion of refuge management, alligator harvest on the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex should continue at or above the State-recommended tag allotment rates, unless 

refuge-specific surveys warrant a deviation below State allotment rates. The benefits of harvesting 

alligators as a management tool are to: maintain and increase public safety; continue with a viable 

alligator population; continue biological data collection and monitoring; continue to afford public 

viewing opportunities; reduce adverse overpopulation effects (e.g., cannibalism and reduced 

reproduction rates); reduce inter-specific predation, and foster favorable local public and 

governmental relations. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/202017 

Literature Cited/Consulted 

Borden-Billiot, D.L. 2000. Personal Communication. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Hackberry, 

LA. 

Delany, M. F. 1986. Bird bands recovered from American alligator stomachs in Florida. North 

American Bird Bander 11:92-94. 

____., and C.L. Abercrombie. 1986. American alligator food habits in north central Florida. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 50(2):348-353. 

Elsey, R.M., T. Joanen, L. McNease, and V. Lance. 1990a. Stress and plasma corti-costerone levels 

in the American alligator - relationships with stocking density and nesting success. Comp. 

Biochem. Physiol. 95(1):55-63. 

____., T. Joanen, L. McNease, and V. Lance. 1990b. Growth rate and plasma corti-costerone levels 

in juvenile alligators maintained at different stocking densities. The Journal of Experimental 

Zoology. 255:30-36. 

____., T. Joanen, L. McNease, and N. Kinler. 1992a. Growth rates and body condition factors of 

Alligator mississippiensis in coastal Louisiana wetlands: a comparison of wild and farmreleased juveniles. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 103(4):667-672. 

____. , V.A. Lance, J. Joanen, and L. McNease. 1991. Acute stress suppresses plasma estradiol 

levels in female alligators (Alligator mississippiensis). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Vol. 100A, 

No. 3, pp. 649-651. 

____., L. McNease, T. Joanen, and N. Kinler. 1992b. Food habits of native wild and farm-released 

juvenile alligator. Proc. Annual Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 46:57-

66. 

____., P.L. Trosclair, and J.T. Linscombe. 2004. The American alligator as a predator of mottled 

ducks. Southeastern Naturalist 3: 381-390. 

Fogarty, M.J., and J.D. Albury. 1968. Late summer foods of young alligators in Florida. Proc. Ann. 

Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 21:220-222. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 215

Gibbons, J.W. 1990. Life history and ecology of the slider turtle. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 368 pp. 

Giles, L., and V.L. Childs. 1949. Alligator management on the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 13(1):16-28. 

Gosselink, J. G., C. L. Cordes, and J. W. Parsons. 1979. An ecological characterization study of the 

Chenier Plain coastal ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., 

FWS/OBS–78/9. Washington, D. C. 302pp. 

Greij, E.D. 1994. Common moorhen. Pp. 145-157. In Tacha, T.C., and C.E. Braun, eds. Migratory 

Shore and Upland Game Bird Management in North America. Allen Press, 

Lawrence, KS. 223 pp. 

Jacobsen T. and Kushlan. 1989. Growth dynamics in the American alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis). J. Zool. 219:309-328. 

Joanen and L. McNease. 1970. A telemetric study of nesting female alligators on Rockefeller 

Refuge, Louisiana. Proc. Annual Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 

24:175-193. 

____., 1972. A telemetric study of adult male alligators on Rockefeller Refuge, Louisiana. Proc. 

Annual Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 26:252-275. 

____., 1987b. The management of alligators in Louisiana, USA. In Webb, G.J.W., S.C. Manolis, 

and P.J. Whitehead, eds. Wildlife Management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Surrey Beatty 

and Sons Pty. Ltd, Australia. pp. 33-42. 

____, 1987. Alligator farming research in Louisiana, USA. Pages 329-340 in G. W. Webb, S. C. 

Manalis, and P. J. Whitehead, eds. Wildlife Management: Crododiles and Alligators. Surrey 

Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, WSW. 

Lance, V.A. and R.M. Elsey. 1986. Stress-induced suppression of testosterone secretion in male 

alligators. J. of Exp. Zool. 239:241-246. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 1999. Louisiana alligator management program. LA 

Dept. of Wildl. And Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. 15 pp. 

McIlhenny, E.A. 1935. The alligator’s life history. The Cristopher Publishing House, Boston. 1976 

Reprint, SSAR. 117 pp. 

McNease, L., and T. Joanen. 1974. A study of immature alligators on Rockefeller Refuge, Louisiana. 

Proc. 28th Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 28:482-500. 

____., and T. Joanen. 1977. Alligator diets in relation to marsh salinity. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. 

Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 31:36-40. 

Nichols, J.D., L. Viehman, R.H. Chabreck, and B. Fenderson. 1976. Simulation of commercially 

harvested alligator population in Louisiana. Louisiana State University, 

Bulletin No. 691. 59 pp. 
216 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Nichols, W.L., L. Viehman, R.H. Chabreck and B. Fenderson. 1976. Simulation of a commercially 

harvested alligator population in Louisiana. Louisiana Agricultural Experimental Station 

Bulletin 691, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Perry, H.R., Jr. 1982. Muskrats. In Chapman, J.A., and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of 

North America. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore and London. pp 282-325. 

Reid, F.A., M. Meanly, L.H. Fredrickson. 1994. King Rail. pp. 181-191. In Tacha, T.C., and C.E. 

Braun, eds. Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Management in North America. Allen 

Press, Lawrence, KS. 223 pp. 

Rootes, W.L. 1989. Behavior of the American alligator in a Louisiana freshwater marsh. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

____., and R.H. Chabreck. 1993. Cannibalism in the American alligator. Herpetological. 

49(1):99-107. 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge ANR. 1946-1951. Annual Narrative Reports. Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge, USFWS, DOI, National Refuge System. 

____., 1963. Master Plan. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS, DOI. 99 pp. 

Shoop, C.R. and C.A. Ruckdeschel. 1990. Alligators as predators on terrestrial mammals. American 

Midland Naturalist. 124:407-412. 

Stutzenbaker, C.D. 1988. The mottled duck, its life history, ecology and management. Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. pp. 209. 

Taylor, D., T. Joanen, and L. McNease. 1980. An alligator population model and associated 

minimum population estimate for non-marsh alligator habitat in Louisiana. Louisiana Dept. of 

Wildlife and Fisheries, Monroe, LA. 15 pp. 

Valentine, J.M., Jr., J.R. Walther, K.M. McCartney, and L.M. Ivy. 1972. Alligator diets on the Sabine 

National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana. J. of Wildl. Manage. 36(3):809-815. 

Webb, G.J.W., R. Buckworth and S.C. Manolis. 1983. Crocodylus johnstoni in a controlledenvironment chamber: a raising trial. Aust. Wildl. Res. 10:421-432 

Willner, G.R. 1982. Nutria. In Chapman, J.A., and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North 

America. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore and London. pp. 1059-1076. 

Wolfe, J.L., D.K. Bradshaw, and R.H. Chabreck. 1987. Alligator feeding habits: new data and a 

review. Northeast Gulf Science. 9(1):1-8. 

Woodward, A.R. and B.L. Cook. 2000. Nuisance-alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) control in 

Florida, U.S.A. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Gainesville, FL. 12 pp. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 217

Description of Use: 

(9) Commercial Video and Photography 

Over the past several years, the refuge has been contacted as to the possibility of producing 

commercial audio-visual productions, such as video and still pictures. The refuge provides an ideal 

setting for filmmakers. Areas such as the Pintail Wildlife Drive and other refuge locations are 

adjacent to the Creole Nature Trail, an All American Road and destination for many resident and nonresident visitors. As southwest Louisiana and the Creole Nature Trail, as well as Service programs 

for visitors are promoted, commercial filming on the area is expected to increase. 

Availability of Resources: Adequate refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to 

manage this activity at the present level. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Commercially produced video and photography could result in some 

disturbance to wildlife. Some minimal trampling of vegetation may also occur. However, it is 

anticipated that this disturbance will be minimal. 

Commercially produced video and photography activities are not expected to indirectly or 

cumulatively impact refuge resources negatively even though there may be some minimal and direct 

short-term disturbance or trampling. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Access for commercially produced video and 

photography activities will be allowed in designated areas only. Activities will be monitored to 

document any negative impacts to wildlife. If negative impacts are found, corrective action will be 

taken to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Access to key observation and photography areas may 

be closed during adverse weather conditions for protection of infrastructure (e.g., roads and levees) 

and visitor safety. 

Public Law Number 106-206 [114 Stat. 314; cod. 16 U.S.C. 460l-6d.], signed by the President on 

May 26, 2000, directed the Secretary of the Interior to require a permit and establish a reasonable fee 

for commercial filming activities on Federal lands administered by the Secretary. This law further 

stated that for still photography neither a permit nor a fee is assessed if the activities take place on 

lands where members of the public are generally allowed. The Secretary may require a permit and 

fee if photographic activities take place at locations where the general public is not allowed or where 

additional administrative costs are likely. The Secretary shall not permit any filming, still photography, 

or other related activity if the Secretary determines: 1) there is a likelihood of resource damage; 2) 

there would be an unreasonable disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of the site; or 3) that the 

activity poses health or safety risks to the public. 
218 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Further guidance is found in Federal Code of Regulations, Title 43, Volume 1, revised October 1, 

2004, which regulates the making of pictures, television productions, or sound tracks on certain areas 

under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. It states that: 

1) Permits are required of any party except amateur photographers or bona fide newsreel and news 

television photographers and soundmen. All other parties must obtain written permission from local 

officials having administrative responsibility for the area involved. 

2) However, the Secretary has determined that no fee will be charged for the making of such motion 

pictures, television productions, or sound tracks on areas administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

3) A bond shall be furnished, or deposit made in cash or by certified check, in an amount to be set by 

the official in charge of the area to ensure full compliance with all conditions prescribed in a permit. 

Such bond may be refunded to the applicant if all permit requirements are met and no costs to the 

Government are incurred. 

4) Permission to make a motion picture, television production, or sound track will be granted by the 

head of the Service or his/her authorized representative in his/her discretion and on acceptance by 

the applicant of conditions set forth in a permit. Applicants must describe the area where filming is 

requested and the scope of the filming, production, or recording. Dependent upon weather 

conditions, applicants will state when filming or other production will begin and end. 

Other stipulations include: 

1) Utmost care will be exercised to see that no natural features are injured, and after completion of 

the work, the area will, as required by the official in charge, either be cleaned up and restored to its 

prior condition or left, after clean-up, in a condition satisfactory to the official in charge. 

2) Credit will be given to the Department of the Interior and the Service through the use of an 

appropriate title or announcement, unless there is issued by the official in charge of the area a written 

statement that no such courtesy credit is desired. A copy of the final product will be provided pro 

bono to the refuge staff. 

3) Pictures will be taken of wildlife only when such wildlife will be shown in its natural state or under 

approved management conditions if such wildlife is confined. 

4) Any special instructions received from the official in charge of the area will be complied with. 

5) Any additional information relating to the privilege applied for by the applicant will be furnished 

upon request of the official in charge. 

6) Other stipulations may be warranted depending upon the proposed location and season of the 

year the activity is conducted. 

Further guidance on this activity is found in the Service’s Refuge Manual [8 RM 16, dated 

March 12, 1982]. 

The following stipulations apply to special use permits issued for commercially produced video and 

photography activities. To minimize impacts on refuge lands and resources, the refuge manager will 

ensure that filmmakers comply with policies, rules, and regulations and will monitor and assess all 

activities of filmmakers. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 219

Failure to abide by any part of a special use permit; violation of any refuge related provision in Titles 

43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or any pertinent State regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) 

will be considered grounds for immediate revocation of the permit and could result in denial of future 

permit requests for lands administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This provision applies to all 

persons working under the authority of this permit. 

The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, and any other persons 

working for the permittee and conducting activities allowed by the permit are familiar with and adhere 

to the conditions of the permit. 

The permit may be canceled or revised at any time by the refuge manager for noncompliance or in 

case of emergency (e.g., public safety and unusual resource problems). 

The permittee and permittee’s clients do not have exclusive use of this site(s) or lands covered by the 

permit. 

Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittees shall provide the refuge with (1) 

a copy of current business license; and (2) proof of comprehensive general liability insurance. 

Prior to conducting commercial filming activities, the permittee shall provide the refuge manager with 

the name and method of contact for the field party chief or supervisor. 

A valid copy of the special use permit, signed by the refuge manager or designee, must be in the 

party leader’s possession at all times while exercising the privileges of the permit. 

Endorsement of the permit signifies the permittee’s understanding and concurrence with all the 

conditions set forth in the General Conditions found on the reverse side of the permit and the above 

Special Conditions. 

Under stipulations described above, commercially produced filmmaking, production, or sound track 

recording are viewed as compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Justification: Allowing commercially guided wildlife viewing, photography, and environmental 

education, and interpretation are economic uses that must contribute to the achievement of the 

refuge purpose or the mission of the refuge. Individuals or companies serving as guides for these 

types of uses would lead groups of people that may not normally visit the refuge, such as the elderly, 

handicapped, or urban youth groups. The services provided by commercial guides will be beneficial to 

extend public appreciation and understanding of wildlife, natural habitats, and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Commercial guiding will be incidental to four (e.g., wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) of the six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. 

Conditions imposed in the special use permits of guides will ensure that these wildlife-dependent 

activities occur without adverse effects to refuge resources or other visitors. Permitted guides 

facilitate public use and enjoyment of these activities while protecting refuge resources. 

Commercial photography will be regulated and monitored with special use permits. The refuge will 

ensure this activity has a primary focus on education and information on refuge purposes and/or the 

Refuge System mission. 
220 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Conditions imposed in the special use permits of filmmakers ensure that these wildlife-dependent 

activities can occur without adverse effects to refuge resources or other visitors. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/20/17 

Description of Use: 

(10) Commercially Guided Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, and 

Interpretation 

Over the past several years, the refuge has been contacted as to the possibility of guide/outfitter wildlife 

viewing opportunities. All requests have pertained to conducting van/bus tours for various sized groups 

around the wildlife drive for wildlife viewing opportunities. Presently there are no known guide operations 

utilizing the refuge. The primary wildlife viewing opportunity on the refuge is the Lacassine Pool Wildlife 

Drive, which is a destination for many resident and non-resident visitors. As tourism in southwest 

Louisiana is promoted, visitor use of the refuge is expected to increase. With the number of visitors 

increasing, a shift in types of recreation use and users may occur. It is anticipated that wildlife viewing on 

Lacassine Refuge will increase as a proportion of total recreation use days. 

Availability of Resources: Adequate refuge personnel and base operational funds are available to 

manage wildlife-dependent recreational activities at present levels. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Commercially guided wildlife viewing, photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation could result in some disturbance to wildlife adjacent to the wildlife drive, 

especially if visitors exit their vehicles. It is anticipated that this disturbance to wildlife will be minimal 

because of van traffic but some additional disturbance may occur with larger tour buses. Vehicle size 

has been shown to cause some temporary displacement of birds. Often wildlife will relocate to 

interior sections of the wildlife drive after being disturbed. Allowing larger vehicles to accommodate 

more people could result in an increased public awareness of the refuge and its wildlife and an 

enhanced appreciation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Boardwalks, auto-tour routes, photo 

blinds, and observation platforms will be designed and placed to minimize disturbance potential. 

Wildlife viewing and photography are not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact refuge 

resources negatively even though there may be some minimal and direct short-term disturbance to 

wildlife or vegetation. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the following Stipulations 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 221

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Access for commercially guided wildlife viewing, 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation will be allowed in designated areas 

only. Bus riders will not be permitted to depart the bus except in specially designated areas. 

Activities will be monitored to document any negative impacts to wildlife. If negative impacts are 

found, corrective action will be taken to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Access to key observation 

and photography areas may be closed during adverse weather conditions for protection of 

infrastructure (e.g., roads and levees) and visitor safety. 

The following stipulations apply to special use permits issued for wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., 

wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation). To minimize 

impacts on refuge lands and resources, law enforcement patrols will routinely be conducted in an 

effort to maximize compliance with policies, rules, and regulations. This will ensure that activities will 

be monitored and assessed. 

• Failure to abide by any part of this special use permit; violation of any refuge related provision 

in Titles 43 or 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or any pertinent State regulation (e.g., fish or 

game violation) will be considered grounds for immediate revocation of this permit and could 

result in denial of future permit requests for lands administered by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. This provision applies to all persons working under the authority of this permit. 

• The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, and any other 

persons working for the permittee and conducting activities allowed by this permit are familiar 

with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

• This permit may be canceled or revised at any time by the refuge manager for noncompliance 

or in case of emergency (e.g., public safety and unusual resource problems). 

• The permittee and permittee’s clients do not have exclusive use of this site(s) or lands 

covered by the permit. 

• Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittees shall provide the refuge 

with (1) a copy of current business license; (2) proof of comprehensive general liability 

insurance. 

• The permittee is responsible for accurate record keeping and shall provide the refuge 

manager with a comprehensive summary of location, numbers of clients, and number of client 

days by January 15 each year. The permittee shall provide the refuge manager with this 

information on the form provided with the special use permit. An annual nonrefundable 

administrative fee of $150 will be assessed prior to issuing this permit. Failure to submit 

required reports could result in the issuance of citations and revocation of the permit. 

• Prior to conducting guiding operations, the permittee shall provide the refuge manager with 

the name and method of contact for the field party chief or supervisor. 

• A valid copy of this special use permit, signed by the refuge manager or designee, must be in 

the party leader’s possession at all times while exercising the privileges of the permit. 

• Endorsement of this permit signifies the permittee’s understanding and concurrence with all 

the conditions set forth in the General Conditions found on the reverse side of the permit and 

the above Special Conditions. 

Given limited access, commercially guided wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation are viewed as compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was 

established. 
222 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Justification: Allowing commercial video and photography are economic uses that must contribute 

to the achievement of the refuge purpose or the mission of the refuge. The products may reach 

groups of people that may not normally know about the refuge, such as the elderly, handicapped, or 

urban youth groups. The services provided by commercial filmmakers will be beneficial to extend 

public appreciation and understanding of wildlife, natural habitats, and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Conditions imposed in the special use permits of commercial filmmakers will ensure that these 

wildlife-dependent activities occur without adverse effects to refuge resources or other visitors. 

Commercial photography will be regulated and monitored with special use permits. The refuge will 

ensure this activity has a primary focus on education and information on refuge purposes and/or the 

Refuge System mission. 

Conditions imposed in the special use permits of filmmakers ensure that these wildlife-dependent 

activities can occur without adverse effects to refuge resources or other visitors. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-Evaluation Date: 05/20/17 

Description of Use: 

(11) Cooperative Farming 

Cooperative farming on two units (B and F) within the refuge is directly related to the management of 

waterfowl, specifically pintails. Pintails using the Lacassine Pool typically depart for nocturnal 

foraging areas within surrounding agricultural habitats; these birds can expend approximately 7-19 

percent of their caloric intake on this round-trip flight (Cox and Afton 1996). Provision of foraging 

habitat in the nearby proximity to Lacassine Pool is extremely valuable for decreasing waterfowl flight 

times and their associated energetic expenditures. Maximizing waterfowl food production in the farm 

units of the refuge contributes to this habitat need. Although moist-soil management for annual 

plants will provide the greatest benefit to waterfowl, cooperative farming produces substantial food 

resources for waterfowl but at no cost to the refuge. Additionally, cooperative farming ensures that 

habitat succession remains at levels that benefit many migratory birds. 

Availability of Resources: Resources are adequate for this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The incidental disturbance of wildlife species may occur during 

cooperative farming activities. Cooperative farming may result in some additional wildlife disturbance 

and temporary displacement of wildlife. 

Cooperative farming does not negatively impact the refuge and provides waterfowl an available food 

source and rest area. This use is not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact refuge resources 

although some incidental and short-term disturbance may occur. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was made available for public 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Methods used to solicit public review and comment 

included posted notices at Refuge Headquarters and area locations; copies of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan distributed to the public; public meetings; and news releases to 

the media. Appendix E summarizes public comments. 
Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 223

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Issuance of cooperative farming agreement is 

required for all cooperative farming activities conducted on the refuge. Activities authorized by the 

agreements are restricted to the dates and locations designated and other conditions identified in the 

agreements. 

Crops grown on the refuge will include only those species which provide seed and/or browse suitable 

for wildlife consumption, or the cooperative farmer will plant a crop for wildlife consumption after the 

harvest of the commercial crop, as specified in the cooperative farming agreement. All crops, 

including crops planted specifically as wildlife food, will be approved by the refuge manager and 

identified in the cooperative farming agreement. 

Pesticide Use Proposals will be submitted annually to the refuge manager and routed through the 

appropriate Fish and Wildlife Service channels for approval prior to use on the refuge. All pesticides 

applied on the refuge must be approved by the appropriate Fish and Wildlife Service office. All other 

soil additives and amendments will be approved by the refuge manager prior to application. 

Justification: Units managed through cooperative farming programs provide foraging opportunities 

for wintering waterfowl and shorebirds. By leaving the second rice crop in the field, the refuge 

provides a dependable food resource for waterfowl. Flooded fallow cropland also provides a very 

important habitat for migrating shorebirds during the months of August and September. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 05/20/17 
224 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix H. Intra-service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 225

Appendix H - Intra-service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 
226 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix H. Intra-service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 227
228 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix H. Intra-service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 229
230 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix I. Budget Requests 231

Appendix I - Budget Requests 

Projects within the Refuge Operation Needs Database 

RONS Title One-time Costs 

Project 1. Improve freshwater impounded marsh 

00004 Improve Sport Fish and Aquatic Resources $134,000

99011 Lacassine Pool Impoundment Research $70,000

Employ prescribed fire specialist $71,000

Employ 5 forestry technicians $260,000

Project 2. Improve early successional wetlands 

03006 Moist-Soil Management/Farming Implements $77,000

00005 Decrease Erosion and Protect Important Wetlands $150,000

01001 Improve Moist-Soil Management at Unit A $ 89,000

03002 Equipment/Implement Storage Shed $135,000

04001 Equipment/Backhoe Front End Loader $125,000

04002 Chain Link Fence around Maintenance Facility $ 39,000

97002 Improve the Farming for Wildlife Program $150,000

97013 Improve Refuge Farming Program $135,000

97032 Enhance Farming for Wildlife Program $121,000

99008 Enhancement of Wading Bird Nesting Habitat $121,000

Project 3. Improve unimpounded freshwater marsh 

00003 Restoration of Abandoned Oil and Gas Production Areas $86,000

03005 Lacassine Bayou North Washout Area Restoration $400,000

97037 Decrease Erosion and Protect Important Wetlands $150,000

Project 4. Restore special habitats 

00002 Prepare a Prairie Restoration Handbook $25,000

99004 Coastal Prairie Restoration Biologist $147,000

99014 Prairie Restoration Enhancement $40,000

Project 5. Control invasive species 

00001 Control Invasive Exotic Species $150,000
232 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

RONS Title One-time Costs 

Project 6. Inventory and monitor 

97036 Develop Oil and Gas Monitoring Program $134,000

97040 Expand Refuge Biological Monitoring Programs $75,000

97042 Enhance Refuge Management Capabilities Using GIS $30,000

 Employ Two Biological Technicians $104,000

Project 7. Improve visitor services 

03003 Gravel Roads (Public Access/parking Improvements) $60,000

03004 Radio Equipment Additions $45,000

97014 Improve Public Access $140,000

97034 Improved Visitor Use Facilities $46,000

98003 Improve Environmental Education/Outreach/Public Use 

Opportunities $75,000

 Employ Park Ranger for Public Use Programs $55,000

Project 8. Promote priority public uses 

03001 Refuge Law Enforcement/Safety Capabilities $85,000

97007 Provide Necessary Law Enforcement Equipment $30,000

97026 Improve Refuge Law Enforcement Patrol Capabilities $40,000

 Employ Park Ranger for law enforcement $55,000

Projects identified within the Service Asset Maintenance Management System Database 

SAMMS 

Work Order 

# 

Old MMS 

# Project Type Cost 

Project 1. Improve freshwater impounded marsh 

93101980 93085 Replace southwest spillway of Lacassine Pool $493,000

96101989 96131 Replace southeast spillway at Lacassine Pool $383,000

98102028 98015 Repair deficient East Pool Levee Road $386,000

98102029 98016 Repair deficient West Pool Levee Road $270,000

98102030 98017 Repair deficient northeast pool levee road $308,000

98102032 98026 Rehabilitate northwest pool levee road $348,000

98102036 98034 Replace worn pump shed at Unit D $36,000
Appendix I. Budget Requests 233

SAMMS 

Work Order 

# 

Old MMS 

# Project Type Cost 

Project 2. Improve early successional wetlands 

3125675 3013 Rehabilitate Unit A Pumping Station (Pump & Engine) $73,000

96101993 96143 Repair Unit A pump shed and fuel tank $26,000

97102013 97031 Rehabilitate 2.25 miles of Unit B roads $71,000

3. Improve unimpounded freshwater marsh

97102012 97030 Rehabilitate 3 miles of deficient Coto Plot roads $93,000

Project 7. Improve visitor services 

98102031 4006 

CN Refuge Headquarters Entrance Road (Rte 10; 0.4 

mi) $118,000

4136178 4006 Rehabilitate Headquarters Front Parking (Route900) $25,000

3125682 3015 

Replace Kiosks for Headquarters and Streeter Road 

Visitors $35,000

96101987 96126 Replace refuge boundary signs $26,000

3125713 3021 Remove Concrete Wharf (unserviceable boat dock) $80,000

1112744 1001(0) 

Replace non-compliant radio system to meet 

Federal standard and enhance safety. $68,000

3125716 3022 Replace Interpretive/Directional Signs $31,000

98102033 4006 Rehabilitate deficient wildlife drive $522,000

Project 8. Promote priority public uses 

4130579 4007 Replace Headquarters Display Pond Boardwalk/Deck $26,000

96101990 4006 Rehabilitate deteriorated Unit A roads $54,000

96101991 4006 Renovate deficient Unit D parking area $11,000

98102019 4006 Repair deficient P&H fishing pier parking lot $49,000

98102025 4006 Rehabilitate deficient Pool Kiosk gravel parking lot $22,000

98102026 4006 CN Unit A parking lot $72,000

98102027 4006 

Rehabilitate the deficient parking lot at the west boat 

launch $90,000

98102034 4006 

Rehabilitate deficient Unit B observation tower parking 

lot $35,000

98102035 4006 Rehabilitate deteriorated Streeter Road $81,000

98102037 4006 Rehabilitate parking area at Tidewater boat launch $77,000
234 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

SAMMS 

Work Order 

# 

Old MMS 

# Project Type Cost 

3126121 4006 

Rehabilitate Unit A North Road (widen for Safety/Staff 

& Public Access) $230,000

4135720 4006 

Rehabilitate deficient Unit D Observation Tower 

Parking (Route906) $25,000

4136156 4006 Rehabilitate Lacassine Pool Entrance Road (Route103) $100,000

4136183 4006 Pool Main Kiosk Parking Area (Route 902) $25,000

4136192 4006 Rehabilitate Streeter Road (Route102) $200,000

99006 Establish Cooperative Education Manager Trainee FTE $114,000

SAMMS 

Work Order 

# 

Old MMS 

# Project Type Cost 

Miscellaneous 

3125721 3024 Remodel Quarters #1 Residence $13,000

1113394 1007 Replace portable chemical storage building $26,000

93101982 93088 Replace Tidewater bridge $378,000

3125723 3026 Remove Quarters #1 Boathouse (Demolition) $11,000

98102023 98010 Replace metal building $36,000

4136508 4407 Repair Multiple Bridges $34,000

Equipment

97101997 97004 Replace 1979 dragline w/Excavator $325,000

97102014 97032 Replace 28-hp tractor. $0

97102009 97020 Replace 1979 Caterpillar D5B Bulldozer $164,000

97101996 97002 Replace 1963 International Disk Harrow $27,000

3125632 3008 Replace 1976 GMC Winch Truck $52,000

97102007 97017a Replace 1980 road grader $164,000

97102001 97008 Replace 1979 Ford TW20 Tractor $90,000

97102008 97019 Replace 1986 John Deere Dozer $71,000
Appendix I. Budget Requests 235

SAMMS 

Work Order 

# 

Old MMS 

# Project Type Cost 

97102006 97015 Replace 1991 4x4 Honda ATV & Trailer $25,000

1113922 1010 Replace amphibious excavator $316,000

1114034 1016 Replace 1999 Navistar diesel truck $64,000

97102010 97021 Replace dump truck $86,000

4134766 4001 Replace 2145 4WD Buhler Tractor $80,000

97102005 4006 Replace John Deere disk harrow $27,000

97101995 4006 Replace 1987 Stossel Airboat $38,000

3125705 4006 

Replace Konica Copy Machine, Fax Machine, and 

Phone System $28,000

3125569 4006 Replace Deck Mowers (Bush Hogs) $37,000

1112870 4006 Replace custom-made mud boat $25,000

3125657 4006 

Replace Pettibone Forklift, 10,000 # capacity (Model A3520-1) $57,000

3125554 4006 Replace Landscape Management Equipment $25,000

1112803 4006 Replace 1994 Stossel airboat (Tan) $37,000

3125703 4006 Replace Airboat Polymer Bottom-Coating $22,000

3125718 4006 Replace Wooden Mats for Dragline Operational Safety $25,000

3125824 4006 

Replace Quachita 14' Aluminum Boat w/30 hp Johnson 

Outboard $25,000

97102016 4006 Replace flat bottom boat & trailer $25,000

3125707 4006 

Replace 2001 Chevrolet 4X4 Pickup (Law 

Enforcement) $35,000

1113972 4006 Replace 1996 Ford Bronco $31,000

1113983 4006 Replace 1997 Ford Ranger truck $26,000

1114049 4006 Replace 1998 Ford Club Wagon Van $22,000

1113910 4006 Replace Marsh Master Buggy and Trailer $75,000

3125825 4006 

Replace Water Buffalo used to Manage Aquatic 

Vegetation $25,000

1113389 4006 Replace Kline airboat (Red) $37,000

3125678 4006 Replace Travel Trailers (FEMA; 4) $48,000

1113980 4006 Replace 1998 Chevrolet S-10 truck $26,000
236 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

SAMMS 

Work Order 

# 

Old MMS 

# Project Type Cost 

3125655 4006 Replace Speeco Blade/Grader, Rear Mounted, 6' $47,000

1114040 4006 Replace 2000 Ford Explorer $24,000

3125596 4006 Replace 2002 Dodge Durango $37,000

3125595 4006 Replace 2003 Chevrolet 4X2 Pickup $33,000

3125594 4006 Replace 2003 Dodge 2500 4X2 Diesel Pickup $37,000

4134786 4006 Replace 2003 4X4 Honda ATV and Trailer $8,000

4134819 4006 Replace worn riding lawn mower $12,000

97102015 4006 Replace 1940 Monark boat & 1977 Highlander trailer $10,000

1113912 4006 Replace Trailer for Marsh Master Buggy $8,000

1113937 4006 Replace trailer-mounted fire-fighting unit $11,000

3125593 4006 Replace 1992 4X2 Chevrolet Pickup Truck $33,000

3125638 4006 Replace 1992 Jeep Cherokee 4X4 $31,000

3125826 3029 Replace Frankfurt Levee Bridge $574,000

4134817 4004 Rehab Refuge Office Facility $25,000

Roads 

98102024 4006 Repair deficient Terrace Road $325,000

98110067 4006 Rehabilitate deteriorating Tidewater Road $584,000

2122121 4006b CN/CE 6 roads (Rte 10, 11, 100-103; 8.25 mi) $1,634,000

2122125 4006a PE 6 roads (Rte 10, 11, 100-103; 8.25 mi) $106,000
AppendixJ. Finding of No Significant Impact 237

Appendix J - Finding of No Significant Impact 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Cameron and Evangeline Parishes, Louisiana 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron and Evangeline Parishes, Louisiana, as outlined in 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. An Environmental Assessment was prepared to inform the 

public of the possible environmental consequences of implementing the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. A description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting the preferred 

alternative, the environmental effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse effects of the 

action, and a declaration concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting information 

can be found in the Environmental Assessment, which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Alternatives 

In developing the comprehensive conservation plan for Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service evaluated three alternatives: Alternatives A, B, and C. 

The overriding concern reflected in this plan is that wildlife conservation holds first priority in refuge 

management; public uses are allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation) will be emphasized. 

Alternative A – No Action (Current Management Direction) 

Under Alternative A, the “no action” alternative, management on Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge would not change from current management. The refuge would remain at 34,724 acres in 

fee title (including Farm Service Agency transfer lands), and leased land (652-acre Cameron 

Parish school section). With “no action,” marsh loss rates of at least 0.23 percent per year would 

continue to be low-to-moderate in the Mermentau River Basin; similar rates are expected in 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge. 

The refuge would continue to manage impounded freshwater marsh (16,000 acres), dynamic statejurisdictional waterways (Lacassine Bayou and Mermentau River), ephemeral freshwater marsh 

(Streeter Canal, Duck Pond), and manage upland vegetation to benefit native plants. Acreages of 

different habitats would remain as they are now: 

• 14,700 acres of unimpounded fresh marsh 

• 16,000 acres of impounded fresh marsh 

• 1,048 acres of open water 

• 352 acres of forested wetlands 
238 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

• 348 acres of shrub wetlands 

• 1,109 acres of croplands (rice and fallow) 

• 307 acres of managed fresh marsh (moist soil plant impoundments) 

• 334 acres of coastal prairie plus roads and levees 

About 3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway would continue to be formally designated 

as wilderness. 

Management focus at Lacassine Refuge would be on biological monitoring, wildlife management, 

invasive plant management, moist-soil management, cooperative farming program management, 

public use/environmental education, and priority public use management (e.g., hunting and fishing). 

Alternative B – Maximize refuge management capabilities in all programs - Preferred Alternative 

Under Alternative B, the Service's preferred alternative, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge would 

fulfill its approved acquisition boundary. The 3,300-acre Wilderness Area would remain the same 

size. Gross habitat acreages would not change appreciably from those under Alternative A, but 

habitats in general would be managed more intensively. 

The refuge would also expand on existing wildlife management programs including: 

• Focus refuge management on improving/extending the value of the Lacassine Pool as a 

waterfowl sanctuary through sub-dividing into smaller units, restoration and rehabilitation of 

infrastructure, adaptive management, and increased emphasis on research; 

• Provide additional waterfowl food by increasing moist-soil acreage from 300 to 750 acres and 

expanding on the farming program to benefit migratory birds, especially northern pintails; 

• Pursue opportunities to reduce erosion to refuge marshes caused by commercial navigation, 

wind/wave action, other natural forces, and oil and gas industry traffic/activities; 

• Conduct/evaluate prescribed fire in Lacassine Pool and other refuge marshes to enhance 

habitat for migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife. 

• Seek support to control invasive plants in Wilderness Area and refuge-wide using approved 

minimum tools; 

• Continue partnerships to manage and protect the 334-acre coastal prairie, locally known as 

Cajun prairie, on the Duralde Unit; 

• Improve hunting/fishing experiences; 

• Maintain current level of outreach and environmental education programs. 

• Manage oil and gas activities in accordance with Service policy (Refer to Section A, Chapter 

II, Refuge Related Problems, Oil and Gas Activities). 

Under this alternative, levees would be constructed within Lacassine Pool, subdividing it into four 

units (Unit D plus three additional units). This action would facilitate the management and lengthen 

the longevity of Lacassine Pool by increasing the ability of refuge staff to dewater it, drawing it down 
AppendixJ. Finding of No Significant Impact 239

to facilitate oxidation of accumulating sediments and more frequent use of prescribed fire. Thus, 

management could proceed unit-by-unit on a regular basis without having to impact the value of the 

entire pool to migratory birds and fisheries all at once. 

Alternative C – Maximize habitat quantity/quality for wintering waterfowl focusing on 

Lacassine Pool only. 

Under Alternative C, the secondary action alternative, the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge would 

remain at 34,724 acres but would refocus the refuge management priority to actively investigating 

and extending the life/value of the Lacassine Pool freshwater impoundment, which serves as a 

migratory waterfowl sanctuary October 15-March 15 annually. 

Due to sedimentation rates and constraints on water-level management capabilities, Lacassine Pool’s 

lifespan is limited and, if nothing is done, it would gradually lose its value to both migratory waterfowl 

and fish populations, eventually becoming a wet meadow rather than a marshy wetland characterized 

by a mix of open water and emergent vegetation. 

Under Alternative C, the refuge would investigate and finalize a strategy to extend the lifespan of the 

Lacassine Pool, which is 16,000 acres in size and remains the core responsibility of the refuge. 

Other programs dealing either with non-pool areas of the refuge or non-habitat aspects of refuge 

management (i.e., cooperative farming, moist-soil management, upland vegetation management, 

visitor services, and priority public uses) would be managed at a reduced level since finite refuge 

resources would be directed to the Lacassine Pool. 

Under this alternative, levees would be constructed within Lacassine Pool, subdividing it into six units 

over the next 10-15 years. This action would facilitate the management and lengthen the longevity of 

Lacassine Pool by increasing the ability of refuge staff to dewater it, drawing it down to facilitate 

oxidation of accumulating sediments and more frequent use of prescribed fire. Thus, management 

could proceed unit-by-unit on a regular basis without having to impact the value of the entire pool to 

fisheries and migratory birds all at once. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Each of the three alternatives outlined above would pursue the refuge purpose, mission, vision, and 

management goals. However, each represents a different approach to doing so; while there are 

certainly overlaps between the three, each alternative has its own emphases and priorities, as well as 

tradeoffs, toward land management, conservation, and public use. 

Each of the three would be consistent with the following: Partners-in-Flight Plan; North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan; Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture; Chenier Plain Initiative of the 

Gulf Coast Joint Venture; Endangered Species Act; National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act; and mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Alternative B would achieve more in approaching the intent of these plans and statutes, but it would 

also cost more to implement than Alternative A. Alternative C would be considered consistent with 

the intent of the above plans and statutes, but instead of spreading staffing and budgetary resources 

around the entire refuge, it would focus those resources on the refuge’s core area – Lacassine Pool. 

Selection Rationale 

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

best achieve refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes a balanced approach to managing refuge 
240 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

programs, collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and 

Service objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide acceptable levels of 

wildlife-dependent, compatible public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service 

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

desired long-term conditions. 

Environmental Effects 

Introduction 

Implementation of the agency's management action will result in environmental, social, and economic 

effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, population 

management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on the refuge will result in 

increased protection for threatened and endangered species, enhanced wildlife populations, habitat 

restoration, and appropriate, compatible public use. This alternative will improve management of the 

refuge in all program areas. 

This alternative will not directly impact water quality, air quality, noise levels, or surrounding land 

uses. Limited oil and gas exploration and production will continue on the refuge (since sub-surface 

rights are not owned by the refuge), with some potential for localized water contamination by 

petrochemicals around well sites, as well as problems with invasive species encroachment and the 

need for habitat restoration on ring levees. 

Habitat and Wildlife 

This alternative (Alternative B) will protect habitat for wildlife, including migratory and resident birds, 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. The refuge hosts few threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species – among them the bald eagle, Louisiana black bear (rarely), and 

alligator snapping turtle. This alternative will not have adverse effects on these species. 

Alternative B will intensify and extend management to reverse unfavorable trends in habitat 

succession on impoundments and moist-soil units. The boundaries of the Wilderness Area will 

remain unchanged. The refuge will actively pursue purchase of properties from willing sellers 

within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary, expanding its size by up to 16,000 acres, that 

is, from almost 35,000 acres to approximately 51,000 acres. Acquiring new property within the 

refuge’s approved acquisition boundary will enable these lands to be managed so as to increase 

their habitat value, whether by cooperative farming, installing moist-soil units, reforestation, or 

marsh restoration, as the case may be. 

Alternative B will continue to provide sanctuary in Lacassine Pool for wintering waterfowl, especially 

northern pintails. In addition, it will maintain some habitat for shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds, 

raptors, neotropical migratory birds, white-tailed deer, rabbits, non-native nutria, as well as alligators 

and other reptiles and amphibians. Fish species, such as catfish, bowfin, bass, bream, crappie, and 

gar, will also continue to be found at Lacassine Refuge. 

The refuge will redouble its efforts to extend the useful life of Lacassine Pool as a waterfowl 

sanctuary through drawdowns, sub-dividing into four units, adaptive management, and increased 

research and experimentation. These actions will provide for the growth of Brasenia (water shield) 

and other beneficial waterfowl food plants, create loafing areas for waterfowl, maintain sanctuary for 

wintering waterfowl, and maintain fisheries habitat. Also, the use and evaluation of prescribed fire as 
AppendixJ. Finding of No Significant Impact 241

a tool in freshwater marsh management will be stepped up; this action will be facilitated by the 

subdivision. Moist-soil acreage will increase by 300 to 750 acres, providing additional waterfowl food. 

The Service will subdivide Lacassine Pool into four compartments within a 10- to 15-year cycle 

dependent upon availability of resources and environmental conditions (i.e., such as when drought 

conditions are most favorable). And, under conditions described in an adaptive step-down water 

management plan, individual sub-units will be completely drawn down to allow for oxidation and to 

conduct prescribed burns to set back natural succession and dispose of accumulated dead plant 

material. Prescribed burning will continue as needed during the summer months whenever possible. 

Draw down of the sub-units may require multiple years to achieve management goals. No more than 

two sub-units may be under treatment within a 5-year time period. This will have a pronounced 

adverse, but temporary, effect on a substantial portion of the habitat in Lacassine Pool and a 

temporary detriment to the bird, fish, and alligator populations found there. However, these impacts 

will be dispersed through time, since Lacassine Pool will have been partitioned and subjected to 

these treatments in portions rather than all at the same time. Overall, the proposed approach of 

subdividing Lacassine Pool into four sub-pools or compartments will increase the likelihood of being 

able to supply the management needed to arrest the succession process and conserve the values 

and functions of it as a wetland; these values and functions include providing for the needs of 

wintering migratory birds and thereby pursuing the refuge’s purpose. 

Alternative B will also pursue opportunities to reduce erosion to unimpounded refuge marshes 

caused by several different natural and human forces, among them wind/wave action, commercial 

navigation, and oil and gas industry exploration, extraction, and transport activities. Additionally, this 

alternative will seek resources to control invasive plants in the Wilderness Area and refuge-wide. It 

will also enhance capabilities at the 334-acre Cajun prairie at Duralde (Vidrine Unit). 

In general, habitats and the fish and wildlife populations they support on the refuge will benefit from 

Alternative B, to the extent that budgetary and staffing resources allow for its full implementation. 

Bottomland hardwood forests (e.g., cypress-tupelo swamp along the fringes of marshes), 

unimpounded marsh, and the impounded marsh at Lacassine Pool will all be beneficially impacted by 

this alternative. Restoration of unimpounded marsh at Willow Cutoff will be initiated if the shoreline 

can be reestablished by proven techniques like terracing, which will improve water quality and habitat 

for waterfowl, wading birds, and marsh birds. 

Acreage of croplands and moist-soil units will be increased under this alternative. This will lead 

to a commensurate increase in waterfowl and shorebird food production and the populations of 

these birds that could be supported by the refuge. Vegetation communities on levees will be 

improved by controlling invasive weeds and planting trees and shrubs, where appropriate, that 

have higher wildlife food value, particularly for neotropical migratory birds. Deer will also benefit 

from these habitat changes and enhancements, particularly because of increased food production 

on levees, croplands, and moist-soil units. 

In general, other wildlife, including other breeding birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, 

while not specifically targeted by managers, will see incidental benefits from most of the habitat 

management. Of course, whether a given species benefits or not from the proposed changes in 

management and predicted changes in habitat will depend on its particular ecological niche and 

habitat needs. 
242 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

Cultural Resources 

The selected alternative will protect refuge cultural resources in accordance with Federal and 

State historic preservation legislation and regulations. A cultural resources management plan will 

be prepared and the feasibility of conducting an extensive archaeological resources survey will 

be determined. In addition, the refuge will work with local stakeholders, such as Native American 

tribes, Cajun, Creole, and African American groups to develop an education program regarding 

their cultural heritage and history. 

This alternative affords land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing little 

adverse effect on the cultural and historic environment. In most cases, any management actions that 

will involve substantial excavation, such as creating new levees, 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. In the Service’s Southeast 

Region, the cultural resource review and compliance process is initiated by contacting the Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer/Regional Archaeologist (RHPO/RA). The RHPO/RA will determine 

whether the proposed undertaking has the potential to impact cultural resources, identify the “area of 

potential effect,” determine the appropriate level of scientific investigation necessary to ensure legal 

compliance, and initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. 

Determining whether a particular action within an alternative has the potential to affect cultural 

resources is an ongoing process that will occur during the planning stages of every project. Service 

management of land with known or potential archaeological 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 that 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. 

Oil and Gas Activity 

The alternative offers protection for existing and future oil and gas activities on the refuge. The 

refuge will be protected from any harmful effects caused by existing oil and gas activity in accordance 

with Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 603 FW 2 in general, and explicitly under section 2.11D and 

State and Federal laws. This alternative will treat requests for new oil and gas activity as an 

inappropriate use considering the current status of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s role in managing and protecting this State’s coastal resources. 

Public Use 

The alternative will maintain or expand public use opportunities and facilities at Lacassine Refuge. 

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

interpretation will all be accommodated and encouraged under Alternative B. The alternative will 

involve preparation of a visitor services plan, which will include recommendations for environmental 

education, interpretation, and outreach, and should include recommendations for a safe, quality 

experience for all visitors. The alternative will also provide some improvement of services and 

education available to the public at Lacassine Pool and the headquarters area. 

Hunting for waterfowl will occur on 10,434 acres, and Lacassine Pool itself will remain a waterfowl 

sanctuary. The archery deer hunting season will occur and a rabbit hunting season will be 

considered. Recreational fishing, particularly on Lacassine Pool, will be encouraged. Opportunities 
AppendixJ. Finding of No Significant Impact 243

for wildlife observation and wildlife photography will be maintained, with the majority of this occurring 

at Lacassine Pool. Similarly, environmental education and interpretation will be maintained at the 

refuge and in the surrounding community. 

In terms of public use, Alternative B will aim to improve quality hunting and fishing experiences and 

remain at current levels for outreach and environmental education programs. Probable increases in 

populations and visibility of wintering migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds, and 

raptors will furnish greater opportunities for public use and enjoyment of the refuge. 

With regard to fishing in Lacassine Pool in particular, the actions will improve fish populations and 

fishing opportunities during most years. Approximately once every decade at any given site, fishing 

will be adversely affected in approximately one-fourth of Lacassine Pool if treated to reverse the 

accumulation of organic matter. Roughly three years out of every time, or 30 percent of the time, 

approximately one-fourth of Lacassine Pool will likely be closed to fishing because of low water or 

drawdown. More importantly, under Alternative B, fishing could conceivably continue in Lacassine 

Pool indefinitely, rather than dwindling over time as the fishery declines in tandem with fish habitat. 

As fishing quality is maintained or improved and as opportunities to observe wildlife increase, the 

refuge will draw more visitors and offer a more memorable experience. This could interact 

synergistically with greater wildlife and nature-based tourism in Cameron Parish. Any increase in 

visitation to the refuge will result in a corresponding increase in the value of the refuge to the local 

economy, as visitor spending rises. 

Economic Effects 

This alternative will offer some benefit to the local economy through visitation and use by local 

residents and non-resident visitors, as well as from contributions to the local economy by purchases 

in the local economy by the refuge and its employees. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and 

wildlife photography all contribute to local economic activity through purchases of food, lodging, 

gasoline, supplies, and from sales taxes. In addition, the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act requires the 

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

land is acquired for a refuge. These payments will continue. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved; even benign, beneficial activities like observing and 

photographing wildlife from a vehicle on a wildlife drive can potentially disturb wading and 

shorebirds. Habitat management actions that use machinery, such as discing and improving 

levees, canals, and drainage, always have the potential for temporary disruption of wildlife. 

Obviously however, some activities innately have the potential to be more disturbing than others. 

The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to avoid unacceptable 

levels of impact. In addition, long-term monitoring by refuge staff of habitat and wildlife 

population responses to management actions, as part of an overall adaptive management 

approach, will help avoid and mitigate any adverse effects. 

As currently proposed the known and anticipated level of disturbance from the management action is 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. Implementation of the public use program will take place through carefully 
244 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

controlled time and space zoning, establishment of protection zones around key sites, such as 

rookeries and eagle nests (if necessary), and routing of trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive 

areas, such as nesting bird habitat and black bear dens, etc. All hunting activities (season lengths, 

bag limits, number of hunters) will be conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles 

and refuge-specific regulations established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring 

activities through wildlife inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities will be 

utilized, and public use programs will be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts 

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts among user groups may well occur. 

Programs will be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zoning 

(i.e., establishment of separate use areas), use periods, and restricting numbers of users are effective 

tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action is not expected to impact adjacent or in-holding 

landowners. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

The refuge intends to fulfill its approved acquisition boundary opportunistically when willing sellers 

become available. No additional acquisition is planned during the 15-year life of this comprehensive 

conservation plan. 

The restoration of the Lacassine Pool and infrastructure improvements, as well as maintenance, repair, 

and restoration work on existing access roads, levees, water control structures, and visitor parking areas, 

could lead to minor, short-term negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site 

development activities are proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National Environmental 

Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required mitigation activities 

will be incorporated into the specific project plans and specifications to reduce the level of impacts to the 

human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the expected direct effects of site development is increased public use; 

while this represents a benefit of the refuge to the public, it may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle 

traffic. While resources will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these 

resources unavailable for other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

SUMMARY 

Actions outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge are 

subject to availability of resources and would take place incrementally over the 15 years. The results 

of restoration programs, such as those recommended for the Lacassine Pool, are largely speculative 

but expected results are based on professional judgment and experience of managers, biologists, 

and other experts. Implementing the various goals, objectives, and strategies of the CCP is expected 
AppendixJ. Finding of No Significant Impact 245

to collectively result in improvements for wildlife, habitat, visitor services, and other refuge programs 

with positive gain far outreaching any minimal negative impacts as stated above. 

Coordination 

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

All affected landowners 

Congressional representatives 

Governor of Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Division 

Other Federal and State agencies 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

Conservation organizations 

Findings 

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 CFR 1508.27), as 

addressed in the Environmental Assessment, pages 137 – 145. 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to 

the human environment. 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and in 

foreseeable future actions. 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, 

or historic resources. 
246 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of Federal, State, or local laws imposed for the 

protection of the environment. 

Supporting References 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Bell City, Louisiana. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Lacassine National Wildlife 

Refuge, Bell City, Louisiana. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Region. 

Document Availability 

The Environmental Assessment is Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, which was made available in November 2006. Copies are 

available by writing: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345. 

Approved: