U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Sabine

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment

Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment

Sabine

National Wildlife Refuge

Photo by: Photo by:

WilliamVieth
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for

management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies

needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and

Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above

current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service

strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans

do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational

and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

SABINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Cameron Parish, Louisiana 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

June 2007

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE ..............................................................................................................................................1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................3

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................7

United States Fish and Wildlife Service........................................................................................7

The National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................................7

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 .........................................................7

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..........................................8

Purpose and Need for Plan ..........................................................................................................8

Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................9

Coastal Zone Management Compliance.............................................................................9

National Wildlife Refuge System Lands ..............................................................................9

Relationship to State Wildlife Agency...........................................................................................9

Ecosystem Context.....................................................................................................................10

Overview ...........................................................................................................................10

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Priorities ...................................................................10

Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem Priorities.............................................................................12

Ecological Threats and Problems...............................................................................................12

Global Warming and Sea Level Rise ................................................................................12

Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ........................................................................................13

Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan.........................................................................13

North American Waterfowl Management Plan ..................................................................13

Gulf Coast Joint Venture (Chenier Plain Initiative)............................................................14

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ..................................................................14

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan......................................................................14

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act ............................................15

Coast 2050: Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana....................................................15

Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan.......................................................15

Fisheries Vision for the Future ..........................................................................................15

American Woodcock Management Plan ...........................................................................16

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................17

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................20

Refuge Environment and Other Related Information .................................................................21

Impact of Hurricane Rita ...................................................................................................21

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations.................................................................................21

Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................36

Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................41

Refuge Staff ......................................................................................................................41

Coordination/Cooperative Programs.................................................................................41

Facilities and Equipment...................................................................................................41

Roads................................................................................................................................42

Research Natural Areas .............................................................................................................42

Wilderness Review .....................................................................................................................42
ii Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Archeological and Historical Resources.....................................................................................42

Socioeconomic Profile................................................................................................................43

Land Protection and Conservation.............................................................................................45

East Cove Unit..................................................................................................................46

Refuge-related Problems ...........................................................................................................46

Introduction .......................................................................................................................46

Oil and Gas Activities........................................................................................................46

Wildfires ............................................................................................................................50

Unauthorized Public Use ..................................................................................................50

Water Level Management.................................................................................................50

Conservation Priorities ...............................................................................................................50

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................53

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................53

Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................................53

Public Comments..............................................................................................................53

Biological and Public Use Review Comments ..................................................................54

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

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

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

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies..............................................................................................58

Goal A – Habitat.........................................................................................................................58

Goal B – Fish and Wildlife Management....................................................................................63

Goal C – Oil and Gas Infrastructure and Activities.....................................................................70

Goal D – Public Use Management.............................................................................................72

Goal E – Cultural Resources......................................................................................................76

Goal F – East Cove Unit.............................................................................................................77

Goal G – Refuge Complex Operations.......................................................................................79

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................................81

Introduction ................................................................................................................................81

Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................81

Project 1: Hurricane Recovery..........................................................................................81

Project 2: Costs to Control Undesirable Plants and Animals............................................88

Project 3: Inventory/Monitor Wildlife Populations and Responses to Management Actions

..........................................................................................................................................89

Project 4: Partnerships, Volunteers, Friends and Interns .................................................90

Funding and Personnel ..............................................................................................................90

Summary Table of Costs for 2007–2022....................................................................................91

Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................94

Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities ..........................................................................................94

Monitoring and Adaptive Management.......................................................................................95

Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................95
Table of Contents iii

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................97

Purpose and Need for Action .....................................................................................................97

Decisions to be Made.................................................................................................................97

Planning Study Area...................................................................................................................98

Planning Process and Issue Identification..................................................................................98

CHAPTER II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................101

CHAPTER III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................103

Formulation of Alternatives.......................................................................................................103

Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................104

Alternative A: No Action ..................................................................................................104

Alternative B: Proposed Action .......................................................................................106

Alternative C: Hold Refuge in Custodial Form ................................................................108

Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................109

CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.....................................................................121

Overview...................................................................................................................................121

Effects Common to All Alternatives ..........................................................................................123

Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat ...............................................................................................123

Public Use.......................................................................................................................124

Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................124

Oil and Gas Activity.........................................................................................................124

Effects from Implementing Alternative A: No Action (Current Management Direction) ............125

Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat ...............................................................................................125

Public Use.......................................................................................................................126

Effects from Implementing Alternative B: The Proposed Action...............................................126

Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat ...............................................................................................127

Public Use.......................................................................................................................128

Effects from Implementing Alternative C: Hold Refuge in Custodial Form ...............................129

Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat ...............................................................................................130

Public Use.......................................................................................................................131

Cumulative impacts Analysis....................................................................................................131

Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species .........................................................................131

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs, Facilities, Cultural Resources, Environmental 

Justice, Environmental Resources, and Surrounding Communities ...............................135
iv Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ...............................................................................................................139

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED...............................................................149

APPENDIX C. LEGAL MANDATES ..................................................................................................153

APPENDIX D. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................159

APPENDIX E. SCOPING...................................................................................................................177

Special Hurricane Damage Meeting.........................................................................................185

APPENDIX F. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................187

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations...........................................187

East Cove Unit of Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determination 195

APPENDIX G. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ......................................................................197

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determinations................................................198

East Cove Unit Compatibility Determination ............................................................................230

APPENDIX H. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION.....................................239

APPENDIX I. BUDGET REQUESTS.................................................................................................247

Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) ..................................................247

APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS...............................................................................................249
Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Ecosystems..........................................................11

Figure 2. Location of Sabine Refuge National Wildlife Refuge and the Southwest Louisiana National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. ....................................................................................................18

Figure 3. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge excluding the East Cove Unit. ..........................................19

Figure 4. East Cove Unit managed by Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge. ............................20

Figure 5. Hurricane recovery information for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge...................................22

Figure 6. Vegetation of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................................................24

Figure 7. Vegetation of East Cove Unit...............................................................................................25

Figure 8. Waterfowl survey results for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.............................................28

Figure 9. Cameron Creole Watershed Project including East Cove Unit............................................35

Figure 10. Annual visitation for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge........................................................36

Figure 11. Visitor facilities at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. ..........................................................37

Figure 12. Visitor facilities at the East Cove Unit. ...............................................................................40

Figure 13. Prioritized hazardous material work units. .........................................................................82

Figure 14. Canals scheduled for dredging. .........................................................................................83

Figure 15. Canal cleaning. ..................................................................................................................86

Figure 16. Organization chart for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge with current and proposed 

positions. ............................................................................................................................93

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Birds of management concern to the refuge.........................................................................26

Table 2. Annual peak wintering waterfowl populations on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. .............27

Table 3. Annual peak wintering waterfowl populations on the East Cove Unit. ..................................28

Table 4. List of heavy equipment at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. ...............................................41

Table 5. Cameron Parish - Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older (2000).44

Table 6. Cameron Parish - Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry (2000).

.............................................................................................................................................45

Table 7. Costs to repair, recover, and replace real and personal property damaged from Hurricane 

Rita. .....................................................................................................................................87

Table 8. Costs to control undesirable plants and animals. .................................................................89

Table 9. Costs to inventory and monitor wildlife populations and responses to adaptive management 

techniques. ..........................................................................................................................90

Table 10. Cost to promote partnerships..............................................................................................90

Table 11. Cost of existing and proposed positions. ............................................................................91

Table 12. Summary of costs for projects proposed to be completed from 2007–2022.......................92

Table 13. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals and 

objectives of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. .........................................................94

Table 14. Comparison of objectives by management alternative. ....................................................110
vi Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 
Preface 1

Preface 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

which also includes Cameron Prairie and Lacassine national wildlife refuges to the east within 

Cameron Parish, and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge in Iberia Parish. The Complex also has 

administrative oversight responsibilities for the state-managed Rockefeller Refuge in lower Cameron 

Parish. Some lands within the Complex, specifically the East Cove Unit of Cameron Prairie National 

Wildlife Refuge, are also part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project, a cooperative effort among 

local, state, and federal agencies and the private sector to restore 64,000 acres of marsh in Cameron 

Parish. 

By September 23, 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service planning team that prepared the 

comprehensive conservation plan for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge had nearly completed a 

preliminary draft of this document for internal review and revision. Release of the refuge’s Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for public review and comment 

would have occurred shortly thereafter. 

However, one day later, on September 24, Hurricane Rita—a Category 3 hurricane—roared across 

southwest Louisiana with winds in excess of 100 knots, leaving a broad swath of destruction in her 

wake. As a measure of the power of her destructive impact to one key industry alone, Rita 

demolished 69 offshore oil and gas platforms and four drilling rigs, and extensively damaged another 

32 platforms and 10 drilling rigs. 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge bore the brunt of Rita’s 15–20 foot storm surge, which deposited 

many tons of debris onto the refuge. This debris came from the remnants of devastated coastal 

communities such as Holly Beach, Constance Beach, and Johnson’s Bayou, as well as the oil and 

gas facilities. It contained a chaotic jumble of natural vegetation, construction debris, a myriad of 

household items, and an unknown amount of hazardous materials. 

To assess the extent of the problem, the Service commissioned a survey by Research Planning, Inc., 

which was completed in January 2006. This study, entitled “Assessment of Hazardous Materials and 

Debris from Hurricane Rita in the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge,” details the stunning dimensions of 

the refuge’s predicament. Approximately 32,000 acres on the refuge have been impacted, including 

1,700 acres of debris piles, seven million cubic meters of debris, and nearly 1,400 potential hazmat 

items positively identified. Estimates range from 115,000 to 350,000 gallons of hazardous liquids and 

gases. 

Initially cleaning up this mess was an enormous challenge, but funding from Congress in June of 

2006 allowed the Service to begin cleanup operations. 

About $12 million has been allocated to remove surface debris and subsurface tanks and other 

heavier items that were sinking into the marsh. Personnel from the Service, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and Tennessee Valley Authority established an Incident 

Command Team to oversee the cleanup operation. Clean Harbors Environmental Services was 

contracted to conduct the debris removal using specialized equipment in sensitive wetland areas 

without road access. Hundreds of hazardous waste items, household goods, and commercial goods 

have been recovered. 

In addition to habitat damage, Sabine’s facilities were devastated by Hurricane Rita. Five of eight 

buildings in the headquarters and visitor center area were immediately condemned and required 
2 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

demolition. The remaining three buildings need extensive repairs before they can be used. All public 

use facilities—including bridges, trails, boardwalks, and restrooms—received major damage and will 

require repairs before they can be reopened. These conditions represent a significant risk to health 

and human safety, requiring the Service to restrict refuge access to the public. 

As this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan goes to press, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

continues to be closed to most public use. By removing hazardous debris, the refuge will avoid a 

significant risk of chemical and physical damage for decades to come. 

All of these abrupt and drastic “on the ground” changes forced refuge planners and managers to step 

back, pause, and reconsider the management direction that Sabine National Wildlife Refuge should 

take in the coming 15 years. The three management alternatives in the Environmental Assessment, 

including the proposed alternative selected for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, were 

modified, as was the description of the existing refuge environment. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to restoring the integrity of Sabine’s habitat and, 

when conditions permit, to realizing once more the refuge’s potential to provide wholesome wildlifedependent outdoor activities to the public. 
Executive Summary 3

Executive Summary 

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

Plan and Environmental Assessment to guide the management of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, a 

unit of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, for 

the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

Before the Service began planning, it conducted biological and public use reviews of the refuge’s 

wildlife and habitat management programs. The biological review team was comprised of biologists 

from federal and state agencies and nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the 

refuge. This diverse team presented the Service with recommendations to manage habitat, wildlife, 

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

Public scoping meetings were then held to solicit public opinion on the issues the plan should 

address. The input received from the public also was considered during the planning process. 

A planning team comprised of Service personnel, state agency representatives, nongovernmental 

organizations, and others then developed an environmental assessment to formulate a range of 

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

undertake to achieve the goals and fulfill the purpose of Sabine National Wildlife 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 summarized below. 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION 

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 no change 

or changes that would have occurred without the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, which was severely affected by Hurricane Rita in September of 

2005, is currently closed to all activities other than essential operations, hurricane cleanup, and 

restoration activities. Very limited public use activities are being allowed as areas are cleaned up. 

Fishing on areas accessible from off-refuge launches is being permitted for the first time since the 

hurricane. 

Under this alternative, nonessential programs, including most maintenance and all public use, would 

cease at the refuge due to hurricane recovery efforts. However, research monitoring activities and 

the fire program, including both prescribed fire as well as extinguishing wildfires, would continue. 

Hazardous debris removal and Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 

(CWPPRA) projects would continue. Oil and gas operations would continue. Law enforcement 

operations will increase to make sure that the over 300,000 annual visitors who normally use the 

Refuge comply with the closure. The Sabine Refuge staff would function at an office located off-site. 

The refuge’s cultural resources would continue to be protected. 

As hurricane recovery is accomplished, the refuge would essentially be managed as it was prior to 

the devastation from the historic storm. 
4 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ACTION 

The Service’s proposed action, Alternative B, would continue to keep the refuge operational with 

minimal public use programs functional but at a reduced cost (near term), and increase marsh 

restoration, enhance fish and wildlife management, and expand public use (long term). 

Over the near term, programs would continue throughout the refuge commensurate with the level of 

hazardous material cleanup and restoration. Over time, public use areas would be reopened as 

repairs to infrastructure and restoration of habitat occur. Fire and research programs would remain 

active. Existing oil and gas operations would continue at the normal level but new operations would 

be closely regulated under Service regulations and other federal law. Staff assigned to the refuge 

would function out of a hurricane-resistant building to be located at the original headquarters site. 

Over the long term, under Alternative B, the Sabine Refuge would increase marsh restoration and 

enhance wildlife management, stepping up these efforts from current levels. A habitat improvement 

feasibility study would be performed for Unit 3. The refuge would improve marsh plant communities 

and shallow water, increase waterfowl food production, and provide habitats and sanctuary needs for 

migrating, wintering, breeding ducks (mottled ducks) and geese and other birds, fish, and wildlife. It 

would also protect and/or restore 43,200 acres of intermediate and brackish marsh and continue 

working toward restoring emergent marsh. The beneficial use of dredge material for marsh 

restoration would be continued. Sabine would closely monitor oil and gas activities to minimize 

impacts to wetland habitats and wildlife usage. It would also increase surface reclamation at former 

petroleum extraction sites to improve habitat for wintering migratory birds and other species. All new 

non-refuge mineral owners’ requests for petrochemical transmission infrastructure will be prohibited.

Like Alternative A, Alternative B would maintain salinity monitoring throughout the refuge at 

established discrete salinity stations. Improving water quality would be a major thrust for the refuge. 

Fire management objectives under Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A: the Sabine 

Refuge would continue to use fire as a multipurpose management tool for reducing hazardous fuels, 

promoting habitat diversity, and prescribe burn approximately 20,000 acres per year. Cultural 

resources would continue to be protected. 

The refuge would provide additional opportunities for Friends groups, volunteers, partners and interns 

to assist the refuge. 

Management of the East Cove Unit under Alternative B would be identical to Alternative A. The East 

Cove Unit would continue to be managed under an interagency management plan. Gates at the 

water control structures would be operated to restore preferred vegetated plant communities 

associated with intermediate or possibly slightly brackish environments. Staff would evaluate the use 

of terraces to improve vegetation of open-water areas. During the life of this plan, an assessment 

would be conducted to determine the need for sanctuary in the East Cove Unit and minimizing 

detrimental waterfowl disturbances. The invasion of exotic plant species, with special emphasis on 

giant salvinia, would be monitored. Public fishing access to East Cove would be improved. 

ALTERNATIVE C: HOLD REFUGE IN CUSTODIAL FORM 

Under this alternative, the Sabine and Complex staff would hold refuge property in custodial form. 

Major restoration and recovery efforts from the devastation caused by Hurricane Rita would be 

curtailed. The fire and research programs would remain active throughout the refuge. Oil and gas 

operations would continue at the normal level. 
Executive Summary 5

No active habitat management would be applied. Instead, the refuge and Complex staff would serve 

as good caretakers or custodians of the refuge, observing and monitoring the natural forces and 

ecological succession that would shape its habitats and effectively determine their suitability for 

wildlife. A “hands off” or passive approach to refuge management in an area that has been so 

heavily altered by a century of human activity—including grazing; oil and gas exploration and 

development; pipeline construction; canal, drainage ditch, levee and road building; hunting; 

introduction of exotic species; and so forth—would not lead to habitat conditions resembling those 

that would have occurred on the site today if these interventions had never taken place. Some of 

these interventions produced long-lived or virtually permanent results that cannot be undone simply 

by ceasing all active management. Resources that are presently used for Sabine would be assigned 

to higher priorities as determined by the Complex Project Leader and Complex staff to other refuges 

within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Alternative C would entail the following for habitat at Sabine: 

• Units would not be actively managed; human intervention would be minimal. 

• Water control structures would not be replaced. 

• Plant species composition and vegetation communities would be inventoried to determine the 

effects of succession. 

• Units 1A, 1B, and 3 would change due to succession and loss of open water for waterfowl 

(would become predominantly emergent vegetation, reducing accessible water habitat). 

• No habitat improvement feasibility study would be performed for Unit 3. Levees may fail due 

to deteriorating physical conditions; however, this may result in some desirable habitat for 

waterfowl. 

• No prescribed fires would be conducted. 

• Fire management would be limited to hazardous fuel reduction and suppression of wildfires; 

prescribed fire would not be used as an agent of disturbance and habitat renewal. 

These actions would result in reduced capabilities to reverse progression of succession. 

Under Alternative C, no effort would be made to reduce the accumulation of organic materials in 

impoundments through drawdowns and prescribed fire. There would be no need to replace and 

upgrade equipment and facilities such as pumps, tractors, and water control structures. 

This alternative would result in very little effective high quality waterfowl sanctuary. That is, high 

ground would succeed to a mix of Chinese tallow, willow, and hackberry, while lower ground would 

revert to dense stands of maidencane. There would be few open areas. 

With regard to public use, each of the six priority public uses would be strongly encouraged but 

facilities would be limited. However, actual opportunities to enjoy these uses on the refuge would, in 

all probability, decline. This would happen because of the decreased value of wildlife habitat that 

would occur due to no active management, and the subsequent decline in wildlife diversity and 

abundance. 

Management of the refuge’s cultural resources and the East Cove Unit under Alternative C would be 

identical to Alternatives A and B. 
6 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

SELECTION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE

The planning team’s proposed action, Alternative B, forms the basis for this Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. It is the most reasonable alternative to best achieve the purposes, vision, and 

goals of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. Implementation of the plan will also help fulfill the National 

Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintain and restore the ecological integrity of the refuge; address 

significant refuge issues and mandates; and would be consistent with principles of sound fish and 

wildlife management. 

Overall, the greatest risk to fish, wildlife, plants, and wildlife habitats in the Chenier Plain of the Gulf 

Coast Ecosystem—where the Sabine Refuge lies—is from extensive wetland habitat degradation and 

loss that has occurred over the past century. Louisiana has the highest rate of wetland loss of any 

state in the nation, estimated at 25–35 square miles a year, accounting for 80 percent of the national 

total (Esslinger and Wilson 2001). The wetland area in the Chenier Plain declined 16 percent from 

the mid-1960s to 1990. These habitat losses have led to commensurate impacts on wildlife 

populations, especially those species dependent on wetlands. Implementing the long-term 

management goals identified in this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan would help achieve 

wetland preservation and restoration, a most important wildlife conservation priority in the Gulf Coast 

Ecosystem. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

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.” 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The United States 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, interjurisdictional 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 agency 

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, are in Alaska, 

with the remaining acres spread across the 

other 49 states and several territories. 

Approximately 82 million acres in the System 

were reserved from the public domain. The 

remainder has been 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, photography, 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.” 
8 Sabine 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 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 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 the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan 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 

• retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. 

SABINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge was 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; wildlife-dependent 

recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, 

the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN 

The purpose of the plan is to ensure that each refuge in the System contributes to the 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 the 

Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 

• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection, recreational, and 

educational 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; 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

• ensure that refuge management is consistent with federal, state, and local plans and 

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

• provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE 

The Service complies with all federal, state, and regional policies and regulations for projects within 

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

requires coastal zone permits for work which 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 plan that will be 

completed within the refuge boundary. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM LANDS 

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

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

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

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

Fish and Wildlife Service. Appendix C provides a complete listing of the relevant legal mandates. 

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. These 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 (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation), as these 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency 

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

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 fish and wildlife, and contribute to the overall health and diversity of fish and wildlife 

species in the State of Louisiana. 
10 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

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

Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds and endangered 

species, as well as managing the State of Louisiana’s natural resources and approximately 1.4 million 

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

conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife management 

areas. The LDWF’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation 

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 comprehensive conservation 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 to 

reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity; establish 

conservation priorities; clarify goals; and 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. 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is a member and active participant of the Service’s Lower Mississippi 

River Ecosystem (LMRE) Team. This ecosystem (Figure 1) serves as the primary wintering habitat 

for midcontinental waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and migration habitat for migratory 

songbirds returning from Central and South America, and numerous resident wildlife species. 

Geographically, the refuge lies on the extreme southwestern boundary of the ecosystem and has few 

opportunities to contribute to many of the goals and objectives of the LMRE. There are some 

common targets that are applicable to the refuge and to which they contribute, but the refuge would 

more appropriately contribute to the objectives of the Service’s Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem (TGCE). 

The TGCE lies between the Sabine River and the mouth of the Rio Grande 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 TGCE Team has requested the 

participation of the Sabine Refuge and other nearby southwest Louisiana refuges in its ecosystem 

team meetings. 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES 

The priorities identified by the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Team, 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 LMRE 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. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Ecosystems. 
12 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

• Restore native prairie.

• Control invasive and exotic species. 

• Build regional and national support for the Service’s Fisheries program. 

TEXAS GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES 

The priorities identified by the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem Team, 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. 

• Increase ecological monitoring and research efforts and improve information management 

capabilities in the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem. 

• Encourage the Service’s Region 4 field stations with similar coastal resource objectives to 

participate in Ecosystem Team meetings. 

• Develop partnerships with other Service regions, Mexico, natural resource agencies, 

universities, and nongovernmental 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 LMRE 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. 

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

Specific threats applicable to Sabine National Wildlife Refuge include: 

• Colonization of invasive plant and animal species which displace natural vegetation and 

deteriorate those habitats on which native animal species depend. 

• Prolonged flooding within refuge units which interferes with management strategies developed 

for ideal habitat conditions. 

• Problems associated with the adjacent Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including soil erosion 

caused by wave action and contamination resulting from barge accidents. 

• Problems associated with sea level rise and climate change. 

GLOBAL WARMING AND SEA LEVEL RISE 

The Service is mandated to address climate change in its management planning by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Secretarial Order 3226, issued on January 19, 2001. This order states 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

that each bureau and office of the Department will consider and analyze potential climate change 

impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises, when setting priorities for scientific 

research and investigations, when developing multi-year management plans, and/or when making 

major decisions regarding the potential utilization of resources under the Department’s purview. 

There is scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this warming is 

human-caused increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Since the beginning of the Industrial 

Revolution, average global temperatures have risen by one degree Fahrenheit, with the most 

accelerated warming occurring in the past two decades (Schlyer 2006). It is not known what the 

complexity of effects that global warming will have on habitat and wildlife on national wildlife refuges. 

Hand-in-hand with global warming is sea level rise. 

Coastal Louisiana has lost over 1.2 million acres of land along its coast in the last 100 years and 

15,300 acres between 1990 and 2000, mostly due to the conversion of coastal wetlands to open 

water. Storm damages from the two hurricanes in 2005 contributed even more land loss. 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge has already participated in methods to combat wetland loss and 

participates in the coastal initiatives outlined below. Specific strategies identified by the refuge to 

help overcome sea level rise are discussed in Chapter IV, Management Direction. 

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. The goals and 

objectives in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan are stepped down from the following plans: 

• Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. 

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan (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. 

• 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 knowledge of many people to jointly 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. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is located within 

the Coastal Prairie Physiographic Area 6 Conservation Plan, and can contribute to the plan’s actions 

for marsh restoration projects to benefit migrant landbirds. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

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

governments in 1986 to undertake an intensive effort to protect and restore North America’s 
14 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

waterfowl populations and their habitats. Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994. The main 

premise of the plan is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by restoring wetlands and 

associated ecosystems. 

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 

(GCJV)—was established to conserve priority waterfowl habitats 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 and provides both wintering and migration habitat for 

significant numbers of 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 GCJV 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 the lesser snow goose (Chen caerulescens) and greater white-fronted goose 

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

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge contributes to the objectives of the Chenier Plain Initiative by 

providing sanctuary needs for migrating, wintering, and breeding ducks (mottled ducks), and geese. 

This sanctuary is provided by the refuge’s management of three impounded freshwater marshes: 

Units 3, 1A, and 1B. Management Unit 3, at 26,400 acres, is the largest freshwater marsh remaining 

in southwest Louisiana. Management units 1A and 1B comprise 5,138 acres and 1,800 acres of 

marsh, respectively. They are heavily used by a variety of wildlife, most notably ducks. Waterfowl 

foods in Management Unit 3 have been found to be available at densities significantly above the level 

required for efficient waterfowl use. 

The refuge has also contributed to the Chenier Plain Initiative by maintaining unimpounded marsh 

areas, including 7,231acres of brackish marsh, 84,829 acres of intermediate marsh, and 33,730 

acres of fresh marsh. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

interest and responsibility for the conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas. The 

Sabine 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. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is 

located within the Lower Mississippi, Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region. On a regional 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

scale, the refuge can help ensure that adequate quantity and quality 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 

(CWPPRA) 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. Funding of proposed projects is 

determined by the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, which is 

composed of five federal agencies and the State of Louisiana. As mandated by CWPPRA, the task 

force developed a detailed Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan in 1993 that describes the restoration 

actions and projects that 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 CWPPRA funding. 

COAST 2050: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE COASTAL LOUISIANA 

Coast 2050, funded by CWPPRA, is a comprehensive, ecosystem-based plan developed by private 

citizens, local, state, and federal agencies, and the scientific community to address coastal wetland 

loss throughout southern Louisiana. This plan, which is recognized by the State of Louisiana, five 

federal agencies, and local coastal parish governments, serves as the joint coastal restoration plan 

for CWPPRA. 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. The strategic objectives of Coast 2050 are to (1) sustain a 

coastal ecosystem with the essential functions and values of the natural ecosystem; (2) restore the 

ecosystem to the highest practicable acreage of productive and diverse wetlands; and (3) 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). Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is included in Region 4 of this plan. 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN 

The Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan (LCA) 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 the long-term needs of coastal 

Louisiana restoration. 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is located within Sub-province 4 for the LCA. The restoration plans 

identified in LCA 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 U.S. 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: 
16 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

• protect the health of aquatic habitats; 

• restore fish and other aquatic resources; and 

• provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources. 

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

key needs. Sabine National Wildlife 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan 

sets management goals to restore woodcock populations to levels consistent with the demands of 

consumptive and nonconsumptive 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. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

II. Refuge Overview 

Established in 1937, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is one of more than 545 refuges within 

America’s National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest network of lands set aside specifically 

for wildlife. The Sabine Refuge is located eight miles south of Hackberry, on State Highway 27 in 

Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Figures 2 and 3). The refuge occupies the marshes between Calcasieu 

and Sabine lakes in southwest Louisiana, and contains 125,790 acres, consisting of 40,403 acres of 

open water and 85,387 acres of marsh grassland. This area contains a diversity of habitat including 

freshwater impoundments, wooded ridges and levees, canals, ponds, lakes, and bayous. Some of 

the largest wetland management efforts in Louisiana occur at Sabine. The refuge is managed to 

provide habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds and to preserve and enhance coastal marshes 

for wildlife and fish. Oil companies, however, still own the subsurface rights to the refuge and must 

be given reasonable access. 

The East Cove Unit was established in 1937 as part of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. This unit, 

administratively transferred to Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge from Sabine in 1992, 

consists of 14,927 acres of brackish to intermediate marsh. These marshes are managed as a 

nursery for brown and white shrimp, blue crab, and many fish species. Located in Cameron Parish in 

the southwest corner of Louisiana, the East Cove Unit (Figure 4) is bordered on the west by 

Calcasieu Lake, and on the north, east, and south by privately owned marshes (USFWS 2002a; 

2002b; 2001; 1998). 

Sabine Refuge provides habitat for many species of wildlife, including ducks, geese, alligators, 

muskrats, nutria, raptors, wading birds, shorebirds, blue crabs, shrimp, and various fish. The refuge 

is one of the primary wintering refuges for waterfowl in the Mississippi Flyway. Olivaceous cormorant, 

snowy egret and common egret rookeries are present on the refuge. In the fall and spring many 

shorebird species can be found here. Numerous species of neotropical migrant songbirds pass 

through the refuge on their migration. Many species of fish and shrimp mature and grow in the 

“nursery” provided by the refuge’s intermediate and brackish marshes. 

Management of this refuge is not as intensive as that of many smaller refuges. Because of manmade and natural factors, habitat losses have occurred on an estimated 40,000 acres of the refuge. 

There are currently four Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) 

projects underway on the refuge, with the goal of restoring its wetlands. These projects include 

marsh creation, shoreline protection, earthen terracing, and water control structures. These control 

structures were placed on the refuge to lessen saltwater intrusion and along with improved water 

management practices are attempting to reverse or slow habitat losses. Sabine was established to 

protect and provide habitat for migratory waterfowl. Today water level management and prescribed 

marsh burning still aim at providing quality habitat for waterfowl, but these practices also take other 

species into account. 

Within the East Cove Unit, marshes are being managed to preserve the balance between salt and 

fresh water and to restore the historic marshes destroyed by saltwater intrusion (USFWS 1998). The 

Service is also cooperating with other agencies on the East Cove Unit to restore thousands of acres 

of freshwater marsh habitat by planting bulrush and constructing fences out of Christmas trees. 
18 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 2. Location of Sabine Refuge National Wildlife Refuge and the Southwest Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Figure 3. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge excluding the East Cove Unit. 
20 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 4. East Cove Unit managed by Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge. 

PURPOSE

Executive Order 7764, dated December 6, 1937, stated the official purpose of the refuge: “...as a 

refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” A secondary purpose of the 

refuge is “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds...” (16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)). 

Sabine is managed according to goals, objectives, and strategies designed to maintain and restore 

habitat and manage water levels. Tools used to accomplish the refuge’s goals and objectives include 

operating water control structures and prescribed burning. The primary management goal is to 

maintain and perpetuate Gulf Coast wetlands for wintering waterfowl from the Mississippi and Central 

Flyways. The refuge is one of the largest estuarine-dependent marine species nurseries in 

southwest Louisiana (USFWS 2002c). 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

The management goals for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge are to: 

• maintain and perpetuate refuge wetlands for wintering waterfowl (USFWS 1998); 

• provide for the needs of endangered plants and animals; 

• allow compatible public uses, such as hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife observation, and 

photography; and 

• promote research on marsh and aquatic wildlife (USFWS 2002c). 

REFUGE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION 

IMPACT OF HURRICANE RITA 

On September 24, 2005, Category 3 Hurricane Rita roared across Southwest Louisiana with winds in 

excess of 100 knots, leaving a broad swath of destruction in her wake. Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge bore the brunt of Rita’s 15–20 foot storm surge, which deposited many tons of debris onto the 

refuge. This debris came from the remnants of devastated coastal communities such as Holly Beach, 

Constance Beach, and Johnson’s Bayou, as well as oil and gas facilities. It contained a chaotic 

jumble of natural vegetation, construction debris, a myriad of household items, and an unknown 

amount of hazardous materials. 

In addition to habitat damage, the refuge’s facilities were devastated by Hurricane Rita. Five of eight 

buildings in the headquarters and visitor center area were immediately condemned and required 

demolition. The remaining three buildings need extensive repairs before they can be used. All public 

use facilities—including bridges, trails, boardwalks, and restrooms—received major damage and will 

require repairs before they can be reopened. These conditions represent a significant risk to health 

and human safety, requiring the Service to restrict refuge access to the public. 

The Service has published a handout (Figure 5) to answer some of the more common cleanup 

questions. The text following the hurricane handout contains descriptions of pre-hurricane conditions 

on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT POPULATIONS 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge boasts more than 250 bird species, 132 fish species, 36 reptile and 

amphibian species, and 28 mammal species. This diversity exists in spite of ongoing habitat changes 

on the refuge. Plant species composition has changed from an expansive area of emergent marsh 

dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamacense) to an area largely composed of shallow open water 

ponds and slowly eroding land dominated by saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens); seashore 

paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum); Olney's three-square (Scirpus olneyi); and common reed 

(Phragmites australis) present today (Valentine 1979; Chabreck et al. 2001). This has been caused 

by changes in the salinity regime and water retention time on the refuge. Records indicate that the 

sawgrass die-off at Sabine occurred after the large tidal surge of Hurricane Audrey in 1957, which 

was followed by two years of drought. Dumping of oil field production waters (salinities of 200 ppt) 

(parts per thousand) into the marsh has also been blamed for the die-off. Habitat shift analysis has 

shown that while the species composition may have changed, there has not been a basin-wide shift 

to a more saline environment since 1949 (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Task Force 2002). What has not changed is that waterfowl still flock to the refuge, but they are 

concentrated in the freshwater impoundments. 
22 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5. Hurricane recovery information for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Areas in coastal southwest Louisiana outside of freshwater impoundment have experienced changes 

in vegetation (see Figure 6) due to increased salinity and freshwater retention time, according to 

surveys dating back to 1949 (O’Neil 1949; Chabreck et al. 2001). The increased salinity can be 

attributed to navigation channels and their maintenance, primarily the Calcasieu Ship Channel into 

nearby Calcasieu Lake. These channels allow salt water from the Gulf of Mexico into the marsh 

faster than fresh water can flow into it. Between 1875 and 1910, Calcasieu Lake salinities were low 

enough for the water to be used to irrigate rice, which cannot tolerate salinities over 0.6 ppt 

(Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2002). Today, the average 

water salinity of Calcasieu Lake is between 8 and 12 ppt. 

The other major factor contributing to shifting vegetation is canals and their associated spoil banks 

impeding the north-south flow of fresher water over the marsh. Combined with drought conditions, 

this can cause areas with salinities to more than double in some instances. Three areas of the refuge 

were impounded to prevent saltwater intrusion and lessen drought-induced salinity shifts in those 

areas. 

The three impounded freshwater marsh management units are dominated by bulltongue (Sagittaria 

spp.), water shield (Brasenia schreberi), white water-lily (Nymphaea odorata), spikerush (Eleocharis 

spp.), cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.). Open water areas throughout the refuge 

host a variety of submerged aquatics that assist with marsh stabilization, add to detritus build-up, and 

provide food for waterfowl. Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), 

southern naiad (Najas quadalupensis), common bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris), fanwort (Cabomba 

caroliniana), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and Ottelia (Ottelia alismoides) line the shallow 

areas along canals and bayous, in addition to occupying large expanses of open water. Over 25 

acres in Management Unit 3 are inhabited by wild celery (Vallisneria americana), an important food of 

wintering canvasbacks. Vegetative species that occur on drier upland sites such as ridges and 

levees include Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), live oak 

(Quercus virginiana), rattlebox (Sesbania drummondii), black willow (Salix nigra), waxmyrtle (Myrica 

cerifera), common elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), blackberry (Rubus spp.), trumpet vine 

(Campsis radicans), blue vervain (Verbena hastate), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.) (USFWS 1996). 

East Cove Unit Vegetation 

As a result of habitat deterioration through erosion and saltwater intrusion, wildlife species and 

numbers on the East Cove Unit decreased dramatically in the past. The more diverse freshwater and 

intermediate marshes formerly present on the unit (Figure 7) were converted to brackish and 

saltwater marshes with monotypic stands of marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens). Implementation 

of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project has helped to reverse this trend (USFWS 2001). 

Threatened and Endangered Species of Management Concern 

Species of special management concern, including threatened or endangered, occur infrequently at 

Sabine. Calcasieu and Sabine lakes provide habitat for two species of sea turtles: the federally 

endangered Kemp’s ridley and the federally threatened loggerhead. The refuge provides access and 

habitat for these species, and Service personnel have seen Kemp’s ridleys on the refuge; staff have 

also radio-tracked loggerheads on the refuge. As well, the refuge could potentially be used by the 

threatened bald eagle, which formerly nested in Cameron Parish, and the endangered wood stork. 
24 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 6. Vegetation of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Figure 7. Vegetation of East Cove Unit. 

Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 (USFWS 2002d) (BCC 2002) is an effort to carry out a mandate 

(Public Law 100-653, Title VIII ) to identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory 

nongame birds that are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA). The report strives to accurately identify migratory and nonmigratory bird species that 

represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities. BCC 2002 lists birds of conservation concern 

at three geographic scales—North American Bird Conservation Initiative Bird Conservation Regions, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions, and National—to maximize the utility of the lists for partners 

and agencies. 

In addition, three national plans were used to place birds on the lists: Partners In Flight, United States 

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, abundance, and area importance. 

While all the bird species included in BCC 2002 are priorities for conservation action, the lists make 

no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing. The Service’s goal is to 

prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management 

and conservation actions. Table 1 lists the birds of management concern that are known or expected 

to occur on the refuge. The refuge’s bird checklist is presented in Appendix D. 
26 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 1. Birds of management concern to the 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 

Black Rail X X X 

American Golden-Plover X X 

Wilson’s 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 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper X 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 

Olive-sided Flycatcher 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 

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow X X 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Waterfowl 

Migratory waterfowl use the refuge and are economically important in the area. Mottled ducks, wood 

ducks, and fulvous whistling-ducks are known to nest and raise young on the refuge. The refuge 

provides excellent wintering habitat for many other waterfowl species including white-fronted geese, 

lesser snow geese, and Canada geese. At least 20 duck species including gadwall, green-winged 

teal, blue-winged teal, American widgeon, mallards, and ring-necked ducks winter on Sabine 

(USFWS 1996). Aerial waterfowl surveys have recorded over 100,000 ducks on the refuge three out 

of five winters between the winter of 1994-95 and the winter of 1998-99, and one of those years over 

200,000 ducks were counted. Gadwall, green-winged teal, and lesser snow geese frequent the 

refuge in higher numbers than other waterfowl species. Winter population surveys over the last ten 

years averaged almost 25,000 gadwall and 10,000 green-wing teal and snow geese, respectively 

(USFWS 2002c). Table 2 shows the approximate peak wintering waterfowl numbers for Sabine for 

the years 1990 to 1998. Figure 8 relates the various waterfowl species and their relative numbers 

using the marshes of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Table 2. Annual peak wintering waterfowl populations on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Year No. of Waterfowl Observed 

1990 138,107 

1991 134,909 

1992 279,427 

1993 204,804 

1994 204,881 

1995 153,912 

1996 72,057 

1997 136,977 

1998 38,538 

Source: USFWS, unpublished data 

East Cove Unit Waterfowl 

During 2001, six wintering waterfowl surveys were conducted for the Cameron Creole Watershed 

Project (Figure 8), which includes the East Cove Unit. Waterfowl numbers were below their long-term 

average, which may be a result of very low aquatic plant production due to extended periods of 

elevated salinities (USFWS 2002a). Table 3 shows approximate peak wintering waterfowl numbers 

for the East Cove Unit for the past 13 years. 

The gadwall is usually the most frequently encountered duck during surveys on the East Cove Unit; it 

primarily consumes aquatic vegetation. The low number of waterfowl observed in 2000 and 2001 

was due to the absence of aquatic vegetation. Aquatic vegetation within the Cameron Creole 

Watershed Project area began to disappear after extended periods of drought and high salinities. 

With the decrease in aquatic vegetation, there is an associated decline in waterfowl numbers. In 

addition, only one survey was conducted in 2000, compared to 45 between 1988 and 2000. With 

such sparse and sporadic data, it is hard to make reliable conclusions regarding population shifts, 

trends, and long-term effects of the Watershed Project on waterfowl populations (USFWS 2001). 
28 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Total Average Sum of 61 Surveys 

SNOW GOOSE

WHITE FRONT

CANADA GOOSE

MALLARD

MOTTLED

GADWALL

GW TEAL

BW TEAL

SHOVELER

PINTAIL

WIGEON

RINGNECK

REDHEAD

CANVASBACK

BUFFLEHEAD

WHISTLING DUCK

BLACK BEL. W.D.

FULVOUS W.D.

GREATER SCAUP

LESSER SCAUP

SCAUP SPP.

COM. GOLDEN EYE

RUDDY DUCK

COMMON MERG.

HOODED MERG.

RED BREASTED MERG.

WOOD DUCK

UNIDENTIFIED

COOTS

Waterfo

wl Species

 WATERFOWL AVERAGE NUMBERS PER SURVEY

Table 3. Annual peak wintering waterfowl populations on the East Cove Unit. 

Year No. of Waterfowl Observed

1988 2,400 

1989 6,900 

1991 3,400 

1992 11,700 

1993 9,500 

1994 22,100 

1995 17,870 

1996 13,750 

1997 15,729 

1998 5,985 

1999 72,498 

2000 3,060 

2001 6,176 

Source: USFWS, 2002a 

Figure 8. Waterfowl survey results for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Wading Birds (Water and Marsh Birds) 

Many wading bird species are present on the refuge year-round. Winter surveys have revealed that 

great egrets, white and white-faced ibis, and roseate spoonbills are the most abundant wading birds 

on the refuge and feed throughout the marshes during the winter months. Species such as white 

pelicans, tricolored herons, black-crowned night herons, green herons, great blue herons, and snowy 

egrets are also present in great numbers. Hundreds of cormorants utilize the refuge as well. 

Many species of colonial nesting birds such as herons, egrets and cormorants have been observed 

nesting in trees and shrubs within Management Units 1, 1A, and 3. There are five active rookeries on 

the refuge (as indicated in a May 10, 2001 survey). Favored nesting areas include islands and 

abandoned levees. During the 1990s, as many as 5,000 white and white-faced ibis nested in 

bullwhip marsh on Unit 1B. Breeding bird surveys, conducted by boat from canals, have indicated 

that common moorhens and least bitterns are the most abundant species of this group during the 

summer. Numbers of more secretive species such as clapper rails and purple gallinules have not 

been determined (USFWS 1996). 

East Cove Unit Wading Birds 

Areas of highest wading bird use on the East Cove Unit include the shallow open ponds at the 

northeast boundary of the refuge and broken marsh between the Lambert Bayou and No Name 

Bayou near the Borrow Canal. Peak use of the unit by wading birds occurs with varying water levels 

(low and high), where fluctuating water levels create new shallow water areas for feeding (USFWS 

2001). 

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species 

Over 30 shorebird species utilize habitat on the refuge during their spring and fall migrations. As part 

of the International Shorebird Survey, a three-year study was conducted at several sites, near 

Calcasieu Lake, along the eastern portion of the refuge. That survey indicated that dowitcher species 

were the most abundant, with black-necked stilts second, and small shorebirds including sandpipers 

and plovers, third in abundance. Other species sighted include American avocets, yellowlegs, willets, 

dunlins and killdeer. A June survey of black-necked stilt nests indicated that as many as 214 nests 

occurred in a 384-acre, muskrat eat-out area (USFWS 1996). 

East Cove Unit Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species 

Shorebird use of the East Cove Unit has traditionally been very low, occurring only during low water 

levels, drawdown periods, and droughts. Even then, only a few hundred birds use this unit. 

Commonly observed species of shorebirds, gulls, terns and allied species include Forster’s terns, 

black-necked stilts, laughing gulls, willets, dowitchers, black terns, black-bellied plovers, and dunlins 

(USFWS 2001). 

Raptors 

Many species of hawks, owls, and vultures utilize the refuge as a wintering ground. Red-tailed 

hawks, which are observed throughout the refuge in trees lining canal banks, are the most abundant 

of the wintering hawks. Year-round residents include barn owls, great horned owls, and black and 

turkey vultures (USFWS 1996). Black vultures can usually be found roosting in trees and on 

structures on Club House Island at the intersection of the Beach and Central canals. 
30 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

East Cove Unit Raptors 

Northern harriers are frequently observed flying low over the marsh during fall, winter, and spring. 

Several types of owls are year-round residents of the unit, including barn owls, great horned owls, 

barred owls, and screech owls. Potentially suitable habitat for these owls exists along levees and 

ridges. Barn owls have been recorded nesting in the nest box near the paired ponds for the past 

several years (USFWS 2001). 

Other Migratory Birds 

Seventy-five species of migratory songbirds use the refuge levees during their spring migration. 

Several species of passerines are known to breed/nest on refuge levees during the summer months, 

including the orchard oriole, yellow-billed cuckoo, eastern kingbird, mourning dove, white-eyed vireo, 

northern cardinal, and common yellowthroat. Species such as the red-winged blackbird, boat-tailed 

grackle, eastern meadowlark, marsh wren, and seaside sparrow are known to nest in and among the 

marsh vegetation (USFWS 1996). Belted kingfishers and eastern kingbirds can be seen perched on 

trees and power lines above the canals along State Highway 27. Refuge personnel participate in two 

Christmas bird counts and a breeding bird survey route on the refuge each year. 

Mammals 

At least 28 species of mammals can be found on the refuge. The most common rodents include 

muskrat, nutria, marsh rice rat, and hispid cotton rat. The swamp rabbit and eastern cottontail are the 

only two lagomorphs found on the refuge. Many carnivorous furbearers live on the refuge, including 

river otter, mink, coyote and bobcat. Armadillo can frequently be seen on the levees. The only 

ungulate present is the white-tailed deer. Among the bats that have been documented to occur on 

the refuge are the red bat, Eastern pipistrelle, and Brazilian free-tailed bat (USFWS 1996). 

East Cove Unit Mammals 

Use of the East Cove Unit by several species of small mammals, including the muskrat and nutria, 

may be increasing as a result of improved water management, subsequent conversion of areas of 

brackish marsh to intermediate and freshwater marsh, and increases in the abundance of preferred 

food sources (USFWS 2001). 

Otters are observed throughout the year on the East Cove Unit, with heaviest use seen during winter. 

In addition, coyotes have been observed both during aerial waterfowl surveys and from boats in the 

marsh (USFWS 2001). 

Virtually the only game mammal found on the East Cove Unit and Cameron Creole Watershed is the 

white-tailed deer. During high water levels, deer are restricted to the ridges, levees, and areas of 

higher elevation. During low water levels, deer can venture into the interior of the marsh. Deer are 

regularly observed at the north end of the watershed along Big Pasture Road near the PPG camp 

and boat launch, as well as in the marsh west of the Cotton Well Road landing. Although deer are 

not frequently observed on the lake bank levee, signs of deer use are present (USFWS 2001). 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge harbors at least 35 species of amphibians and reptiles. Species 

most commonly encountered include: the American alligator, snapping turtle, alligator snapping turtle, 

red-eared slider, Mississippi green water snake, broad-banded water snake, western ribbon snake, 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

speckled kingsnake, western cottonmouth, green anole, ground skink, Gulf coast toad, green 

treefrog, and southern leopard frog (USFWS 1996). Another species of note is the diamondback 

terrapin, a medium-size turtle that prefers open water in coastal salt marshes and estuaries (USFWS 

2002). 

Alligator Trapping 

The alligator harvest on the refuge occurs during September. Harvest limits and dates are set by the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and in some instances the regulations on Sabine are 

more restrictive. Sabine's alligator harvest is a sustained yield harvest, meaning that smaller 

alligators, which grow into the harvested size class during the year, replace the animals taken each 

year. The state decides how many alligators will be harvested by considering a number of factors 

including habitat type, annual productivity, and harvest data from previous years (USFWS 1996). 

East Cove Unit Alligator Trapping 

Alligator trapping was initiated in the East Cove Unit in 1993. Initially, harvest quotas for this unit 

were reduced from the state allowed limit to err on the conservative side; however, the numbers 

gradually increased over the years up to the state limit. Alligator trapping on the East Cove Unit was 

discontinued in 2001 (USFWS 2002a). 

Aquatic Species 

Fish associated with the refuge marshes include Gulf menhaden, Atlantic croaker, gobies, pipefish, 

bay anchovy, inland silverside, western mosquitofish, pinfish, striped and white mullet, silver perch, 

bay whiff, bayou and rainwater killifish, speckled worm eel, sand sea trout, red drum, crappie, gar, 

sunfishes, largemouth bass, and catfish. Shellfish associated with these areas include blue and mud 

crab, and white, grass, and brown shrimp (Bush 2003; USFWS 1996). Many of these fish spend time 

maturing in these marshes before they return to the ocean. Recreational fishery populations have 

been greatly reduced over the last decade because of drops in water levels due to management and 

drought (USFWS 2002). Restocking efforts on the refuge failed and low populations are expected to 

continue in the future. 

East Cove Unit Aquatic Species 

The East Cove Unit serves as an important nursery for brown and white shrimp and blue crabs. Fish 

species present include gar, catfish, bowfin, bluegill, bass, crappie, flounder, and redfish (USFWS 

2002b; 2001). 

Invasive Plant Species 

Several invasive plant species are present on the refuge. The Chinese tallowtree (Sapium sebiferum) 

is the most prevalent. It is found on canal and impoundment spoil banks and may be found on 

ridges. It is an introduced ornamental that has escaped to become the dominant woody species in 

Louisiana coastal marshes. Larger tallowtrees can be controlled by herbicide application or cleared, 

and small plants can be removed by burning woody growth before it reaches maturity. 

Salt cedar (Tamarix gallica) is found sparsely along canal banks and ridges throughout the refuge. It 

was introduced from Europe and can be an aggressive invader on dewatered, disturbed wetlands 

and especially on hydraulically deposited soils. Drought conditions probably contribute to its 
32 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

establishment and propagation. Methods of control include long-term deep flooding or application of 

herbicides licensed for aquatic use. 

Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) is present on canal and spoil banks on the refuge. It was introduced 

as an ornamental, but has escaped and now can be found on higher elevated areas of the refuge. 

No methods of control or elimination were found in the literature, but may be similar to tallowtree. 

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia sp.) was found in old borrow pits used to construct ring levees for oil and 

gas development in Management Unit 2. This is a South American and African plant introduced as 

an ornamental that produces quickly and has no natural predator in the United States. Repeated 

applications of the herbicide 2,4-D is the most practical method of reducing infestations. 

Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is rapidly colonizing areas that have converted from 

emergent marsh to open water, and was found to be one of the most common species near terraces 

placed in an open water area in Unit 7. Though Eurasian milfoil is not native and is of less value to 

wildlife than other aquatic species, its presence is desired over the absence of vegetation in recently 

disturbed open water areas. The species is native to Eurasia and Africa and is believed to have 

arrived in North America during the late 19th century, possibly from shipping ballast. Methods of 

control include application of 2,4-D or biocontrol by introducing American Weevil. 

Invasive Plant Species on the East Cove Unit 

Salinity levels in the East Cove Unit usually control most noxious plants. One noxious plant species 

of concern—giant salvinia—was recently identified in Cameron Parish. This is a very aggressive, 

floating, aquatic plant that grows so thick on the water’s surface that it completely shades out 

submerged aquatic vegetation (USFWS 2001). The plant can tolerate a salinity of 8 ppt or greater, 

which falls within the salinity ranges of the East Cove Unit (USFWS 2002a). 

Invasive Animal Species 

The most common invasive animal on the refuge is the nutria. This rodent was first trapped on the 

refuge in the winter of 1941–42, and at the time refuge personnel wished they had more of them to 

control vegetation. However, numbers increased dramatically in 1954 and are now a problem in 

some years. The nutria has displaced the native muskrat in many of Louisiana’s coastal marshes 

and they can cause harm to fragile marshes when they occur in high densities. When warranted, 

harvest is used to control the population. 

Feral hogs are common on the refuge and can be detrimental to nesting bird success. The hogs 

degrade habitat and can contribute to land loss by damaging healthy plants that hold the soils in 

many areas together. No harvest of feral hogs is conducted on the refuge at this time. 

Another invasive animal species of concern potentially found on the refuge is the zebra mussel, 

which has caused great problems wherever it has become established in North America. Refuge 

personnel annually monitor canals throughout the refuge for this highly invasive mussel, but none 

have been found to date. 

Habitats 

The refuge is managed to balance the needs of reducing stress to wetland plants caused by 

waterlogging and saltwater intrusion while providing sufficient access to interior marshes for estuarine 

species. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Freshwater Impoundments. Three rain-fed freshwater impoundments created in 1951 and 1959 

provide habitat for numerous species of waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, mammals, reptiles, and 

fish. Management Unit 3, which encompasses 26,400 acres, is the largest freshwater marsh 

remaining in southwest Louisiana. Management units 1A and 1B comprise 5,138 acres and 1,800 

acres of marsh, respectively, and are highly utilized by a variety of wildlife, most notably ducks. 

Waterfowl foods in Management Unit 3 have been found to be available at densities significantly 

above the level required for efficient waterfowl use (Winslow 2003). The target water management 

level is 1.8 feet to enhance the growth and survival of desirable plant communities for waterfowl 

(USFWS 1996). Water depths can be reduced, but only rainfall can increase water levels in these 

impoundments. 

Coastal Marsh. The refuge contains 91,173 acres of fresh, intermediate, and brackish marshes 

interspersed with low prairie ridges, man-made levees, meandering bayous, and canals. 

Traditionally, the area fluctuates from being a predominantly fresh marsh to a predominantly brackish 

marsh and reverts back from brackish to fresh, dependent upon weather cycles and precipitation. 

Prescribed fire is one of the primary habitat management tools used on the refuge. Between 1984 

and 2006, 85 prescribed fires were conducted restarting plant succession on over 241,304 acres on 

the refuge. These fires increase plant productivity and reduce the dangers of uncontrolled fires that 

may threaten people or property. 

From fiscal years 2003 to 2006, over 80 wildfires burned 50,279 acres. Wildfires on the refuge are 

primarily caused by lightning strikes and seismic surveying activity. 

Restoration and Mitigation Sites. Marsh re-creation using dredge material from channel dredging and 

linear terrace construction is currently being employed on the refuge. The basic principle behind both 

practices is to re-create habitat lost when areas convert from emergent marsh to open water. 

Dredge Material. The Calcasieu Ship Channel that borders Sabine Refuge to the east is dredged on 

a two-year cycle to allow for large ship passage to the Port of Lake Charles. Sabine was chosen for 

a demonstration site to use dredged material to re-create marsh that had been lost. This use of 

dredge material will, ideally, allow managers to not only restore these marshes, but to connect the 

restored sites with the greater landscape, restoring hydrology, and improve habitat quality and 

diversity. To address concerns about dredge material contaminants, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (ACE) analyzes soil samples along the channel used for beneficial use. Thus far, four 

sites on the refuge have received dredge material for marsh re-creation efforts. Since 1975, 1,400 

acres of marsh have been restored on Sabine using dredge-fill (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2002). 

Research has found that elevation of these constructed wetlands has more impact than the age of 

the restoration on achieving “natural” soil processes (Edwards and Proffitt 2002); however, 

decomposition rates on the sites do appear comparable to natural areas (Mills and Edwards 2003). 

The belowground biomass on restored sites is significantly lower than natural sites (Ford et al. 2003). 

There appears to be some difference between small mammal use rates of restored sites as 

compared to natural sites, though this may be due to elevation difference (Mills et al. 2003). Many of 

these studies are ongoing. Studies are being conducted to assess patterns of vegetation (breeding 

system, colonization, cover, dominance, genetic diversity, growth, and succession); levels of metal 

contaminants in the sediment and biota; and use of the habitat by small mammals. Further studies of 

selected faunal use, dominant plant productivity, and elevation over time are currently being 

conducted. Analysis of the sites that experienced the brown marsh phenomenon is also underway. 
34 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Earthen Terraces. In 1990, “checker board” terraces were constructed in ponds along Calcasieu 

Lake in the West Cove Unit. These were followed in 2001 by the construction of 18,000 linear feet of 

planted, earthen terraces in Units 6 and 7 to mitigate for impacts due to oil and gas activities. The 

ACE and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) require compensatory mitigation 

for acreage loss due to dredge and fill activities in wetlands. Terraces are discontinuous low ridges 

constructed with bottom sediments excavated from adjacent pond bottoms. They are designed to 

reduce wind related wave intensity, slow water movement allowing fine sediments to settle within the 

area, provide favorable conditions for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) establishment, and 

increase abundance and habitat of fish and other aquatic species. 

Ideal sites for terrace construction are areas where water bodies join or are threatening to join with 

another water body. No significant benefit to SAV has been found in two studies conducted on 

terraces at the refuge (Steyer 1993; Caldwell 2003), but research on other terrace configurations is 

ongoing. An unexpected secondary benefit is they have provided nesting habitat for seabirds such 

as least terns, forester’s terns, and black skimmers. Another secondary benefit is that terraces 

contribute to increased fish habitat quality as compared to sparsely vegetated open ponds (Bush 

2003). Terrace construction for 2002 exceeded 40,000 linear feet in Unit 6. Terrace construction is 

also proposed for areas of Unit 5 as part of the CWPPRA East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration 

(CS-32) project. 

East Cove Unit Coastal Marsh. The East Cove Unit consists of 14,927 acres of brackish and salt 

marsh that is closely managed to preserve a balance between salt and fresh water. The salinity of 

the water is constantly monitored and water levels managed to restore and maintain the historic 

marshes destroyed by saltwater intrusion. The East Cove Unit is part of the Cameron Creole 

Watershed Project (Figure 9), a cooperative effort among local, state, and federal agencies and the 

private sector to restore 64,000 acres of marsh in Cameron Parish (USFWS 1998). Water control on 

the East Cove Unit and Cameron Creole Watershed is accomplished with the operation of five water 

control structures located along Calcasieu Lake’s eastern shore (USFWS 2002a). The refuge 

manager of Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge manages the Cameron Creole Watershed 

Project under a cooperative agreement among sponsors. 

The Service does not currently conduct vegetation surveys or monitoring of the East Cove Unit. 

However, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conducts vegetation monitoring as 

part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project, every five years since 1983. According to these 

surveys, the major vegetation components of the East Cove Unit are marshhay cordgrass (Spartina 

patens) and oystergrass or smooth cordgrass (S. alterniflora) (USFWS 2002a). 

Additional information on East Cove vegetation can be found in the Cameron Creole Watershed 1993 

Vegetative Monitoring Report, published by the NRCS in 1997. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Figure 9. Cameron Creole Watershed Project including East Cove Unit. 
36 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Wetlands 

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, freshwater submerged aquatic plants increased and expanded 

their ranges on the Cameron Creole Watershed due to improved water management. Dominant 

submergent vegetation in fresh to intermediate marshes consists of coontail (Ceratophyllum

demersum), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), wild celery (Vallisneria americana), Eurasian 

watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), southern niad (Najas quadalupensis), and several pondweed 

species (Potamogeton spp.). In the past several years, submergents continued to spread further east 

and south in the watershed, into larger bodies of water from Broussard Lake to East Prong and from 

Bayou Bois Connine to North Prong. In brackish areas, large mats of widgeon grass (Ruppia

maritime) continued to colonize, forming thick mats in open water areas from Lambert Bayou south to 

NoName Bayou. However, as a result of extreme rain deficits in 1999 and 2000, high salinity levels 

contributed to the overall decline and/or disappearance of aquatic vegetation (USFWS 2001). 

Water level and salinity management on the East Cove Unit are based on the 1987 Resource 

Management Plan for Cameron Creole Watershed, established by the Cameron Creole Advisory 

Committee. During the year, salinities are recorded bi-weekly at 28 stations throughout the marsh, 

and are averaged to compare seasonal fluctuations from year to year. Water salinities within the 

Cameron Creole Watershed are directly but inversely correlated to seasonal rainfall—as rainfall 

decreases, salinity levels increase (USFWS 2001). 

EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

The Sabine Refuge is one of the premier attractions of the Creole Nature Trail All American Road (a 

National Scenic Byway), and attracts 300,000 visitors annually (Figure 10). These visitors represent 

diverse groups with a variety of interests, including wildlife viewing, fishing, shrimping, crabbing, and 

hunting. The refuge’s visitor facilities (pre-hurricane) are shown in Figure 11. (Note: the refuge 

facilities were destroyed or heavily damaged by Hurricane Rita in September of 2005 and have not 

been replaced at the time this Comprehensive Conservation Plan was printed.) 

Figure 10. Annual visitation for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Figure 11. Visitor facilities at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 
38 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Hunting and Trapping 

Hunting of waterfowl and trapping of alligators, nutria, and muskrats is permitted on the refuge. 

Hunting and trapping of other wildlife species is not permitted on the refuge. During the 1993–1994 

through the 2004–2005 waterfowl hunting seasons, an average of 3,166 hunters per year used the 

refuge. 

Waterfowl. Hunting of ducks, geese, and coots has been allowed in designated areas of the refuge 

on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays during the state waterfowl seasons set by the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. This Comprehensive Conservation Plan recommends changing 

the weekly hunting schedule to allow hunting on days that are coordinated with Lacassine National 

Wildlife Refuge’s hunting days. All hunters are required to have a refuge-issued permit. 

Alligator. The alligator season generally occurs during September after alligator hatching occurs but 

prior to winter hibernation. The season is set by LDWF and may vary slightly depending on the 

duration of the nesting season. The refuge harvest follows state regulations, but may be more 

restrictive under certain conditions. 

Refuge hunters must have at least two years of hunting experience and have the necessary 

equipment. A special use permit from the refuge is required. Alligators are processed at a check 

station prior to leaving the refuge or being sold. Data collected from each alligator include tag 

number, sex, weight, and length and girth measurements. 

Alligators can be taken by fishing or shooting during daylight hours, between sunrise and sunset. 

The primary method for harvesting alligators on the refuge is by setting a line with a baited hook 

along bayous, canals or open lakes. 

Nutria and Muskrat. Local trappers who operate under federal trapping permits conduct the harvest. 

The trapping season is established by LDWF. Trapping proceeds are shared between the Service 

and the trapper, with the permittee retaining a certain percentage of the harvest. The refuge 

manager designates the number of helpers and harvest quota, and may suspend trapping operations 

any time there is a need to protect waterfowl concentrations, when conditions prevent successful 

catches, or when trappers do not conform to the terms of the agreement. No trapping has occurred 

on the refuge since the winter of 1997–98 because nutria and muskrat populations have been low 

enough to not warrant a harvest. 

Fishing and Boating 

Fishing is permitted on designated waterways at Sabine. Between calendar years 2000–2005, an 

average of 107,030 people fished on the refuge annually. Fishing with rod and reel, pole and line, or 

jug and line is permitted. The use or possession of other types of fishing gear is prohibited on the 

refuge. Bank fishing along Highway 27 is permitted year-round. A special permit is required from the 

refuge for cast netting for shrimp. 

Fishing and public access is permitted from March 15 through October 15 on designated waterways 

and on Management Unit 3 (motors up to 40 horsepower). Management Units 1A and 1B are open 

from March 15 to October 15 to nonmotorized boats only. Aside from Management Unit 3, trolling 

motors only are allowed in refuge marshes. The saltwater boat launch at West Cove is open yearround for fishing access into Calcasieu Lake. The West Cove Canal is closed to fishing from October 

16 through March 14, and is used for boat passage only during this time. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

East Cove Unit Fishing and Boating 

The East Cove Unit is open for public use (Figure 12), including fishing year-round, except during the 

state’s waterfowl hunting season and when the Grand Bayou Boat Bay is closed. Public use of the 

unit is restricted to boats only; no walking, wading, or climbing in or on the marsh, levees, or 

structures to fish, cast net, or crab is allowed (USFWS 2002b). An estimated 10 to 12 boats use the 

East Cove Unit daily when the boat bay is open. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge has two nature-viewing trails and two roadside “scenic overlook” 

viewing areas. From 2000–2005, 85,734 visitors walked the Wetland Walkway and the Blue Goose 

Trail annually. The refuge has also established several nonmotorized boating areas that allow the 

public to view and photograph wildlife in areas undisturbed by motorized traffic. 

Scenic Overlooks. In cooperation with the Creole Nature Trail Scenic Byway, the refuge built two 

roadside “scenic overlooks” beside State Highway 27. These areas allow visitors on the refuge to 

stop and observe coastal marsh habitats and the wildlife inhabiting them without having to leave their 

vehicles. 

Trails. There are two wildlife observation trails on the refuge, one in a freshwater impoundment and 

another in coastal brackish/saline marsh. 

The Wetland Walkway, a one and one-half mile trail and boardwalk located approximately four miles 

south of the refuge headquarters with parking and facilities near State Highway 27, provides 

opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. There is a boardwalk over the impounded 

freshwater marsh of Unit 1B and wildlife can frequently be seen crossing the trail. The trail also 

features a raised observation tower that allow for spectacular views especially at sundown when the 

western sky frames acres of grassy marsh. Visitors can see wading birds, waterfowl, alligator, 

rabbits, armadillos, muskrat, nutria, nesting birds, butterflies, and migrant songbirds during various 

times of the year from the trail. The trail is open year-round from dawn until dusk. 

The Blue Goose Trail is located on State Highway 27 just north of the refuge headquarters and 

features parking and a wildlife observation platform. Wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, diamondbacked terrapins, and many other brackish/saline marsh and shoreline species may be seen along 

the trail. The trail is open year-round from dawn until dusk. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

On-site and off-site education and interpretation to visitors and the community-at-large are presented 

by the Complex staff. Complex staff and volunteers taught 501 students on and off-site, and an 

additional 467 were taught by teachers or scout groups while on the refuge in Fiscal Year 2003. Offsite education services were provided to 1,568 people at community seminars, festivals, and other 

public exhibitions. The public receives education through media events such as press releases and 

radio/television events. 
40 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 12. Visitor facilities at the East Cove Unit. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

REFUGE STAFF 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

which also includes the Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, and Shell Keys national wildlife refuges. The 

Sabine staff consists of four permanent employees, with occasional interns, volunteer workers, and 

term appointments supervised by the Refuge Manager. Positions include one Project Leader, one 

maintenance worker, one carpenter, and one refuge officer. Complex employees also perform many 

duties associated with management of Sabine. A Complex Project Leader stationed at the Complex 

headquarters at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge supervises the Sabine Refuge Manager. 

COORDINATION/COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS 

The refuge staff coordinates and cooperates extensively with state agencies, tribes, landowners, the 

public, conservation groups, oil and gas companies, and local agencies and organizations. Sabine 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. 

Since the East Cove Unit is part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project, refuge and Complex staff 

work closely with several state and local government agencies, including the Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Agriculture Extension 

Service, and Cameron Parish Police Jury (USFWS 2002a). The Service and Miami Corporation have 

been part of a cooperative agreement since 1990 to jointly manage lands within the watershed 

project for the preservation and restoration of coastal wetlands and for the benefit of waterfowl and 

other biological resources. Miami Corporation agreed to provide 1.5 employees and the Service 

agreed to provide three employees for the management and operation of the Cameron Creole 

Watershed Project as part of the agreement. However, when administration and management of the 

East Cove Unit was transferred from Sabine to Cameron Prairie, a new cooperative agreement was 

developed, resulting in the Service providing two full-time employees and the Miami Corporation 

providing up to one employee on an as-needed basis (USFWS 2001). 

In addition, since 75 percent of the watershed is private land with multiple landowners, an advisory 

committee was established prior to construction of the water control mechanisms in the watershed. 

This committee developed a management plan that was acceptable to all affected parties, and 

included the plan in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for the Cameron Creole Watershed 

Project. The Service adheres to the plan during day-to-day operations (USFWS 2002a). 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

The refuge’s heavy equipment is shown in Table 4. 

Table 4. List of heavy equipment at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Tractor, John Deere 

Tractor, Kubota 
42 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

ROADS 

Oil and gas companies maintain all roads on the refuge, except State Highway 27, which is 

maintained by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development; it is the only road on 

the refuge open to public traffic. In the near future, Vastar Road will become the Service’s 

responsibility. The well that Vastar Road services will be removed from the refuge in 2007. 

Visitor parking on the refuge is provided at eight locations along State Highway 27. Parking lots are 

provided at the refuge headquarters; the Wetland Walkway; the Blue Goose Trail; the Northline 

Recreation Area (at the intersection of the Northline Canal and Roadside Canal); the Hog Island Gully 

Recreation Area; the 1A/1B Recreation Area, an overlook area on State Highway 27; and the West 

Cove area. 

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. The Sabine Refuge encourages research and many research 

projects have and are currently being conducted on the refuge, but no specific research nature areas 

have been designated on the refuge. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

As part of the comprehensive conservation planning process, the lands within Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for wilderness, as defined by 

the Wilderness Act of 1964. Wilderness 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)). 

No lands on the refuge were found suitable for designation as wilderness. Although the refuge 

contains contiguous roadless lands that are at least 5,000 acres in size (one of the criteria for 

wilderness designation), these lands and waters have been substantially altered by humans, 

particularly through agriculture, water manipulation, levee and canal construction, pipeline laying, oil 

and gas 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. These past and present human activities do not make 

the refuge’s lands practicable or suitable as wilderness. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for 

wilderness designation is not further analyzed in this plan. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge contains several archeological sites with artifacts from the Atakapa 

people, who inhabited much of southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas before European 

colonization in the mid-1700s. Known sites can be found in almost all of the units of the refuge, 

though details are known for few of the sites. State regulations prohibit the disclosure of the contents 

of most of these sites, and several sites have only been identified from aerial photographs. Most of 

the known site locations on the refuge were identified by a cultural resource survey (Thomas et al. 

1978). There are no programs allowing the public access to these sites, and there is little for the 

public to view on these sites due to the high subsidence and burial rates found in coastal Louisiana. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Most sites abandoned before 800 A.D. are buried. Cultural sites have been damaged inadvertently 

due to canal construction and maintenance, mostly before the refuge was acquired. 

Three archeological sites on the refuge were discussed in Thomas et al. (1978); these are located at 

the “Club House” at the intersection of the Central and Beach canals, and two oyster shell 

concentrations observed in the East Cove Unit. The cultural significance of these sites is unknown, 

but a cursory survey was conducted on the “Club House” site. The survey indicated that the material 

at the “Club House” was probably transported from nearby Shell Hill in order to raise the elevation of 

the “Club House.” The materials from this site are still of concern, but may not have originated on the 

site. 

An Atakapa site, which may have served as a seasonal settlement, has been found near the refuge 

at the Hackberry Salt Dome. The Atakapa, named by the early French explorers for the Choctaw 

Indian word for “man-eater,” are believed to be one of the most technologically primitive Native 

American cultural groups in North America. The culture did not feature hierarchical leadership or an 

organized religious structure, though shamans were prominent members of the community. Most of 

their technological development centered on subsistence hunting, and their reputation as cannibals 

kept the group isolated from the Europeans until the mid-1700s. 

The Atakapa probably subsisted by hunting, foraging, and fishing, and common foods were probably 

deer, raccoon, muskrat, turtle, alligator, and various fish and shellfish. Shell mounds are believed to 

have been a prominent feature in coastal Atakapa settlements. The Atakapa were semi-nomadic and 

probably only spent the spring and summer subsisting in small family groups on coastal lands, such 

as those currently occupied by the Sabine Refuge; the fall and winter were spent in larger settlements 

further inland. 

The area was a “no-man’s land” between Spanish Mexico and French (later American) Louisiana 

frequented only by trappers and outlaws until the early 1800s. European settlement of southwest 

Louisiana during the late 1700s consisted mostly of isolated communities of Acadian, French, and 

Spanish settlers. After Louisiana was purchased by the United States in 1803, new Scottish-Irish 

settlers began to settle the area, but it was not until the railroads connected the area with the outside 

world after the Civil War that major settlements, most notably the City of Lake Charles, were founded. 

The area now occupied by the Sabine Refuge was relatively undisturbed until oil was discovered in 

the region in the 1920s. The fur industry became a secondary source of income for the Texas 

Company, an oil company that owned much of the area currently occupied by the refuge. Declines in 

muskrat populations during the late 1920s and early 1930s led to the Texas Company (now 

ChevronTexaco) selling surface rights to the federal government for the purpose of establishing the 

wildlife refuge. The company retains the subsurface rights to this day. 

It is more than likely that many undiscovered archeological sites exist at Sabine. These sites may 

never be discovered due to the difficult survey conditions imposed by the marsh environment. The 

refuge at present does not have a Cultural Resources Management Plan. This plan, when 

completed, will specify the measures that need to be taken on the refuge to identify, protect, and 

interpret the area’s archeological and historical sites. 

SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is located in 1,313 square-mile Cameron Parish, Louisiana, one of 

the largest parishes (i.e., county equivalents) 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 
44 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

2003, the population of the parish was estimated at 9,708, a slight decline (3%) from the 2000 

Census (U.S. Census Bureau 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% of Cameron Parish residents lived below 

the poverty line in 1999, compared to almost 20% for all of Louisiana. Educational attainment is 

below the state average, however, with only 8% of the population aged 25 or higher having a 

Bachelor’s degree or higher, as opposed to the statewide average of 19%. 

In 2003 transportation and warehousing was the largest of 20 major economic and employment 

sectors in the parish (STATS Indiana 2004). The U.S. Census Bureau classified occupations in 

Cameron Parish are shown in Table 5. 

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% white, non-Hispanic; 3.9% black or African American; 0.4% American Indian; 0.4% Asian; and 

2.2% Hispanic or of Latino origin (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). (These percentages do not add up 

precisely to 100% 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% 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%) than the state as a whole (62.5%). That is, 

it is less diverse and has fewer minorities. 

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

(2000). 

Cameron Parish - Occupations of employed civilian 

population 16 years and older (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 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

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

(2000). 

Cameron Parish – Employment of civilian population 16 

years and older by industry (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 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

In keeping with the purpose for its creation, management efforts at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

are oriented toward the improvement of habitats under its jurisdiction for the benefit of waterfowl and 

other migratory birds, wading and shorebirds, threatened and endangered species, and all other 

native wildlife. The refuge is managed for these goals through prescribed fire, water control 

structures, and marsh restoration projects that protect adjacent areas from erosion and return the 

area to a more “natural” hydrology. 
46 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

EAST COVE UNIT 

The East Cove Unit has witnessed high rates of marsh loss over the years, much of it attributed to 

saltwater intrusion from the Calcasieu Ship Channel and oil and gas exploration. Widespread seismic 

surveying activities on this unit have altered marsh hydrology and increased wetland erosion. The 

Cameron Creole Watershed Project was instituted in 1989 to reduce saltwater intrusion on more than 

64,000 acres of refuge and adjacent privately owned marsh. A 19-mile protective levee and five 

water control structures were constructed along the eastern shore of Calcasieu Lake to facilitate 

water level and salinity management within the marsh. 

Currently with the Cameron Creole Watershed Project and other partners, the Service is carrying out 

a large marsh restoration endeavor, the Cameron Creole/East Cove Unit Marsh Terrace Project. This 

project features the construction of a lattice of terraces 48,000 feet in total length throughout open 

water areas of the East Cove Unit (areas that were formerly fresh marsh and have since been 

converted to open water). The terraces are being constructed in rows running east/west, and are 

spaced approximately 500 feet apart. The purpose of these terraces is to reduce the fetch of open 

water, and thus wave action, which in turn will reduce turbidity and allow for the re-establishment of 

aquatic vegetation. Emergent marsh vegetation will be planted along the edges of the terraces to 

establish marsh edges and stabilize the terraces. 

REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS 

INTRODUCTION 

Marsh loss is the most ominous problem faced by land managers in coastal Louisiana, and the 

Sabine Refuge is no different. The Service has to stem the tide of marsh loss at Sabine or there may 

not be a wildlife 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 land owners, state 

and federal agencies, the academic community, and ultimately the public, which has to fund these 

measures. 

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES 

General Information 

The Fish and Wildlife Service does not hold mineral rights on the majority of the refuge. Subsurface 

mineral rights were retained by The Texas Company (now the ChevronTexaco U.S.A. Production 

Company) in 1937 when Sabine National Wildlife Refuge was acquired. The acquisition deed 

stipulated that oil and gas operations were not to interfere with the refuge purpose, but ultimately 

stated that the refuge could not prevent the subsurface owner from exercising their rights to access 

and develop their minerals. A mutually agreed upon special use permit is issued for all oil and gas 

operations to communicate refuge 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 Solicitors Office Opinion and Louisiana State mineral rights law, 

the owners of subsurface 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: 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

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 in order 

to carry out its 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. 

Historical Perspectives: Exploration and Production 

A total of 107 wells have been drilled on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge since its establishment. The 

refuge currently has 49 plugged and abandoned wells. There are four production facilities, of which 

only three are active. Over 100 acres are occupied for oil and gas production and support activities. 

Exxon-Mobil has recently completed a three-dimensional (3D) seismic survey of 10,560 acres. Hunt 

Oil Company completed a 14,000-acre 3D seismic program in 2001. In 1998, the Sabine Refuge had 

over 90,000 acres covered under a 3D seismic program. Thousands more acres have been 

surveyed using various techniques on the surface to determine subsurface geological features since 

about 1945, including gravity meter surveys, seismography, and 2D seismic surveys. 

Current Activities: Exploration 

ChevronTexaco currently has five companies with leased blocks that occupy portions of the refuge, 

including: Ballard Exploration Company, Inc., Legacy Resources Company, Goodrich Petroleum 

Company, Inc., Petrohawk Resources, Inc., and partner company Kaiser-Francis Oil CompanySamuel Gary, Jr. & Associates. There are 32 producing oil and gas wells, and exploration planning 

for the next five years has included discussions for at least 10 to 12 new wells. In 2006, one well was 

drilled and at least two wells worked over. 

Current Activities: Production 

ChevronTexaco has begun major cleanup and proper abandonment activities for the East Mud Lake 

Field which began producing in the early 1950s, but has not produced in over three years. 
48 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Negotiating the cleanup of the East Mud Lake Field with Texaco Exploration & Production Inc., which 

became ChevronTexaco in October 2001, has been a major project for the last five years. The 

company has been very receptive and began cleanup immediately after taking over. 

In addition, ChevronTexaco and Goodrich Petroleum Company have updated their 20-year-old 

facilities at the Second Bayou Field to provide more environmentally friendly operations. Modern 

technology will benefit the refuge, as well as the oil companies. 

Mitigation 

Eighteen thousand linear feet of planted, earthen terraces were constructed in Units 6 and 7 to 

mitigate for impacts due to oil and gas activities in 2001. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources require compensatory mitigation for acreage loss due to 

dredge and fill activities in wetlands. Earthen terraces are designed to be a successful mitigation 

technique to attenuate waves, reduce marsh erosion, and increase marsh/water interface for use by 

all estuarine dependant species. Other possible benefits of earthen terraces that are currently being 

researched are increased water clarity that may promote the establishment of submerged aquatic 

vegetation. An unexpected secondary benefit is that they have provided nesting habitat for seabirds 

such as least terns, forester’s terns, and black skimmers. Terrace construction for 2004 allowed the 

total linear feet in Unit 6 to exceed 60,000 linear feet. 

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 (NORM), and other 

forms of contamination. These open earthen pits were left in the late 1980s but remain on the refuge. 

Information exists on the locations of these pits and plans for testing are being considered to try and 

detect if any leaching or other residual impacts have occurred. ChevronTexaco is currently closing 

old open pits in East Mud Lake Field, ensuring that they comply with Louisiana State Order 298. 

Plans are to continue to close all remaining pits on the refuge. 

Transmission Pipeline Rights-of-Way 

Rights-of-way were issued (or 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 subsurface minerals, 

but require a corridor of refuge land for transportation. In contrast, flowlines are usually the smallest 

in diameter and transport raw product from individual wells, from subsurface mineral production, 

through the production separation process. Gathering lines, similar to flowlines, usually “gather” the 

production from multiple wells and transport it to production facilities. Rights-of-way are not issued for 

flowlines and gathering lines. 

Presently, there are nine transmission pipelines (built between 1942 and 1983) that move product 

from the south to the north of the refuge. These lines do not service producing wells on the refuge. 

The refuge has more than 40 active flowlines that transport product from private mineral owned wells 

to their production facilities, with numerous left buried in place from past production activities. 

Transmission lines traverse approximately 101 miles of the refuge, while flow lines cover 

approximately 50 miles. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Existing oil and gas transmission lines and their associated rights-of-way on the southwest Louisiana 

national wildlife refuges 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 such as 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 wetlands 

restoration projects which have mitigated the effects of some negative impacts associated with oil and 

gas transmission lines and associated right-of-ways. 

Future Management 

Existing oil and gas transmission lines on approved U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service right-of-ways 

currently within a national wildlife refuge will be managed as per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 

603 FW 2 in general, and explicitly under section 2.11D, which states: 

Existing rights-of-way: We 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 of minor expansion or minor realignment include: expand the width of a road shoulder to 

reduce the angle of the slope; expand the area for viewing on-coming traffic at an intersection; and 

realigning a curved section of a road to reduce the amount of curve in a road. 

New construction for oil and gas transmission line right-of-ways 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 saltwater to penetrate 

further inland, particularly during droughts and storms, which can have severe effects on wetlands 

(Wang 1987). This is evident for the oil and gas transmission line right-of-ways 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 and/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 

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 trying to restore marsh. Extensive changes and alterations due to new pipeline rights-of-
50 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

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 in conflict with the purposes 

for which the refuge was established, 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. 

WILDFIRES 

Lightning strikes and seismic survey activity are the primary causes of wildfires on the refuge. In 

recent years drought or dry conditions have disrupted the normally scheduled prescribed burning 

regime. The Southwest Louisiana Refuges fire team has to spend more time fighting unwanted 

wildland fires on the refuge and is frequently called upon to fight wildfires in other states. The 

application of prescribed fire has decreased due to the fire team’s increased workload and unsuitable 

dry weather conditions. 

UNAUTHORIZED PUBLIC USE 

Of less ominous concern for the refuge is a problem with duck hunters trying to camp on the property 

the night before a hunt. Sabine has not determined camping to be compatible with its purpose and it 

has the potential to cause damage to refuge property. To reduce this problem, gates are installed on 

parking lots and law enforcement officers are warning hunters not to camp on the refuge. 

WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT 

Sportsmen have complained of low fish populations in the impoundments. At one time there were 

larger fish and higher populations in the impoundments, but droughts in the mid-1990s caused water 

levels to drop and much of that fish population died. Restocking of fish failed in the late-1990s, and 

the impoundments are now managed at lower water levels for the benefit of wildlife. The reduction of 

freshwater fishing opportunities in the impoundments is regrettable, but many other freshwater fishing 

opportunities are available on refuge canals, as well as saltwater fishing opportunities elsewhere on 

the refuge. 

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

During the week of March 25–29, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a formal 

biological review for the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, comprised at the 

time of Sabine and Cameron Prairie national wildlife refuges (Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge has 

since been added). A diverse team of Service, university, state, and nongovernmental personnel 

participated. The review was held as part of pre-planning efforts for preparation of each refuge’s 

comprehensive conservation plan and to determine how the refuges could contribute to numerous 

system-wide and landscape conservation needs. A formal report was not prepared by the Biological 

Review Team; rather, the refuge management personnel compiled the report from the many 

contributors. In a few cases, some recommendations were revised based on refuge personnel’s 

knowledge and experience in managing the refuge; justification of obstacles to implementation of 

proposed recommendations is discussed within the goals, objectives, and strategies. 

The biological review participants identified and prioritized the top five critical biological needs of 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge as follows: 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

1. Maintain and restore marshes. 

2. Monitor, inventory, and evaluate marsh restoration. 

3. Conduct an elevation study in the impoundments (use best available equipment; more training 

for staff involved in study). 

4. Monitor, control, and when possible, eradicate invasive species to maintain the biological 

integrity of the refuge. (Remove tallow trees and attempt to restore native rest species 

including fruit and berry trees. Develop plan to remove hogs.) 

5. Continue oversight of oil/gas activities. 
52 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

The process for developing this plan first began in March of 2002 with a biological review conducted 

by representatives of the Service and conservation partners from McNeese State University in nearby 

Lake Charles; the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; and the Gulf Coast Joint Venture 

Office of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. More than 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. In addition, a comprehensive public use review was 

held in June of 2002 with ten reviewers representing the Service, the Creole Nature Trail, and 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The recommendations of both the biological review 

and public use review teams helped determine the proposed alternatives, goals, objectives, and 

strategies found in this document. 

A series of public scoping meetings were held to obtain input from the general public. The 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. A 

total of approximately 25 people 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. A variety of issues emerged from these meetings and were considered and 

evaluated during the preparation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The issues and concerns raised by attendees at the public scoping meetings and open houses are 

summarized below. The issues include written comments received from eight citizens. 

• All visitors, including bird watchers, should be required to pay and have a permit ($5.00 fee). 

We can all pitch in to keep the usage of the lands in good shape. 

• Consider having some type of rotation on the hunting units, be it annually or half the season in 

these units, and the other half in different units. 

• Have a limit on how many shotgun shells can be brought in to hunt with for waterfowl hunting. 

Start out with a limit of 25 shells per person to see if this brings down the amount of 

unnecessary shooting. If need be, reduce this limit by say 10 shells. 

• Implement a limited deer hunting season for bow hunters on the duck split or before duck 

season. Manage the deer herd (by allowing the hunt) on a short-time basis (not a month like 

Cameron Prairie and Lacassine.) 

• Allow duck hunting on other days of the week than currently allowed such as Monday, 

Tuesday, and Wednesday. 

• I am in favor of having a minimum and a maximum size limit of bass. Reduce the limit to 5 

bass. 

• Open the refuge to hunting every day during the September teal season. It was at one time 

but was discontinued. 

• Allow waterfowl hunting on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday during the regular 

season to accommodate shift workers who work weekends. 
54 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

• I appreciate all the hard work by your department and the improvements made at Sabine the 

last few years. This is the best hunting spot for waterfowl I’ve ever seen. 

• Stock native bass to survive drought conditions and in open marsh. 

• Have a small limit like 5 fish to allow for trophy fish. 

• Trails need to be dug deeper to help drought conditions. 

• You need to look at the boat bay situation at East Cove. 

• I have hunted and fished Sabine for 39 years. These are the best years we have ever 

experienced. It is difficult to find any method of improvement. We now have a relationship 

with the agents and management that was nonexistent in the past. Keep up the great work. 

• Furbearer populations in coastal marshes are cyclic in numbers and during peak levels can 

produce disastrous effects on plant communities. Does this planning process include a 

historical review of management practices to control furbearer populations and proposals for 

future control methods for these species? 

• Are the priorities for all management operations given equal values or do certain “IN” activities 

(such as hunting, fishing, and other public use activities) have priority over other management 

activities? 

• Public use of the refuge has become a giant which can easily get out of hand if the public 

does not respect what the refuge is and what it stands for in the community. All usages of the 

refuge are privileges provided to the public, they are not rights. The public are guests to do 

activities which are not possible without paying on other lands. The refuge provides this 

without much cost to them. However, these activities need to be monitored, not on a casual 

basis, but by an active and observant staff. 

• The loss in recent years of enough full-time staff with enforcement authority is a major 

problem which needs to be addressed in planning for the refuge and its future operations. I 

respect the efforts and activities of present enforcement officers on all refuges but too few 

cannot do a proper job of protecting a refuge. (The whole enforcement system on refuges 

needs a major overhaul.) 

• Regarding fire management: will the burn plan include an analysis of all requirements of 

wildlife in the proposed burn area in relation to the time of burning? Does the fire crew and 

refuge biologist do an immediate post-burn survey over the unit to accurately assess the 

effects of the fire on wildlife? Do burn plans include a pre-fire assessment of the effects of fire 

(time, direction, ignition rate, and method) on the wildlife and plants in the unit (should these 

be included in the objectives of the burn)? 

• Grazing as a management tool has fallen into disregard at the refuge during recent years. 

This usage has a long history in coastal wetlands and when properly used has provided more 

benefits than losses. Cattle grazing and increased goose usage are closely related in coastal 

marshes. Does the planning process include proper documentation and evaluation of this 

practice and its use on the refuge? 

BIOLOGICAL AND PUBLIC USE REVIEW COMMENTS 

The comments and recommendations of the biological and public use review participants are 

summarized below. 

Habitat and Wildlife 

• Restore marshes to freshwater/intermediate type marsh to help achieve coastal restoration 

statewide objectives. 

• Maintain and operate water control structures to limit saltwater intrusion. 

• Determine structure needs on the western boundary of the refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

• Monitor water quality and salinity. 

• Research use of dredge spoil for marsh creation. 

• Monitor, inventory, and evaluate marsh restoration 

• Manage Impoundments 1A, 1B, and Unit 3 for a more intensive focus on waterfowl and water 

birds using drawdowns, pumping, early successional vegetation management, and production 

of valuable submerged aquatic vegetation. 

• Utilize drawdowns, prescribed fire, pumping, etc. to promote desirable aquatics and preferred 

water levels. 

• Experiment with terraces in Unit 3. If feasible, drawdown during droughts or at least every 

four years. 

• Provide more intensive and systematic monitoring, recording, inventory, and evaluation of 

management treatments and wildlife uses to improve adaptive management procedures. 

• Employ a biologist to focus on marsh and impoundment management and avian use 

inventories. 

• Develop a high definition vegetation map of the refuge. 

• Allocate resources annually for wildlife monitoring, inventory, evaluations, and data recording 

and archiving. 

• Conduct an elevation study in the impoundments (use best available equipment; more training 

for those involved in study).

• Monitor, control, and when possible, eradicate invasive species to maintain the biological 

integrity of the refuge (remove tallow trees and attempt to restore native forest species – 

fruit/berry).

• Develop plan to remove noxious plants and animals. 

• Continue oversight of oil/gas activities to include monitoring and inspecting, contaminant 

sampling, limiting of sites and operational periods to minimize impacts on wildlife, and require 

mitigation for impacts. 

Public Use 

• Increase the staff by adding a full-time law enforcement officer, an education specialist, and a 

volunteer coordinator to improve visitor services. 

• Expand and remodel the visitor center to increase space for interpretive exhibits, 

accommodate large groups such as school or tour buses, and to improve contact with visitors.

• Develop a strong volunteer program to functionally increase staff size and provide support to 

programs and projects. 

• Develop the Friends Group. 

• Develop a Visitor Services Plan with recommendations for the safety of visitors. 
56 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Draft 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 also recognizes that wildlifedependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 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, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge and other public lands provide a biological 

“safety-net” for migratory waterfowl and nongame birds, threatened and endangered species, and 

resident species. 

VISION 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge will maintain, restore, and enhance its unique coastal wetland 

habitats to provide favorable conditions for improving species diversity and richness of migratory birds 

and native terrestrial and aquatic species. In cooperation with partners, the refuge will also conserve 

healthy and viable wildlife and fish populations, thereby contributing to the purpose for which it was 

established and to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Complex staff will manage petroleum infrastructure and activities on the refuge to protect wildlife 

habitat and water resources, wintering migratory birds, nesting birds, and fisheries. Further, Sabine 

will provide opportunities for safe, quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use and recreation—

including environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, photography, hunting, and 

fishing. These activities will promote understanding and appreciation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and its mission to conserve our Nation’s wildlife heritage among refuge visitors and the public 

at large. Finally, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge will continue to protect its cultural resources in 

accordance with federal and state historic preservation legislation and regulations. 
58 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

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, Complex and refuge staff, and the 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; and the purpose and vision for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. The Service 

intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies over the next 15 years. 

GOAL A – HABITAT: Maintain, restore, and enhance unique coastal wetland habitats on the refuge 

to provide favorable conditions to improve species diversity and richness of migratory birds and native 

terrestrial and aquatic species. 

Objective A-1. Hurricane Recovery – Within reason, all accessible, unburied debris deposited by 

Hurricane Rita, including hazardous materials as well as nonhazardous refuse, rubbish, and 

wreckage, will be removed from the refuge within five years of comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) approval. 

Strategies 

(a) – Concentrate initial cleanup efforts on removal of tanks, barrels, drums, and other containers 

likely to hold hazardous materials and toxic chemicals. 

(b) – Utilizing GIS and GPS tools, as well as aerial photography and surveys, conduct mapping and 

monitoring of cleanup and maintain records and archives, documenting changing extent of debris 

fields over time, and to measure degree or success of cleanup effort. 

(c) – Consult or partner with agencies such as Environmental Protection Agency and Tennessee 

Valley Authority that have experience in hazardous waste cleanup. 

(d) – Emphasize removal of debris from channels or other areas that currently negatively affect 

desired water movement. 

(e) – Continue to monitor and survey specifically for hazardous waste or petrochemical spills and 

seepage that could damage habitat and wildlife. 

(f) – Within two years of CCP approval, conduct a hydrological and feasibility study to evaluate how 

the plug of hurricane-deposited debris, uprooted vegetation and sediments has affected marsh 

drainage patterns and determine what should, or can, be done about it. 

(g) – Repair 7 miles of damaged levees and 10 miles of damaged canals. 

Objective A-2. Impounded Marsh – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, focus 

on improving marsh plant communities and shallow water, increasing waterfowl food production, and 

providing habitat and sanctuary needs for migrating, wintering, breeding ducks (mottled ducks) and 

geese of the Chenier Plain system of southwest Louisiana.

Discussion: For more than 40 years, Sabine’s three freshwater impoundments—Units 1A, 1B, and 

3—have provided habitat for many species of waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other 

vertebrates, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles and fish. Management Unit 3 (26,400 acres) is 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

the largest freshwater marsh remaining in southwest Louisiana. Management units 1A and 1B (5,138 

acres and 1,800 acres, respectively) are heavily used by wildlife, especially ducks. Waterfowl foods 

in Unit 3 occur at densities significantly above the level required for efficient waterfowl use. The 

target water management level is 1.8 ft to enhance the growth and survival of desirable plant 

communities for waterfowl. Water depths can be reduced, but only rainfall can increase water levels 

in these impoundments. 

A hydrology feasibility study will need to be conducted to determine what course of action needs to 

be taken to ensure that Unit 3 is being managed in concert with the remainder of the watershed. 

Strategies 

(a) – Conduct a hydrology feasibility study to determine how best to manage Unit 3 post-Hurricane 

Rita. Use engineering studies and recommendations from experts to determine the best course 

of action for this unit. 

(b) – Apply drawdown procedures to Units (impoundments) 1A and 1B. Drawdowns should occur on 

two to five-year rotations for Units 1A and 1B and to alternate manipulations between units. 

Drawdown timing should also coincide with drought conditions to improve success. 

(c) – Replace 5 water control structures at Units 1A, 1B, and 3. 

(d) – Monitoring and evaluation of plant response to management practices should be conducted. 

(e) – As other habitats are restored, evaluate need for impoundments and whether or not they still 

serve an important function on the refuge. 

(f) – Use prescribed fire, wildland fire, and salt water as agents of disturbance.

(g) – Manage water levels for optimal utilization for fish and wildlife with primary management actions 

oriented for the primary purpose for which the refuge was established (migratory birds). An 

adaptive management strategy will be applied to achieve this end. 

(h) – Within five years of CCP approval, write an adaptive water management plan. 

(i) – Protect all marshes from excessive saltwater intrusion and fragmentation. 

(j) - Monitor and inventory any changes attributed to sea level rise. 

Objective A-3. Unimpounded Marsh – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, 

focus on protecting and/or restoring 43,200 acres of intermediate and brackish marsh and continue 

working toward restoring the emergent marsh and functional value of Unit 3. 

Discussion: Sabine contains 91,173 acres of fresh, intermediate, and brackish marshes. These 

unimpounded coastal marsh habitats are actively managed and restored on the refuge through 

salinity control, prescribed fire, and construction of terraces. Management of salinities by means of 

monitoring and use of water control structures is critical to maintaining these marsh habitats. Another 

important tool is prescribed fire, which is used to periodically rejuvenate unimpounded marsh by 

restarting plant succession and increasing plant productivity. In addition, in recent years, in 

cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, the refuge has been actively restoring and re-creating 

coastal marsh by using approved dredge material from channel dredging to construct linear terraces. 
60 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

These terraces block wave action that for decades has stirred up sediments, increased turbidity and 

eroded marsh vegetation. When marsh plants are either planted on or colonize the terraces, coastal 

marsh restoration is on its way. 

Strategies 

(a) – Repair as necessary and operate the three Calcasieu/Sabine-23 water control structures (Hog 

Island Gully, West Cove Canal, and Headquarters Canal) in accordance with the Coastal 

Wetlands Planning Protection Restoration Act to improve marsh conditions. 

(b) – Monitor salinity and vegetative cover throughout the refuge to document changes over the long 

term that may be occurring on the refuge and develop projects to achieve any preferred 

conditions or prevent undesirable conditions. 

(c) – Continue to plan and implement broad marsh management activities (e.g. construction and 

operation of water control structures) to maintain or lower salinity in accordance with the Coastal 

Wetlands Planning Protection Restoration Act and Calcasieu/ Sabine-23 project to improve 

marsh conditions. 

(d) – Continue to support the modeling of potential impacts of future off-site ship channel 

modifications, oil/gas canals, and loss of freshwater from the Sabine River on the Sabine Lake 

side of the refuge. 

(e) – After multi-agency recommendations are finalized, support placement of structures that will 

minimize encroachment of saltwater type conditions. 

(f) – Continue to construct terraces using dredge material beneficially to convert large open water 

areas to areas that are productive for submerged aquatic vegetation. Conduct study of hurricane 

damage to terraces by 2008. 

(g) – With partners, use funds from various sources to establish terraces to improve vegetation/water 

interface. 

(h) – Continue innovations with designs of terraces to determine most successful configuration. Keep 

well-documented records of all phases of construction and beyond. With partners, encourage 

research and monitoring of success and designs should be continued and/or initiated. 

(i) – Monitor the impacts on floral and fauna changes that occur in the impacted areas and assess if 

any of these changes are attributed to sea level rise. 

(j) – With partners, construct and operate a wetland management and restoration research facility. 

(k) – Add one permanent, full-time wetland restoration ecologist. 

(l) – Use GIS, GPS, and aerial photography/mapping tools to inventory and document changes in 

marsh communities post-hurricane, specifically acreages of brackish marsh, intermediate marsh, 

and fresh marsh habitats. 

Objective A-4. Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations 

are complete, maintain salinity monitoring throughout the refuge at the established discrete salinity 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

stations (nine locations). Develop new water quality monitoring program within five years of CCP 

approval. Working through regional solicitor’s office, clarify water rights for Complex. 

Discussion: Monitoring salinity is crucial to controlling it on the refuge and ensuring that intermediate 

and brackish marsh are provided the water quality conditions they need to survive and thrive. 

Throughout southwestern Louisiana, increasing salinity levels from navigation channels and oil/gas 

development have been a serious problem for freshwater and brackish wetlands. For Sabine, the 

Calcasieu Ship Channel leading from the Gulf of Mexico into nearby Calcasieu Lake has exposed 

unimpounded marshes to potentially detrimental salinity levels that must be regulated with water 

control structures. 

Strategies 

(a) – When applicable, use state-of-the-art data gathering stations that automatically record salinity, 

water quality parameters yet to be defined, water levels, and temperature. 

(b) – Provide resources to allow for analytical testing of water samples. 

(c) – Keep records archived to show trends over time. Update annual records in tabular form to show 

salinity levels by year. 

(d) – Add one permanent, full-time biological technician to monitor water quality and work with 

appropriate individuals to quantify water rights. 

Objective A-5. Fire Management – Use fire as a multipurpose management tool to reduce 

hazardous fuels and promote habitat diversity as defined in the National Fire Plan. Utilize prescribed 

fire on approximately 20,000 acres per year. 

Discussion: Lightning strikes and seismic survey activity are the main causes of unwanted wildland 

fires on the refuge. The recent drought has forced the Southwest Louisiana Refuges fire team to 

spend more time fighting unwanted wildland fires on the refuge and in other states. Thus, there have 

been fewer prescribed fires at Sabine because of the fire team’s increased workload and unsuitable 

dry weather conditions. 

Prescribed fire is one of the principal habitat management tools at Sabine. Between 1984 and 2006, 

85 prescribed fires were conducted on 241,304 acres. Eight prescribed fires were conducted in fiscal 

year 2006. These fires boost plant productivity and reduce the risk of uncontrolled wildfires that could 

threaten people and property. In fiscal year 2006—a wet one—636 acres burned on the refuge due 

to wildfire. In 2005, a drier year, 20,229 acres were burned by wildfire. 

Strategies 

(a) – Update burn plans and Fire Management Plan to include organic matter consumption burns 

(ground fires in drier conditions) and to meet waterfowl habitat management needs throughout 

the refuge. 

(b) – Update Fire Management Plan within two years of CCP approval to include wildland fire use 

fires. Updated Fire Management Plan will also reflect post-Rita habitat and facilities conditions. 

(c) – Burn management units in different years to lessen impacts on insects and birds. 
62 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

(d) – Reduce hazardous fuels, and the potential for uncontrollable wildfires using prescribed fire, 

mechanical or chemical treatments to protect life, property, industrial oil and gas infrastructure 

and natural resources on the refuge. 

(e) – Complex and refuge staff associated with petrochemical spill sites to be burned will be trained 

within one year of CCP approval. 

(f) – Prescribed fires used to treat hazardous material spills will be addressed in the station’s Fire 

Management Plan to minimize damage to the environment. 

(g) – Place higher priority on mosaic burns to help decrease impacts to secretive marsh birds. 

(h) – Implement the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Monitoring Plan. 

(i) – Work with the National Interagency Fire Center, Regional Fire Management staff, area partners 

and agencies to achieve permission to conduct prescribed fires during National adverse fire 

conditions. 

(j) – Hire six additional fire staff and support equipment and provide office space and bunkhouse 

space. 

(k) – Hire a permanent full-time fire ecologist for the Complex. 

Objective A-6. Restoration – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, resume 

beneficial use of dredge material for marsh restoration by restoring 1,500 to 2,500 acres of marsh. 

Discussion: In 1990, “checker board” terraces were constructed in ponds along Calcasieu Lake in 

the West Cove Unit. The terraces, discontinuous low ridges constructed with bottom sediments 

excavated from adjacent pond bottoms, are designed to reduce wind-related wave intensity, slow 

water movement allowing fine sediments to settle within the area, provide favorable conditions for 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) establishment, and increase abundance and habitat of fish and 

other aquatic species. 

Ideal sites for terrace construction are areas where water bodies join or are threatening to merge with 

another water body. While studies of the benefits of terraces to SAV have been inconclusive to date, 

unexpected secondary benefits have been documented, including nesting habitat for water-related 

birds such as least terns, forester’s terns, and black skimmers, and improved fish habitat quality. 

Strategies 

(a) – Require the Army Corps of Engineers to provide only dredge materials that do not exceed 

contaminant specifications, in accordance with their special use permit. 

(b) – Continue water quality sampling and long-term research on development of plant and animal 

communities at restoration sites. 

(c) – Actively participate in short-term and long-term plans of the Army Corps of Engineers for the 

Calcasieu Ship Channel. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

Objective A-7. Habitat Monitoring – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, 

improve and increase capability of refuge to conduct inventories, monitoring, and data analysis of 

habitat changes in the aftermath of the hurricane, as well as in response to management procedures. 

Strategies 

(a) – Hire one GS-12/13 biologist with marsh management and avian training backgrounds to focus 

more on wetland habitat activities and wildlife responses. GIS training and experience will be 

required of this position. 

(b) – Establish habitat sampling procedures to track annual and long-term habitat changes as effects 

of Hurricane Rita recede over time and in response to refuge programs. 

(c) – Utilize aerial and satellite imagery of sufficient fine-scale to type map the refuge—preferably on 

an acre-by-acre scale of accuracy or better. 

(d) – Ensure water gauges at select areas (especially impoundments) are able to record water levels 

associated with each management strategy. 

(e) – Develop proposed projects to use oil and gas mitigation funds to help track response of habitats 

to restoration and habitat management treatments in Unit 6 (aerial, satellite, and digitizing of 

images over time). 

(f) – Especially within impoundments (Units 1A, 1B, and 3), establish sampling schemes (transects, 

sampling points, etc.) to be able to monitor and record current plant conditions (to help direct 

management actions) and to archive the plant community response to hurricane recovery and 

management treatments. In a standard formal procedure, record management treatments (draw 

down, water levels, mechanical activities, time-of-year, climatic conditions) in such a manner that 

they can be repeated and analyzed and evaluated in a more biologically sound/scientific way. 

Confer with the Service’s Wildlife Habitat and Management Office in Jackson, Mississippi, for 

potential sampling technique and data recording sheets. 

(g) – More intensive monitoring of management actions (e.g. controlled and wild fire, drawdowns) in 

Units 1A, 1B, and 3, particularly in the fresh and intermediate marsh areas, is needed. 

(h) – Map refuge habitat types at frequent intervals (e.g. every 5–10 years) with aerial photography. 

(i) – Document vegetative response to management actions with early fall vegetative transects or 

visual mapping. 

(j) – Maintain records of all management actions (e.g., burning, structure operation, or structure/levee 

repairs). 

(k) – Encourage partners to conduct research and monitoring on changes attributed to global 

warming and sea level rise. 

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. 
64 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective B-1. Migratory Waterfowl – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, 

provide 125,790 acres of diverse marsh and open water habitats for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl to contribute significantly to the population and habitat objectives addressed in the Gulf 

Coast Joint Venture Chenier Plain Initiative. Population objectives of the plan include 4.5 million 

ducks and 500,000 geese with foraging habitat provided in the coastal marshes. 

Discussion: Sabine National Wildlife Refuge was established in the 1930s to protect wintering 

populations of migratory waterfowl and their habitat, and more than 60 years later that remains the 

refuge’s primary focus. At least 20 species of ducks—including gadwall, green-winged teal, bluewinged teal, American wigeon, mallards, and ring-necked ducks—winter at Sabine. In recent years, 

aerial surveys have recorded more than 100,000 ducks on the refuge, and once over 200,000. 

Gadwall, green-winged teal and lesser snow geese are the most abundant waterfowl species on the 

refuge, averaging almost 25,000 gadwall and 10,000 green-winged teal and snow geese, 

respectively, over the last decade. 

Strategies 

(a) – Aggressively use fire to create a mosaic of vegetative habitats throughout the refuge. 

(b) – Provide one to two grit sites for geese, using high quality grit. Provide sanctuary around these 

sites. 

(c) – Develop a partnership between the refuge and the research community to promote monitoring 

and research to determine the most effective methods for waterfowl management. 

(d) – Record all management actions and implement adaptive management strategies to evaluate 

food production and wildlife response, and modify management actions to improve wildlife 

habitat. 

(e) – Conduct waterfowl surveys on a unit-specific and species-specific basis from September 

through February. 

(f) – Continue waterfowl surveys to include the entire Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex to determine and record trends in waterfowl distribution. 

Objective B-2. Mottled Ducks – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, with 

partners, support mottled duck banding activities and provide preferred mottled duck breeding and 

nesting habitat. 

Discussion: The mottled duck is a dabbler native to the American South and a close relative of the 

mallard duck. This year-round resident nests in coastal marshes and lagoons along the Gulf Coast. 

Its diet consists mostly of aquatic invertebrates with lesser quantities of seeds, green plant matter and 

fish. 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 renesting 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 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

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) – With partners, conduct a research study to survey the ridge areas of the refuge to determine if 

preferred nesting sites exist and if they do, document nesting success. Such information is 

needed before modification of brushy/scrub vegetation, as these plant communities may be key 

to nesting. 

(b) – Conduct nocturnal surveys to determine mottled duck brood success. 

(c) – Partner with universities and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to obtain a literature 

search of upland/wetland habitat nesting/brood conditions preferred by nesting mottled ducks. 

(d) – Determine need for some predator control (furbearer and reptiles) in key areas where mottled 

duck nests are abundant, but nest success is less than 15 percent. 

(e) – Continue banding efforts on the refuge. 

Objective B-3. Shorebirds – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, resume 

providing shorebird habitat, contributing to the goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley/Western Gulf 

Coast Shorebird Plan. 

Discussion: The northern Gulf coast provides critical habitat for both migrating and wintering 

shorebirds. Mudflat habitat provided through moist-soil management is particularly valuable. 

Southbound migration starts in early July, peaks August through September, and usually ends by 

mid-October. Hydrologic modification and traditional lack of rainfall in late summer and fall in the 

Coastal Prairie physiographic area leads to a severe shorebird habitat shortage. If adequate flood 

water is impounded until fall migration begins in July, some of the best shorebird habitat along coastal 

Louisiana may be provided. 

Over 30 shorebird species utilize Sabine during their migration in the spring and fall. Dowitcher 

species are the most abundant, with black-necked stilts next, and small shorebirds including 

sandpipers and plovers, third in abundance. Other species include the American avocet, yellowlegs, 

willet, dunlin and killdeer. 

Strategies 

(a) – Increase late summer/fall foraging habitat for shorebirds consistent with the goals of the Lower 

Mississippi Valley/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Plan. 

(b) – Continue an International Shorebird Survey along levees bordering impoundments to track 

occurrence, relative abundance, and response to management regimes. 

(c) – Coordinate data transfer to the Joint Venture Office in Vicksburg. 

Objective B-4. Colonial Waterbirds – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, 

identify and protect nesting colonies of colonial waterbirds from disturbance. 

Discussion: Many species of colonial waterbirds are present at Sabine year-round. Great egrets, 
66 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

white and white-faced ibis, and roseate spoonbills are the most abundant wading birds on the refuge 

and feed throughout the marshes during the winter months. Herons, egrets, cormorants, and other 

species nest in trees and shrubs within Management Units 1, 1A, and 3. There are five active 

rookeries on the refuge. Favored nesting areas include islands and abandoned levees. During the 

1990s as many as 5,000 white and white-faced ibis nested in bullwhip marsh on Unit 1B. 

Strategies 

(a) – Survey monthly between March and June to determine the location and species composition of 

each rookery and determine potential disturbance factors and minimize problems as much as 

possible. 

(b) – Annually determine locations of nesting colonies and as best as possible estimate the number of 

pairs for each species present at each colony. Additional monitoring may not be necessary 

unless a specific need is identified to address other management activities. 

Objective B-5. Marsh Birds – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, resume 

maintaining 125,790 acres of diverse marsh plant communities to support marsh birds. 

Discussion: The term marsh bird, as used in the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

(NAWCP), includes a variety of species from several different families of birds, such as rails, grebes, 

bitterns, rails, coots, and gallinules. The Sabine Refuge provides excellent foraging and nesting 

habitat for a variety of marsh bird species. High-conservation priority marsh bird species known or 

expected from Sabine include black rail, American bittern, king rail, yellow rail, sandhill crane, least 

bittern, and purple gallinule. Purple gallinules, common moorhens, and least bitterns breed on the 

refuge. 

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 measures on marsh birds, such as the timing and extent of water drawdowns or input, 

also deserve further investigation. 

Strategies 

(a) – Determine marsh bird use of refuge habitats, with special emphasis on black and yellow rails 

and least bitterns. 

(b) – Establish sampling locations in areas most likely to support marsh habitats for summer, 

migration (spring and fall), and winter secretive marsh bird counts focusing on black rail, king rail, 

least bittern, and American bitterns. 

Objective B-6. Nongame Migratory and Resident Landbirds — Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, the refuge will continue and enhance its role in the conservation of 

nongame birds in the Southeast United States, and will focus on surveying, inventorying, and 

monitoring of all groups, and will contribute to the goals of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Partners in 

Flight and other plans. 

Discussion: Concerns about unfavorable population trends for neotropical migratory land birds led to 

the formation of Partners in Flight (PIF), a nongovernmental agency dedicated to arresting those 

declines. Though the initial focus of PIF was on long-distance neotropical migrants, the group’s 

emphasis has expanded to encompass nearly all species of resident and migratory land birds. Land 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

birds as defined by PIF include passerine birds (songbirds), woodpeckers, raptors, cuckoos, and 

other bird species besides waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds. 

Seventy-five species of migratory songbirds use Sabine’s levees during spring migration. In addition, 

several species of passerines breed and nest on levees during the summer months. Belted 

kingfishers and eastern kingbirds perch on trees and power lines next to State Highway 27. The 

refuge hosts two Christmas bird counts and conducts a breeding bird survey route each year. 

Strategies 

(a) – Remove exotic invasive species such as tallow and chinaberry trees from levees. Maintain 

shrubs that support fleshy-fruit and cover for transient landbirds. 

(b) – Maintain existing acres of open grassy-herbaceous dominated ground conditions through the 

next 15 years to support priority grassland bird species. 

(c) – Determine the location of any existing coastal prairie sites and promote the maintenance and 

development of grassy-herbaceous ground cover. 

(d) – Survey/inventory/monitor grassland bird populations using area searches, transects and 

develop protocols (project prairie bird) focusing on wintering species. 

Objective B-7. Alligators – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, in coordination 

with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, monitor alligator numbers, establish a desirable 

alligator density objective, and set annual harvest quotas. 

Discussion: American alligators are opportunistic carnivores and a top predator on the refuge. 

Smaller alligators (less than five feet long) primarily feed on crustaceans, fish, and insects. Larger 

alligators primarily feed on mammals (nutria and muskrat), birds, fish, reptiles, and crustaceans. The 

refuge’s annual alligator harvest takes place in September. Harvest limits and dates are set by the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries by considering a number of factors, including habitat 

type, annual productivity, and harvest data from previous years; in some instances the regulations on 

Sabine are more restrictive. Sabine's alligator harvest is a sustained yield harvest, meaning that 

smaller alligators which grow into the harvested size class during the year replace the animals taken 

each year. 

Strategies 

(a) – Work with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries utilizing their annual harvest 

recommendation (standard and bonus tags) and customized harvest strategies to achieve and 

maintain target density levels. 

(b) – Continue to partner with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to conduct intensive 

aerial alligator nest surveys and furnish a survey report to the Refuge Manager. 

(c) – Refuge personnel will monitor the annual harvest of alligators, collecting all data necessary to 

make sound biological decisions and adjust harvest strategies accordingly. 

(d) – Continue prohibition of alligator egg collection. 
68 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

(e) – Establish a positive impact on the refuge’s relationship with the local public and governing body. 

The cultural heritage of alligator harvesting in the local community will be maintained. 

Objective B-8. Impoundment Fisheries – In cooperation with partners, once Hurricane Rita 

recovery operations are complete, or within 5 years of CCP approval, manage habitat consistent with 

the purpose of the refuge; also resume monitoring and seeking ways to improve water quality and 

fishery resources. 

Discussion: Impoundments on the refuge are popular with anglers. In cooperation with the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the refuge actively manages sport fisheries in its impoundments 

(Units 1A, 1B, and 3). Management tools include stocking, electroshocking surveys, and creel 

surveys. Sport fish in these impoundments include largemouth bass, bluegill, redear and warmouth 

sunfish, black crappie, and channel catfish. 

Strategies 

(a) – Construct terraces in areas of high turbidity to reduce wave action. 

(b) – Develop a project to dredge and maintain canals. 

(c) – Maintain impoundment levees and water control structures to prevent breaching and pool 

drainage, as long as it coincides with overall habitat management plans. 

(d) – Develop and implement plan to inspect levee integrity. 

(e) – Maintain water in the pools (especially Unit 3) as deep as possible for as long as possible to 

create a more stable environment that is conducive to fish production. 

(f) – Establish water management plan that meshes needs of fish with other pool wildlife. 

(g) – Continue to coordinate with federal and state hatcheries when fish stocking is necessary from 

droughts and saltwater intrusion. 

(h) – Sample fish stocks through electrofishing when possible since this activity is dependent upon 

water level and boat access. 

(i) – Conduct creel surveys and collect harvest data. 

(j) – Continue to calculate Proportional Stock Density (PSD), an index of population structure, using 

data from Strategy (i). 

(l) – Continue to establish length or slot limits on largemouth bass if PSD calculations indicate need. 

Objective B-9. Undesirable Animals – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, the 

refuge will intensively control certain wildlife populations as needed to achieve habitat and population 

objectives. 

Discussion: The two most undesirable animals at Sabine are nutria and feral swine. Nutria are the 

most common invasive animal on the refuge. This rodent, introduced from South America, was first 

trapped on the refuge in 1941–42. Numbers increased dramatically in 1954 and are now a problem 

in some years. The nutria has displaced the native muskrat in many of Louisiana’s coastal marshes 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

and, at high densities, nutria can harm fragile marshes. When warranted, harvest is used to control 

the population. 

Feral hogs are common at Sabine and can be detrimental to nesting bird success. These hogs 

degrade habitat and can contribute to land loss by damaging healthy plants that hold the soils in 

many areas together. At present, no harvest of feral hogs is conducted on the refuge. 

Strategies 

(a) – Follow Animal Control Plan. 

(b) – Continue to maintain trapping as a permitted activity to benefit native habitats, wildlife, and to 

provide for the safety of visitors. 

(c) – Continue removal of nuisance animals such as nutria or feral hogs to improve biological 

conditions. This will be allowed dependent upon the refuge’s capability to manage such activities. 

(d) – Explore the feasibility of providing a feral hog hunting program. 

Objective B-10. Diamond-backed Terrapins – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are 

complete, resume protection of diamond-backed terrapin populations on Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Discussion: The diamond-backed terrapin is a medium-sized turtle (4–9 inches long) whose 

preferred habitats include coastal marshes, sheltered coves, tidal channels fringed by cordgrass, and 

lagoons behind barrier beaches. It has an unusually sculptured shell that is greenish or yellowish on 

the bottom, plates that bear deep growth rings, black prominent eyes and light-colored jaws. Females 

are twice as large as males and mature more slowly. In the southern reaches of their range, like the 

Gulf Coast, they nest in April or May. 

Strategies 

(a) – Protect nesting habitat along Calcasieu Lake from disturbance. 

(b) – Continue to enforce the existing ban on commercial crabbing and crab pot use to protect 

terrapins from drowning in traps, especially at the mouths of rivers, bayous, and creeks. 

Objective B-11. Wildlife Inventory, Census, And Survey – Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, improve and increase capability of refuge to conduct inventorying, 

monitoring, and data analysis of management procedures and subsequent wildlife responses to water 

and plant management regimes. 

(a) – Inventory and monitor wildlife responses and uses of refuge habitats with biologically sound, 

repeatable methods that provide results capable of enabling better adaptive management 

feedback and tracking of objective(s) management. 

(b) – Within three years of completing Hurricane Rita recovery operations, update the current 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan to follow in collecting and archiving data used to benefit the longterm management of the refuge habitats and fish and wildlife resources. 
70 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

(c) – Aerial waterfowl inventories should continue to be conducted, by unit, at least every month from 

September through February or March. At a base minimum, aerially inventory the refuge during 

the official mid-winter survey period. 

(d) – Strive to coordinate waterfowl surveys with any existing state surveys. 

(e) – Strive to take advantage of helicopter contracts under the fire management program to conduct 

waterfowl surveys using Refuge Operation funding. 

(f) – Explore opportunities to utilize a pilot/biologist to cover most of the aerial work for all refuges in 

Louisiana or at least coastal Louisiana. 

(g) – Continue to conduct nongame bird inventories annually using standard procedures. 

(h) – Continue to survey herpetological species and provide data to state and other programs (e.g. 

Louisiana Amphibian Monitoring Program, etc.). 

(i) – Use more scientific, consistent and repeatable procedures to inventory wildlife responses 

(sampling schemes, etc.). 

(j) – Archive data in a standardized format. In all inventory/monitoring/evaluation procedures, maintain 

accurate records of methods, timing, conditions, etc. and place pertinent procedures and results 

in the annual narrative, so work can be repeated in a more scientific and standardized manner. 

(k) – Operation funds should be dedicated to performing basic inventories/monitoring needed. 

(l) – Pursue use of oil and gas mitigation funds to help aerially inventory wildlife responses to 

mitigation activities such as marsh restoration treatments. 

GOAL C – OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES: Manage petroleum infrastructure 

and activities to protect habitat, wintering migratory birds and nesting birds. 

Objective C-1. Protection and Management – Increase protection and management of petroleum 

activities to minimize impacts to migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife and their habitats. 

Discussion: Sabine National Wildlife Refuge has never owned subsurface mineral rights and has 

learned to coexist with oil and gas exploration and extraction since its very inception. While activities 

and infrastructure associated with oil/gas development do have a variety of adverse impacts on 

refuge habitat and wildlife, these impacts can be substantially mitigated through proactive planning, 

cooperation with oil/gas companies, and remediation. Oil and gas exploration companies now use 

seismic surveys to detect petroleum resources. These surveys can temporarily disrupt habitat and 

disturb wildlife. Production wells may cause localized contamination and ring levees and roads 

displace habitat and can serve as avenues for the spread of nonnative vegetation like Chinese tallow. 

Future management for existing oil and gas transmission lines and operations will be 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).

Oil and gas policy is described in Chapter II. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Strategies 

(a) – When possible, use pre-existing sites for proposed exploration wells and storage facilities. 

(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 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.) All new non-refuge mineral owners requests for petrochemical 

transmission infrastructure will be prohibited. 

(e) – Continue to implement policy of no drilling or other major oil and gas activities between October 

16 to March 14 to avoid disturbance of wintering migratory birds. 

(f) – Maintain existing petrochemical infrastructure in accordance with state and federal laws. Prohibit 

all new non-refuge mineral owners’ requests for petrochemical transmission infrastructure. 

(g) – Staff associated with oil and gas spill sites will be trained to facilitate remediation within one 

year. 

(h) – Add one term employee to assist current oil and gas specialist with oil/gas management 

throughout the Complex. 

(i) – Continue to implement current Fish and Wildlife Service and Complex policy on denying new 

non-refuge mineral owners requests for oil and gas transmission lines, 

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, Sabine 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. 

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 nonnative and invasive species like Chinese tallow. 

Strategies 

(a) – Obtain at least a one-to-one (1:1) acreage ratio to mitigate oil and gas activities with emphasis 

on marsh protection and restoration. 

(b) – Continue to require prompt site remediation and restoration on oil or gas activity sites. 

(c) – Continue to require cleanup of old sites. 
72 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

(d) – Identify wells that need to be plugged and abandoned, remnant equipment that needs to be 

removed and possible contaminant issues and communicate these needs to the responsible oil 

and gas company. 

(e) – Continue to add to the database that tracks well status and pipeline locations, along with current 

ownership. 

GOAL D – PUBLIC USE MANAGEMENT: Provide opportunities for safe, quality, compatible, wildlifedependent public use and recreation—including environmental education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, photography, hunting, and fishing—which will promote understanding and appreciation 

of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and its mission. 

Objective D-1. Visitor Services – Within three (3) years of finishing Hurricane Rita cleanup 

operations, complete steps to enhance the refuge’s infrastructure and operations to provide for 

quality, wildlife-dependent public use. 

Discussion: Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is one of the premier attractions along the Creole Nature 

Trail (designated an All American Road), receiving about 300,000 visitors a year. These diverse 

visitors engage in various forms of wildlife-dependent recreation, including wildlife viewing, fishing, 

shrimping, crabbing, and hunting. In addition, each year hundreds of young pupils from area schools 

visit the refuge.

Strategies 

(a) – Within 8 years of concluding hurricane cleanup at Sabine Refuge, develop an up-to-date stepdown Visitor Services Management Plan for the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex that includes recommendations for wildlife-dependent recreation. The Visitor Services 

Plan will encompass environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation and 

photography and outreach.

(b) – Through partnerships, continue to improve ability to obtain accurate visitor counts and projected 

visitation, applying statistical methods. 

(c) – Improve quality and quantity of information about the refuge. 

(d) – Revise and update a step-down Law Enforcement Plan for the Complex by 2008. 

(e) – Work with state to standardize all highway signs regarding appearance and information; use 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge on all signs. 

(f) – Keep public use areas clean and well mowed. 

(g) – Hire one permanent full-time law enforcement officer. 

(h) – Hire a permanent, full-time Park Ranger (Public Use) for visitor services (environmental 

education, interpretation, etc.) to work under the direction and guidance of the Complex 

Outreach Coordinator. 

(i) – Replace hurricane-damaged restrooms at the Wetland Walkway and add restrooms to the Northline, Hog Island Gully, and West Cove public use areas. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

(j) – Repair or replace hurricane-damaged boardwalks, hard surface trails, observation towers, signs, 

and interpretive materials associated with these structures. 

(k) – Repair 4 acres of public use parking lots and resurface 2 acres of parking areas. Replace Hog 

Island Gully parking lot. 

(l) – Replace 5 public use bridges. 

(m) – Replace all entrance signs at Headquarters Area and public use sites. 

Objective D-2. Hunting Opportunities – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, 

improve hunting opportunities that are compatible with the purpose of the refuge. 

Discussion: Hunting of waterfowl is permitted in designated areas at Sabine. During the 1993–1994 

through 2004–2005 waterfowl seasons, the refuge attracted an average of 3,166 hunters annually. In 

recent years, hunting of ducks, geese, and coots has been allowed on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and 

Sundays during the state waterfowl seasons set by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. This CCP recommends adding one day (Tuesday) to the weekly hunting schedule, in 

coordination with Lacassine Refuge, the other refuge in the Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex 

that permits waterfowl hunting. All hunters would be required to have a refuge-issued permit. 

Strategies 

(a) – Provide up to 50,000 acres or 40% of the refuge for waterfowl hunting. 

(b) – Increase waterfowl hunting opportunities from three days per week to four days per week. 

(c) – Continue providing sanctuary with minimal human disturbance three days per week. 

(d) – Continue restrictions on motors and sizes, utilizing only trolling motors and push poles in marsh, 

and prohibiting the use of permanent blinds. 

(e) – Initiate permit drawings if conditions require them. 

(f) – Continue youth waterfowl hunting days as set by Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 

(g) – Continue to monitor potential for hunting of deer and feral hogs. If it is determined that a viable 

hunting program for either of these species can be established, then the refuge will be opened 

to big game hunting after updating the Refuge Hunt Plan and appropriate notification is 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50. 

(h) – Monitor potential for feral hog hunting. If it is determined that a viable hunting program for this 

species can be established, then the refuge will be opened to this hunt after updating the 

Refuge Hunt Plan and appropriate notification is published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Title 50. 

(i) – Monitor potential for deer hunting. If it is determined that a viable hunting program for this 

species can be established, then the refuge will be opened to this hunt after updating the 

Refuge Hunt Plan and appropriate notification is published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Title 50. 
74 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

(j) – Update the Hunt Plan, complying with current Service policy, by FY 2008. 

Objective D-3. Fishing Opportunities – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations are complete, 

provide increased fishing opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

Discussion: Fishing is permitted on designated waterways at Sabine. Fishing with rod and reel, pole 

and line or jug and line is permitted; use or possession of other gear is prohibited. Bank fishing at 

recreation areas along State Highway 27 is permitted year-round, but on the rest of the refuge, fishing 

and public access is permitted from March 15 through October 15. Units 1A and 1B are open to 

nonmotorized boats only. Aside from Management Unit 3, trolling motors only are allowed in refuge 

marshes. 

Strategies 

(a) – Increase public access through improvements to the canal system when compatible with the 

purpose of the refuge. 

(b) – Continue to allow fishing from March 15th to October 15th each year. 

(c) – Upgrade existing boat roller/sling systems and establish new one(s) at water control structures. 

(d) – Improve parking/launching facility at Unit 1A utilizing partnerships for obtaining funding to 

provide additional fishing opportunities. 

(e) – With partners, strive to keep fishing areas clean through a combination of education (signage) 

and litter pickup. 

(f) – Assess the feasibility of allowing commercial guiding on the refuge. If guiding is allowed, it would 

be under the auspices of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

(g) – Assess the feasibility of enrolling in the Recreation Fee Demo program which allows fees to be 

charged for facility use. The proceeds from this program are allocated to improve visitor 

facilities. 

(h) – With partners or other Complex refuges, sponsor a youth fishing activity during National Fishing 

Week. 

(i) – Repair or replace all hurricane-damaged recreational boat docks, fishing piers, boat ramps and 

parking areas at North-line, Hog Island Gully, and West Cove public use areas. 

Objective D-4. Wildlife Observation and Photography – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations 

are complete, enhance existing opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography by 

upgrading facilities throughout the refuge over the life of the plan. 

Discussion: Sabine has two wildlife observation trails (the Wetland Walkway Trail and the Blue 

Goose Trail) and two roadside “scenic overlook” viewing areas. Between 2000–2005, 85,734 visitors 

walked these trails annually. The refuge has also established several nonmotorized boating areas 

that allow the public to view and photograph wildlife in areas undisturbed by motorized traffic. In 

cooperation with the Creole Nature Trail, the refuge built two roadside “scenic overlooks” beside State 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Highway 27. These areas allow visitors to the refuge to stop and observe coastal marsh habitats and 

the wildlife inhabiting them without having to leave their vehicles. 

Strategies 

(a) – Initial focus of efforts should be on repair and/or replacement of facilities damaged during 

Hurricane Rita, e.g. trails, boardwalks, restroom facilities, observation platforms, and parking 

lots. 

(b) – Partner with others to promote wildlife observation opportunities. 

(c) – Work with partners to sponsor refuge photo contest. 

(d) – Work with local photographer to generate list of quality photo spots. 

(e) – Allow commercial guiding for ecotourism, including birding and other nonconsumptive wildlife 

and recreational activities. Each guide would be covered by a special use permit. 

Objective D-5: Environmental Education and Interpretation – Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

efforts are complete, coordinate with and complement other refuges within the Complex to implement 

environmental education and interpretation. 

Strategies 

(a) – With partners such as the Creole Nature Trail Board of Directors and Complex Friends Group, 

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: 

• the purpose/importance of this refuge for migratory waterfowl 

• management of wetlands 

• invasive species management 

• national wildlife refuges in Louisiana 

• impacts of hurricanes on wildlife habitat 

• oil and gas infrastructure activities 

• research activities and results 

• wetland restoration projects and success stories 

• effects of global warming and sea level rise and the importance of the refuge to restore 

wetlands to help combat coastal land loss 
76 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective D-6. Friends, Volunteers, Partners, Interns – Once Hurricane Rita recovery operations 

are complete, provide additional opportunities for Friends, volunteers, partners and interns to assist 

the refuge. 

Strategies 

(a) – Nurture and strengthen the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex Friends 

Group. 

(b) – Continue to cooperate closely with all partners and volunteers; work closely with them to help 

manage a volunteer program. 

(c) – Identify projects that can be done by Friends and volunteers; develop specific job descriptions 

and timelines. 

(d) – Promote the need for Friends and volunteers through local media. 

(e) – Provide 5 recreational vehicle spaces with utility hookups for volunteer, intern, and other partner 

housing. 

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 is to be 

accomplished through a mix of informed management, law enforcement efforts, and public education; 

and (4) the increasing role of consultation with groups, such 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 – Within three (3) years of completing Hurricane Rita recovery operations, 

assess the feasibility of conducting a refuge-wide archaeological survey. 

Strategies 

(a) – Contact the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine if any known archaeology sites exist 

within the vicinity of the refuge. 

(b) – Determine the cost of conducting the survey and seek resources to accomplish the work. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

(c) – Consult the Regional Preservation Officer for guidance. 

Objective E-2. Education – Within five (5) years of completing Hurricane Rita recovery operations, 

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 (Native American, African American, Creole, Cajun, etc.) to 

develop an education program regarding their cultural heritage and history. 

Objective E-3. Cultural Resources Management Plan – Within 5 years of completing Hurricane 

Rita recovery operations, develop a step-down Cultural Resources Management Plan.

Strategy 

(a) – Consult the Regional Historic Preservation Officer for guidance. 

GOAL F – EAST COVE UNIT: Utilize water control structures to restore the area to a healthy marsh 

with good vegetation cover important to certain fin and shellfish species and dabbling waterfowl 

groups. 

Objective F-1. Intermediate Marsh Restoration – Operate gates to restore preferred vegetated 

plant communities associated with intermediate or possibly slightly brackish environs. Evaluate use 

of terraces to improve vegetation of open-water areas. 

Discussion: The East Cove Unit contains almost 15,000 acres of brackish and salt marsh that is 

closely managed by water control structures to preserve a balance between salt and fresh water. 

Salinity is continuously monitored and water levels managed to restore and maintain the historic 

marshes destroyed by saltwater intrusion. The East Cove Unit is part of the Cameron Creole 

Watershed Project, a cooperative effort among local, state, and federal agencies and the private 

sector to restore 64,000 acres of marsh in Cameron Parish. Water level and salinity management on 

the East Cove Unit are based on the 1987 Resource Management Plan for Cameron Creole 

Watershed, established by the Cameron Creole Advisory Committee. Annually, salinities are 

recorded biweekly at 28 stations throughout the marsh, and are averaged to compare seasonal 

fluctuations from year to year. Water salinities within the Cameron Creole Watershed are directly but 

inversely correlated to seasonal rainfall—as rainfall decreases, salinity levels increase. 

Strategies 

a) – Manage East Cove Unit in accordance with Cameron Creole Watershed Management Plan 

adopted in 1987. 

(b) – During periods of very high salinity in the Calcasieu Lake area, keep gates closed-or in an 

almost closed condition. 

(c) – Monitor effectiveness of terraces and record/report results. 
78 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

(d) – Work with state and national marine fisheries agencies to be sensitive to the needs of marine fin 

fish/shellfish, but not to the detriment of restoring sites as outlined in the 2050 Coastal 

Restoration Plan. 

(e) – Add two permanent full-time employees for main Sabine unit and East Cove unit. 

Objective F-2. Sanctuary – Continue to monitor and evaluate the need for sanctuary in the East 

Cove area and minimize detrimental waterfowl disturbances. 

Discussion: No hunting for waterfowl or other game is permitted in the East Cove Unit at the present 

time. However, the unit is open for other public uses, including fishing, year-round, except during the 

state’s waterfowl hunting season and when the Grand Bayou Boat Bay is closed to provide some 

sanctuary in the area. Public use of the unit is restricted to boats only; no walking, wading, or 

climbing in or on the marsh, levees, or structures to fish, cast net, or crab is allowed. 

Strategies 

(a) – Limit use of motorized boats in the area (time/space). 

(b) – Continue with the present policy of no hunting at the site, but reevaluate the possibility of limited 

waterfowl hunting within the life of the plan. 

Objective F-3. Invasive Plant Species – Monitor the East Cove Unit for invasion of exotic plant 

species with special emphasis on giant salvinia. 

Discussion: Giant salvinia, a native of Brazil, was first discovered growing in the wild in North 

America only about five years ago; this invasive exotic has already infested a number of southern 

states. It can spread swiftly to cover the surface of lakes and streams, forming floating mats that 

shade out and displace important native plants by reducing the oxygen content and degrading the 

water quality for fish and other aquatic organisms. It has almost no value as a waterfowl food or fish 

habitat and can outcompete native plants that do provide food and aquatic habitat. 

Strategies 

(a) – Conduct 2–3 annual boat surveys in cooperation with state and/or United States Department of 

Agriculture agencies to search for problem plant species. 

(b) – Take immediate action to control Salvinia molesta via using “Reward” (diquat). Another option is 

to increase the salinity to < 7 parts per thousand to help control salinity. 

Objective F-4. Fishing Access – Improve public fishing access to the East Cove Unit within the life 

of the plan. 

Discussion: Public fishing access to the East Cove Unit is by boat. This access is difficult because of 

surrounding private lands and the presence of water control structures along Calcasieu Lake. 

Strategies 

(a) – Find cooperative landowner to allow access. 

(b) – Install small boat lift into the unit via Calcasieu Lake (similar to lifts on Unit 3 on Sabine). 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

(c) – Allow commercial guiding for fishing in this unit. All use would be under special use permits and 

would be highly regulated. 

(d) – Allow commercial guiding for ecotourism in this unit. 

GOAL G – REFUGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS: Concurrently with Hurricane Rita recovery 

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; (2) coordinate their relationship with each 

other; (3) manage the role of the Service as a partner in the multiagency Cameron Creole Watershed 

Project; and (4) interact with the state-managed Rockefeller Refuge. 

Objective G-1: Complex Support – The Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex will 

encourage and support each refuge’s major focus (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. 
80 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

The following projects reflect the basic needs of the refuge as identified during the development of 

this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and will help fulfill the refuge’s important role in providing 

habitat for waterfowl in Southwest Louisiana, supporting both the mission of the refuge and the 

Service. 

Implementation of these projects will contribute to various plans and initiatives discussed earlier in 

Chapter I of this document. First and foremost, the refuge will concentrate on recovery, cleanup, and 

restoration of habitat, bridges, roads, canals, and other infrastructure damaged from the forces of 

wind and tidal surge from the September 2005 hurricane. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge 

administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs identified 

by the public, planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information. These projects were 

generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and strategies. The primary linkages 

of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. 

PROJECT 1: HURRICANE RECOVERY 

Overview 

Hurricane Rita came ashore in southwestern Louisiana on September 24, 2005, with the storm’s eye 

passing near the community of Johnson Bayou (directly south of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge) in 

Cameron Parish, Louisiana. A Category 3 hurricane at landfall, Rita caused widespread damage to 

the surrounding areas with winds in excess of 100 mph and a storm surge topping 15 to 20 feet. The 

coastal communities of Holly Beach, Johnson’s Bayou, and Cameron received catastrophic damage. 

Oil drilling rigs and platforms located just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico also received heavy damage. 

Large parcels of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s property were impacted by the winds and tidal 

surge associated with Hurricane Rita. Hazardous materials from communities and commercial 

activities were carried by the wind and flood waters into the refuge, along with household materials, 

lumber, and displaced vegetation. These included large tanks, totes, drums, and other smaller 

containers which comprise a potential threat to the marsh environment and the flora and fauna of the 

refuge. 

In January of 2006, the Service commissioned a study by Research Planning Inc. (RPI) of Columbia, 

South Carolina, to compile various existing spatial data sources in an attempt to calculate the number 

and types of debris deposited into the refuge during Hurricane Rita. A subset of the resulting 

database was then field-verified by helicopter overflight and limited ground reconnaissance. From 

these efforts, a correction factor was calculated and applied to the entire data set yielding an 

extrapolated estimate of the debris left in Sabine. The RPI report indicates there are almost 4,000 

items visible in the refuge. However, local Service field personnel indicate that this number may be 

slightly high because of subsequent sinking and breakdown of debris piles. 
82 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

On May 16, 2006, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) personnel attended an initial site meeting with 

the Service to discuss the objectives for hazardous material (HAZMAT) removal operations at Sabine 

and nearby Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge. During this meeting, the Service identified four 

distinct priority areas (Figure 13) for removal operations. These areas were chosen based on debris 

density estimates within existing refuge management units. Sabine was identified as the highest 

priority refuge with the heaviest distribution of hazardous materials resulting from Hurricane Rita’s 

storm surge. Of the seven Sabine management units, Units 1, 1A, 1B, and 4 were identified as 

having the highest priority. Debris fields located south of Central Canal in management Unit 4 were 

identified as the primary priority area. The second priority area is the hazardous material containers 

diffused throughout refuge management Unit 1; the third priority area is refuge management Units 1A 

and 1B in Sabine. 

Figure 13. Prioritized hazardous material work units. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Hazardous Material Recovery 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Unit 4: Priority 1 and Support of Dredging Operations 

At the refuge, removal of hazardous materials from large accumulation areas (debris fields) in Unit 4 

was identified by the Service as the top priority. The best access and route for transporting hazardous 

materials (HAZMAT) from the Unit 4 debris fields to the transfer site appears to be via canals (see 

Figure 13), specifically Central Canal. A transfer site will be established on the south bank of Central 

Canal to the west of Backridge Bridge. Backridge Bridge crosses Central Canal near the location 

where Central Canal and Back Ridge Canal converge. The contractor shall complete temporary 

improvements to this site to create a safe and stable platform for equipment that will be used to 

transfer HAZMAT from the canal transport vehicles to trucks. HAZMAT shall be transported to this 

transfer site using boats and barges from various refuge units via Central Canal. At the transfer site, 

HAZMAT shall be transferred from the boats and barges to vehicles and transported to the 

designated collection site. Scheduled canal maintenance should increase the depth of Central Canal 

and sections of adjoining canals from 3 to 4 feet. These canal repairs will make using boats with 

outboard motors and barges possible and aid HAZMAT recovery operations. Prior to canal 

maintenance operations, the contractor shall be responsible for the removal all visible hazardous 

material within or immediately adjacent to canal sections scheduled for repairs. The contractor shall 

provide support throughout dredging operations and shall be responsible for the spill response and 

recovery of HAZMAT encountered during dredging operations. Following canal maintenance, tracked 

amphibious marsh equipment should be able to access Unit 4 debris fields via Vastar Road and 

Central Canal. 

The highest priority debris fields in Unit 4 extend westward from the eastern boundary of Unit 4 and 

along Central Canal to approximately the midpoint of the unit. Other large debris accumulations are 

located in Unit 4 to the south of the Central Canal debris line. An additional, less consolidated debris 

line was indicated in the RPI report, extending from the Central Canal to the Southline Canal, but little 

debris was observed in this area during overflights in mid-May 2006. 

Figure 14. Canals scheduled for dredging. 
84 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Unit 1: Priority 2 

Unit 1, the second priority, is located north of Central Canal and to the east of Beach Canal. A 

combination of Central Canal and Beach Canal should provide access to Unit 1. Unit 1 debris is not 

consolidated in heavy debris fields, as is the case in Unit 4. Instead, debris and hazardous materials 

are scattered over most of the unit within numerous small collection points, often separated by water. 

Hazardous material removal from Unit 1 will require considerable preplanning to determine which 

areas have a significant amount of HAZMAT to justify the impact of heavy equipment to the marsh 

areas identified as response areas by the Service. These areas will be entered into the GIS 

database and plotted in ArcMap or equivalent GIS software. 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Units 1A and 1B: Priority 3 

Units 1A and 1B are the third priority recovery areas as designated by the Service. These units are 

north of Central Canal and to the east of Back Ridge Canal. The heaviest HAZMAT accumulations 

appear to be along the east side of the Back Ridge Canal and to the south of the canal after it makes 

a 90o bend to the east. Back Ridge Canal is scheduled for maintenance and clearing from Central 

Canal to the ninety degree bend to the east in Back Ridge Canal. The use of Back Ridge and Central 

canals should provide access to the heaviest accumulations of HAZMAT located in Units 1A and 1B. 

Repair of Bridges 

There are three bridges within the Sabine Refuge on or near State Highway 27—Vastar Bridge, 

Backridge Bridge, and Northline Bridge—that were damaged during the hurricane. All three were 

inspected and found in need of repairs in order to bring them back up to their normal posted load 

ratings. Anticipated repairs at this time include the following: 

Vastar Bridge 

 

As stated in the October 2005 bridge inspection report, in order to repair the bridge to its original 

posted load limit of 16 tons, several repairs are needed. The repairs include replacing steel girders in 

the middle span; removing and replacing the entire deck with full-width running planks and timber 

curbs; excavating along wingwalls, abutments, and embankments at the approaches, and installing 

geotextile fabric; replacing the excavated material, compacting in layers; and adding stone and/or 

riprap and gravel as needed along the wingwalls and approaches. The entrance gate to Vastar Road 

will also be replaced, as well as required signs. 

Backridge Bridge 

According to the October 2005 bridge report, repairs required to reestablish the 16-ton restricted load 

limit of Backridge Bridge include removing grass and debris from the approaches and debris from the 

channel around the bridge; excavating along the wingwalls, abutments, and embankments at the 

approaches; replacing missing planks from the northeast and northwest wingwalls; installing a layer 

of geotextile fabric at the soil interface along the wingwalls, abutments, and approaches; replacing 

excavated material, compacting in layers; and adding stone and/or riprap and gravel as necessary 

along the wingwalls, abutments, and approaches. In addition, installing runner planks the full width of 

the deck; replacing a rotted pile cap; and installing required signs are needed. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Northline Bridge 

The Northline Bridge will be repaired to a usable structure with a restricted load limit of 18 tons. Such 

repairs include removing debris from bridge deck; replacing the backwall planking at the west 

abutment; installing geotextile fabric on the inside face of abutments and wingwalls; removing existing 

embankment material along both approaches, installing geotextile fabric, and replacing embankment 

material; installing runner planks full width on bridge deck; installing bridge and approach rails; and 

installing object markers and required signs. 

Both the Vastar and Backridge bridges will be used during the cleanup of hazardous material debris 

which accumulated within the refuge marshes and canals during Hurricane Rita; however, a 

protective mat will be placed onto of each bridge before use. Hazardous/nonhazardous material 

cleanup activities will be completed prior to initiating any bridge repairs. At such time, both Vastar 

and Backridge bridges will be reinspected prior to conducting said repairs to ensure that additional 

repairs are not required. 

Headquarters Fueling Facility Repairs 

Three above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs)—two 1000-gallon ASTs and one 500-gallon AST—

located at the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters were destroyed by the hurricane. The 

original concrete pads and protective bollards remain intact. Thus, repairs to the fueling facility entail 

purchasing and placing new ASTs back in the original locations. The two larger tanks, designed to 

store gasoline and diesel fuel, will be located along the north bank of the west-east canal towards the 

rear of the headquarter facility grounds, while the smaller tank, designed to store diesel fuel for 

operating boats, will be installed adjacent to the facility boat house. 

Each tank will be designed with a double interior; a compact, tank-mounted, 115-VAC pump with 12-

foot hose and auto shutoff nozzle; an 8-inch, direct-reading fuel level, clock-type gauge; a 2-inch 

through tank leak detection tube; a built-in, 7-gallon overfill containment; an automatic shutoff valve at 

the fill port; and vents and signage. 

Canal Cleaning 

Almost 35 miles of refuge canals (see Figure 14) require cleaning of both hazardous/nonhazardous 

material debris and vegetation. Most or all of Central, Beach, and Backridge canals will be cleaned of 

the hazardous materials by a contractor under the guidance of EPA. 

Approximately 20 miles of the Roadside and Southline canals, 8.6 and 11.4 miles, respectively, also 

require cleaning, primarily of vegetation. 

With respect to the Roadside and Southline canals, grass buckets will be used to minimize the 

removal of silt/sediment. Vegetation and clinging silt/sediment, if any, removed will be placed along 

the bank of the canals as far inland as a swamp buggy excavator boom will reach. Any hazardous 

material encountered will be removed and addressed accordingly by the hazardous material debris 

cleanup personnel under the coordination of EPA and the Service. 

Road Repairs 

Vastar Road, approximately 2.9 miles in total length, needs to be regraveled and leveled. This road 

connects Vastar Bridge and Backridge Bridge and then continues west past Backridge Bridge along 

the north side of Central Canal. 
86 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 15. Canal cleaning. 

Parking Lot Repairs 

Eight parking lots, varying in size, require repair. Some lots require the placement of a layer of 

geotextile fabric covered with gravel, while others require resealing and restriping. The parking lots 

that need to be repaired are as follows: 

 

• Unit 1A/1B parking lot 

• Northline parking lot 

• Hog Island South parking lot 

• Blue Goose parking lot 

• West Cove parking lots (south and north sides) 

• Nature Trail parking lot 

• Headquarters parking lot 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Repairs to Water Control Structure, Observation Deck, Pier, and Several Boat Ramps 

In addition to the above repairs, various other repairs are required as well. At Unit 1B, there is a 

concrete bridge/water control structure in need of repair. The top of the structure will be repaired by 

widening the existing concrete bridge/water control structure by adding a suitable wooden deck which 

will allow refuge vehicles and tractors/mowers a sufficient width by which to comfortably drive across, 

yet still allow refuge personnel continual access to the structure stop-logs from the bridge deck. 

The Blue Goose Observation Tower needs a new wheelchair-accessible ramp constructed leading 

from the parking lot up to the tower. The entire ramp was lost during the hurricane. In the same 

area, an associated walking trail needs repair. A new 3,000-foot asphalt walking trail will be 

constructed to replace the existing trail. 

At the Northline Bridge, there is an associated wooden pier and boat ramp. Both require repair due 

to hurricane impacts. With respect to the pier, repairs include the removal of the existing 350 foot by 

6-foot-wide wooden fishing pier; and the construction of a new wheelchair-accessible wooden pier of 

the same size with deck planks installed perpendicular to the pier length. Similarly, with respect to 

the boat ramp, a new ramp will be installed along the north end of the pier. 

And lastly, at the Hog Island Gully South area, two boat ramps need attention. One will be replaced 

altogether with a new one of similar size and style, including a new gate. The second ramp simply 

needs to be cleared of excess mud created during the hurricane. 

Miscellaneous 

The hurricane damaged or destroyed numerous refuge vehicles, boats, trailers, fire equipment, 

furniture and other items. The costs to replace or repair these items are shown in Table 7. 

Nonhurricane-related Projects 

Routine restoration and other projects will be completed as hurricane recovery is complete. It is 

unknown how long it will take to restore the refuge to pre-storm condition. All nonhurricane-related 

projects are identified in the goals, objectives, and strategies found in this document. The costs to 

complete some identified projects are not available at this time; however, a number of exceptions are 

listed in Table 7 below. 

Table 7. Costs to repair, recover, and replace real and personal property damaged from 

Hurricane Rita. 

Huuicane 

Supplemental 

Appropriation 

Projects Associated with Recovery from 

Hurricane Rita 

Estimated Costs 

(One Time) 

X HAZMAT/Debris removal $16,061,000

X Tasks 0 – 15 (Need to describe tasks) 6,233,000

X Repair/reopen 18 miles of canals 3,600,000

X Repair three water control structures 1,000,000

X Replaced destroyed maintenance shop 750,000

X Replace destroyed headquarters office 3,500,000
88 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Huuicane 

Supplemental 

Appropriation 

Projects Associated with Recovery from 

Hurricane Rita 

Estimated Costs 

(One Time) 

X 

Replaced fueling facilities, above ground fuel storage 

tanks 160,000

X Replace maintenance area water lines 100,000

X Replace maintenance area electrical lines 250,000

X Repair rear access road to pole shed 22,000

X Repair maintenance parking areas 100,000

X Repair office grounds and landscaping 200,000

X Replace damaged office equipment/furniture/supplies 100,000

X Replace headquarters sewerage treatment unit 50,000

X Replace headquarters telephone system and lines 100,000

X 

Repair and rehabilitate Blue Goose nature trail/design 

and build visitor contact station 400,000

X 

Repair damage to concrete nature trail and boardwalk 

(partnership with tourism bureau) 500,000

X Replace security gates 20,000

X Survey/replace/repair refuge posting 600,000

X Replace ATV’s 15,000

X Replace vehicle (truck) 35,000

X Replace vehicle (SUV) 25,000

X Replace and repair multiple damaged boats and trailers 35,000

X Repair/replace damaged fire equipment 300,000

Total $34,156,000.00

PROJECT 2: COSTS TO CONTROL UNDESIRABLE PLANTS AND ANIMALS 

Undesirable plant and animal species pose problems at Sabine, as they do at many national wildlife 

refuges. Invasive species are plants and animals that cause severe changes and degradation when 

introduced into native habitats. Invasive plants cause billions of dollars of damage to our natural and 

managed ecosystems and agricultural lands. Invasive plant species include Chinese tallow tree, 

water hyacinth, hydrilla, common salvinia, phragmites, and alligator weed. Invasive plants will be 

controlled by prescribed burning, herbicides, flooding, and by mechanical means. 

Exotic species are nonnative organisms that can invade native habitat. These species reduce 

biological diversity because they outcompete native species for limited resources. The Chinese 

tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) constitutes the greatest threat to the refuge in terms of exotic species. 

Other undesirable species that are becoming concerns are roseau cane (Phragmites sp.), salt cedar 

(Tamarix gallica) and alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides). 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Currently, the animal that is causing the most concern is the feral hog. The hogs adversely impact 

habitat and they prey on ground nesting birds. Nutria and muskrat have caused serious habitat 

damage. Nutria damage levees by burrowing; they also consume newly-planted trees and other 

vegetation. Trapping and shooting will be used to control nutria. 

The public should be made aware of refuge concerns with undesirable plants and animals and 

instructed with ways to minimize or eliminate the spread of undesired species. Refuge personnel 

should also be trained in identifying undesired species. The costs to control undesirable plants and 

animals are shown in Table 8. 

Table 8. Costs to control undesirable plants and animals. 

Project Type and 

Number Projects Estimated Costs (One Time) 

RONS 97705 Control invasive species $67,500

RONS 00021 Control Nutria and Feral Hog Populations $51,000

Total $118,500.00

PROJECT 3: INVENTORY/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 minimum one biologist and two biotechnicians. 

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, timing of mechanical treatments, etc.) in such a way that the methods are repeatable 

and suitable for proper evaluation. Computer resources should include field computers, GIS 

database, 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 objectives and goals. When budget and staffing allow, the refuge 

should conduct inventories, surveys, and population assessments of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds 

and mammals. National protocols should analyze ecosystem-wide trends. 

The costs for this project are shown in Table 9. 
90 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 9. Costs to inventory and monitor wildlife populations and responses to adaptive 

management techniques. 

Projects Estimated Costs 

(One Time) 

Supplies, water level monitoring equipment, vehicle fuel $21,000

Waterfowl (Flights, fuel, supplies) $5,000

Colonial Nesting Birds (Misc., fuel) $1,000

Grassland birds (Fuel, equipment) $2,000

Marsh birds (misc. supplies, fuel) $2,000

Develop Oil & Gas Monitoring Program $134,000

Expand Refuge Biological Monitoring Programs $ 75,000

Enhance Refuge Management Capabilities Using GIS $ 30,000

Total $270,000.00

PROJECT 4: PARTNERSHIPS, VOLUNTEERS, FRIENDS AND INTERNS 

The refuge utilizes the services of volunteers, student interns, partners, and members of the Friends 

of Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuges and Wetlands. These groups and others assist the 

refuge 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 nonprofit organizations, 

universities and schools, parish officials, other elected officials, and civic groups to expand upon to 

partnerships. The cost to promote these partnership opportunities is shown in Table 10. 

Table 10. Cost to promote partnerships. 

Projects Estimated Costs 

(One Time) 

Promote partnerships $5,000

Total $5,000.00

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Approved staffing at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge consists of four full-time positions as shown in 

Table 8. In early 2004, Sabine, Lacassine, Cameron Prairie, and Shell Keys merged into a Complex 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

under the supervision of a GS-14 Complex Leader stationed at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife 

Refuge, Complex Headquarters. 

Additional staffing will be necessary for the refuge to implement the goals, objectives, and strategies 

identified in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Table 11 identifies the costs of existing and 

proposed staffing. Figure 16 provides an organization chart of current and proposed staffing for 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Table 11. Cost of existing and proposed positions. 

Existing Positions Annual Costs – 

Existing Positions 

Refuge Manager, GS 13 $136,000.00

Maintenance Worker, WG 8 $65,000.00

Carpenter, WG-8 $65,000.00

Park Ranger (LE), GS 9 $68,000.00

Sub-total – Salary for Existing Positions $334,000.00

Proposed Positions Annual Costs – 

Proposed Positions 

Biologist, GS – 11/12 $89,000.00

Biological Technician, GS 5/7 $51,000.00 

Biological Technician (East Cove), GS 5/7 $52,000.00

Biological Technician (East Cove), GS 5/7 $52,000.00

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), GS 9 $68,000.00

Park Ranger (Public Use), GS 7/9 $55,000.00

Fire Ecologist, (Complex) GS-11 $72,000.00

Oil and Gas Specialist, (Complex) GS 11 $72,000.00

Facility Manager, (Complex) GS-9 $68,000.00

Sub-total for proposed positions $579,000.00

Total (Existing and Proposed) $913,000.00

SUMMARY TABLE OF COSTS FOR 2007–2022 

Implementation of the projects identified in the proposed alternative would be achieved when 

possible. Table 12 summarizes the costs for projects proposed to be completed from 2007–2022. 
92 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 12. Summary of costs for projects proposed to be completed from 2007–2022. 

Project Title One-time Costs 

Hurricane Recovery Projects $34,156,000

Construct Visitor Contact Station $400,000

Control Invasive Species $150,000

Monitor Wildlife Populations and Responses to Adaptive 

Management $270,000

Promote Partnerships $5,000

Existing Staff Costs – 4 FTE’s (Based on FY07 salary costs) $334,000

Proposed Staff Costs – 9 FTE’s (based on FY07 salary costs) $579,000

Base Operations - Varies 

Total $35,894,000.00
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Figure 16. Organization chart for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge with current and proposed 

positions. 

Proposed

Position

Sabine

Position

Complex

Position

Refuge Complex Manager

GS-0485-14

Proposed

Park Ranger

Public Use

GS-0025-07/09

Proposed

Biologist

GS-0486-11/12

Proposed

Bio Tech

GS-0401-07/09 Proposed

East Cove

Bio Tech

GS-0401-07/09

Proposed

East Cove

Bio Tech

GS-0401-07/09

Proposed

Fire Ecologist

GS-0462-09/11

Proposed

Facility Mgr.

GS-XXXX-09

Proposed

Park Ranger

Law Enforcement

GS-0025-07/09

Deputy Complex Mgr/

CP Refuge Manager

GS-0485-12/13

Refuge Manager

GS-0485-13

Carpenter

WG-4607-08

Maint. Worker

WG-4749-08

Park Ranger

Law Enforcement

GS-0025-09

Proposed

 Oil/Gas Spec.

GS-0486-11
94 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. 

A step-down management plan provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and 

visitor services management. These step-down plans (Table 13) are also developed in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the identification and evaluation of 

alternatives and public review and involvement prior to their implementation. 

Table 13. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals 

and objectives of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Plan Name Fiscal Year Proposed 

Completion/Revision Date 

Fire Management/Fire Effects Monitoring 2010 (1998) 

Volunteers, Friends, and Partnerships 2010 

Population Management 2015 

Law Enforcement 2006 

Visitor Services 2010 

Sport Fishing 2015 

Sport Hunting 2008 

Habitat/Water Management Plan 2010 

Exotic Species (Animal Control) 2010 (1997) 

Pesticide Use and Disposal 2010 

Alligator & Furbearer Harvest Plan 2010 

Fisheries Resources 2015 

Cultural Resources 2019 

Oil and Gas Management 2015 (1985) 

Wildlife Inventory 2015 (1993) 

PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES 

Sabine 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; McNeese State University; 

Louisiana State University; Ducks Unlimited; Coastal Prairie Conservancy; and Texas Parks and 

Wildlife. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Other opportunities to support environmental education, public awareness, and outreach; 

development of a formal volunteer program; and helping to establish a Friends group will be a high 

priority for the refuge. 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is 

directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More 

specifically, adaptive management is a process by which projects are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within 

a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and nontarget species and/or communities, then alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s 

annual work plans and budget. It will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision 

will occur if and when conditions change or significant information becomes available, such as a 

change in ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final plan will be augmented by 

detailed step-down management plans to address the completion of specific strategies in support of 

the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the stepdown management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
96 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 97

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chapter I. Background 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge has been prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It discusses the purpose and need for the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge, which is located in Cameron Parish, 

Louisiana, and provides an analysis of the environmental impacts that could be expected from each 

of the management proposals outlined in the plan. This analysis assists the Fish and Wildlife Service 

in determining if it will need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the refuge’s proposed CCP. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the Nation’s primary conservation agency concerned 

with the protection and long-term management of wildlife resources. The Service administers the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, a system of more than 540 national wildlife Refuges embracing over 

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

populations and federally listed threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. Of particular 

concern in the Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystem and the adjacent Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem is 

the plight of migratory bird populations—migratory waterfowl and shorebirds as well as neotropical 

migrant songbirds—and the loss of coastal marshland from both natural and human causes. As a 

result, the Service is emphasizing the maintenance and restoration of coastal wetlands and healthy 

bird populations in the proposed management plan for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the CCP and EA is to establish and implement management direction for Sabine 

National Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years. 

The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the 

refuge. Each alternative was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP and 

to describe the predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each 

alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this 

refuge. 

The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency 

managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified a 

range of alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected 

Alternative B as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning 

team, Alternative B is the best approach to guide the refuge’s future direction. 

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management 

of the refuge, thus necessitating the need for this plan. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a comprehensive 

conservation plan in place within 15 years (by 2012). 

DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an 

alternative to implement the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge. A FONSI is a statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have a significant 
98 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

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

Service and Refuge System mission, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established, and other 

legal mandates. Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of the plan will begin and 

the plan will be monitored annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Presidential Executive Order 7764 on December 6, 1937 established Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge. The official purpose of its establishment was “...as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife.” A secondary purpose of the refuge is “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...” (16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act)). 

Sabine Refuge is located eight miles south of Hackberry, on State Highway 27 in Cameron Parish, 

Louisiana. The refuge occupies the marshes between Calcasieu and Sabine lakes in southwest 

Louisiana, and contains 125,790 acres, consisting of 40,403 acres of open water and 85,387 acres of 

marsh grassland. This area contains a diversity of habitat including freshwater impoundments, 

wooded ridges and levees, canals, ponds, lakes, and bayous. Some of the largest wetland 

management efforts in Louisiana occur at Sabine. The refuge is managed to provide habitat for 

migratory waterfowl and other birds and to preserve and enhance coastal marshes for wildlife and 

fish. Oil companies, however, still own the subsurface rights to the refuge and must be provided 

reasonable access to subterranean mineral resources like oil and natural gas. 

The East Cove Unit was established in 1937 as part of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. This unit, 

administratively transferred to Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge from Sabine in 1992, 

consists of 14,927 acres of brackish to intermediate marsh. These marshes are managed as a 

nursery for brown and white shrimp, blue crab, and many fish species. Also located in Cameron 

Parish, the East Cove Unit is bordered on the west by Calcasieu Lake, and on the north, east, and 

south by privately owned marshes. 

Sabine Refuge is part of the Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex, which also includes the Cameron 

Prairie, Lacassine and Shell Keys national wildlife refuges. While the refuges within the complex 

share certain staff and coordinate on a good deal of planning and management activities, this EA, 

and the CCP it covers, focuses only on Sabine Refuge, including the East Cove Unit. 

PLANNING PROCESS AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION 

A mailing list of organizations and individuals was compiled to ensure that the refuge was contacting 

a wide array of “stakeholders”—including interested people, users like hunters, bird watchers, and 

anglers, and agencies representing tribes, the State of Louisiana, and local jurisdictions. A series of 

open houses and public scoping meetings was held in early 2003 at various convenient locations in 

several communities throughout the area. These scoping meetings covered comprehensive 

conservation planning occurring simultaneously at Cameron Prairie, Sabine and Lacassine national 

wildlife refuges, and the attendees were invited to register their comments, input, observations and 

preferences on any or all of the three refuges. 

Announcements giving the location, date, and time for the first scoping meeting appeared in local 

newspapers and were furnished to local residents. Input obtained from the scoping meeting and 

discussions held with state and local officials, civic groups, and conservation organizations were used 

to develop the draft plan. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 99

Beginning with the preparation of the draft plan, the planning team developed a list of issues and 

concerns likely to be associated with the management of the refuge. These issues and concerns 

were expanded to include those ideas generated by citizens from the local community. Refuge staff 

contacted local civic groups, as well as federal, tribal, state, and local agency representatives to 

gather additional issues and concerns and to respond to preliminary alternatives developed by the 

planning team in 2003–2004. 

Together with refuge goals, key issues, and a range of management options, a basis was formed for 

the development and comparison of the management alternatives described in this document. 

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

public will be forthcoming following review of this Draft CCP and EA and will assist the Service in 

refining the range of alternatives described in this section, especially the proposed alternative that 

constitutes the Draft CCP. Several significant key issues or problems formed the basis for the 

development and comparison of the different alternatives described in Chapter III. 
100 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 101

Chapter II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview. 
102 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 103

Chapter III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

After conducting internal and external scoping, the planning team developed five broad goals for 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge and one for the East Cove Unit in particular. The pursuit of these 

goals would help the refuge realize its purposes and vision. The following goals apply to each of the 

alternatives described below: 

Goal A – Habitat: Maintain, restore, and enhance unique coastal wetland habitats on the refuge to 

provide favorable conditions to improve species diversity and richness of migratory birds and native 

terrestrial and aquatic species. 

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. 

Goal C – Oil and Gas Infrastructure and Activities: Manage petroleum infrastructure and activities 

to protect habitat, wintering migratory birds and nesting birds. 

Goal D – Public Use Management: Provide opportunities for safe, quality, compatible, wildlifedependent public use and recreation — including environmental education, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, photography, hunting, and fishing — which will promote understanding and appreciation 

of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and its mission. 

Goal E – Cultural Resources: Protect refuge cultural resources in accordance with federal and 

state historic preservation legislation and regulations. 

Goal F – East Cove Unit: Utilize water control structures to restore the area to an intermediate-type 

marsh with good vegetation cover important to certain fin and shellfish species and dabbling 

waterfowl groups. Improve public fishing access. 

Goal G – Refuge Complex Operations: Concurrently with Hurricane Rita recovery 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; (2) coordinate their relationship with each other; (3) manage 

the role of the Service as a partner in the multiagency Cameron Creole Watershed Project; and (4) 

interact with the state-managed Rockefeller Refuge. 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and the goals identified in the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan; the priorities and goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystem Team; the 

goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Alternatives are formulated to address the significant issues, concerns, and problems identified by the 

Service and the public during public scoping. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection and restoration of fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources at Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge. 
104 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

The planning team assessed biological conditions and analyzed external relationships affecting the 

refuge. This information contributed to the development of goals and objectives and, in turn, the 

formulation of alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents different sets of objectives and 

strategies for reaching long-term goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on how much 

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

Problems and threats—which can also be expressed as issues, concerns and opportunities—provide 

important perspective and guidance in developing alternatives. Trends in habitat and wildlife uses 

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

Overall, the greatest risk to fish, wildlife, plants, and wildlife habitats in the Chenier Plain of the Gulf 

Coast Ecosystem is from extensive wetland habitat degradation and loss that has occurred over the 

past century. Louisiana has the highest rate of wetland loss of any state in the nation, estimated at 

25–35 square miles a year, accounting for 80 percent of the national total (Esslinger and Wilson 

2001). The wetland area in the Chenier Plain declined 16 percent from the mid-1960s to 1990. 

These habitat losses have led to commensurate impacts on wildlife populations, especially of those 

species dependent on wetlands. As a result, the Service has identified wetland preservation and 

restoration as the most important wildlife conservation priority in the Gulf Coast Ecosystem. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, sets of objectives were developed by the planning team that 

lead to the fulfillment of the refuge purpose and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. 

Objectives are desired conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and for this planning effort, 

consolidated into three alternatives. These alternatives, overall, represent a range of different 

management treatments, approaches, or priorities for managing the refuge over a 15-year time 

frame. The three preliminary alternatives are summarized below. Following the summary 

descriptions is a table that depicts the objectives formulated for each alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION 

Continue Current Management 

NOTE: Until Hurricane Rita struck Southwest Louisiana on September 23, 2005, drastically altering 

conditions on the refuge, the text below had been drafted to serve as the description of the No Action 

or Current Management Direction Alternative. It is included here to provide historical documentation 

of the refuge’s baseline condition prior to Hurricane Rita. 

Under the No Action Alternative, management of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge would not deviate 

from current management. The size of the refuge would remain at 125,790 acres, including 40,403 

acres of open water and 85,387 acres of marsh grassland. Sabine would strive to maintain a diverse 

array of habitats, including freshwater impoundments, wooded ridges and levees, canals, ponds, 

lakes, and bayous. Alternative A would maintain existing marsh management at the refuge. Existing 

conditions include 7,231acres of brackish marsh, 84,829 acres of intermediate marsh, and 33,730 

acres of fresh marsh. 

Some of the largest wetland management efforts in Louisiana have occurred in recent years at 

Sabine. Under Alternative A, ongoing restoration efforts would continue with opportunistic funding 

resources. The beneficial use of dredge material for marsh restoration would continue. 

Under this alternative, Sabine would continue providing 125,790 acres of diverse marsh and open 

water habitat sanctuary for migrating and wintering waterfowl. This would help meet sanctuary needs 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 105

for migrating, wintering, and breeding ducks (mottled ducks) and geese of the Chenier Plain system 

of southwest Louisiana, thereby contributing to the targets of the Chenier Plain Initiative. The refuge 

would continue to monitor salinity regularly at established stations but would not investigate water 

rights. Sabine would keep on using fire as a multipurpose management tool to reduce hazardous 

fuels and promote habitat diversity as defined in the National Fire Plan; the refuge would aim to utilize 

prescribed fire on approximately 20,000 acres per year. 

The refuge’s fishery resources would be managed as they are at present under Alternative A. In 

cooperation with partners, Sabine would periodically sample and maintain fish population data via 

netting and angler surveys, using proportional stock density as an index of sport fish population 

structure. 

To conserve and manage wildlife, the Sabine Refuge would continue to: 

• support mottled duck banding activities and provide preferred mottled duck breeding and 

nesting habitat; 

• provide shorebird habitat, thereby contributing to the goals of the Lower Mississippi 

Valley/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Plan; 

• protect known nesting colonies of colonial waterbirds from disturbance; 

• maintain 125,790 acres of diverse marsh plant communities to support marsh birds; 

• play an important role in the conservation of nongame birds in the southeastern United States, 

focusing on the survey, inventory, and monitoring of all groups; in so doing, it would contribute 

to the goals of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Partners in Flight, and other plans; 

• monitor alligator populations and follow state recommendations on annual harvest quotas; 

• minimally control certain wildlife populations as needed to achieve habitat and population 

objectives; and 

• protect diamond-backed terrapin populations on the refuge. 

Under Alternative A, Sabine would closely monitor oil and gas activities to minimize impacts to 

wetland habitats and wildlife usage. It would also maintain current levels of surface reclamation at 

former petroleum extraction sites to improve habitat for wintering migratory birds and other species. 

The refuge would continue to provide for visitation, public use and wildlife-oriented activities by: 

• furnishing waterfowl hunting opportunities that are compatible with the purpose of the refuge; 

• offering quality fishing experiences for anglers and reviewing the refuge fishing program on an 

annual basis to monitor its success; 

• maintaining existing opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography by 

maintaining facilities over the life of the plan; 

• retaining current environmental education and interpretive programs and exhibits; and 

• continuing current opportunities for Friends groups, volunteers, partners and interns to assist 

the refuge and extend the reach of refuge staff. 

Under Alternative A, the Sabine Refuge would advance efforts to inventory, protect, and interpret its 

cultural resources. During the life of the plan, the staff would assess the feasibility of conducting a 

refuge-wide archaeological survey. The refuge would also develop and implement an educational 

program that will provide an understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s ecology and human 

influence on the region’s ecosystems. Sabine would aim to develop a step-down Cultural Resources 

Management Plan through the life of the plan. 
106 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Under Alternative A, the East Cove Unit would continue to be managed by Cameron Prairie National 

Wildlife Refuge. Gates at the water control structures would be operated to restore preferred 

vegetated plant communities associated with intermediate or possibly slightly brackish environs. Staff 

would evaluate the use of terraces to improve vegetation of open-water areas. An assessment would 

be conducted to determine the need for sanctuary in the East Cove Unit to minimize detrimental 

waterfowl disturbances. The invasion of exotic plant species, with special emphasis on giant salvinia, 

would be monitored. Public fishing access to East Cove would be improved during the life of the 

plan. 

ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ACTION 

Keep Refuge Functional in the Near Term and Enhance Management over the Long Term 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Over the near term, under this proposed alternative, refuge programs would continue throughout the 

refuge commensurate with the level of hazardous material cleanup and restoration over time. Areas 

west of State Highway 27 (except the area immediately adjacent to the highway) would remain closed 

in the near term due to hazardous waste and debris fields that clog waterways. However, over time, 

areas would be reopened as repairs to infrastructure and restoration of habitat occur. 

Simultaneously, a hydrological and feasibility study would be conducted to evaluate how the plug of 

hurricane-deposited debris, uprooted vegetation and sediments has affected marsh drainage patterns 

and the challenges and opportunities presented by this changed environment. East of Highway 27, 

all public use facilities along Highway 27 would be repaired. The fire and research programs would 

remain active throughout the refuge. Oil and gas operations would also continue at the normal level. 

A modestly constructed hurricane-resistant building would be located at the original headquarters 

site. 

Over the long term, under Alternative B, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge would increase marsh 

restoration and enhance wildlife management, stepping up these efforts from current levels. The 

refuge would improve marsh plant communities and shallow water, increase waterfowl food 

production, and provide habitats and sanctuary needs for migrating, wintering, breeding ducks 

(mottled ducks) and geese of the Chenier Plain system of southwest Louisiana. It would also protect 

and/or restore 43,200 acres of intermediate and brackish marsh and continue working toward 

restoring the emergent marsh and functional value of Unit 3 through the life of the plan. A feasibility 

study of restoring Unit 3 to tidal influence would be carried out. The beneficial use of dredge material 

for marsh restoration and the construction of terraces would be continued by restoring 1,500 acres of 

marsh in Unit 1.

This alternative would provide 125,790 acres of diverse marsh and open water habitats for migrating 

and wintering waterfowl, which would contribute significantly to the population and habitat objectives 

addressed in the Gulf Coast Joint Venture Chenier Plain Initiative. Population objectives of the plan 

include 4.5 million ducks and 500,000 geese with foraging habitat provided in the coastal marshes. 

Like Alternative A, Alternative B would maintain salinity monitoring throughout the refuge at the 

established discrete salinity stations. However, in contrast to Alternative A, under this alternative 

Sabine would also develop a new water quality monitoring program within five years of CCP approval. 

Working through the Service’s regional solicitor’s office, the refuge would quantify or clarify water 

rights for the Complex. 

Fire management objectives under Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A: Sabine would 

continue to use fire as a multipurpose management tool for reducing hazardous fuels and promoting 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 107

habitat diversity. The refuge would aim to utilize prescribed fire on approximately 20,000 acres per 

year. 

In cooperation with partners, habitat would be managed consistent with the refuge purpose, a 

monitoring program would be in effect, and ways to improve water quality and fishery resources 

would be sought. 

To conserve and manage wildlife, the Sabine Refuge would: 

• support mottled duck banding activities and provide preferred mottled duck breeding and 

nesting habitat; 

• provide shorebird habitat, thereby contributing to the goals of the Lower Mississippi 

Valley/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Plan; 

• protect nesting colonies of colonial waterbirds from disturbance; 

• maintain 125,790 acres of diverse marsh plant communities to support marsh birds; 

• play an important role in the conservation of nongame birds in the southeastern United States, 

focusing on the survey, inventory, and monitoring of all groups; in so doing, it would contribute 

to the goals of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Partners in Flight, and other plans; 

• coordinate with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to monitor alligator 

numbers and establish a desirable alligator density objective for the refuge and work with the 

state in setting annual harvest quotas; 

• intensively control certain wildlife populations as needed to achieve habitat and population 

objectives; and 

• protect diamond-backed terrapin populations on the refuge. 

Under Alternative B, Sabine would closely monitor oil and gas activities to minimize impacts to 

wetland habitats and wildlife usage. It would also increase surface reclamation at former petroleum 

extraction sites to improve habitat for wintering migratory birds and other species. All new non-refuge 

mineral owners’ requests for petrochemical transmission infrastructure would be prohibited. 

By 2008, staff would complete steps to enhance the refuge’s infrastructure and operations to provide 

for quality, wildlife-dependent public use. There would be improved waterfowl hunting opportunities 

that are compatible with the purpose of the refuge. The refuge would also provide increased hunting 

and fishing opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The Sabine Refuge staff would also: 

• enhance existing opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography by upgrading 

facilities throughout the refuge over the life of the plan; 

• provide improved environmental education and interpretive programs that complement the 

programs of other refuges within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex; 

and 

• provide additional opportunities for Friends groups, volunteers, partners and interns to assist 

the refuge. 

Management of cultural resources and the East Cove Unit under Alternative B would be identical to 

Alternative A. That is, under Alternative B, the East Cove Unit would continue to be managed by 

Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge. Gates at the water control structures would be operated to 

restore preferred vegetated plant communities associated with intermediate or possibly slightly 

brackish environs. Staff would evaluate the use of terraces to improve vegetation of open-water 
108 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

areas. An assessment would be conducted to determine the need for sanctuary in the East Cove 

Unit to minimize detrimental waterfowl disturbances. The invasion of exotic plant species, with 

special emphasis on giant salvinia, would be monitored. Public fishing access to East Cove would be 

improved during the life of the plan. 

ALTERNATIVE C: HOLD REFUGE IN CUSTODIAL FORM 

Under this alternative, Sabine and Complex staff would hold refuge property in a custodial capacity. 

Major restoration and recovery efforts from devastation caused by Hurricane Rita would be curtailed. 

The fire and research programs would remain active throughout the refuge. Oil and gas operations 

would continue at the normal level. 

No active habitat management would be undertaken. Instead, refuge and Complex staff would serve 

as good caretakers or custodians of the refuge, observing and monitoring the natural forces and 

ecological succession that would shape its habitats and effectively determine their suitability for 

wildlife. A “hands off” or passive approach to refuge management in an area that has been so 

heavily altered by a century of human activity—including grazing; oil and gas exploration and 

development; pipeline construction; canal, drainage ditch, levee and road building; hunting; 

introduction of exotic species; and so forth—would not lead to habitat conditions resembling those 

that would have occurred on the site today if these interventions had never taken place. Some of 

these interventions produced long-lived or virtually permanent results that cannot be undone simply 

by ceasing all active management. Resources that are presently used for Sabine would be assigned 

to higher priorities determined by the Complex Project Leader and Complex staff to other refuges 

within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Alternative C would entail the following for habitat at Sabine: 

• Units would not be actively managed; human intervention would be minimal. 

• Water control structures would not be replaced. 

• No new terraces would be constructed and existing terraces would be abandoned to natural 

forces. 

• Plant species composition and vegetation communities would be inventoried to determine the 

effects of succession. 

• Units 1A, 1B, and 3 would change due to succession and loss of open water for waterfowl 

(i.e., they would become predominantly emergent vegetation, reducing accessible open water 

habitat). 

• No habitat improvement feasibility study would be performed for Unit 3. Levees may fail due 

to deteriorating physical conditions; however, this may result in some desirable habitat for 

waterfowl. 

• No prescribed fire would be conducted. 

• Efforts at managing or controlling all invasive species, both native and nonnative, would 

cease. 

• Fire management would be limited to hazardous fuel reduction and suppression of wildfires; 

prescribed fire would not be used as an agent of disturbance and habitat renewal. 

• Maintenance of canals would cease. 

These actions would result in reduced capabilities to reverse the progression of succession. Under 

Alternative C, no effort would be made to reduce the accumulation of organic materials in 

impoundments through drawdowns and prescribed fire. There would be no need to replace and 

upgrade equipment and facilities such as pumps, tractors, and water control structures. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 109

This alternative would result in very little effective high quality waterfowl sanctuary. That is, high 

ground would succeed to a mix of Chinese tallow, willow, and hackberry, while the lower ground 

would revert to dense stands of maidencane. There would be few open areas. 

With regard to public use, each of the six priority public uses would be strongly encouraged but 

facilities would be limited. However, actual opportunities to enjoy these public uses on the refuge 

would in all probability decline. This would happen because of the decreased value of wildlife habitat 

that would occur because of no active management and the subsequent decline in wildlife diversity 

and abundance. 

Management of the refuge’s cultural resources and the East Cove Unit under Alternative C would be 

identical to Alternative B. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

All three alternatives outlined above would pursue the refuge purpose, mission, vision and 

management goals. However, each alternative 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 alternatives would be broadly 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 the mission and goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Alternative B would more closely approach the intent of these plans and statutes, 

but it would also cost more to implement than Alternatives A and C. Alternatives A and C would not 

be inconsistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and other Service 

policies. However, by curtailing Hurricane Rita recovery efforts and eliminating most proactive habitat 

management and maintenance, Alternative C would entail long-term adverse impacts on habitat, 

wildlife populations, and public use. 

Table 14 identifies and compares the various management actions as a means of responding to the 

issues raised by Service managers and the public. These management actions were summarized into 

the three alternatives described above to accomplish the Refuge System mission, the authorized 

purpose of the refuge, and to address significant threats, problems, and issues raised by public 

agencies and private citizens. 
110 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 14. Comparison of objectives by management alternative. 

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Goal A – Habitat Management: Maintain, restore, and enhance unique coastal wetland 

habitats on the refuge to provide favorable conditions to improve species diversity and 

richness of migratory birds and native terrestrial and aquatic species.

Objective A-1. Hurricane Rita Cleanup And Rehabilitation 

As funded, removal of 

hazardous debris deposited 

by Hurricane Rita would 

continue. 

All accessible, unburied 

debris deposited by Hurricane 

Rita, including hazardous 

materials as well as 

nonhazardous refuse, 

rubbish, and wreckage, will 

be removed from the refuge 

within 5 years of CCP 

approval. 

Same as Alternative A 

Objective A-2. Impounded Marsh 

Provide sanctuary needs 

for migrating, wintering, 

breeding ducks (mottled 

ducks) and geese of the 

Chenier Plain system of 

southwest Louisiana, 

thereby contributing to the 

targets of the Chenier Plain 

Initiative. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

focus on improving marsh 

plant communities and 

shallow water, increasing 

waterfowl food production, 

providing habitats and 

sanctuary and needs for 

migrating, wintering, breeding 

ducks (mottled ducks) and 

geese of the Chenier Plain 

system of southwest LA. 

While providing sanctuary for 

waterfowl, cease all 

maintenance of levees and all 

habitat management, 

manipulation and intervention 

within impounded marshes, 

allowing ecological 

succession to occur 

unimpeded. 

Objective A-3. Unimpounded Marsh 

Maintain existing marsh 

management; pre-hurricane 

conditions include 

7,231acres of brackish 

marsh, 84,829 acres of 

intermediate marsh, and 

33,730 acres of fresh 

marsh. Ongoing restoration 

efforts will continue with 

opportunistic resources. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

focus on protecting and 

restoring 43,200 acres of 

intermediate and brackish 

marsh and continue working 

toward restoring the emergent 

marsh and functional value of 

Unit 3 during the life of the 

plan. 

Cease active habitat 

management and restoration 

within unimpounded marshes, 

allowing marsh processes 

and ecological succession to 

occur unimpeded. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 111

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Objective A-4. Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring 

Monitor salinity regularly at 

nine established stations; 

do not investigate water 

rights. Replace damaged, 

destroyed, or missing 

stations as soon as 

feasible. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

maintain salinity monitoring 

throughout the refuge at the 

established discrete salinity 

stations (nine locations). 

Develop new water quality 

monitoring program within five 

years of CCP approval. 

Working through regional 

solicitor’s office, quantify 

water rights for the Complex. 

Same as Alternative A 

Objective A-5. Fire Management 

Use fire as a multipurpose 

management tool to reduce 

hazardous fuels and 

promote habitat diversity as 

defined in the National Fire 

Plan. Utilize prescribed fire 

on about 20,000 

acres/year. 

Use fire as a multipurpose 

management tool to reduce 

hazardous fuels and promote 

habitat diversity as defined in 

the National Fire Plan. Utilize 

prescribed fire on about 

20,000 acres/year. 

Suppress all wildfires and use 

prescribed fire only to control 

hazardous fuel accumulation, 

not for habitat management. 

Objective A-6. Restoration 

Once recovery from 

Hurricane Rita is complete, 

resume beneficial use of 

dredge material for marsh 

restoration. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

resume beneficial use of 

dredge material for marsh 

restoration by restoring 1,500 

acres of marsh in Unit 1. 

Discontinue all beneficial use 

of dredge material for marsh 

restoration and allow natural 

processes alone to shape 

marshes on the refuge. 
112 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Objective A-7. Habitat Monitoring 

Continue to conduct habitat 

inventories, monitoring, and 

data analysis of 

management procedures 

and subsequent wildlife 

responses to water and 

plant management regimes, 

especially in the wake of 

Hurricane Rita. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

improve and increase 

capability of refuge to conduct 

inventories, monitoring, and 

data analysis of habitat 

changes in the aftermath of 

the hurricane, as well as in 

response to management 

procedures. 

Concurrent with Hurricane 

Rita cleanup and recovery, 

improve and increase 

capability of refuge to conduct 

inventories, monitoring, and 

data analysis of habitat 

changes in the aftermath of 

the hurricane, as well as in 

response to management 

procedures. 

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 

There would be no active 

management of migratory 

waterfowl. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

provide 125,790 acres of 

diverse marsh and open 

water habitats for migrating 

and wintering waterfowl to 

contribute significantly to the 

population and habitat 

objectives addressed in the 

Gulf Coast Joint Venture 

Chenier Plain Initiative. 

Population objectives of the 

Plan include 4.5 million ducks 

and 500,000 geese with 

foraging habitat provided in 

the coastal marshes. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Objective B-2. Mottled Ducks 

There would be no active 

management of mottled 

ducks. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, with 

partners, support mottled 

duck banding activities and 

provide preferred mottled 

duck breeding and nesting 

habitat. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 113

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Objective B-3. Shorebirds 

There would be no active 

management for 

shorebirds. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

resume providing shorebird 

habitat, contributing to the 

goals of the Lower Mississippi 

Valley/Western Gulf Coast 

Shorebird Plan. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Objective B-4. Colonial Waterbirds 

There would be no active 

management for colonial 

waterbirds. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

identify and protect nesting 

colonies of colonial waterbirds 

from disturbance. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Objective B-5. Marsh Birds 

There would be no active 

management for marsh 

birds. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

resume maintaining 125,790 

acres of diverse marsh plant 

communities to support 

marsh birds. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Objective B-6. Nongame Migratory and Resident Landbirds 

There would be no active 

management for nongame 

migratory and resident 

landbirds. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, the 

refuge will continue and 

enhance its role in the 

conservation of nongame 

birds in the southeast United 

States, and will focus on 

surveying, inventorying, and 

monitoring of all groups, and 

will contribute to the goals of 

the Gulf Coast Joint Venture, 

Partners in Flight and other 

plans. 

Same as Alternative A. 
114 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Objective B-7. Alligators 

There would be no active 

management or harvest of 

alligators on the refuge, 

however, population 

surveys and monitoring 

would continue as it was 

prior to Hurricane Rita. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, in 

coordination with Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries, monitor alligator 

numbers, establish a 

desirable alligator density 

objective, and set annual 

harvest quotas. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Objective B-8. Impoundment Fisheries 

There would be no active 

management of 

impoundment fisheries. 

In cooperation with partners, 

once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, or 

within 5 years of CCP 

approval, resume habitat 

management consistent with 

the purpose of the refuge; also 

resume monitoring and 

seeking ways to improve water 

quality and fishery resources. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Objective B-9. Undesirable Animals 

There would be no active 

management or control of 

undesirable animals on the 

refuge. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, the 

refuge will intensively control 

certain wildlife populations as 

needed to achieve habitat 

and population objectives. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Objective B-10. Diamond-Backed Terrapins 

There would be no active 

management or control of 

undesirable animals. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

resume protection of 

diamond-backed terrapin 

populations. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 115

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Objective B-11. Wildlife Inventory, Census, And Survey 

Maintain current capability 

of refuge to conduct 

inventory, monitoring, and 

data analysis of 

management procedures 

and subsequent wildlife 

responses to water and 

plant management regimes. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

improve and increase 

capability of refuge to conduct 

inventory, monitoring, and 

data analysis of management 

procedures and subsequent 

wildlife responses to water 

and plant management 

regimes. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Goal C – Oil and Gas Infrastructure and Activities: Manage petroleum infrastructure 

and activities to protect habitat, wintering migratory birds and nesting birds. 

Objective C-1. Protection And Management 

Closely monitor oil and gas 

activities to minimize 

impacts to wetland habitats 

and wildlife usage. 

Closely monitor oil and gas 

activities to minimize impacts 

to wetland habitats and 

wildlife usage and 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. All 

new non-refuge mineral 

owners’ requests for 

petrochemical transmission 

infrastructure will be 

prohibited per above policy. 

Same as Alternative A. 
116 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Objective C-2. Reclamation 

Maintain current levels of 

surface reclamation at 

former petroleum extraction 

sites to improve habitat for 

wintering migratory birds 

and other species. 

Increase surface reclamation 

at former petroleum extraction 

sites to improve habitat for 

wintering migratory birds and 

other species. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Goal D – Public Use Management: Provide opportunities for safe, quality, compatible, 

wildlife-dependent public use and recreation — including environmental education, 

interpretation, wildlife observation, photography, hunting, and fishing — which will 

promote understanding and appreciation of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and its mission. 

Objective D-1. Visitor Services 

Sabine Refuge would 

remain closed to all 

visitation and public use 

indefinitely. 

Within 2 years of finishing 

Hurricane Rita cleanup 

operations, complete steps to 

enhance the refuge’s 

infrastructure and operations 

to provide for quality, wildlifedependent public use. 

Within 2 years of finishing 

downsized Hurricane Rita 

cleanup operations, restore 

most public recreational uses 

to their former locations on 

the refuge. 

Objective D-2. Hunting Opportunities 

Sabine Refuge would 

remain closed to hunting 

indefinitely. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

improve hunting 

opportunities, compatible with 

the purpose of the refuge. 

Once downsized Hurricane 

Rita recovery operations are 

complete, begin to restore 

waterfowl hunting 

opportunities. 

Objective D-3. Fishing Opportunities 

Sabine Refuge would 

remain closed to fishing 

indefinitely. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

provide increased fishing 

opportunities for families to 

experience compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Once downsized Hurricane 

Rita recovery operations are 

complete, reopen selected 

areas on the refuge to fishing. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 117

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Objective D-4. Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Sabine Refuge would 

remain closed to wildlife 

observation and 

photography activities 

indefinitely. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

enhance existing 

opportunities for wildlife 

observation and wildlife 

photography by upgrading 

facilities. 

Once downsized Hurricane 

Rita recovery operations are 

complete, reopen selected 

areas to wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography. 

Objective D-5. Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Continue to conduct off-site 

environmental education 

but no on-site 

environmental education or 

interpretation would be 

carried out. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

efforts are complete, 

coordinate with and 

complement other refuges 

within the Complex to 

implement environmental 

education and interpretation 

programs. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Objective D-6. Friends, Volunteers, Partners, Interns 

Continue opportunities for 

Friends, volunteers, 

partners and interns to 

assist with off-site 

environmental education. 

Once Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations are complete, 

provide additional 

opportunities for Friends, 

volunteers, partners and 

interns to assist with refuge 

programs. 

Once downsized Hurricane 

Rita recovery operations are 

complete, continue to provide 

opportunities for Friends, 

volunteers, partners and 

interns to assist with off-site 

and limited on-site 

environmental education. 
118 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Goal E – Cultural Resources: Protect refuge cultural resources in accordance with 

Federal and state historic preservation legislation and regulations. 

Objective E-1. Survey 

No cultural resources 

survey would be conducted 

at Sabine Refuge. 

Within 3 years of completing 

hurricane recovery 

operations, assess the 

feasibility of conducting a 

refuge-wide archaeological 

survey. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Objective E-2. Education 

Develop and implement an 

educational program off-site 

that will provide an 

understanding and 

appreciation of the refuge’s 

ecology and the human 

influence on the region’s 

ecosystems. 

Within 3 years of completing 

Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations, 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. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Objective E-3. Cultural Resources Management Plan 

No Cultural Resources 

Management Plan would be 

developed. 

Within 5 years of completing 

Hurricane Rita recovery 

operations, develop a stepdown Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. 

Same as Alternative B. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 119

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

GOAL F – East Cove Unit: Utilize water control structures to restore the area to an 

intermediate-type marsh with good vegetation cover important to certain fin and 

shellfish species and dabbling waterfowl groups. Improve public fishing access. 

Objective F-1. Intermediate Marsh Restoration 

Operate gates to restore 

preferred vegetated plant 

communities associated 

with intermediate/slightly 

brackish marsh. Assess 

use of terraces to improve 

vegetation of open-water 

areas. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Objective F-2. Sanctuary 

Determine the need for 

sanctuary in the East Cove 

area and minimize 

detrimental waterfowl 

disturbances. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Objective F-3. Invasive Plant Species 

Monitor the East Cove Unit 

for invasion of exotic plant 

species with special 

emphasis on giant salvinia. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Objective F-4. Fishing Access 

Improve public fishing 

access to East Cove by FY 

2010 or sooner. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
120 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative A: No Action 

(Current Management 

Direction) 

Alternative B: Keep Refuge 

Functional (Near Term) and 

Enhanced Management 

(Long Term) – Proposed 

Alternative 

Alternative C: Hold Refuge 

in Custodial Form 

Goal G – Refuge Complex Operations: Concurrently with Hurricane Rita recovery 

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, (2) 

coordinate their relationship with each other, (3) manage the role of the Service as a 

partner in the multiagency Cameron Creole Watershed Project, and (4) interact with the 

state-managed Rockefeller Refuge. 

Objective G-1 –Complex Support 

The Southwest Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex will encourage and 

support each refuge’s major 

focus (environmental 

education, interpretation, 

and research) and the 

relationship of these 

programs to wildlife and 

habitat management 

objectives and strategies. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 121

Chapter IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

Outlined below are the predicted impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed 

actions described in Alternatives A, B, and C. Each alternative portrays the expected outcomes for 

fish and wildlife through the year 2020, varying in magnitude with the intensity of management. 

When this Environmental Assessment was originally prepared prior to Hurricane Rita, Alternative A 

was described as “essentially the ‘business as usual’ approach to refuge management.” However, in 

post-Rita circumstances, “business as usual” takes on a new meaning and is perhaps inappropriate 

as a shorthand description of Alternative A, the No Action or Current Management Direction 

alternative. Now, the essence of Alternative A is continuing indefinitely with the status quo, which 

means no public use, no active wildlife or habitat management other than the wildland fire 

management program, and no restoration of staff and visitor facilities that were damaged or 

destroyed during the hurricane. However, industrial oil and gas operations would continue at the 

normal (pre-hurricane) level. Adverse impacts from pursuing Alternative A’s management approach 

would likely occur on habitat and wildlife populations and would certainly occur on public use, which 

would continue to be prohibited. 

The East Cove Unit was not damaged nearly as badly by Hurricane Rita as the main portion of the 

refuge. Under Alternative A, the marsh habitat of the East Cove Unit would probably continue to be 

enhanced as recent restoration projects mature and invasive plant infestations are gradually curbed. 

Waterfowl sanctuary would continue and fishing access may improve on the East Cove Unit. 

Actions and impacts under Alternative B can be subdivided into the near term and long term. Over 

the near term, under this alternative, refuge programs would continue throughout the refuge 

commensurate with the level of hazardous material cleanup and restoration over time. Areas west of 

State Highway 27 (except the area immediately adjacent to the highway) would remain closed in the 

near term due to hazardous waste and debris fields that clog waterways. However, over time, these 

areas would be reopened as repairs to infrastructure and restoration of habitat occur. 

Simultaneously, a hydrological and feasibility study would be conducted to evaluate how the plug of 

hurricane-deposited debris, uprooted vegetation, and sediments has affected marsh drainage 

patterns and the challenges and opportunities presented by this changed environment. East of 

Highway 27, all public use facilities along Highway 27 would be repaired as soon as funding permits. 

The fire and research programs would remain active throughout the refuge, as would oil and gas 

operations. There would be one or more visitor contact stations, but no visitor center, with visitors 

being referred to the Cameron Prairie Refuge’s visitor center for interpretive exhibits, education, and 

information. 

In the near term, Alternative B would not vary substantially from Alternative A at first, because they 

are both beginning from the same starting point—a refuge badly damaged by Hurricane Rita and 

closed to all public entry and use. However, actions and impacts of Alternative B would begin to 

diverge from those of Alternative A even in the near term, especially with regard to public use. 

Whereas under Alternative A, the entire refuge would remain closed to all public use throughout the 

15-year planning horizon, under Alternative B, the refuge would gradually be opened to public use as 

cleanup and remediation of hazardous waste occurred and public safety could be guaranteed. This 

reopening would occur first east of State Highway 27 and then, as circumstances permit, extend to 

areas west of State Highway 27. With respect to habitat and wildlife populations, the more active 
122 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

measures proposed under Alternative B would tend to yield benefits that would not accrue under 

Alternative A. 

Over the long term, proposed management actions described in Alternative B, the proposed 

alternative would in general intensify and expand active management of the two main refuge habitats, 

the impounded and unimpounded marsh. On impounded marshes (Units 1A, 1B, and 3), if this 

alternative were successfully implemented, it would improve both emergent marsh and shallow water 

habitat, thereby increasing waterfowl food production and providing needed habitat and sanctuary for 

wintering and resident ducks and geese. On the other hand, if the results of a hydrological and 

habitat study proposed by Alternative B indicated that opening impounded marsh units to tidal 

influence would likely improve habitat conditions and lead to a more self-sustaining, brackish marsh, 

then this alternative could well move in that direction. 

Also over the long term, vigorous restoration efforts using dredge material on degraded unimpounded 

marshes would continue and expand, providing additional area (up to 43,200 acres) of improved 

unimpounded marsh quality on the refuge. This is turn would likely result in an increase in fish, 

shellfish, waterfowl, wading bird and shorebird populations in those unimpounded marshes that are 

restored. Impacts from oil and gas exploration and development would be held to an acceptable level 

from a combination of cooperative planning with the industry, monitoring, mitigation, and reclamation. 

However, all new non-refuge mineral owners requests for petrochemical transmission infrastructure 

will be prohibited in accordance with Service policy to avoid habitat destruction, saltwater intrusion, 

and other diverse effects from off-refuge lines traversing the refuge. Prescribed fire would continue to 

be a tool for rejuvenating both upland and wetland habitats. There should be a small increase in fall 

foraging habitat for shorebirds, and an expected increase in seasonal shorebird populations. Public 

use opportunities—including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation—would generally be greater under Alternative B than with 

Alternative A. Waterfowl hunting, for example, would expand both in time and space: from three to 

four days of the week open during the season, and from 34% to 40% (50,000 acres) of the refuge 

open to hunters. Fishing access would also increase. Any cultural resources impacts are expected 

to be minimal to negligible; cultural resources management on the refuge would improve. 

Under Alternative B, as with Alternative A, the marsh habitat of the East Cove Unit would probably 

continue to be enhanced as recent restoration projects mature and invasive plant infestations are 

gradually curbed. Waterfowl sanctuary would continue and fishing access may improve. 

Alternative C differs sharply from both Alternative A and Alternative B in that, with few exceptions 

(such as the East Cove Unit), habitat and wildlife would essentially cease to be actively managed. 

Limited marsh cleanup of Hurricane Rita’s damages and debris would continue, as would oil and gas 

operations, wildfire suppression, and fuel reduction. However, salinity levels would not be managed 

and preventive maintenance and repair of dikes and levees would cease. They would be abandoned 

to erosion and eventual breaching. Freshwater impoundments on the refuge would likely revert to 

brackish or salt water conditions in the relatively near future. In addition, all marsh restoration—such 

as by the construction of terraces—would be halted. 

Public use of the Sabine Refuge would resume as soon as cleanup operations have ceased. Most 

visitor facilities would be restored to pre-Rita conditions. However, it is likely that the quality of 

wildlife-viewing opportunities, fishing, and hunting would decline due to the cessation of active habitat 

and wildlife management. Wildlife habitats are expected to degrade somewhat. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 123

The thrust of Alternative C is passive management. Refuge staff would focus their efforts on 

monitoring ecological changes and wildlife responses to uninterrupted habitat succession and natural 

disturbances. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

This section assesses the environmental impacts of implementing the CCP on the biological, 

physical, social, economic, cultural, and historic resources of the refuge. Some of the predicted 

impacts are common to all alternatives. A brief discussion of these impacts is outlined in the following 

paragraphs. 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT 

Each alternative would protect habitat for wildlife, including migratory and resident birds, mammals, 

reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. The refuge hosts few federally listed species. None are 

known to be residential, but several species are suspected of occurring at Sabine or have actually 

been observed occasionally on the refuge; among them are the threatened bald eagle, endangered 

wood stork, and two sea turtles: the threatened loggerhead and endangered Kemp’s ridley. None of 

the alternatives are likely to have adverse effects on these species. 

Alternative A would provide for a moderate amount of habitat management at current levels—all from 

wildland fire management and prescribed burning—while Alternative B would intensify and expand 

this management throughout the refuge. While Alternative C would not conduct any active habitat 

management, it would nonetheless preserve habitat from development other than oil and gas 

operations. Thus, each of the alternatives would foster habitat for fish and wildlife (although the types 

of fish and wildlife favored by likely habitat changes would differ somewhat). 

The hurricane-affected habitats that are already present on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge would 

continue under each alternative, but to differing degrees. The large tidal surge of Hurricane Rita 

engulfed the refuge with huge volumes of salt water. This in turn killed salt-intolerant, freshwater 

marsh plants over vast areas of the refuge and left behind a residue of salt that may affect habitat 

development and succession for years to come. While this ecological perturbation was certainly a 

shock to the ecosystem, it was not entirely negative. Invasive plants that infested the refuge before 

the hurricane were set back as well, and this effect is also likely to endure for some time. 

Each of the alternatives would continue to provide sanctuary from hunting for wintering migratory 

waterfowl throughout the refuge for at least several days a week. In addition, each would maintain 

some habitat for shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds, raptors, neotropical migrants, white-tailed 

deer, swamp rabbits, nonnative nutria, as well as alligators and other reptiles and amphibians. 

Finfish and shellfish species that are now present are likely to continue to occur under each 

alternative, including Gulf menhaden, Atlantic croaker, gobies, pipefish, bay anchovy, inland 

silverside, western mosquitofish, pinfish, striped and white mullet, silver perch, bay whiff, bayou and 

rainwater killifish, speckled worm eel, sand sea trout, red drum, crappie, gar, sunfishes, largemouth 

bass, catfish, blue and mud crab, and white, grass, and brown shrimp. 

None of the alternatives would directly impact the soils, water quality, air quality, noise levels, or 

surrounding land uses. Limited oil and gas exploration and production would continue on the refuge 

(because subsurface 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. 
124 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Cleanup, remediation, recovery, and restoration would proceed under each alternative, although 

these efforts would be stopped sooner under Alternative C. Removal of hazardous wastes, large 

construction debris, and hurricane-generated rubbish would occur equally under each alternative. 

The East Cove Unit would be managed identically under all three alternatives, so that there would be 

no differences between alternatives with regard to impacts on fish, wildlife and habitat. The objectives 

associated with each alternative—particularly those associated with restoration efforts and invasive 

species control—should lead to higher-quality, more productive habitat, with commensurately greater 

fish and wildlife populations. 

PUBLIC USE 

Each of the three alternatives would allow motorists to drive across the refuge on State Highway 27 

and observe wildlife and habitat from the road. Beyond that, only Alternatives B and C would permit 

visitors to leave their cars and State Highway 27 to actually enter the refuge on foot or by boat. 

Each of the alternatives would offer environmental education opportunities, but those of Alternative A 

would take place entirely off-refuge, in places such as the Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge 

visitor center, school classrooms, and other venues. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Each of the alternatives would protect the refuge’s cultural resources in accordance with federal and 

state historic preservation legislation and regulations. A step-down Cultural Resources Management 

Plan would be prepared under each alternative and the feasibility of conducting an extensive 

archaeological resources survey would be determined. In addition, the refuge would work with local 

stakeholders, such as American Indian tribes, Cajun, Creole and African American groups to develop 

an education program regarding their cultural heritage and history. 

Each alternative affords land protection and low levels of development, thereby resulting in little direct 

adverse effects on the cultural and historic environment. In most cases, any management actions 

that would involve substantial excavation—such as to construct new levees, canals, or roads—would 

require review by the Regional Archaeologist and consultation with the Louisiana State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), as mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). Determining whether a particular action within an alternative has the potential to affect 

cultural resources is an ongoing process that would occur with the planning stages of every project. 

The Service’s 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 NHPA requires that any actions by a federal agency which 

may impact archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the SHPO and that the identified 

impact be avoided or mitigated. The Service’s policy is to preserve these resources in the public 

trust, avoiding impact whenever possible. 

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY 

The three alternatives offer the exact same amount of protection for existing and future oil and gas 

activities on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge would be protected in the same manner by 

each alternative from any harmful effects caused by existing oil and gas activity in accordance with 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 603 FW 2 in general, and explicitly under section 2.11D and 

state and federal laws. Likewise, each alternative would treat requests in the same way for new oil 

and gas activity as an inappropriate use considering the current status of Louisiana’s coastal 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 125

wetlands and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s role in managing and protecting this state’s coastal 

resource. 

EFFECTS FROM IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT 

DIRECTION) 

The No Action Alternative is included in the Environmental Assessment to provide a basis for 

comparison with the two action alternatives. Implementing Alternative A would likely be only partially 

successful at meeting the primary purpose of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative A would 

not fully achieve all long-range goals over the 15-year life of this CCP. The No Action Alternative 

would maintain the status quo, that is, current, post-Hurricane Rita management direction. It 

assumes that current conservation management and land protection programs and activities by the 

Service, state and local agencies, and private organizations would continue to follow trends of the 

recent past over the next 15 years, the planning horizon for this CCP and EA. 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT 

As mentioned above, the tidal surge associated with Hurricane Rita inundated the entire refuge with 

salt water. This negatively affected or killed much of the freshwater, nonsalt-tolerant plants across 

much of the refuge, over tens of thousands of acres. During a site visit by airboat in February 2006, 

most of the marsh habitat looked brown and gray, dominated by silt-covered, dead vegetation that 

would have normally appeared much greener at this time of year. In addition, portions of the refuge 

that had been closed, heavily vegetated marsh were now open water, and other areas of hemi-marsh 

that had a higher percentage of open water versus emergent vegetation were covered with rotting, 

displaced plant matter. The direct and indirect effects of the hurricane on the refuge’s wildlife 

populations are unknown, but certainly some species of vertebrates would have experienced high 

mortality and/or movement, both into and out of the refuge. 

Long-term study and habitat monitoring will be necessary to determine the various effects of 

Hurricane Rita on the habitats at Sabine. Assuming that pre-existing, broad habitat types will reassert 

themselves over time as the refuge recovers on its own, then under Alternative A, the pre-hurricane 

acreages and proportions (percentages) of the respective habitat types at Sabine would generally 

remain the same for the duration of the 15-year planning horizon. With possible exceptions for a 

variety of reasons, most wildlife populations that were reduced (or increased) by the hurricane would 

be expected return to their pre-hurricane levels. However, habitat quality—as gauged by its value to 

waterfowl and most other wildlife—might decline somewhat over the coming years, especially in the 

impounded marsh units. This would result from the diminution of open water as these impoundments 

continue to gradually fill in with emergent vegetation and become shallower as dead organic matter 

accumulated on the bottom. 

The inevitable fate of these impoundments, like virtually all ponds and lakes, is not to endure as 

permanent features of the landscape. While Hurricane Rita killed certain invasive plant infestations 

and opened up areas of certain impoundments, over time, without active management intervention on 

a periodic basis to disrupt and reverse natural succession and filling in, this process will certainly 

resume. Under the No Action Alternative, these interventions, in the form of some dewatering, 

drawdown, and prescribed fire, would probably not occur with the intensity and regularity needed to 

consume organic matter and abate the long-term loss of open water. Habitat for waterfowl, wading 

birds, marsh birds, alligators, and fish will shrink, and eventually disappear altogether, as the 

impoundments are converted to wet meadow habitat over time. Dense emergent vegetation may 

provide cover and nest sites for some waterfowl and marsh species, but it does not supply the 

quantity or quality of food that the shallow open water areas it displaces. 
126 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Unimpounded marsh under this alternative is likely to remain the same both in terms of quantity and 

quality; there may be some improvement in quality as habitats at marsh restoration projects 

completed over the last decade continue to develop. Waterbird, fish and aquatic invertebrate 

numbers at these sites would be expected to increase over time. In other areas of unimpounded 

marsh, there may be some further degradation of habitat from undue wave action and turbidity. 

Alternative A would promote the cleanup of hazardous wastes on the refuge and the remediation of 

contaminated sites. However, there may well be sporadic, long-term problems with hazardous 

wastes that had sunk out of sight prior to their cleanup and removal seeping back into the marsh as 

their containers invariably disintegrate over time. 

PUBLIC USE 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is currently closed to all public use and would remain so indefinitely 

under the No Action Alternative. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

interpretation and environmental education would all continue to be prohibited on the refuge. This is 

a major adverse impact of Alternative A, because the Sabine Refuge was visited and enjoyed by 

more than 300,000 visitors annually before Hurricane Rita. 

This cessation of outdoor recreation by both resident and nonresident refuge visitors would eliminate 

the spending and income associated with it, adding incrementally to the devastating economic 

impacts Hurricane Rita imposed on Cameron Parish. Prior to Rita, the number of tourists visiting 

Cameron Parish was expected to grow in the coming years, taking advantage of such opportunities 

as the newly established, 180-mile Creole Nature Trail National Scenic Byway, the proximity of the 

coast, two other national wildlife refuges in the Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex (Cameron 

Prairie and Lacassine), wildlife management areas, and other cultural opportunities. Over time, the 

number of these tourists visiting Sabine Refuge in particular would probably have increased, as long 

as it maintained its reputation as a site with outstanding opportunities to observe and appreciate 

wildlife. 

As Cameron Parish and southwest Louisiana recover from the hurricane, the number of potential 

visitors to the refuge is likely to gradually return to pre-hurricane levels, though it may take some 

years. Maintaining the current closure of the refuge to public use indefinitely would represent a 

substantial loss of potential revenue for the area. 

EFFECTS FROM IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE B: THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Of the three alternatives evaluated in this EA, implementing Alternative B is considered to be the 

most effective and realistic management approach for pursuing the purpose of Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge. Once hurricane cleanup operations have finished, Alternative B would aim to 

improve management of the refuge in all program areas by restoring wildlife habitats, particularly 

marsh and shallow water habitat, and expanding public use. 

Under Alternative B, the refuge would redouble recent efforts to extend the useful life of its three 

impoundments as wintering waterfowl sanctuaries and wetland wildlife habitat through adaptive 

management and increased research and experimentation. For example, the use and evaluation of 

drawdowns and prescribed fire as tools in freshwater marsh management would be intensified. Part 

of the adaptive management approach embodied in Alternative B calls for a study of reconnecting the 

impoundments, particularly Unit 3, to tidal circulation by opening one or more gaps or gates in the 

levees surrounding the unit. Pending the outcome of this study, which would examine how salinities 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 127

and wildlife/waterfowl habitats would likely change in Unit 3, as well as whether tidal currents would 

help slow or prevent filling in of the unit, refuge managers may decide to pursue this option. 

Alternative B would also pursue additional opportunities to reduce wind and wave 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. 

In terms of public use, starting from a baseline of complete closure to the public, Alternative B would 

eventually aim to increase quality hunting and fishing experiences as well as expand on wildlife 

observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation programs. 

As in the case of both other alternatives, the pursuit of these objectives is contingent upon first 

cleaning up and rehabilitating those sections of the refuge impacted by Hurricane Rita. 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT 

As discussed under Alternative A, Hurricane Rita represented a perturbation or disturbance of 

enormous magnitude to Sabine Refuge habitats and wildlife—unprecedented in recent decades. In 

the months following Rita, refuge managers, along with other federal and state agencies, focused 

exclusively on addressing the urgent issues of human health and safety, search and rescue, 

providing shelter to displaced and dispossessed persons, and identifying and remediating immediate 

threats of contamination to the refuge. Since the Sabine Refuge’s headquarters complex was badly 

damaged by the hurricane and had to be mostly demolished, the refuge staff relocated to the 

headquarters of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex at Cameron Prairie to the 

east. The Cameron Prairie Refuge headquarters and visitor center served as the command center 

for hurricane recovery operations in Cameron Parish. 

Given these extenuating circumstances, the refuge staff has not yet had time to thoroughly assess 

the changes wrought by Rita on Sabine’s wildlife and habitat. What is known is that the hurricane’s 

powerful tidal surge, in addition to transporting and depositing many tons of manmade debris onto the 

refuge, also detached, transported, and deposited large quantities of marsh vegetation. Piles of dead 

and decaying vegetation are visible on the refuge; areas of dense marsh vegetation have been 

converted at least temporarily into open water; and channels have been plugged or partially filled with 

plant matter and construction debris. In addition, the salt water of the tidal surge stressed or killed 

freshwater marsh plants over vast areas of the refuge. In short, it is too early to tell if the relative 

percentages of marsh habitats at Sabine before the hurricane—7,231 acres of brackish marsh, 

84,829 acres of intermediate marsh, and 33,730 acres of fresh marsh—have been permanently 

affected by Rita. 

Once hurricane recovery operations have ceased and natural renewal of the refuge is well underway, 

Alternative B would pursue a number of wildlife and habitat objectives. In general, habitats and the 

fish and wildlife populations they support on the refuge should benefit moderately from Alternative B. 

On the refuge’s impounded marshes (Units 1A, 1B, and 3), the proposed strategies should gradually 

improve existing marsh plant communities and shallow water habitat. These strategies include 

periodic drawdowns on regular rotations, extensive use of prescribed fire to consume accumulating 

organic matter and set back succession, and possible additional use of salt water as a disturbance 

agent. Approximately once every two to five years, portions or all of the impoundments would be 

dewatered and burned under Alternative B, in order to reduce the accretion of organic matter that is 

gradually filling in the impoundments. This could have an adverse, but temporary, effect on habitat in 
128 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

the impoundment (or a portion thereof) undergoing the treatment, to the temporary detriment of bird, 

fish, and alligator populations found there. Such impacts would be dispersed and minimized if only 

one impoundment or a portion of impoundment at a time were subjected to these treatments. 

However, even naturally-occurring droughts can produce marked adverse effects on the wildlife 

habitat value of the impounded marsh areas, especially since their only source of water is rainfall. 

Over time, regular application of these tools, in conjunction with optimal management of water levels 

in the impoundments, should increase waterfowl food production and furnish habitats and sanctuary 

needs for migrating, wintering, and breeding ducks (particularly the mottled duck) and geese of the 

Chenier Plain system of southwest Louisiana. The impoundments’ overall value to waterfowl, other 

waterbirds, and aquatic species like fish and the alligator would also be improved and extended 

under this alternative. 

Also under Alternative B, a hydrological and habitat study of reconnecting Unit 3 to tidal flows would 

be conducted. If this study’s finding indicated that such a reconnection could have beneficial, longterm effects on the habitat of Unit 3, Sabine managers may decide to open this large unit to tidal 

influence, changing it from fresh to intermediate marsh. 

Over the long term, Alternative B proposes to protect and/or restore an additional 43,200 acres of 

intermediate and brackish unimpounded marsh and continue working toward restoring the emergent 

marsh and functional value of Unit 3 through the year 2015. The use of proven techniques like 

terracing should improve water quality and habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, marsh birds, fish and 

invertebrates in Units 2, 5, 5, 6 and 7, thereby increasing populations of all of these taxa. 

Vegetation communities on levees would be improved by controlling invasive weeds and planting 

trees and shrubs, where appropriate, that have higher wildlife food value, particularly for neotropical 

migrants. Deer may also benefit from these proposed habitat changes and enhancements, 

particularly because of increased food production on levees, croplands, and moist soil units. 

The adverse impacts of petrochemical development (exploration, drilling, extraction, and transport) 

should be ameliorated somewhat under Alternative B, which proposes increased efforts at protection, 

remediation of contamination and reclamation of former extraction sites. 

Both invasive plants and undesirable animals are to be subjected to greater control in this alternative, 

which if fully and successfully implemented, would yield benefits both for habitat integrity and native 

wildlife. 

This alternative proposes to increase late summer and fall foraging habitat for shorebirds, which 

would probably assist broader regional goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley/Western Gulf Coast 

Shorebird Plan. In general, other wildlife—including other breeding birds, mammals, amphibians, and 

reptiles—while not specifically targeted by managers, would probably see incidental benefits from 

most of the proposed habitat management. Of course, whether a given species benefits or not from 

the proposed changes in management and predicted changes in habitat would depend on its 

particular ecological niche and habitat needs. 

PUBLIC USE 

As in the case of the No Action Alternative, implementation of Alternative B would start from a 

situation of complete closure of the refuge to all public use. However, whereas Alternative A would 

maintain this closure indefinitely, Alternative B would gradually open the refuge to the public in 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 129

phases, as given units or areas were certified as cleaned up of hazardous debris and toxic waste, 

and thus presented minimal or no risk to the public. 

Over the long term, in addition to restoring all pre-existing facilities and recreation sites, Alternative B 

fully intends to support and expand public use opportunities, including more facilities, greater staff 

and volunteer support, and expanded options for wildlife-dependent outdoor recreation and 

enjoyment. This commitment, coupled with probable increases in populations and visibility of 

wintering migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds, and raptors, would furnish 

greater opportunities for public use and enjoyment of the refuge. Overall, Alternative B would likely 

be better for public use than Alternative A. 

Alternative B does share one feature with Alternative A: neither would rebuild and reopen a visitor 

center on the refuge itself. While the lack of a visitor center located at Sabine is a moderate 

disadvantage or setback for the public, it is not uncommon among national wildlife refuges generally 

not to have dedicated visitor centers. Instead, the Sabine Refuge would have one or more self-serve 

“visitor contact stations” for visitors to find maps, brochures, hunting/fishing regulations, and other 

information about the refuge and its resources. 

Waterfowl hunting would eventually expand from 27% to 40% of the refuge. Additional fishing 

facilities would be provided, and the feasibility of commercial guiding for fishing would be assessed 

under the auspices of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. Were commercial guiding to be 

allowed, it could expand fishing opportunities for visitors, especially more affluent nonresidents 

unfamiliar with the area and those with less sport fishing experience and knowledge. Direct adverse 

impacts from controlled guiding on the fishery resource are not anticipated, but unless managed 

properly, there could be an unhealthy perception of competition or rivalry between commercial guides 

and their clients and the general recreational fishing public. Any such conflicts could be minimized by 

limiting the amount of commercial guiding. 

Other public use and educational opportunities would also expand under Alternative B, if fully 

implemented. With the participation of volunteers and partners, wildlife observation and photography 

would increase. In addition, this alternative would allow for commercial guiding (e.g. nature and bird 

watching walks, guided boat, canoe or kayak tours, etc.), which would be generally beneficial 

because it has the potential of extending appreciation of the refuge and knowledge of wildlife to a 

broader segment of the public. No substantial conflicts are expected to arise between guided groups 

and the general public and should be readily resolvable if they do. Both onsite and offsite 

environmental education and onsite interpretation could increase under this alternative, utilizing 

volunteers and partners, and making use of such tools as educational kits and materials, teachers’ 

workshops, and lesson plans. 

Any increase in visitation to the refuge would result in a corresponding increase in the value of the 

refuge to the local economy, as visitor spending rises. As infrastructure, employment, and the local 

economy in general all recover from the effects of Hurricane Rita, increased visitation to Sabine 

National Wildlife Refuge as part of the Creole Nature Trail All American Road would contribute to the 

area’s socioeconomic recovery. 

EFFECTS FROM IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE C: HOLD REFUGE IN CUSTODIAL FORM 

Under Alternative C, the refuge would maintain its current size of 125,790 acres, and its current 

habitat mix: 40,403 acres of open water and 85,387 acres of marsh grassland, assuming this mix has 

not been fundamentally altered by Hurricane Rita. Alternative C differs sharply from Alternatives A 

and B because it would halt virtually all active habitat and wildlife management. 
130 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT 

Under Alternative C, there are two main possible scenarios that could occur at the Sabine Refuge’s 

impounded marshes. In the first scenario, the main consequence would stem from the absence of 

drawdowns and in the second scenario, from the inevitable degradation of unmaintained levees. 

In the first scenario, no drawdowns would be conducted on the three impounded marshes (Units 1A, 

1B, and 3). In addition, no prescribed fires would be set to attempt to consume organic matter 

accumulating on the bottom of each impoundment. Thus, as they continue to fill in, the 

impoundments would likely continue to see declines in the matrix of hemi-marsh and open water and 

that characterize them at present. Emergent plants would continue to spread across shallower 

waters, eventually encompassing most or all of the impoundments and virtually eliminating open 

water. The value of the impoundments to waterfowl and wading birds would probably diminish. In 

view of the primary purpose of the refuge being to provide wintering habitat for migratory birds, 

particularly waterfowl, this would be a serious or significant detrimental impact. 

Conversion of the major part of the refuge’s impounded wetland habitat to closed marsh filled with 

emergent plants like maidencane, California bulrush and cattail would also have adverse effects on 

other wildlife, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other birds. The problem with these 

plants is not that they have no value for wildlife—each offers some value—but that the dense 

structure of the stands that would develop, to the exclusion of open water or submerged plants or 

mudflats, sharply reduces the quality of habitat for almost all species and groups. 

In the second scenario, no maintenance and upkeep of dikes and levees would lead to these 

structures’ inevitable decay over time, allowing eventually for the penetration of salt or brackish water 

into the freshwater marshes. It is unclear at present whether the ecological changes wrought by such 

a hydrological reconnection with tidal flows would be beneficial or adverse but changes in plant 

community and wildlife use would certainly occur. Initially, mortality of freshwater plants would likely 

ensue, followed by the gradual displacement of salt-intolerant species by salt-tolerant ones. 

Under Alternative C, no new terraces would be constructed in open water areas and existing terraces 

would not be added to or maintained. Consequently, wave action would probably continue to erode 

the marshes at the edge of open water areas, in addition to continuing to exacerbate turbidity and the 

damage it causes to aquatic plant and animal life. 

Under this alternative, those upland sites along dikes and levees that now support trees would 

become even more dominated by Chinese tallow and other invasive, weedy species, to the detriment 

of these habitats and the neotropical birds that use them during spring and fall migration. 

Clogging of channels with emergent vegetation would also reduce fish habitat. 

In conclusion, of the three alternatives, Alternative C would have the greatest adverse impact on the 

habitats that contribute to the refuge’s purpose. It would almost certainly lead to further declines in 

populations of waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and neotropical birds. Its effects on populations 

of other species groups—mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish—would be mixed, but mostly 

negative. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 131

PUBLIC USE 

Like Alternative B, Alternative C intends to support public use opportunities once marsh cleanup and 

remediation have finished. Nevertheless, the Sabine Refuge could well see a decline in the quality of 

the visitor experience and a drop-off in public use. Once again, this is because the very wildlife that 

attracts the public to the refuge for observation, photography or hunting, would probably be less 

abundant and less visible due to the predicted habitat changes described above. This is particularly 

true of waterfowl, wading birds and shorebirds, which are not only visible, but often spectacular as 

well. Not only are smaller numbers of ducks and geese likely to winter at Sabine, as their sources of 

food diminish, but fewer would be visible to the viewing public in the denser vegetation. Thus, as the 

opportunity to see wildlife declines, eventually the refuge may draw fewer visitors. Deer hunting may 

not be adversely affected, however, if the deer herd adapts to the predicted habitat changes. 

Sport fishing, which takes place mostly in Sabine’s canals, may still occur under this alternative, and 

would be supported in principle. However, the quality of the fishing experience is expected to 

deteriorate even more so than in the case of Alternative A, as the canals in which fish live are 

progressively more choked with emergent vegetation and the shrinking volume and area of water 

reduce the number of fish that can survive. 

Environmental education, both onsite and offsite, could still function effectively, although it may be 

less interesting to students with fewer large birds or flocks to observe at the refuge. Interpretation—

which would focus on describing and explaining the habitat changes underway—would still be 

effective, although once again, less frequently utilized if overall visitation were to decline from 

reduced opportunities to view wildlife. These two priority public uses would have to change from their 

focus on waterfowl and other visible birds to a broader ecological focus that examines “the changing 

land” due to ecological succession and other natural processes. 

If visitation to the refuge under this alternative never attains its pre-Rita levels, which seems probable, 

given decreasing wildlife numbers and opportunities for viewing, this outcome would lead to a decline 

in the modest economic value of the refuge to the surrounding community. While the number of 

tourists motoring past the refuge along the newly established, 180-mile Creole Nature Trail National 

Scenic Byway is likely to increase, over time the number of these auto tourists visiting the refuge 

would probably decline if it were to develop a reputation for not offering outstanding opportunities to 

see and appreciate wildlife. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS 

Cumulative impacts refer to effects that result from the incremental impact of action(s) when added to 

other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions that take place over a period of time. This section 

analyzes and discusses the cumulative impacts of the hunting program of each alternative on a 

variety of resources at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES 

Migratory Birds 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and 

times when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. These 

frameworks are necessary to allow state selections of season and limits for recreation and 

sustenance; aid federal, state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; 
132 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

and permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed 

unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates 

regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the frameworks from which states may select season 

dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options for the each migratory bird hunting season. The 

frameworks are essentially permissive in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted 

without them. Thus, in effect, federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory 

birds. 

Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United States 

and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when 

"hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or 

export of any ... bird, or any part, nest, or egg" of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt 

regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to "the zones of 

temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines 

of migratory flight of such birds, and are updated annually” (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has 

been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead federal agency for managing and 

conserving migratory birds in the United States. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting 

conditions, the Service has administratively divided the nation into four flyways for the primary 

purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) 

has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each State and 

Province in that Flyway. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is within the Mississippi Flyway. 

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in 50 CFR Part 20, is 

constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the 

rule making process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds 

controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available 

for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations 

includes two separate regulations-development schedules, based on "early" and "late" hunting 

season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl (e.g. 

dove, woodcock, etc.); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. 

Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or 

after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no 

differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, 

Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this 

information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and 

presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties (USFWS 2006). Under the proposed 

action, Sabine estimates a maximum additional 8,200 ducks, 50 snow geese, and 10 white-fronted 

geese would be harvested each year. This harvest impact is minimal and represents less than 1 

percent of Louisiana’s four-year average harvest of 921,990 ducks, 60,830 snow geese, and 72,611 

white-fronted geese (USFWS 2005). 

Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory birds and other factors into 

consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with 

the Canadian Wildlife Service, state and provincial wildlife management agencies, and others. To 

determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, the Service considers factors such as 

population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding 

and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are 

established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 133

bird management becomes a cooperative effort of state and federal governments. After Service 

establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the states may select season dates, bag 

limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative 

in their selections than the federal frameworks but never more liberal. Season dates and bag limits 

for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the state regulations. In 

fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed when a national wildlife 

refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the 

state allows. At Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, season length is the same as the state allows. 

However, the refuge has imposed restrictions on the number of days of the week that hunting is 

allowed at Sabine and the hours of the day the hunting is permitted. For example, legal shooting 

hours end at noon on Sabine, whereas throughout the state these restrictions do not apply. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game 

bird species are addressed by the programmatic document, ‘‘Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds 

(FSES 88– 14),’’ filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. The Service 

published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and its 

Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA considerations for waterfowl 

hunting frameworks are covered under a separate environmental assessment, “Duck Hunting 

Regulations for 2006-07,” and an August 24, 2006, Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in a 

notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53376), the Service announced 

its intent to develop a new supplemental EIS for the migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping 

meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice 

(71 FR 12216). More information may be obtained from: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 

1849 C Street, Washington, DC 20240. 

Although woodcock are showing declines in numbers on their breeding grounds, habitat loss is 

considered to be the culprit, not hunting. This assertion was tested in a study conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in 2005 (McAuley et al. 2005). Results 

showed no significant differences in woodcock survival between hunted and nonhunted areas. 

Furthermore, the authors concluded that hunting was not having a considerable impact on woodcock 

numbers in the Northeast (McAuley et al. 2005). 

An estimated 24,000 woodcock were harvested in the 2005–06 season in the state of Louisiana. 

Louisiana’s harvest of 24,000 woodcock represented 0.5% of the estimated 4.6 million North 

American woodcock population. Woodcock are not abundant at Sabine because the refuge does not 

possess large areas of their preferred habitat. Consequently, there is no current or planned hunting 

for woodcock on the refuge. 

Resident Big Game 

Deer. Deer hunting does not have regional population impacts due to the restricted home ranges of 

white-tailed deer. The average home range of a male deer in Mississippi is 1,511 ± 571 S.D. 

hectares or about six square miles (Mott et al. 1985). Therefore, only local impacts would occur from 

the proposed rifle, muzzle-loader, and bow hunts for deer under Alternatives B and C. The Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries estimates that 209,200 deer were harvested throughout the 

state in 2005/06. The average annual statewide harvest since 1995 is 234,000 deer. Sabine Refuge 

estimates a maximum of approximately 20 deer would be harvested under the proposed action, 

representing only 0.01% of the long-term average state harvest. Therefore, addition of deer hunting 

on refuge lands should not have negative cumulative impacts on the area and state’s deer herd. 
134 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Feral Hogs. Feral hogs are an extremely invasive, nonnative species and are not considered a game 

species by the State of Louisiana. They are common on the Sabine Refuge and can be detrimental 

to nesting bird success. Feral hogs degrade habitat and can contribute to land loss by damaging 

healthy plants that hold together the soils in many areas. No harvest of feral hogs is conducted on 

the refuge at this time and none is proposed under the CCP. 

Resident Small Game 

Small game includes mammals and birds such as squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, quail and dove. 

There is currently no open season for any small game on the refuge and none is planned under this 

CCP. 

Nongame Wildlife 

Nongame or nonhunted wildlife would include nonhunted migratory birds such as songbirds, wading 

birds, raptors, and woodpeckers; small mammals such as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; 

reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and toads; and 

invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. Except for migratory birds and 

some species of migratory bats, butterflies and moths, these species have very limited home ranges 

and hunting could not affect their populations regionally; thus, only local effects will be discussed. 

Disturbance to nonhunted migratory birds could have regional, local, and flyway effects. Regional 

and flyway effects would not be applicable to species that do not migrate such as most woodpeckers, 

and some songbirds including cardinals, titmice, wrens, chickadees, etc. The cumulative effects of 

disturbance to nonhunted migratory birds under the proposed action are expected to be negligible for 

the following reasons. Hunting season would not coincide with the nesting season. Long-term future 

impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not relevant for this reason. 

Disturbance to the daily wintering activities of birds, such as feeding and resting, might occur. 

Disturbance to birds by hunters would probably be commensurate with that caused by 

nonconsumptive users. The cumulative effects of disturbance to nonhunted migratory birds under the 

proposed action are expected to be negligible for the above reasons. 

With regard to other wildlife, disturbance would be unlikely for the following reasons. Small 

mammals, including bats, are inactive during the winter when hunting season occurs. These species 

are also nocturnal. Both of these qualities make hunter interactions with small mammals very rare. 

Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity during the hunting 

season when temperatures are low. Hunters would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during 

most of the hunting season. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few and 

should not have cumulative negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates are 

also not active during cold weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the hunting 

season. The refuge has estimated current hunter density on peak days to be no more than one 

hunter per 160 acres. During the vast majority of the hunting season, hunter density is much lower (1 

hunter/1,000 acres). Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to 

nonhunted wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other 

than the game species legal for the season is not permitted. 

Although ingestion of lead shot by nonhunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not relevant 

to Sabine because the use of lead shot would not be permitted on the refuge for any type of hunting. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 135

Some species of bats, butterflies and moths are migratory. The cumulative effects to these species 

at the “flyway” level should be negligible. These species are in torpor or have completely passed 

through Louisiana by the peak hunting season in November–January. Some hunting occurs during 

September and October when these species are migrating; however, hunter interaction would be 

commensurate with that of nonconsumptive users. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Federally threatened or endangered species occur infrequently at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Calcasieu and Sabine lakes provide habitat for two species of sea turtles: the federal endangered 

Kemp’s ridley and the federal threatened loggerhead. The refuge provides access and habitat for 

these species, and Service personnel have seen Kemp’s ridleys on the refuge; the staff has also 

radio-tracked loggerheads on the refuge. The refuge could potentially be used by the threatened 

bald eagle and the endangered wood stork. 

An Intra-Service Section 7 evaluation under the Endangered Species Act is included in Appendix H. 

It concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on the threatened and endangered 

species mentioned above. These species occur infrequently on the refuge, hunters are unlikely to 

encounter them, and hunters are unlikely to mistake bald eagles or wood storks for geese and ducks. 

The cumulative impact on the listed species would be nil to negligible. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON REFUGE PROGRAMS, FACILITIES, CULTURAL RESOURCES, 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, AND SURROUNDING 

COMMUNITIES 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

As noted in the CCP and EA, at present the Sabine Refuge is closed to public use as a result of the 

damage to facilities and habitat inflicted by Hurricane Rita in 2005. Under two of the three 

alternatives, public use would be reinstated commensurate with cleanup of the refuge and reduction 

of risks and threats to acceptable levels. As public use levels expand across time, unanticipated 

conflicts between user groups may occur. The refuge’s visitor use programs would be adjusted as 

needed to eliminate or minimize each problem and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities. Experience on many national wildlife refuges has proven that time and space zoning 

(e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of users) is 

an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

The level of recreation use and ground-based disturbance from nonhunting visitors would be largely 

concentrated on the eastern side of the refuge at trails and the refuge’s contact station and 

maintenance areas. Hunting would be more widely dispersed throughout the refuge, and this 

separation by space alone would reduce the potential for interaction and conflict. Fishing is also 

widely dispersed throughout the refuge and the East Cove Unit, though on the main portion of the 

refuge the fishing and hunting seasons do not overlap. The East Cove Unit has traditionally been 

closed to fishing during the waterfowl season, and this closure would continue once these activities 

would resume. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of hunting on other wildlife-dependent recreation at Sabine would be 

negligible to minor. 
136 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Facilities 

The Service defines facilities as: “Real property that serves a particular function(s) such as buildings, 

roads, utilities, water control structures, raceways, etc.” The facilities most utilized by hunters are 

roads, parking lots, trails, and boat launching ramps. Maintenance or improvement of existing 

facilities (i.e., parking areas, roads, trails, and boat ramps) would cause minimal short-term impacts to 

localized soils and waters and may cause some wildlife disturbances and damage to vegetation. The 

facility maintenance and improvement activities described are periodically conducted to 

accommodate daily refuge management operations and general public uses such as wildlife 

observation and photography. These activities would be conducted at times (seasonal and/or daily) 

to cause the least amount of disturbance to wildlife. Siltation barriers will be used to minimize soil 

erosion, and all disturbed sites will be restored to as natural a condition as possible. During times 

when roads are impassible due to flood events or other natural causes, those roads, parking lots, 

trails and boat ramps impacted by the event would be closed to vehicular use. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of hunting on the Sabine Refuge’s facilities would be negligible. 

Cultural Resources 

Hunting, regardless of method or species targeted, is a consumptive activity that does not pose any 

threat to historic properties on or near the refuge. In fact, hunting meets only one of the two criteria 

used to identify an “undertaking” that triggers a federal agency’s need to comply with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. These criteria, which are delineated in 36 CFR Part 800, 

state: 

1. an undertaking is any project, activity, or program that can alter the character or use of an 

archaeological or historic site located within the “area of potential effect;” and 

2. the project, activity, or program must also be either funded, sponsored, performed, licensed, 

or have received assistance from the agency. 

Consultation with the pertinent State Historic Preservation Office and federally recognized tribes are, 

therefore, not required. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-income Populations," was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations to achieve environmental protection of all communities. In part, the order is intended to 

promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public information and 

participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

There are low-income and minority populations in the area but there is no evidence of adverse 

disproportionate environmental justice issues associated with the refuge’s existing hunting program 

or proposed expansion. Any affected populations would generally be affected in the same ways as 

the regional population as a whole. 

Environmental Resources 

The refuge expects no appreciable adverse impacts of the proposed action on the Sabine Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 137

environment, which consists of soils, vegetation, air quality, water quality and solitude. Some 

disturbance to surface soils and vegetation would occur in areas selected for hunting; however, the 

impacts would be minimal. Hunting would be expected to benefit vegetation, since it is used to 

maintain many resident wildlife populations, particularly deer, in balance with the habitat’s carrying 

capacity. When and where necessary, the refuge would also control access or close areas to 

minimize habitat degradation. 

The refuge expects impacts to air and water quality to be minimal and only due to refuge visitors’ 

automobile and outboard motor emissions. The effect of these refuge-related activities, as well as 

other management activities, on overall air and water quality in the region are anticipated to be 

negligible, compared to the contributions of industrial centers, power plants, and non-refuge vehicle 

traffic in this portion of Cameron Parish. Existing state water quality criteria and use classifications 

are adequate to achieve desired on-refuge conditions; thus, implementation of the proposed action 

would not impact adjacent landowners or users beyond the constraints already implemented under 

existing state standards and laws. 

Impacts associated with solitude are expected to be minimal given time and space zone management 

techniques, such as seasonal access and area closures, used to avoid conflicts among user groups. 

Surrounding Communities

The refuge would work closely with state, federal, and private partners to minimize adverse 

cumulative impacts to adjacent lands and its associated natural resources; however, no cumulative 

impacts are anticipated. The newly opened hunt(s) would result in a net gain of public hunting 

opportunities, which are expected to positively impact the general public, nearby residents, and 

refuge visitors. Residents in the area and neighboring communities are likely to view the expanded 

hunting opportunities favorably. The refuge expects increased visitation and tourism to bring 

additional revenues to local communities, but this increase in spending is likely to be very small in 

comparison with the size of the local economy. 
138 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 139

SECTION C. 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 

grassy-vegetation 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. 
140 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 

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. 
Section C. Appendices 141

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) 

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 nonliving 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 preserves 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 factfinding. It involves the integration of environmental 

concepts and concerns into structured educational 

activities. 

ESA Endangered Species Act 
142 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

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. 

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 % of the breeding bird species of the U.S. 

GIW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 
Section C. Appendices 143

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. 

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, 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. 
144 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

LCA Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

LMRE Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

Maintenance Management 

System (MMS) 

The 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 ongoing support of resource management. 

Migratory The seasonal movement from one area to another and 

back. 

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 (NWR) 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. 
Section C. Appendices 145

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. 

Nongame migratory landbirds Commonly known as Neartic-Neotropical Migratory Birds, 

these birds breed in temperate latitudes but winter in 

tropical latitudes. 

NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

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{ XE "Fire" } intentionally ignited by refuge fire 

personnel for natural resource management under strict 

guidelines to meet specific objectives. 
146 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

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. 

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 

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. 
Section C. Appendices 147

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 

nonnative. 

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. 

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 by a 

human cause that is unwanted. 
148 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Section C. Appendices 149

 Appendix B. References and Literature Cited 

American Bird Conservancy. 2000. Partners in Flight, Conservation of the Land Birds of the United 

States. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington and R. Gills, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Second edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Bruno, Nicholas A., Richard W. Gregory and Harold L. Schramm, Jr. 1990. Nest sites used by radiotagged largemouth bass in Orange Lake, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 10: 80-84. 

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. Accessed at: 

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/AA/bma48.html. 

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. 28 pp + appendix. 

Feldman, L.H. 1998. The Last Days of British Saint Augustine, 1784–1785. A Spanish Census of the 

English Colony of East Florida. 

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. Acadian-Cajun Genealogy and History. Accessed at: http://www.acadiancajun.com/hiscaj2b.htm. 

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, DC. 

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. 161 pp. 

Martin, Alex C., Ray C. Erickson and John H. Steenis. 1957. Improving duck marshes by weed 

control. Circular 19 (revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 60 pp. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 1991. Louisiana Waterfowl Action Plan: A Strategy for 

Implementing the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in Louisiana. 
150 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Royal Café. No date. The distinction between Cajun and Creole. Accessed at: 

http://www.royalcafe.com/cc.html. 

Schlyer, Krista. 2006. Refuges at Risk: The Threat of Global Warming. Washington, DC: Defenders 

of Wildlife. 20 pp. 

(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. 

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 QuickFacts: Cameron Parish. Accessed at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22023.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Cameron Prairie Refuge – Wildlife and Habitat (Biological 

Review). Draft Final Report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, Biological Review 

Notebook. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, Annual Narrative, 

Calendar Year 2002. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Southwest Louisiana Refuges Complex, Visitor Services 

Review, June 17–20, 2002. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002d. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, Annual Narrative, 

Calendar Year 2001. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, Annual Narrative, 

Calendar Year 2000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge. Brochure. 

February, 1998. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Expanding the Vision, 1998 Update, North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Refuges 2003, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, A Plan 

for the Future of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. Bayou Cocodrie Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment. 
Section C. Appendices 151

U.S. NABCI Committee. 2000. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States: 

A Vision of American Bird Conservation. 

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 Engineering 14(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. 28 pp + appendix. 
152 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Section C. Appendices 153

Appendix C. Legal Mandates 

This comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment has been prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The NEPA requires federal 

agencies to consider all environmental factors related to their proposed actions. The environmental 

assessment discloses and explains both favorable and unfavorable consequences of a particular 

action that is being contemplated by a federal agency. This includes effects on the natural, 

economic, social, and cultural resources of the area. 

The Service will comply with the following laws and regulations prior to, during, and following 

implementation of 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 
154 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on 

behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

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 nonfederal, 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 nonwildlife-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 
Section C. Appendices 155

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.” The act also requires development of a 

comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge and that management be consistent with the plan. 

When writing a plan for expanded or new refuges, and when making management decisions, the act 

requires effective coordination with other federal agencies, state fish and wildlife or conservation 

agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide opportunities for public involvement 

when making a compatibility determination. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 44O1~4412) Public Law 101-

233, enacted December 13, 1989: Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on Wetlands between 

Canada, the United States and Mexico. The act converts the Pittman-Robertson account into a trust 

fund, with the interest available without appropriation through the year 2006, to carry out the 

programs authorized by the act, along with an authorization for annual appropriation of $15 million 

plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, for 

payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States’ share of the cost of wetlands conservation 

projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on federal 

lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are to go to Canada 

and Mexico each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1952: This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, 

hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with 

the area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational facilities and 

the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development or protection 

of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

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 
156 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

units of local government within the county which suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment 

of Service areas. 

Wilderness Act of 1954: Public Law 88-577, approved September 3,1964, directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

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 nonfederally 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 subsurface owners. 

 

Historic Preservation Mandates: 

Antiquities Act (16 USC 431 - 433): The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225): Authorizes the President 

of the United States to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific 

interests on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The act required that a permit be 

obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering of objects of 

antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army, and 

provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological 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 
Section C. Appendices 157

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. 

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, 

thirty-one national wildlife refuges contained such sites. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n) Public Law 89-665, 

approved October 15,1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended: Provided for preservation of 

significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the 

states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under 

the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 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. 
158 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities 

to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990(20 USC 5501-5510; 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 101-619, 

signed November 16, 1990: Established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a Federal environmental education 

program. Responsibilities of the office include developing and supporting programs to improve 

understanding of the natural and developed environment, and the relationships between humans and 

their environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials; developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The office is required to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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. 
Section C. Appendices 159

Appendix D. Refuge Biota 

Species previously identified as occurring on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge are listed below: 

Common Name Scientific Name 

BIRDS 

Loons 

Common Loon Gavia immer 

Grebes 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus 

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Pelicans and their Allies 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Double –crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Neotropic Cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 

Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens 

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-backed Heron Butorides virescens

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea 

Ibis, Spoonbill, and Stork 

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus

White Ibis Eudocimus albus

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi 

Roseate Spoonbill Platalea ajaja

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
160 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

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

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Canvasback Aytha valisineria 

Redhead Aythya americana

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

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 Catheartes aura 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Sharp-shinned Hawk Acciptier striatus

Cooper’s Hawk Acciptier 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

Northern Caracara Caracara cheriway 

Gallinaceous Birds (Quail, Turkey, and Allies) 

Northern Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus

Rails, Gallinules, Coots, and Cranes 

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris

King Rail Rallus elegans

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Sora Rail 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
Section C. Appendices 161

Wilson’s Plover Charadrius wilsonia

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous

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 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

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 fusciollis

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 

Cuckoos 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Owls 

Barn Owl Tyto alba 

Eastern Screech Owl Otus asio 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 
162 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Nightjars 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Chuck-will’s widow Caprimulgus 

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 pubescents 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 

Flycatchers 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Nuttallornis borealis 

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris 

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Vermillion 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 

Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota 

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 familiaris 

Wrens 

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

Kinglets and Gnatcatchers 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 
Section C. Appendices 163

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polloptila 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 Hylocicla mustelina 

American Robin Turdus migratorius 

Thrashers 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Pitpits 

American Pitpit Anthus spinoletta 

Waxwings 

Cedar Waxwing Bomycilla cedrorum 

Starling 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 

Shrike 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Vireos 

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus 

Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius 

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 

Re-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceous 

Warblers 

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina 

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvaniea 

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 palmarum 

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 aria 
164 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea 

Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

Louisiana Warerthrush Seiurus motacilla 

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus 

Mourning Warbler Oporonis philadelphia 

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia Canadensis 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens 

Tanagers 

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra 

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 

Western Tanger Piranga ludoviciana 

New World Finches 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Sparrows 

Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

Savannah Sparrow Passerella iliaca 

LeConte’s Sparrow Ammospiza leconteii 

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus Nelsoni 

Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus 

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 

Blackbirds, Grackles, Cowbirds and Orioles 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelais phoeniceus 

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Boat-tailed Grackle Quiscalus major 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurious 

Northern Oriole lcterus galula 
Section C. Appendices 165

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 

Eastern Pipstrelle Pipistrellus subflavus 

Evening Bat Nycticeius humeralis

Brazilian Free-tailed Bat 

Carnivores 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Mink Mustela vison 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius

River Otter Lutra canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Ungulates 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Rodents 

Marsh Rice Rat Orysomys palustris

Fulvous Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys fulvescens

Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

House Mouse Mus musculus

Black Rat 

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

Nutria Myocastor coypus

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 

Lagomorphs 

Swamp Rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
166 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Alligator 

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis

Lizards 

Green Anole Anolis carolinensis

Broadhead Skink Eumeces laticeps

Ground Skink Scinella lateralis

Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus

Slender Glass Lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus 

Turtles 

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina

Alligator Snapping Turtle Macroclemys temminckii

Mississippi Mud Turtle Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis

Common Slider Trachemys scripta

Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spinifera

Chicken Turtle Deirochelys reticularia

Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene carolina carolina

Stinkpot Turtle Sternotherus odoratus 

Mississippi Diamond Back Turtle Malaclemys terrapin pileata

Gulf Coast Box Turtle Terrapene carolina major 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 

Snakes 

Southern Water Snake Nerodia fasciata 

Mississippi Green Water Snake Nerodia cyclopion

Diamondback Water Snake Nerodia rhombifer

Brown Snake Storeria dekayi 

Western Ribbon Snake Thamnophis proximus proximus

Rainbow Snake Farancia erytrogramma

Glossy Crayfish Snake Regina rigida

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platirhinos

Mud Snake Farancia abacura

Racer Coluber constrictor

Rat Snake Drymobius elaphe

Common Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula

Southern Copperhead Agkinstodon contortrix contortrix

Cottonmouth Agkinstodon piscivorus

Pigmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius

Yellow-bellied Water Snake Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster

Rough Green Snake Opheodrys aestivus

Graham’s Crayfish Snake Regina grahamii

Salamanders 

Three-toed Amphiuma Amphiuma tridactylum

Frogs and Toads 

Gulf Coast Toad Bufo valliceps valliceps

Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans crepitans

Green Treefrog Hyla cinera

Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Pig Frog Rana grylio
Section C. Appendices 167

Green Frog Rana clamitans melanota 

Southern Leopard Frog Rana utricularia

Squirrel Tree Frog Hyla squirella

Woodhouse Toad Bufo woodhousii woodhousii 

MARINE INVERTEBRATES 

Jellyfish 

Portuguese Man-of-War Physlia physalis

Sea Nettle Chrysaora quinquecirrha

Cabbagehead Jellyfish Stomolophus meleagris

Phosphorus Jellyfish Mnemiopsis mccradyi

Marine Round Worms 

Blood Worm Glycera americana

Periscope Tube Worm Oiopatra cuprea

Oyster Blister Worm Polydora websteri

Snails 

Marsh Periwinkle Littorina irrorata

Common Mud Snail Nassarius vibex 

White Slipper Shell 

Atlantic Slipper Shell 

Common Marsh Snail 

Southern Oyster Drill Thais haemostoma

Clams and Oysters 

Ribbed Mussel Geukensea demissa

Hooked Mussel Ishadium recuryum

Eastern Oyster Crasssostrea virginica

Road Shell Clam Rangia cuneata

Small Macoma Macoma mitchelli

Constricted Macoma Macoma constricta 

Southern Quahog Mercenaria campechiensis

Squids 

Squids Loligo pealei 

Barnicles 

Acorn Barnicle Chelonbia spp.

Crabs and Shrimp 

Speckled Crab Arenaeus cribrarius

Blue Crab Callinectes spp. 

Flat Mud Crab Eurypanaoplus depressus

Stone Crab Menippe mercenaria

Common Mud Crab Panopeus harrisii

Harris Mud Crab Rithropanopeus harrisii

Red-jointed Fiddler Crab Uca minax 

Sand Fiddler Uca picgillator 

Mud Fiddler Uca pugnax 

Uca Rapax 

Uca Spinicarpa 

Wharf Crab Sesarma cinereum 

Purple Marsh Crab Sesarma reticulatum 
168 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Shore Crab Pachygrapsus gracilis 

Pachygrapus Transversus 

Petrolisthes Armatus 

Porcellana Sigsbeiana 

Mussel Crab Pinotheres maculatus 

Oyster Crab Pinnotheres ostreum 

Spider Crab Libinia dubia 

Striped Hermit Crab Clibanarius vittatus 

Isocheles Wurdemanni 

Long-armed Hermit Crab Pagurus longicarpus 

White River Crayfish Procambarus acutus 

Red Swamp Crayfish Procambarus clarkii 

Flat-browed Mud Shrimp Upogebia affinis 

Brown Shrimp Penaeus aztecus 

White Shrimp Penaeus setiferus 

Pink Shrimp Penaeus duorarum 

Sea Bob Xiphopeneus kroyeri 

Solenocerianae spp. 

Acetes americanus 

Freshwater Shrimp Macrobrachium spp. 

Grass Shrimp Palaemonetes spp. 

Big-clawed Snapping Shrimp Alpheus heterochaelils 

Mantis Shrimp Squilla empusa 

Isopods and Amphipods 

Wood-boring Isopod Limnoria tripunctata 

Rock Louse Ligia exotica 

Bopyrissa Wolffi 

Smooth-backed Sphaerona quadridentatum 

Fish Louse Cymothous spp. 

Wharf Roach Ligia spp. 

Beach Flea Orchestia grillus 

Gammarus Mucronatus 

Marsh Hopper Talorchestia spp. 

FISH 

Stingrays 

Atlantic Stingray 

Gars 

Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 

Alligator Gar Lepisosteus spatula 

Bowfins 

Bowfin Amia calva 

Tarpons 

Ladyfish Elops saurus 

Freshwater Eels 

American Eel Anguilla rostrata 
Section C. Appendices 169

Snake Eels 

Speckled Worm Eel Myrophis punctatus 

Shrimp Eel Ophichthus gomesi 

Herrings 

Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 

Gulf Menhaden Brevoortia patronus 

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 

Scaled Sardine Harengula pensacolae 

Atlantic Thread Herring Opisthonema oglinum 

Anchovies 

Striped Anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 

Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 

Lizardfishes 

Largescale Lizardfish Saurida brasilinsis 

Inshore Lizardfish Synodus foetens 

Carps 

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Suckers 

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 

Freshwater Catfishes 

Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 

Black Bullhead Ictalurus melas 

Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus natalis 

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Sea Catfishes 

Hardhead Catfish Arius felis 

Gaffsopsail Catfish Bagre marinus 

Pirate Perches 

Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus 

Toadfishes 

Gulf Toadfish Opsanus beta 

Atlantic Midshipman Porichthys porosissimus 

Clingfishes 

Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 

Codfishes 

Southern Hake Urophycis floridana 

Cusk-eels and Brotecelas 

Bearded Brotula Brotula barbata 

Bank Cusk-eel Ophidion holbrooke 
170 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Needlefishes 

Atlantic Needlefish Strogylura marina 

Killifishes 

Diamond Killifish Adinia xenica 

Sheepshead Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 

Golden Topminnow Fundulus chrysotus 

Gulf Killifish Fundulus grandis 

Saltmarsh Killifish Fundulus jenkinsi 

Starhead Killifish Fundulus blairae 

Bayou Killifish Fundulus pulvereus 

Longnose Killifish Fundulus similis 

Rainwater Killifish Lucania parva 

Livebearers 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Least Killifish Heterandria formosa 

Sailfin Molly Poecilia latipinna 

Silversides 

Brook Silversides Labidesthes sicculus 

Rough Silversides Membras martinica 

Inland Silversides Menidia beryllina 

Pipefishes and Seahorses 

Dusky Pipefish Syngnathus flordae 

Chain Pipefish Syngnathus louisianae 

Gulf Pipefish Syngnathus scovelli 

Lined Seahorse Hippocampus erectus 

Temperate Bass 

Striped Bass Morone saxatilis 

White Bass Morone chrysops 

Yellow Bass Morone mississippienis 

Sunfishes 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus 

Banded Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma zonatum 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Redear Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 

Bantam Sunfish Lepomis symmetricus 

Green Sunfish 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Bluefishes 

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 

Cobias 

Cobia Rachycentron canadrum 

Jacks and Pompanos 

Crevalle Jack Caranx hippos 
Section C. Appendices 171

Atlantic Bumper Chloroscombrus chrysurus 

Bluntnose Jack Hemicaranx amblyrhychus 

Leather Jack Oligoplites saurus 

Atlantic Moonfish Selene setapinnis 

Lookdown Selene vomer 

Florida Pompano Trachinotus carolinus 

Bigeye Scad Selar crumenophthalmus 

Snappers 

Gray Snapper Lutianus griseus 

Tripletails 

Tripletail 

Mojarras 

Spotfin Mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus 

Mottled Mojarra Eucinostomus lefroyi 

Grunts 

Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera 

Porgies 

Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 

Pinfish Lagondon rhomboides 

Drums 

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

Silver Perch Bairdiella chrysoura 

Sand Seatrout Cynoscion arenarius 

Spotted Seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus 

Silver Seatrout Cynoscion nothus 

Banded Drum Larimus fasciatus 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 

Southern Kingfish Menticirrhus americanus 

Atlantic Croaker Micropogonias undulatus 

Black Drum Pogonias cromis 

Red Drum Sciaenops ocellatus 

Star Drum Stellifer lanceoatus 

Spadefish 

Atlantic Spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 

Mullets 

Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus 

White Mullet Mugil curema 

Barracudes 

Cuaguanche Sphuraena guachancho 

Threadfins 

Atlantic Threadfin Polydactylus octonemus 

Stargazers 

Southern Stargazer Astroscopus y-graecum 
172 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Combtooth Blennies 

Striped Blenny Chasmodes boquianus 

Freckled Blenny Hypsoblennius ionthas 

Sleepers 

Fat Sleeper Dormitator maculatus 

Emerald Sleeper Erotelis smaragdus 

Spinycheek Sleeper Eleotris pisonis 

Gobies 

Lyre Goby Evorthodus lyricus 

Violet Goby Gobioides broussoneti 

Darter Goby Gobionellys boleosoma 

Sharptail Goby Gobionellus hastatus 

Freshwater Goby Gobionellus shufeldti 

Naked Goby Gobiosoma bosci 

Code Goby Gobiosoma robustum 

Clown Goby Microbius gulosus 

Green Goby Microbius thalassinus 

Wormfishes 

Pink Wormfish Microgobius longipinnis 

Cutlassfishes 

Atlantic Cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus 

Mackerals and Tunas 

Spanish Mackeral Scomberomorus maculatus 

Butterfishes 

Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus 

Gulf Butterfish Peprilus burti 

Searobins 

Bighead Searobin Prionotus tribulus 

Lefteye Flounder 

Ocellated Flounder Ancyclopsetta quadrocellata 

Bay Whif Citharichthys spilopterus 

Fringe Flounder Etropus crossotus 

Gulf Flounder Paralichthys albigutta 

Southern Flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 

Soles 

Lined Sole Achirus lineatus 

Hogchoker Trincetes maculatus 

Tonguefishes 

Blackcheek Tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa 

Leatherjackets 

Pygmy Filefishfer Monacanthus setifer 

Puffers 

Southern Puffer Sphoeroides nephelus 
Section C. Appendices 173

Least Puffer Sphoeroides parvus 

PLANTS 

Salt (Saline) Marsh 10.0 ppt and above 

Annual Glasswort Salicornia bigelovii 

Black Needlerush Juncus roemerianus

Marsh Elder Iva frutescens 

Smooth Cordgrass Spartina alterniflora

 

Brackish Marsh 3.5 to 10.0 ppt 

Baccharis Baccharis halimifolia

Black Needlerush Juncus roemerianus

Cattail Typa spp.

Coastal Water-Hyssop Bacopa monnieri

Coffeeweed Sesbania macrocarpa

Dog Fennel Eupatorium capillifolium

Dwarf Spikerush Eleocharis parvula

Eurasian Watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Flatsedges Cyperus spp. 

Hogcane Spartina cynosuroides

Marsh Elder Iva frutescens

Marshhay Cordgrass Spartina patens

Narrow-leaf Groundsel Bush Baccharis angustifolia

Olney’s Three-Square Scirpus americanus 

Pennywort Hydrocotyle spp.

Roseau Cane Phragmites australis

Salt Grass Distichlis spicata

Saltmarsh Bulrush Scirpus robustus

Saltmarsh Mallow Kosteletzkya virginica

Saltmarsh Morning Glory Ipomoea sagittata

Seashore Paspalum Paspalum vaginatum

Smooth Cordgrass Spartina alterniflora

Three-cornered Grass Scirpus olneyi

Sprangletop Leptochloa fascicularis

Wigeongrass Ruppia maritima

Intermediate Marsh 0.5 to 3.5 ppt 

Alligator Weed Alternanthera philoxeroides

Baccharis Baccharis halimifolia 

Banana Water Lily Nymphaea mexicana 

Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crusgalli

Black Needlerush Juncus roemerianus 

Bulltongue Sagittaria lancifolia

Bullwhip Scirpus californicus

Cattail Typa spp. 

Coastal Water-Hyssop Bacopa monnieri 

Coffeeweed Sesbania macrocarpa 

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum

Dog Fennel Eupatorium 

Dwarf Spikerush Eleocharis parvula 

Eurasian Watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Fall Panicum Panicum dichotomiflorum

Flatsedges Carex spp. 

Frogbit Limnobium spongia 
174 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Frogfruit Phyla nodiflora

Hogcane Spartina cynosuroides

Marshhay Cordgrass Spartina patens 

Pennywort Hydrocotyle spp. 

Pigweed Chenopodium album

Roseau Cane Phragmites australis

Sago Pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus

Saltmarsh Bulrush Scirpus robustus

Saltmarsh Mallow Kosteletzkya virginica

Saltmarsh Morning Glory Ipomoea sagittata

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense

Seashore Pasalum Paspalum vaginatum

Softstem Bullrush Scirpus validus 

Southern Naiad Najas quadalupensis

Sprangletop Leptochloa fascicularis 

Spikerushes Eleocharis spp.

Thin-leaf Pondweed Potamogeton pusillus 

Three-cornered Grass Scirpus olneyi 

Walteri Millet Echinochloa walteri

Wax-Myrtle Myrica cerifera

Widgeon Grass Ruppia maritima 

Freshwater Marsh 0.0 to 0.5 ppt 

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

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

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
Section C. Appendices 175

Frogfruit Phyla nodiflora

Giant Cutgrass Zizaniopsis miliacea

Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida

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. 

Parrot Feather Myriophyllum aquaticum 

Pennywort Hydrocotyle spp. 

Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata

Rattlebox Sesbania drummondii

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 

Walteri 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 

Bird’s Eye Bush Ochna serrrulata

Chocolate Weed Melochia corchorifolia

Grasslike Fimbry Fimbristylis miliacea

Red Rice Oryza functata 
176 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Section C. Appendices 177

Appendix E. 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, 

identified and prioritized issues, and a representative of each group presented their results to the 

entire audience. The format of the meeting facilitated an 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{ XE "Lacassine Pool" }. Continued interest in the 

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 

preferred solution. The majority of the participants chose the Service’s proposed action plan which is 

being written into the Draft CCP and EA. 

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. These 

meetings were rescheduled (see News Release #2). A worksheet, comment form, and brochure 

were also made available and are shown below. 
178 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

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. 

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 
Section C. Appendices 179

be made regarding the Service’s proposed 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. 

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 
180 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

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 

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. 
Section C. Appendices 181

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. 

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 proposed 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. 
182 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

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. 

 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 that CCPs 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. 
Section C. Appendices 183
184 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Section C. Appendices 185

SPECIAL HURRICANE DAMAGE MEETING 

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 of 2005 and its impacts on the refuges within the 

Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. In part, a presentation given by the Sabine 

Refuge Manager to over 100 people in attendance explained what the damages were, how the 

Service would address them, and when the public could use refuge facilities. The announcement that 

Sabine was closed until further notice was disappointing to many in attendance and subsequently the 

Project Leader received many calls to discuss the closure. Eventually the public understood the 

reasoning behind the closure decision. 
186 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Section C. Appendices 187

Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 

SABINE 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 and 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 wildlifedependent 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, wildlifedependent recreational uses. 
188 Sabine 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 and photography, or 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. 

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 
Section C. Appendices 189

• 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 and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation. 
190 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

DRAFT FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Sabine National Wildlife Refuge_______________________________________________________ 

Use: Recreational Sportfishing 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. 

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: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X___ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Section C. Appendices 191

DRAFT FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Sabine 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 

(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: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate___X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
192 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

DRAFT FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Sabine 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 

(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: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate___X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Section C. Appendices 193

DRAFT FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Sabine 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. 

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: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate__X___ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
194 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

DRAFT FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Sabine National Wildlife Refuge_______________________________________________________ 

Use: Beneficial Use of Dredge Material_____________________________________________________________ 

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 

(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: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate___X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Section C. Appendices 195

EAST COVE UNIT OF CAMERON PRAIRIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE APPROPRIATE USE 

DETERMINATION 

DRAFT FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, East Cove Unit_________________________________

Use: Commercially Guided Fishing________________________________________________________________

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 

(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: 

 Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate___X__ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
196 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Section C. Appendices 197

Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 

Introduction 

The following proposed compatibility determinations describe various uses that are outlined in 

Alternative B, the proposed alternative for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, and serve to determine if 

these uses are compatible with wildlife purposes. 

Refuge Uses: The following Compatibility Determinations apply to (1) Recreational Freshwater 

Sportfishing; (2) Recreational Sportfishing Tournaments; (3); Recreational Hunting; (4) Environmental 

Education and Interpretation; (5) Wildlife Observation and Photography; (6) Research and Monitoring; 

(7) Commercial Alligator Harvest; (8) Commercial Video and Photography; (9) Commercially Guided 

Wildlife Viewing, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation; (10) Beneficial Use of 

Dredge Material; and (11) Commercially Guided Fishing (only on the East Cove Unit of Cameron 

Prairie National Wildlife Refuge). 

Refuge Name: Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: December 6, 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive Order 7764, Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife ... (Executive Order 7764, 

dated Dec. 6, 1937) 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds. (16 

U.S.C. Sec. 715d [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]) 

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 
198 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

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 

SABINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Compatibility determinations for each use listed were considered separately. Within this plan, the 

preceding sections from “Refuge Uses” through “Other Applicable Laws” are only shown once; 

however, they are part of each descriptive use and become part of that compatibility determination if 

approved. 

Description of Use: Recreational Sport Fishing

Recreational sport fishing has been traditionally allowed and is permitted on designated waterways at 

Sabine. Approximately 110,000 people fish on Sabine each year. 

Fishing with rod and reel, pole and line or jug and line is permitted. The use or possession of other 

types of fishing gear is prohibited on the refuge. Bank fishing along Highway 27 is permitted yearround. A special permit is required from the refuge for cast netting for shrimp.

Units 1A and 1B are open from March 15 to October 15 to nonmotorized boats only. Aside from 

Management Unit 3, trolling motors only are allowed in refuge marshes. The saltwater boat launch at 

West Cove is open year-round for fishing access into Calcasieu Lake. West Cove Canal is closed to 

fishing from October 16 through March 14, and is only used for boat passage only during this time. 

East Cove Unit: The East Cove Unit is open for public use, including fishing, year-round, except 

during the state’s waterfowl hunting season and when the Grand Bayou Boat Bay is closed. Public 

use of the unit is restricted to boats only; no walking, wading, or climbing in or on the marsh, levees, 

or structures to fish, cast net, or crab is allowed. An estimated 10 to 12 boats use the East Cove Unit 

daily when the boat bay is open. 

Availability of Resources: No changes to the refuge’s fishing program are required with the 

implementation of the proposed alternative. 

Sport fishing represents about 50% of the consumptive users on the refuge (~300,000 visitors 

annually). A portion of the refuge budget is spent annually managing for the benefit of freshwater 
Section C. Appendices 199

fisheries, conducting law enforcement patrols inside and outside the pool, and ensuring refuge 

visitors are in accordance with boater safety, and following other refuge regulations. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Fishing is not expected to have substantial, long-term adverse impacts 

on other wildlife resources at Sabine Refuge, including wildlife habitat or fish and wildlife populations. 

Also, fishing is not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact refuge resources adversely. As a 

consumptive use, fishing would have some minimal and short-term direct, localized impacts on refuge 

resources, including populations of target sport fish. 

Fishing in itself does not impact the refuge. Sport fishing is a wholesome, enjoyable, and wildlifedependent public use opportunity that the refuge plans to continue to promote. Freshwater Sport 

Fishing is a sedentary activity (in part) and participation in this activity generally results in litter on the 

refuge (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. The refuge would strive to reduce this problem by 

working with partners to pick up litter and educate anglers not to litter in the first place. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Fishing will only be allowed March 15 – October 

15, the lowest migratory bird usage period, and only during daylight hours. Only trolling motors would 

be permitted on boats. Only fishing with rod and reel, pole and line or jug and line will be allowed; no 

other methods will be permitted. Current and anticipated future levels of fishing pressure are 

considered to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

The East Cove Unit will remain open for fishing year-round, except during the State’s waterfowl 

hunting season and when the Grand Bayou Boat Bay is closed. Public use of the unit will continue to 

be restricted to boats only; no walking, wading, or climbing in or on the marsh, levees, or structures to 

fish, cast net, or crab will be allowed. 

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, appreciates, and provides 

support for national wildlife refuges.

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.
200 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

Description of Use: Recreational Sport Fishing Tournaments

Tournament sport 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. 

Through the years, the Sabine Refuge staff has identified three classes of fishing tournaments that 

occur on the refuge: (1) multiple water tournaments; (2) off-site tournaments which focus on taking 

fish from the refuge; and (3) on-site tournaments. Descriptions of these tournaments are as follows: 

Multiple Water Tournaments: These tournaments are usually sponsored by large organizations. 

All of the 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 do not target 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 that Target Taking Fish from the Refuge: These tournaments tend to fall in 

a gray area in that one is not always sure if the tournament is occurring, and the participants are 

indistinguishable from other individuals fishing on the refuge. The host of the tournament may be a 

declared nonprofit organization, a local entrepreneur, or an unaffiliated individual. Locally, these are 

often referred to as “dog fights,” ”rodeos,” and “derbies.” Often times 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 Refuge Pool where many bass have been taken 

that were of record size. The target species is Florida largemouth bass. The organizational, 

administrative, and judging activities occur off the refuge. When possible, the refuge will work with 

the sponsors of such tournaments to advise them that the activity they are conducting requires a 

special use permit from the refuge. 
Section C. Appendices 201

On-site Tournaments: These tournaments may have the same characteristics as the tournaments 

identified above, except the organizational, administrative, judging, and fishing activities occur on the 

refuge. 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 includes 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 are involved 

managing the permitting process; biologists are needed to plan and conduct habitat management, 

monitoring and fish stocking; and maintenance personnel are 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 the Use: 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 would have minimal impacts on recreational fishing enthusiasts that are 

not involved in the tournaments and other natural resources. 

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 that are stressed from being in the live 

wells are released. 

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. 

The tournament participants’ boats and trailers could accidentally release invasive aquatic plant 

species into the 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; these signs provide recommendations on how to address the 

matter. 
202 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

During tournaments, overzealous anglers could cause disturbance to nesting resident and migratory 

birds in the Lacassine Pool. Time and space zoning will be needed to address this impact. 

Some tournaments, if managed proactively, can be a benefit to biologists if staff or volunteers are 

made available to properly handle the 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 is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

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 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 Recreation Fee Program where 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. 

• Tournament sponsor(s) 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 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
Section C. Appendices 203

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

References: 

Furimsky, M, S.J. Cooke, C.D. Suski, Y. Wang 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):1065-1075. 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):215-220. ISSN: 0899-7659. Allen Press. 

Suski, C.D., S.S. Killen, M.B. Morrissey, S.G. Lund 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):779-786. ISSN: 0275-5947. Allen Press. 

Description of Use: Recreational Hunting

Hunting of waterfowl is permitted on the refuge. Hunting of other wildlife species is not permitted. 

In recent years, hunting of ducks, geese, and coots has been allowed in designated areas of the 

refuge on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays during the state waterfowl seasons set by the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. All hunters are required to have a refuge-issued 

permit. 

Availability of Resources: There are adequate resources to ensure and administer the use at its 

current level of participation. 

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 would be very small and would not directly or cumulatively 

impact population levels on the refuge or in the surrounding area. Currently the refuge does not have 

any threatened or endangered species restrictions, so concerns about incidental take of protected 

species are minimal. Implementation of a highly effective law enforcement program and continued 

development of special regulations for this use would eliminate most incidental take problems. 
204 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Hunter access to the hunt areas is by boat, walking or bicycling, with the exception of all-terrain 

vehicle use by disabled hunters, so impacts such as trampling, crushing/grinding vegetation and 

noise disturbance should be minimal. 

Hunting is not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact refuge resources negatively. As a 

consumptive use, hunting would have some minimal and short-term direct impacts on refuge 

resources. Waterfowl and alligator numbers would be temporarily reduced as animals are harvested, 

but this population decline would be reversed by recruitment during the following reproductive 

season. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Hunting will be permitted only for waterfowl and 

alligators. With regard to waterfowl hunting, permits will be required and a post-hunt information card 

must be submitted following each hunt. 

The following stipulations will also ensure compatibility of the waterfowl hunt: 

(a) – Waterfowl hunting will be limited to no more than 50,000 acres or 40% of the refuge. 

(b) – During the state season, waterfowl hunting will be open until noon four days per week. (This 

represents an increase of one day per week from the current level of hunting opportunities.) 

(c) – Sabine will continue providing sanctuary with minimal human disturbance for three days per 

week. 

(d) – The refuge will continue restrictions on motors and sizes, permitting the use of only trolling 

motors and push poles in marsh. 

(e) – The use of permanent blinds will be prohibited. 

(f) – Sabine will initiate permit drawings if or when conditions require (e.g. too many hunters or two 

few birds). 

(g) – The refuge will continue youth waterfowl hunting days as set by Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries. 
Section C. Appendices 205

Current and future levels of hunter participation are considered to be compatible with the purpose for 

which the refuge was established. The refuge will continue to monitor the potential for limited bow 

hunting of deer and feral hogs. 

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, appreciates, and provides 

support for national wildlife refuges. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge and the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex staff 

provide on-site and off-site education and interpretation to visitors and the community-at-large. About 

70,000 members of the public use interpretive and educational services on the refuge. 

Off-site education services have been provided to people at community seminars, festivals, and other 

public exhibitions. Refuge and Complex staff also educate the public through media events. The 

refuge submits about 25 press releases and participates in about 15 radio or television events 

annually. 

Availability of Resources: At the current participation level for this use funding is adequate. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The incidental disturbance of wildlife species, either illegally or 

unintentionally, may occur with any public use program. Environmental education and interpretation 

may result in some additional wildlife disturbance. Habitat destruction (mostly trampling) by approved 

or unapproved activity may also occur. Interpretive trails, boardwalks, kiosks, scenic overlooks, and 

observation platforms are designed and placed to minimize disturbance potential. Nonetheless, 

occasionally conflicts do occur between users and wildlife; for example, alligators that appear to be 

aggressive and nesting adjacent to interpretive trails used by pedestrians have had to be destroyed 

or removed as a safety precaution. Effective education and law enforcement programs should 

minimize this kind of conflict and impact. 

Environmental education and interpretation 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. 
206 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: N/A 

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 this that the 

public becomes aware of, appreciates, and provides support for national wildlife refuges. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 
Section C. Appendices 207

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge has two nature-viewing trails and two roadside “scenic overlook” 

viewing areas. The Marsh Trail, a one and one-half mile trail and boardwalk located approximately 

four miles south of the refuge headquarters with parking and facilities near the State Highway 27, 

provides opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. During 2000–2005, 83,734 visitors 

per year walked the Wetland Walkway and Blue Goose trails. The Blue Goose Trail is located beside 

State Highway 27 at the refuge headquarters and features parking and a wildlife observation 

platform. Wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, diamond-backed terrapins, and many other 

brackish/saline marsh and shoreline species may be seen along the trail. The trail is open yearround from dawn until dusk. 

The refuge has also established several nonmotorized boating areas that allow the public to view and 

photograph wildlife in areas undisturbed by motorized traffic. 

In cooperation with the Creole Nature Trail All American Road Board of Directors, the refuge built two 

roadside “scenic overlooks” beside State Highway 27. These areas allow visitors to the refuge to 

stop and observe coastal marsh habitats and the wildlife inhabiting them without having to leave their 

vehicles. 

Availability of Resources: There are adequate resources to ensure compatibility and to administer 

the use at current levels. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Wildlife observation and photography could result in some disturbance 

to wildlife, especially along the two nature-viewing trails. There would be an occasional need to 

remove or destroy potentially dangerous animals like alligators. Some minimal trampling of 

vegetation and littering may also occur. Trails, boardwalks, scenic overlooks, and observation 

platforms would be managed to minimize disturbance potential. 

Wildlife observation and photography are not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact refuge 

resources negatively, even though there may be some minimal conflicts and direct short-term 

disturbance of wildlife or trampling of vegetation and habitat. Overall, these uses would not cause 

significant disturbance 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 
208 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Public access for wildlife viewing and 

photography would be allowed in designated areas only by automobile, boat, bicycle, or on foot. An 

increase in education and law enforcement patrols would minimize illegal or undesirable activity. 

Wildlife observation and photography would be monitored to document any negative impacts. If any 

negative impacts are found, corrective action would be taken to reduce or eliminate negative impacts 

to wildlife. Public access to many of the key observation and photography areas may be closed 

during extremely wet periods for road protection and visitor safety.

Wildlife viewing areas would be managed to minimize disturbance impacts to wildlife and all refuge 

resources while providing a good opportunity to view wildlife in their natural environments. 

Mode of access incidental to this use will be allowed by vehicle or bicycle on roads open to the public. 

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. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

Description of Use: Research and Monitoring

Research and monitoring are used to collect information for the purpose of better understanding 

ecosystem functions and responses to management actions to more effectively manage habitats. 

This activity would allow university students and professors, nongovernmental and governmental 

researchers to conduct both short- and long-term research projects. Results of this research allow 

managers to assess the success of management activities and develop a “Best Management 

Practice” (BMP) on a refuge-specific basis. All research requests are judged on individual project 

merit and applicability to refuge programs. 

Availability of Resources: Adequate refuge personnel and other resources are available to monitor 

responses and/or fund research at present levels. Refuge will also focus on encouraging research 

conducted by other organizations on refuge lands through expanded partnerships. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: There could be some negative impacts from scientific research on the 

refuge. Impacts such as trampling vegetation, all-terrain vehicle use, and temporary disturbance to 

wildlife would occur. A small number of individual plants or animals may be collected for further 

study. These collections would not likely adversely affect refuge plant and animal populations. 

Removal of plant and animal material from the refuge, as well as the potential to accidentally 
Section C. Appendices 209

introduce exotic plants and animals, must be carefully monitored and controlled. Some other impacts 

from research include (1) noise disturbance from helicopter, airplane, airboat, truck, or car which may 

temporarily disturb and/or displace wildlife; (2) physical presence of people or equipment which may 

temporarily disturb and/or displace wildlife; (3) ground disturbance from walking on site or the use of 

equipment; and (4) water disturbance by stirring sediments and causing temporary turbidity from 

equipment or walking. Despite these impacts, the knowledge gained from carefully considered and 

properly executed scientifically defensible research would provide information and justification to 

improve management techniques and better meet the needs of trust resource species. 

Research 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 is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All researchers would be required to obtain and 

possess a refuge special use permit. Individual requests to use specialized equipment, all-terrain 

vehicles, etc. would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and specified on each permit. 

Researchers would periodically be evaluated for compliance with requirements. Periodic progress 

reports would be required and final copies of all reports and publications would be provided to the 

refuge. The refuge would not directly supply personnel or equipment unless arrangements were 

made prior to issuance of the special use permit. The refuge manager would reserve the right to 

delegate a staff member to accompany permittee(s) at any time. All plants or animals sampled, 

collected, or released would be done in a scientifically accepted manner, such as those specified by 

scientific societies. Examples of these societies include the Society for the Study of Amphibians and 

Reptiles, the American Society of Mammologists, the American Ornithological Society, the 

Ichthyologists League, the Entomological Society of America, and the Botanical Society of America. 

Incidental take and inadvertent trampling are 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: Sound research and monitoring programs provide a better understanding of species, 

habitats, and the environmental communities present on the refuge. Implementation of the proposed 

alternative would require additional monitoring and/or research to evaluate and reevaluate the 

management programs used on the refuge. The benefits, however, would greatly outweigh any 

short-term disturbance or loss of individual plants or animals that may occur. 
210 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________

Description of Use: Commercial Alligator Harvest

Since the reestablishment of alligator harvests in Louisiana following 1983, the Sabine Refuge has 

cooperated with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in the commercial harvest of 

alligators. The attachment, entitled “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 would 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 is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 
Section C. Appendices 211

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Commercial harvest of alligators would be 

allowed in designated areas only. Activities would be monitored to document any negative impacts to 

alligator populations and other wildlife. If negative impacts are found, corrective action would be 

taken to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Access to key hunt areas may be closed during adverse 

weather conditions for protection of infrastructure (roads, levees, etc.) and hunter safety. 

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 special 

use permits issued for the 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 

surveyors’ flagging 12 to 15 inches long. Make 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 the 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 nontoxic shot will be permitted. All weapons 

must be unloaded and encased while in refuge parking areas, boat launches, or en 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 
212 Sabine 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 (missing legs, scars, missing tails, etc.). Your completed alligator data sheets will 

be provided daily to the refuge where you are 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 permittees’ alligators as instructed. If the quota is filled on a weekend, notification 

can be on the next business day. A 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 40% 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% of the 

expected gross sales price per foot during that particular alligator season. 

• 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 (SUP) and will be subject to civil prosecution as well 

as termination of the SUP. 

• 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 the limited access and timing restrictions, commercial harvest of alligators is viewed as 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 
Section C. Appendices 213

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 the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, consisting of Sabine, 

Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, and Shell Keys national wildlife 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 sometime 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). 

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 over-represented 

while rapidly digested prey species such as amphibians and fish may be under- represented 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 
214 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

(1993) discovered that this behavior is an important population regulating mechanism. It was 

estimated that cannibalism accounted for 50.2% of total hatchling mortality and 63.7% 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% of the annual population estimate has 

been allotted for harvest. 

The overall alligator population increased dramatically (10.1% 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% 

of which was hunted, showed an increase of 11.0%, whereas refuges and wildlife management 

areas, where only limited hunting occurred, had an increase of 9.7% over the same fourteen-year 

period (Joanen and McNease, 1987). 

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 

alligators’ influence on other species and/or user groups on the refuge. Actual alligator population 
Section C. Appendices 215

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% per year) between 1970 and 1983. The 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries estimated an average of one alligator per 5.4 acres 

from 1970 through 1983. The table below 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% 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

These numbers are far above the calculated population goals for the refuges and with state take 

being limited to less then 5% 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. 
216 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, in cooperation with the Complex, conducts 

intense surveys of federal refuges as part of their regular state-wide surveys. This ecosystem-wide 

approach has built working relations 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 impacted 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 subadult 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 & 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. 
Section C. Appendices 217

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.). 

Social-economic 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 

reduced substantially. 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 an 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. 

The 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 has 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. 
218 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Conclusion

In our opinion, 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; continuation of a viable alligator 

population; continuation of biological data collection and monitoring; continue to afford public viewing 

opportunities; reduce adverse overpopulation effects (cannibalism, reduced reproduction rates, etc.); 

and reduce inter-specific predation, and foster favorable local public and governmental relations. 

Literature Cited/Consulted 

Borden-Billiot, D.L. 2000. Personal communication. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Hackberry, 

Louisiana. 

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. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 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. 

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 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. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 103(4):667-672. 

____, V.A. Lance, J. Joanen and L. McNease. 1991. Acute stress suppresses plasma estradiol 

levels in female alligators (Alligator mississippiensis). Comparative Biochemistry and 

Physiology Vol. 100A(3):649-651. 

____, L. McNease, T. Joanen and N. Kinler. 1992b. Food habits of native wild and farm-released 

juvenile alligator. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of 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. Proceedings 

of Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissions 21:220-

222. 

Gibbons, J.W. 1990. Life History and Ecology of the Slider Turtle. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 368 pp. 
Section C. Appendices 219

Giles, L. and V.L. Childs. 1949. Alligator management on the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 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 Wildlife Service, 

FWS/OBS–78/9. Washington, D.C. 302 pp. 

Greij, E.D. 1994. Common moorhen. Pages 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). Journal of Zoology 219:309-328. 

Joanen, T. and L. McNease. 1970. A telemetric study of nesting female alligators on Rockefeller 

Refuge, Louisiana. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game 

and Fish Commissions 24:175-193. 

____. 1972. A telemetric study of adult male alligators on Rockefeller Refuge, Louisiana. 

Proceedings of Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish 

Commissions 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. 

Manolis, and P.J. Whitehead, eds., Wildlife Management: Crocodiles 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. Journal of Experimental Zoology 239:241-246. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 1999. Louisiana alligator management program. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife 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. 

Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish 

Commissions 28:482-500. 

____, and T. Joanen. 1977. Alligator diets in relation to marsh salinity. Proceedings of Annual 

Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife 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. 
220 Sabine 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. 1946–1951. Annual Narrative Reports. Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge, USFWS, DOI. 

____. 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 nonmarsh alligator habitat in Louisiana. Louisiana 

Department 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. Journal of Wildlife Management 36(3):809-815. 

Webb, G.J.W., R. Buckworth and S.C. Manolis. 1983. Crocodylus johnstoni in a controlledenvironment chamber: a raising trial. Australian Wildlife Research 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. 
Section C. Appendices 221

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

Description of Use: Commercial Video and Photography

Over the past several years, the Sabine 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. 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 would 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 is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 
222 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Access for commercially produced video and 

photography activities would be allowed in designated areas only. Activities would be monitored to 

document any negative impacts to wildlife; if negative impacts are found, corrective action would 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 (roads, levees, etc.) and 

visitor safety. 

Public Law 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. 

Further guidance is found in the Code of Federal 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 U.S. 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 insure 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 or 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 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 cleanup, 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 
Section C. Appendices 223

written statement that no such courtesy credit is desired. A copy of the final product will be 

proved 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. 

• 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 U.S. 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, 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 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. 
224 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Under the stipulations described above, commercially produced filmmaking, production or sound 

track recording is viewed as compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Justification: Allowing commercially guided wildlife viewing, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation is an economic use 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 would be beneficial to extend public 

appreciation and understanding of wildlife, natural habitats and the mission of the national wildlife 

refuge system. 

Commercial guiding would be incidental to four (wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation) of the six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. Conditions 

imposed in the special-use permits of guides would 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 would 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 

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. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

Description of Use: 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. Presently there are no known guide operations utilizing the refuge. 

Several wildlife viewing opportunities exist on the refuge, including two trails, two scenic overlooks, 

and nonmotorized boating areas. The nature trails and scenic overlooks are located along or near 

the Creole Nature Trail (State Highway 27), an All American Road and destination for many resident 

and nonresident visitors. As southwest Louisiana and the Creole Nature Trail are promoted, visitor 

use of the refuge is expected to increase. With the number of visitors increasing, a shift in types of 
Section C. Appendices 225

recreation use and users may occur. It is anticipated that wildlife viewing on the Sabine 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, environmental 

education, and interpretation could result in some minor incremental increase in disturbance to 

wildlife adjacent to the Wetland Walkway and Blue Goose Trail. However, in the context of tens of 

thousands of visitors to these trails annually, this incremental impact is expected to be negligible to 

minor at most. 

Some minimal trampling of vegetation and littering may also occur, but is unlikely, since ecologicallyaware, permitted or trained guides would exercise greater control over their clients than most general 

trail users would be expected to exercise over themselves. Any additional disturbance would be 

minimal, as 51,000 pedestrians annually are estimated to utilize the Wetland Walkway Trail alone, 

and commercial guiding should only increase these numbers slightly. Boardwalks, trails, scenic 

overlooks, observation platforms and nonmotorized boating areas would be managed 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 or 

trampling. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Access for commercially guided wildlife viewing, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation would be allowed in designated areas only 

and regulated by special use permit. Activities would be monitored to document any negative 

impacts to wildlife; if negative impacts are found, corrective action would 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 (boardwalks, trails, roads, levees, etc.) and 

visitor safety. 

The following stipulations apply to special use permits issued for wildlife-dependent recreation 

(wildlife viewing, photography, environmental education and interpretation). To minimize impacts on 

refuge lands and resources, law enforcement patrols will routinely be conducted in an effort to 
226 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. This provision applies to all persons working under the authority of this permit. 

 

• The permitee 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, 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 permittee shall provide the refuge 

with (1) a copy of current business license; and (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, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation is viewed as compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (as amended by the Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997) identifies compatible wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation as four of six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. The law 

states that, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife management, 

administration of these uses has been and is expected to continue to be generally compatible and 

that priority public uses should receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in 

refuge planning and management. 
Section C. Appendices 227

Conditions imposed in the special use permits of guides ensure that these wildlife dependent 

activities can occur without adverse effects to refuge resources, or other visitors. Permitted guides 

facilitate public use and enjoyment of these activities while protecting refuge resources. 

 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

Description of Use: Beneficial Use of Dredge Material 

Use of dredge materials from adjacent navigation channels and drainage systems would be utilized 

on wetland impoundments for levee rehabilitation to improve management of wetlands vital in 

achieving the refuges purpose. As defined in the Coast 2050 Plan (Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources 1988), beneficial use is any use which would protect, enhance, or provide a platform for 

the restoration of vegetated wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife Service further defines this definition to 

two forms of beneficial use: (1) the creation of marsh or wetland habitat and (2) the rehabilitation of 

existing levees. The proposed activity would allow managers the opportunity to improve and/or 

create wetlands on national wildlife refuges through the use/recycling of maintenance dredge 

materials. 

Availability of Resources: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Mississippi Valley Division, New 

Orleans District, has the largest annual channel operations and maintenance program in the United 

States, with an annual average of 70 million cubic yards of material dredged. At this time, 

approximately 14.5 million cubic yards of this material is used beneficially in the surrounding 

environment with funding from either the O&M program or the Continuing Authorities Program defined 

by the WRDA 1992 Section 204 for beneficial use of dredged material (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

2004). Beneficial use of dredged material has been identified within the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 

Restoration Plan, Mermentau Basin (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task 

Force 1993); the Coast 2050 plan (Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 1988); and the 

Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004) as an 

important wetland restoration method. Within the Louisiana Coastal Area, it is recommended that 

Congress authorize $100,000,000 over the initial ten years of the program towards beneficial use of 

dredge material projects. It is expected to contribute to the creation of approximately 21,000 acres of 

wetlands. 

Beneficial use of dredge materials on the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge would be allowed in conjunction with an authorized and/or permitted 

activity from an off-refuge site. Funding will be the responsibility of the authorized and/or permitted 
228 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

agency. Due to infrequency of dredging activities, no additional staff is required; however, dedication 

of current staff time will be required during dredging operations to monitor and ensure special use 

permit compliance. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Use of beneficial dredge material will improve wetlands management 

through improved habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Utilization of dredge materials will 

aid the refuge in reaching its goals and/or objectives as defined in its Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and accomplishing identified long-term habitat improvement projects. 

Beneficial dredge material placement activities on the refuge are not expected to indirectly or 

cumulatively impact refuge resources negatively. However, some minimal short-term and direct 

impacts may occur. These impacts would include displacement of wildlife, disturbance of vegetation 

and possible impact water quality. No long-term impacts are expected. 

A “No Effect Determination” on federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated 

critical habitat impacts was made. No federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical 

habitat occurs on the refuge as described in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532-

1544, 87 Stat. 884). An assessment and subsequent determination was made that proposed use 

would not affect mandated under Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n). The management decision to allow this use is an action categorically 

excluded as defined in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, 1.7. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All beneficial use of dredge material operations 

will require the requesting parties to obtain and possess a refuge special use permit. Individual 

requests will be evaluated on a project by project basis and specified on each permit. Beneficial 

placement of dredge materials must contribute to the purpose, goals, objectives and management 

operations of the refuge. 

Given compliance with the restrictions set in each special use permit, beneficial use of dredge 

material conducted on the refuge is considered to be compatible with the purpose for which the 

refuge was established. At a minimum, special conditions will contain: 

1. All state, local and federal permitting requirements will be met by permittee. 

2. All applicable federal and state regulations apply. 
Section C. Appendices 229

3. A standard soil contaminants test will be conducted at no cost to the Government. 

4. Initial spoil height will be elevations established by refuge manager. 

5. If spoil is placed on a levee, levee will be contoured and smoothed to refuge manager 

specifications. If levee does not meet refuge manager specifications, the contractor must return 

after spoil has dried to level with dozer or tractor (disked). 

6. All vehicles, boats and equipment to be used will be in a safe and working condition. All 

vehicles and boats will meet or exceed federal and state requirements. 

Justification: The rate of coastal land loss in Louisiana is estimated to be between 25 and 35 acres 

per year. This loss represents 80% of the coastal wetland loss in the entire continental United States 

(Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 1988). Much of this land loss has occurred on national 

wildlife refuges. One activity that is often associated with the Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources coastal zone consistency program is the beneficial use of material dredged to maintain 

navigation channels. Sediment represents one of the most important resources for building wetlands. 

Dredging activities in Louisiana, including maintenance of federal navigation channels and permitted 

activities in Louisiana’s coastal zone, account for the removal and redeposition of 90 to 120 million 

cubic yards of sediment annually (Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 1988). Through its 

legislature, Louisiana has stated its policy with respect to beneficial use of dredged material 

resources in R.S.49:214.32(F): 

“the Secretary (of DNR) shall insure that whenever a proposed use or activity requires that 

dredging or disposal of five hundred thousand cubic yards or more of any water bottom or 

wetland within the coastal zone, the dredged material shall be used for the beneficial 

purposes of wetland protection, creation, enhancement or combinations thereof...” 

Beneficial use of dredge material will support the purpose for which the refuge was established by 

improving wetlands habitat, and increasing the refuges value as a sanctuary and wintering habitat for 

migratory birds. The action supports refuge management activities as identified in the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and long-term maintenance projects. As dredge material will be placed on existing 

land, the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats will not be adversely impacted. 

Literature Citations 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority. 1988. Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal 

Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, LA. 161p 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana – Ecosystem Restoration 

Study – July 2004. Draft Report. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

 X Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________
230 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

EAST COVE UNIT COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

The following proposed compatibility determination for commercially guided fishing is applicable only 

to the East Cove Unit of Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge.

Refuge Name: Cameron Prairie National Wildlife, Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. 

Date Established: December 29, 1988 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Migratory Bird Conservation Act; Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Act 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds. (16 

U.S.C. Sec. 715d [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]) 

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) 

The 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) 
Section C. Appendices 231

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: Commercially Guided Fishing (East Cove Unit of Cameron Prairie National 

Wildlife Refuge) 

Over the past several years, the Service has been contacted as to the possibility of allowing 

commercially guided fishing opportunities on the East Cove Unit of Cameron Prairie National Wildlife 

Refuge. (Editor’s Note: The East Cove Unit was originally established as part of Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge but management oversight was administratively transferred to Cameron Prairie 

National Wildlife Refuge in recent years. Officials in the Service’s Southeast Regional Office required 

the East Cove Unit to be discussed in the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan since its legal description was attached to Sabine’s establishment. Thus, this 

Compatibility Determination for commercially guided fishing is limited to the East Cove Unit.) 

Presently there are no authorized fishing guide operations on refuges comprising the Southwest 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Commercial guiding for anglers is suspected to be an 

existing activity on the East Cove Unit, but it has not been regulated or administered. 

Numerous public fishing opportunities exist on this unit. Fishing guides operate on adjacent 

Calcasieu Lake, but during times of turbulent water activity, guides would like to use the calmer 

waters of the East Cove Unit to provide their services to customers whose fishing opportunity would 

have been cancelled because of the weather. With the number of visitors to southwest Louisiana 

increasing, a shift in types of recreation use and users may occur. It is anticipated that opportunities 

to fish using commercial guides will increase as a proportion of total recreation use days. 

The Service would authorize commercial fishing guide operations on the East Cove Unit and regulate 

such use through the implementation of a fishing guide management program, including issuance of 

special use permits with conditions. This activity provides recreational opportunity for anglers who desire 

a successful, quality experience, but who may lack the necessary equipment, skills or knowledge to fish 

within the East Cove Unit. Guiding operations will generally be allowed on the 14,927 acres comprising 

the East Cove Unit when the area is open to public fishing in accordance with the respective state fishing 

seasons. 

Target fish species for guided anglers include most game fish. Redfish, flounder, and spotted sea trout are 

the most frequently pursued species. However, given the nature of fishing methods often employed, 

the potential exists to catch other fish species. 

Other species that may be affected by guided fishing activities include many of the species that use the 

aquatic and flood plain habitat on the unit. Large concentrations of waterfowl such as gadwall and greenwinged teal rest and feed on the refuge each fall. Other waterfowl species include mottled duck, mallard, 

and pintail. Additional species of interest include the roseate spoonbill, king rail, and brown pelican. 

Guided fishing operations typically involve transport of clients by power boats from public boat landings to 

various fishing locations. Depending on the target fish species, guides/clients will then anchor, drift, troll, 

or fish areas with the aid of electric motors while seeking the intended fish species. Fishing gear varies 

greatly depending on species, but typically involves the use of artificial lures or bait. Depending on species, 

clients generally keep a portion of their catch or may practice catch-and-release. 
232 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

The total number of fishing guides/clients in the area is not known. The State of Louisiana issues permits 

or licenses for fishing guides so an estimate could be obtained on specific locations of guides. A first step 

in establishing a commercial fishing guiding program on the East Cove Unit will be to identify existing 

guides through a review of public records and outreach through news releases and special meetings. 

Based on apparent existing client demand for guide services, a significant number of the fishing public is 

willing to pay for the expertise and local knowledge provided by guides. 

The East Cove Unit provides one of the better fishing locations within the area with good populations 

of catchable fish. Currently fishing activities account for over 1,500 visits to the East Cove Unit. It is 

expected that the number of fishing guides and the public’s use of this service will continue to increase. 

Administration of commercial fishing guide activities will be conducted in accordance with commercial 

guide use stipulations developed to ensure consistency; provide a safe, quality experience; protect 

resources; and to ensure compliance with pertinent Refuge System regulations and policies. The 

guide use stipulations will address all aspects of the guided fishing program including the number of 

permits to be issued, guide qualifications, permit cost, and selection methods. These stipulations are 

considered draft and will be fine-tuned during coordination meetings with the guides and Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries personnel. 

Availability of Resources: At present levels, adequate resources are available to manage 

commercial fishing guide recreational activities. 

Implementation of a commercial guiding program for fishing will increase overall costs of operations, 

including but not limited to development and review of policy and procedure, yearly administration of 

permits (inquiries, screening and selecting applicants, issuing permits), and enforcement of permit 

conditions. Existing staff is adequate if shifts in priorities and assignments are made to accommodate a 

modest guiding program. However, the size and scope of the guiding program, and the number of permits 

that will be available, may have to be limited in balance with permit fees received. Existing facilities 

(launch ramps) and other infrastructure are currently sufficient to accommodate this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Allowing commercial guiding for sport fishing could result in increased 

public use of the East Cove Unit. Cumulative impacts of this increased use have correlating effects 

on wildlife, habitat, and the fisheries resource. This includes more disturbance to wildlife, vegetation 

trampling, potential introduction and spread of exotic aquatic and terrestrial plants, potential 

transmission of diseases, problems associated with disposal of human waste, and deposition of lead 

sinkers and fishing line. These impacts, however, apply to all angling activity, both commercial and 

noncommercial. Special conditions of the special use permits are designed to minimize these 

impacts. In addition, limiting numbers of commercial guides will also minimize these impacts. 

Because of the oversight of this activity by the Service, the comprehensive state and federal 

regulations already in place, and combined law enforcement efforts of state and refuge personnel, 

existing and projected levels of guide services should have minimal impacts on fish and wildlife 

populations or habitat. Some disturbance of fish and wildlife will occur, but should not affect 

populations on the refuge overall. It is anticipated that this disturbance would not be measurably 

greater than disturbance from general fishing. 

The primary concern regarding commercial guided fishing activities is the potential for conflict between 

guided activities and other refuge users, particularly unguided anglers. Based on experiences on this 

refuge and on other national wildlife refuges, a continuation of unregulated or inadequately regulated 

commercial guiding operations can increase user conflicts. An important part of this issue is public 
Section C. Appendices 233

perception that fishing guides and clients have an advantage of equipment and technique and are taking 

fish that would otherwise be caught by regular anglers. Guides, since they are running a 

business, may also be viewed as more aggressive compared to unguided anglers. To some 

degree, permitting commercial guiding on the East Cove Unit may negatively impact the Service’s 

relationship with the local community. However, regulating the numbers of outfitters and guides helps 

mitigate these impacts somewhat. Service oversight of fishing guides should actually help ease any 

tension between guides and other users since it will help ensure properly licensed and qualified 

guides. Time and space restrictions would be implemented as needed. Oversight will also provide 

more data on fishing pressure and harvest levels related to guided fishing which can be shared with 

the public and help lessen some negative perceptions. 

Visitors fishing at the East Cove Unit are restricted to their boats. However, the possibility that some 

customers or guides leave their boats could occur. Some minimal trampling of vegetation and littering 

could then occur, but is unlikely, since ecologically-aware, permitted or trained guides would exercise 

greater control over their clients than most general users would be expected to exercise over themselves. 

Guide operations may increase use of some Service facilities, but if regulated, this increase 

would not be significant compared to overall use. 

Commercial guiding for fishing is compatible when conducted within guidelines stipulated in special 

use permits. It is expected that commercially guided fishing could result in some minor incremental 

increase in disturbance to wildlife and aquatic species in the East Cove Unit. These impacts are 

expected to be negligible to minor. 

Fishing through the use of commercial guides is not expected to indirectly or cumulatively impact Service 

resources negatively, even though there may be some minimal and direct short-term disturbance. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Sabine National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Comments from the public review of this 

compatibility determination are invited and are due by the deadline stated on the cover of the CCP. 

Methods being used to solicit public review and comment include posted notices at refuge 

headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to 

adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; public meetings; news 

releases to area newspapers; and local radio announcements. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Access for commercially guided fishing would be 

allowed in designated areas of the East Cove Unit only and regulated by special use permit. Activities 

would be monitored to document any negative impacts to wildlife; if negative impacts are found, corrective 

action would be taken to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Access to the East Cove Unit may be closed 

under guidelines of the interagency cooperative management plan, during adverse conditions, or when 

salinity levels mandate the closing of the weir or gate that provides access. 
234 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

The Refuge Manager will establish the maximum number of guides that will operate in the East Cove Unit. 

Qualified individuals may apply for available Guide Areas. If the maximum number of guides exceeds the 

recommended allowance for that Use Area, guides will be selected by random drawing for a special use 

permit valid for up to one year. 

Permit fees (a nonrefundable administrative fee) will be determined for part-time guides and for full-time 

guides. These fees will be established as the initial program fees until the number of participants and 

earned revenues can be determined. 

“Qualified” is defined as: 

1. Licensed as a commercial guide by the state in which they operate, as applicable. 

2. Possess a current vessel operator license issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. Minimum license 

shall be Operator Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV). The license shall be valid for the 

area of operations and type(s) of vessel operated. 

3. Possess a current CPR and First Aid training certificate issued by a recognized national 

organization. 

4. Provide proof of insurance as established by the refuge, including minimum coverage for 

general liability and comprehensive for all operations. 

5. Otherwise required by state law. 

Permittees may be assisted by any number of individuals. Assistants must be named/authorized on the 

permit issued and possess the applicable state and Coast Guard licenses for duties conducted. 

The permittee is responsible for accurate record-keeping and shall provide to the refuge the following 

information by February 15 of each year: 

• Fee schedule for the year (charge per angler). 

• Number of guided fishing trips performed on the East Cove Unit. 

• Number of individuals guided. 

• Date of each guided trip. 

• Location of each trip, or general area of fishing activity. 

• Number of each species harvested. 

• Individual names and description of duties for all additional staff who assist with a fishing trip 

on the East Cove Unit. 

All vessels and vehicles used in guide operations shall be marked with a guide identifier as required by the 

Service. 

The special use permit and the privileges granted herein may be revoked by the issuing Refuge Manager 

at any time for failure to comply with the permit conditions or other federal or state law. 

Permittee must comply with all other conditions of the special use permit. The following stipulations apply 

to all special use permits issued for wildlife-dependent recreation. To minimize impacts on refuge 

lands and resources, law enforcement patrols will routinely be conducted in an effort to maximize 
Section C. Appendices 235

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. This provision applies to all persons working under the authority of this permit. 

• The permitee 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, 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 permittee shall provide the refuge 

with (1) a copy of current business license; and (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 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 fishing is viewed as compatible with the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (as amended by the Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997) identifies fishing as one of six priority public uses on national wildlife 

refuges. The law states that, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management, administration of these uses has been and is expected to continue to be generally 

compatible and that priority public uses should receive enhanced consideration over other general 

public uses in refuge planning and management. 
236 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Conditions imposed in the special use permits of guides ensure that these wildlife-dependent 

activities can occur without adverse effects to refuge resources, or other visitors. Permitted guides 

facilitate public use and enjoyment of these activities while protecting refuge resources. 

Allowing guided fishing on the East Cove Unit will not materially interfere with the purposes of the 

refuge or the mission of the Refuge System because: 

1. Existing federal and state agency oversight and regulation of affected species and habitat is 

sufficient to ensure healthy populations. Disturbance to fish and wildlife will be local, shortterm, and not adversely impact overall populations. 

2. There are adequate state and federal enforcement officials to enforce state and federal 

regulations. 

3. Qualifying standards for fishing guides will help ensure that anglers are guided by competent 

individuals. 

4. Restricting the number of guides and managing how guided activities are conducted will 

reduce adverse habitat effects, conflicts between competing guide services, and conflicts 

between guided operations and other refuge users. 

5. Designated areas of operation (Guide Use Areas), operating requirements, and other 

regulation of guided fishing will minimize conflicts with other refuge users. 

6. Administrative (application) and special use permit fees will help offset costs to administer and 

provide oversight to this use. 

7. Regulating and limiting the number of sport fishing guides as stated in the refuge commercial 

guide program stipulations will provide a safe, quality experience to individuals who fish on the 

refuge. It will also increase opportunities for those who wish to fish on the refuge, but may lack 

the required equipment, knowledge or expertise. By regulating commercial guides, the refuge 

will also better manage fish resources and reduce conflict between refuge visitors. 

8. Permitting regulated commercial guiding for fishing on the refuge may increase public 

awareness of the refuge and the Refuge System, helping to build support for the Service’s 

mission. However, this is highly dependent on an individual guide’s efforts in educating their 

clients. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space. 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 
Section C. Appendices 237

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for 

compatibility outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature becomes part 

of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 
238 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Section C. Appendices 239

Appendix H. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

REGION 4

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge, Donald J. Voros, Project Leader 

Telephone Number: 337/598-2216 E-Mail: don_voros@fws.gov 

Date: January 11, 2007 

PROJECT NAME (Grant Title/Number): 

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

_X Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: Louisiana / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): 

The proposed action would result in the implementation of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, a 125,790-acre refuge in Cameron Parish. Approval and 

subsequent implementation of the CCP will direct management actions on the refuge for the next 15 

years. 

The proposed alternative identified for the CCP is to continue to keep refuge operational and public 

use programs functional but at a reduced cost (near term), and increase marsh restoration, enhance 

fish and wildlife management, and expand public use (long term). 
240 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

This alternative supports the purpose for which the refuge was established. The plan identifies 6 broad 

goals for habitat, fish and wildlife management, oil and gas infrastructure and associated activities, visitor 

services, cultural resources, East Cove management, and refuge and Complex administration and 

operations. Detailed strategies are also outlined. Goals and objectives were developed to support 

regional and national plans and initiatives and will be implemented in partnership with others such as the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. (See attached Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.) 

Over the near term, under this alternative, refuge programs would continue throughout the refuge 

commensurate with the level of hazardous material cleanup and restoration over time. Areas west of 

State Highway 27 (except the area immediately adjacent to the highway) would remain closed in the 

near term due to hazardous waste and debris fields that clog waterways. However, over time, areas 

would be reopened as repairs to infrastructure and restoration of habitat occur. Simultaneously, a 

hydrological and feasibility study would be conducted to evaluate how the plug of hurricane-deposited 

debris, uprooted vegetation and sediments has affected marsh drainage patterns and the challenges 

and opportunities presented by this changed environment. East of Highway 27, all public use 

facilities along Highway 27 would be repaired using TEA Emergency Road Funds. The fire and 

research programs would remain active throughout the refuge. Oil and gas operations would also 

continue at the normal level. Staff assigned to Sabine would function out of a modestly constructed 

hurricane-resistant building to be located at the original headquarters site. Refuge staff actually 

assigned to the new building at the site of the former Headquarters would be smaller than pre-Rita. 

Repairs will be made to other infrastructure over time. 

Over the long term, under Alternative B, the Sabine Refuge would increase marsh restoration and 

enhance wildlife management, stepping up these efforts from current levels. The refuge would 

improve marsh plant communities and shallow water, increase waterfowl food production, and 

provide habitats and sanctuary needs for migrating, wintering, breeding ducks (mottled ducks) and 

geese of the Chenier Plain system of southwest Louisiana. It would also protect and/or restore 

43,200 acres of intermediate and brackish marsh and continue working toward restoring the 

emergent marsh and functional value of Unit 3 through the year 2015. A feasibility study of restoring 

Unit 3 to tidal influence would be carried out. The beneficial use of dredge material for marsh 

restoration would be continued by restoring 1,500 acres of marsh in Unit 1.

This alternative would provide 125,790 acres of diverse marsh and open water habitats for migrating 

and wintering waterfowl, which would contribute significantly to the population and habitat objectives 

addressed in the Gulf Coast Joint Venture Chenier Plain Initiative. Population objectives of the plan 

include 4.5 million ducks and 500,000 geese with foraging habitat provided in the coastal marshes. 

Alternative B would maintain salinity monitoring throughout the refuge at the established discrete 

salinity stations (nine locations) and Sabine would also develop a new water quality monitoring 

program within five years of CCP approval. Working through the Service’s regional solicitor’s office, 

the refuge would quantify or clarify water rights for the Complex. 

Sabine would continue to use fire as a multipurpose management tool for reducing hazardous fuels 

and promoting habitat diversity. The refuge would aim to utilize prescribed fire on approximately 

20,000 acres per year. 

In cooperation with partners, habitat would be managed consistent with the refuge purpose; a 

monitoring program would be in place, and ways to improve water quality and fishery resources 

would be sought. 
Section C. Appendices 241

To conserve and manage wildlife, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge would: 

• support mottled duck banding activities and provide preferred mottled duck breeding and 

nesting habitat; 

• provide shorebird habitat, thereby contributing to the goals of the Lower Mississippi 

Valley/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Plan; 

• protect nesting colonies of colonial waterbirds from disturbance; 

• maintain 125,790 acres of diverse marsh plant communities to support marsh birds; 

• play an important role in the conservation of nongame birds in the southeastern United States, 

focusing on the survey, inventory, and monitoring of all groups; in so doing, it would contribute 

to the goals of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Partners in Flight, and other plans; 

• coordinate with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to monitor alligator 

numbers and establish a desirable alligator density objective for the refuge and work with the 

state in setting annual harvest quotas; 

• intensively control certain wildlife populations as needed to achieve habitat and population 

objectives; and 

• protect diamond-backed terrapin populations on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Sabine would closely monitor oil and gas activities to minimize impacts to wetland habitats and 

wildlife usage. It would also increase surface reclamation at former petroleum extraction sites to 

improve habitat for wintering migratory birds and other species. New construction for oil and gas 

transmission line right-of-ways will not be permitted because they can significantly contribute to 

further land loss on coastal Louisiana national wildlife refuges. 

By 2008, staff would complete steps to enhance the refuge’s infrastructure and operations to provide 

for quality, wildlife-dependent public use. There would be improved waterfowl hunting opportunities 

that are compatible with the purpose of the refuge. The refuge would also provide increased hunting 

and fishing opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Sabine would also: 

• enhance existing opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography by upgrading 

facilities throughout the refuge over the life of the plan; 

• provide improved environmental education and interpretive programs that complement other 

refuge programs within the Complex; and 

• provide additional opportunities for Friends, volunteers, partners and interns to assist the 

refuge and extend the reach of refuge staff. 

Management of cultural resources would continue to be protected. The East Cove Unit would 

continue to be managed in cooperation with Cameron Prairie Refuge as it has been in recent years 

under the Cameron Creole Watershed Cooperative Agreement. Gates at the water control structures 

would be operated to restore preferred vegetated plant communities associated with intermediate or 

possibly slightly brackish environs. Staff would evaluate the use of terraces to improve vegetation of 

open-water areas. Through the life of the plan, an assessment would be conducted to determine the 

need for sanctuary in the East Cove Unit and minimizing detrimental waterfowl disturbances. The 

invasion of exotic plant species, with special emphasis on giant salvinia, would be monitored. Public 

fishing access to East Cove would be improved. 
242 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map:

 

 B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS

Bald Eagle T

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle E

American Alligator T (State)

Loggerhead turtle T

Wood Stork E

1

STATUS: E = endangered, T = threatened, PE = proposed endangered, PT = proposed threatened, CH = critical habitat, 

PCH = proposed critical habitat, C = candidate species

Identify listed, proposed and candidate species as well as designated and proposed critical 

habitat within the action area and their status. The action area includes the immediate area 

where the proposed action will occur, as well as any other areas where direct or indirect 

impacts of the action may be expected. For example, effects of an action in the headwaters of 

a stream may affect endangered fish that occur 20 miles downstream. A compilation of 

species or critical habitats that possibly occur in the action area may be generated by the 

Project Leader, or it may be requested from the appropriate Ecological Services Office. 

Note: All experimental populations of listed species are treated as threatened species. 

However, for the purposes of intra-Service section 7 consultation, they are treated as species 

proposed for listing if they occur off National Wildlife Refuge System or National Park System 

lands and they are classed as "nonessential" experimental populations. 

List all listed, proposed or candidate species and designated or proposed critical habitat that 

may occur within the action area. This informs the reviewer what species have been 

considered. 

VI. Location (attach map):

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Lower Mississippi, 27 

B. County and State: Cameron Parish, Louisiana 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): Townships 12 and 13 

South and Ranges 4, 5, and 6 West, Louisiana Meridian. 
Section C. Appendices 243

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Sabine Refuge is 9 miles south of 

Hackberry, LA. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: Depict species’ locations and their habitat on a project 

area map.

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B 

(attach additional pages as needed):

Discuss either the effects of the action on each listed, proposed, or candidate species and 

critical habitat in the action area, or why those species or critical habitats will not be affected. 

For species or critical habitats affected by the proposed action, provide the following 

information: 

Impacts of the proposed action on species and/or critical habitat, including direct, indirect, 

interdependent, interrelated, and cumulative impacts. (Quantification of effects – acres of 

habitat, miles of habitat, number of individuals, etc. 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT

IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Bald Eagle NA 

American Alligator NA 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle NE 

Loggerhead turtle NE 

Wood Stork NE 

 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

Management actions initiated under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan may result in 

beneficial effects to bald eagle, American alligator, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, loggerhead turtle, 

and wood stork. Efforts to improve habitat management programs as described in the CCP 

may potentially improve conditions for these species. 
244 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT

ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Bald Eagle Protect any nesting sites that occur 

American Alligator Conduct harvest according to state regulations 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Provide access and habitat 

Loggerhead turtle Provide access and habitat 

Wood Stork Protect any nesting sites that occur 

 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

DETERMINATION1 SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT NE NA AA

RESPONSE1

REQUESTED

Bald Eagle NE

American Alligator NE

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle NE

Loggerhead turtle NE

Wood Stork NE

 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a “Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is “Formal Consultation”. Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference”. 
Section C. Appendices 245

Enter the Species, the Determination, and the Response Requested.

No effect/no adverse modification. 

 All identified. No effect – request concurrence. 

May Affect, but is not likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical habitat. 

May affect, and is likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical habitat. 

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed critical habitat. 

Is likely to jeopardize candidate species. 

____________________________ __________________________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

Complex Refuge Manager

Title 

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_____________________________ ____________________________

Signature Date 

_____________________________ ____________________________ 

Title Office 
246 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Section C. Appendices 

Appendix I. Budget Requests The following lists were developed over time and represent the budget needs and identified projects prior to Hurdevastation in September of 2005. Subsequent to the massive destruction resulting from the hurricane, the Ser

appropriations to repair and replace damaged infrastructure, habitat, and equipment. This funding and its associdentified in Chapter V of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Some projects identified below may be accomuse of this special appropriation. SERVICE ASSET MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SAMMS) 

SAMMS 

Work 

Order 

Num 

Sabine Project Title Cost Est 

(1000's) 

93102425 93076 Rehabilitate post boundary signs $136K D

2120496 2007 Rehabilitate Oil House To Include Pole Shed Structures $46K D1102444 1002 Replace fishing wharves $28K D2119940 2006 Remove pilings and bulkhead material from canal openings $42K D2119521 2001 Replace roofing shingle at north shop, N.T. restroom and oil house $31K D4135014 4001 Rehabilitate Nature Trail Observation Tower $90K D1113605 1047 Rehabilitate 5 Stoplog Watercontrol Structures $30K D

102426 10 Rehabilitate Marsh levee $79K D

4135282 4005 Remove Silt from Boathouse and Headquarters Canal $75K D4136514 4413 Repair Bridge 43630-00169 $44K D4136515 4414 Repair Multiple Bridges $59K D2119950 2005 

Replace 2001 Ford Truck, Fire Engine, Type 6, BME 115, 4X4 Cab & XLT chassis, $65K 

99110621 99005 Construct a Bunkhouse at the Refuge Headquarters $432K 

4135234 4004 Replace Failing Unit 1B Water Control Structure $2453K 

110622 16 Construct a building for Refuge Fire Program $503K 

3124930 3006 Replace Dormer Windows/Roof of Headquarters Building $73K 1110108 1009 Construct addition to headquarters building $379K 
248 Sabine Na

123344 6 Replace Boat Access in Management Unit 3 $94K 

1123342 01NNN Construct Fishing Wharves on Sabine NWR $136K 3124915 3005 Replace Helicopter Base $84K 

97123346 97703 Construct wave break terrances $188K 

1112948 1028 Replace 1994 Chevy Diesel Pickup $26K 1113377 1042 Replace 1995 Ford Explorer $0K 1112942 1026 Replace 1995 Ford 4 X 4 Pickup $26K 1112958 1031 Replace 2001 Chevy 4 X 4 Pickup $26K 1113026 1036 Replace Ford Model 1100 Tractor $57K 1112954 1030 Replace 1998 Ford Explorer $26K 1112935 1025 Replace 1992 Chevy 4 X 4 Crew Cab Pickup $0K 1113366 1040 Replace 15' Fire Boat $16K 1112973 1032 Replace 1994 Chevrolet 4X4 Fire Engine $74K 1113018 1035 Replace 1995 62 Yazoo Lawn Mower $16K 1112952 1029 Replace 1999 Ford Expedition $26K 

98102424 98008 Replace lawn mower tractor $22K 98102422 98005 Replace PolarKab Boat $27K 

2119949 2004 Replace 2002 GM 4X4 Crew Cab Dually Pickup $30K 2119958 2003 Replace 2002 4X4 Ext. Cab GM Pickup $26K 4135140 4002 Replace 2002 Ford F250 4X4 Crew Cab Pickup $26K 4135144 4003 Replace 2003 Ford F150 XL Pickup Truck $26K 1133091 1010A PE Northline Bridge (Rte 901) $52K 1102450 1010B CN/CE Northline Bridge (Rte 901) $173K 

97102431 97001B CN/CE Northline parking lot (901) $63K 97133354 97001A PE Northline parking lot (901) $52K 96102432 97001 Repair and Redesign 1A/1B Parking Area $59K 

4136209 97001 Replace Hog Island Gully parking lot & access road $75K 4136212 97001 Repair West Cove recreational parking area $180K 
Section C. Appendices 249

Appendix J. List of Preparers 

PLANNING TEAM 

Judy McClendon, Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Augusta, Arkansas - 

Planning Team Leader, Co-writer and Editor 

Leon Kolankiewicz, Environmental Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group, McLean, Virginia - Cowriter and Editor 

Donald J. Voros, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Louisiana National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Bell City, Louisiana – Writer and Editor, Provided overall guidance and 

oversight 

Glenn Harris, Refuge Manager/Deputy Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cameron 

Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, Bell City, Louisiana – Writer and Editor, Provided overall guidance 

and oversight 

Terry Delaine, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, 

Hackberry, Louisiana – Provided overall development, guidance, and oversight. 

Michael Hoff, Refuge Operations Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cameron Prairie National 

Wildlife Refuge, Bell City, Louisiana – Writer, Developed project descriptions and RONS and MMS 

Sections 

Steve Reagan, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , St. Charles, Arkansas – Writer, 

Provided input and oversight on Biological Sections 

Diane Borden-Billiot, Outreach Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Louisiana 

Refuges Complex, Hackberry, Louisiana - Editor and 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 
250 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

CONTRIBUTORS 

Pre-planning for this CCP began in early 2002 when Biological and Public Use Reviews of Cameron 

Prairie National Wildlife Refuge were held. 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, Black Bayou National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

West Monroe, LA 

David Chisolm, Fire Management Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hackberry, LA 

Mark Ford, Professor, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA 

John Forestor, Fisheries Biologist and Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Baton Rouge, LA 

Byron Fortier, Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuges, Slidell, LA 

Jamie Gaines, Consultant, The Gaines Group, Lake Charles, LA 

Sue Grace, Fire Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell, LA 

Michael Harbison, Biologist Manager for Marine Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lake Charles, LA 

Paul Jackson, Retired Educator, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lake Charles, LA 

Ray Paterra, Park Ranger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Chris Pease, Former Complex Manager, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chief of Refuges, Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Kelly Purkey, Former Assistant Manager; Deputy Refuge Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 

Bobby Reed, Biologist Manager for Inland Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lake Charles, LA 

John Robinette, Biologist Manager for Wildlife Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lake Charles, LA 

Erik Shanks, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lake Charles, LA 

Pat Stinson, Migratory Bird Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS 

Bob Strader, Migratory Bird Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS 

Garry Tucker, Chief, Visitor Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 

Barry Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lafayette, LA 
Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

1428 Highway 27 

Bell City LA 70630

Donald J. Voros - Complex Leader

Terence Delaine - Refuge Manager

Phone: 337-558-5574 and 337-558-5631. 

Fax: 337-558-7405

http://www.fws.gov/swlarefugecomplex/sabine/

http://www.fws.gov/swlarefugecomplex

June 2007

August 2005