Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
September 2007
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
LACASSINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
September 2007
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
Coastal Zone Management Compliance ............................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System Lands .............................................................................. 4
Overview ............................................................................................................................. 4
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Priorities ..................................................................... 5
Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem Priorities ............................................................................... 5
Ecological Threats and Problems ....................................................................................... 7
Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan ........................................................................... 8
North American Waterfowl Management Plan .................................................................... 8
Gulf Coast Joint Venture (Chenier Plain Initiative) .............................................................. 8
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan .................................................................... 9
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ........................................................................ 9
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act ............................................. 9
Coast 2050: Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana .................................................... 10
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan ....................................................... 10
Fisheries Vision for the Future .......................................................................................... 10
American Woodcock Management Plan ........................................................................... 11
II. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 13
Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations ................................................................................. 14
Habitats: (Includes Lacassine Pool) .................................................................................. 24
Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 31
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 34
Coordination/Cooperative Programs ................................................................................. 34
Facilities and Equipment ................................................................................................... 34
Research Natural Areas .................................................................................................... 35
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Planning Process .......................................................................................................................... 1
Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 1
Selection of Alternative ................................................................................................................. 2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 1
The National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................................1
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 ......................................................... 1
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................................... 2
Purpose and Need for Plan .......................................................................................................... 3
Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 3
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 4
Ecosystem Context ....................................................................................................................... 4
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives .......................................................................................... 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 13
Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Priorities ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Refuge Environment and Other Related Information ................................................................. 14
ii Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Wilderness Review ............................................................................................................ 35
Archaeological or Historical Resources ............................................................................ 36
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 37
Socioeconomic Profile ....................................................................................................... 39
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 41
Undesirable or Invasive Species ....................................................................................... 41
Early Successional Wetlands (Moist-soil Units) ................................................................ 41
Contamination ................................................................................................................... 41
Oil and Gas Activities ........................................................................................................41
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 49
Boats ................................................................................................................................ 51
Fishing ...............................................................................................................................51
Tournaments ..................................................................................................................... 52
Hunting .............................................................................................................................. 52
Water management ........................................................................................................... 53
Entrance/Use Fees ........................................................................................................... 53
General ............................................................................................................................. 53
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 54
Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................54
People ............................................................................................................................... 55
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 55
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 57
Goal A: Habitat Management ........................................................................................... 58
Goal B: Fish and Wildlife Management ............................................................................ 69
Goal C: Oil and Gas Infrastructure and Activities ............................................................. 81
Goal D: Public Use Management ..................................................................................... 82
Goal E: Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 88
Goal F: Refuge Complex Operations ............................................................................... 89
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 91
Project 1 – Freshwater Impounded Marsh (Lacassine Pool) ............................................ 91
Project 2 – Early Successional Wetlands (Moist soil and Cooperative Farming Units) ..... 94
Project 3 – Unimpounded Freshwater Marsh .................................................................... 96
Refuge Related Problems .......................................................................................................... 41
Refuge Conservation Priorities ................................................................................................... 44
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 49
Scoping Meetings - General ....................................................................................................... 49
Special Fishing focus group meeting .......................................................................................... 49
Special Lacassine Pool Management meeting ........................................................................... 49
Special Hurricane damage meeting ........................................................................................... 50
Issues Identified by the Public During Scoping .......................................................................... 51
Issues Identified During Internal Scoping and the Biological and Public Use Reviews .............. 54
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 57
Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 57
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 57
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 91
Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 91
Table of Contents iii
Project 4 – Special Habitats: Wilderness, Prairie, and Bottomland Hardwoods .............. 97
Project 5 – Undesirable Plant and Animal Control ............................................................ 98
Project 6 – Inventory and Monitor Wildlife Populations and Responses to
Management Actions ...................................................................................... 99
Project 7– Improve Visitor Services ................................................................................ 100
Project 8 – Promote and Enhance Priority Public Uses .................................................. 101
Project 9 - Partnerships, Volunteers, Friends, and Interns ............................................. 103
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 109
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 113
APPENDIX B – REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 123
APPENDIX C – LEGAL MANDATES ................................................................................................. 127
APPENDIX D – BIOTA ...................................................................................................................... 133
APPENDIX E - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 143
APPENDIX F - APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 177
APPENDIX G - COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 191
APPENDIX H INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ...................................... 225
APPENDIX I - BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 231
APPENDIX J - FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 237
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 244
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 103
Step-down management Plans ................................................................................................ 104
Partnership Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 107
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 108
Plan Performance ..................................................................................................................... 108
Planning Team ......................................................................................................................... 109
Contributors: ............................................................................................................................. 110
Summary of Public Scoping .....................................................................................................143
Focus Group Meeting Report – September 4, 2003 ................................................................. 148
Focus Group Meeting Results – May 8, 2005 .......................................................................... 153
Draft Plan Comments and Service Response .......................................................................... 159
iv Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 ecosystems ........................................................ 6
Figure 2. Location of refuges within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife
Refuge Complex ............................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. Major features of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................... 16
Figure 4. Peak duck populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002 ................................................... 21
Figure 5. Peak goose populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002 ................................................. 21
Figure 6. Habitats of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................ 26
Figure 7. Management units on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ............................................... 27
Figure 8. Approved acquisition boundary of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ............................ 30
Figure 9. Current visitor facilities at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... 32
Figure 10. Proposal chosen by the public in May 2005 as the alternative for management
of the Lacassine Pool ..................................................................................................... 92
Figure 11. Current and proposed staffing for Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Southwest
Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex ............................................................... 105
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Birds of management concern to Lacassine Refuge ........................................................ 19
Table 2. Recent Peak Numbers of Waterfowl on Lacassine Refuge .............................................. 20
Table 3. Land cover/habitat types on Lacassine Refuge ................................................................ 25
Table 4. Equipment at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................ 35
Table 5. Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older in Cameron Parish
(2000) ............................................................................................................................... 39
Table 6. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry in Cameron Parish
(2000) ............................................................................................................................... 40
Table 7. Estimated cost to improve Lacassine Pool ....................................................................... 93
Table 8. Costs to expand and enhance early successional wetlands’ management units ............. 94
Table 9. Costs to expand and enhance cropland units at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge ...... 95
Table 10. Costs to improve and enhance unimpounded freshwater marsh ...................................... 97
Table 11. Costs to improve special habitats, such as wilderness, prairie, and
bottomland hardwoods ..................................................................................................... 98
Table 12. Costs to control undesirable plants and animals .............................................................. 98
Table 13. Costs to inventory and monitor wildlife populations and responses to adaptive
management techniques .................................................................................................. 99
Table 14. Costs to improve visitor services .................................................................................... 101
Table 15. Costs to enhance priority public use ............................................................................... 102
Table 16. Costs to enhance priority public use ............................................................................... 103
Table 17. Cost of existing and proposed positions ......................................................................... 104
Table 18. Summary of Costs for 2007 - 2022 ................................................................................. 106
Table 19. Step-down management plans ....................................................................................... 107
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) to guide the management of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron and Evangeline
Parishes, Louisiana. Lacassine, Cameron Prairie, Sabine, and Shell Keys Refuges comprise the
Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The CCP outlines programs and
corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997.
PLANNING PROCESS
The Service began a pre-planning stage with biological and public use reviews of the refuge's
management program. The biological review team was composed of biologists from Federal and
State agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. These
diverse teams presented the Service with recommendations to manage habitat, wildlife, and refuge
resources, such as oil and gas, cultural resources, refuge administration, and visitor services. The
Service held numerous public meetings to determine issues and solicit public reaction to the
proposed alternatives. Also, a 30-day public review and comment period of the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment was provided. Input received from the public
was also considered during the development of the CCP.
ALTERNATIVES
A planning team comprised of Service personnel, State agency representatives, non-governmental
agencies, and others then developed an Environmental Assessment to formulate a range of
alternatives or different approaches to refuge management that the Service would reasonably
undertake to achieve goals to fulfill the purpose of the refuge. Each alternative consists of different
sets of goals, objectives, and strategies for management of the refuge. Three alternatives emerged
for possible management direction and are discussed below.
Alternative A – No-Action (Current Management Direction)
Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, is the baseline or status quo of refuge programs and is
usually a continuation of current planning unit objectives and management strategies, with little or no
changes or changes that would have occurred without the CCP.
The refuge would remain at 34,724 acres in fee title (including Farm Service Agency transfer lands),
and leased land. With “no action,” marsh loss rates of at least 0.23 percent per year would continue
to be low-to-moderate in the Mermentau River Basin; similar rates are expected in Lacassine Refuge.
The refuge would continue to manage impounded freshwater marsh (16,000 acres), dynamic State-jurisdictional
waterways (Lacassine Bayou and Mermentau River), ephemeral freshwater marsh
(Streeter Canal, Duck Pond), and upland vegetation to benefit native plants. Acreages of different
habitats would remain as they are now.
About 3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway would continue to be formally designated
as wilderness.
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative B – Maximize refuge management capabilities in all programs - Preferred Alternative
Under Alternative B, the Service's proposed alternative, Lacassine Refuge would fulfill its approved
acquisition boundary. The 3,300-acre Wilderness Area would remain the same size. Gross habitat
acreages would not change appreciably from those under Alternative A, but habitats, in general,
would be managed more intensively.
The refuge would also expand on existing wildlife management programs including:
• Focus refuge management on improving/extending the value of the Lacassine Pool as a
waterfowl sanctuary;
• Provide additional waterfowl food to benefit migratory birds, especially northern pintails;
• Pursue opportunities to reduce erosion to refuge marshes;
• Conduct/evaluate prescribed fire in Lacassine Pool and other refuge marshes;
• Seek support to control invasive plants in Wilderness Area and refuge-wide;
• Continue partnerships to manage and protect the 334-acre coastal prairie;
• Improve hunting/fishing experiences; and
• Manage oil and gas activities in accordance with Service policy (Refer to Chapter II, Refuge
Related Problems, Oil and Gas Activities).
Alternative C – Maximize habitat quantity/quality for wintering waterfowl focusing on Lacassine
Pool only.
Under Alternative C, the secondary action alternative, Lacassine Refuge would remain at
34,724 acres, but would refocus the refuge management priority to actively investigating and
extending the life/value of the Lacassine Pool freshwater impoundment, which serves as a
migratory waterfowl sanctuary October 15-March 15 annually. Other programs dealing either
with non-pool areas of the refuge or non-habitat aspects of refuge management (i.e.,
cooperative farming, moist-soil management, upland-vegetation management, visitor services,
and priority public uses) would be managed at a reduced level, since finite refuge resources
would be directed to the Lacassine Pool.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE
The planning team’s proposed action, Alternative B, was selected by the Service as the basis
for the CCP and is the most reasonable alternative to best achieve Lacassine Refuge’s
purposes, vision, and goals.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. Responsibilities are
shared with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local
entities; however, the Service has specific
responsibilities for endangered species, migratory
birds, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine
mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered
by the Service for the management and protection of
these resources. It also operates national fish
hatcheries, fishery resource offices, and ecological
services field stations. The Service enforces Federal wildlife laws; administers the Endangered Species
Act; manages migratory bird populations; restores nationally significant fisheries; conserves and restores
wildlife habitat, such as wetlands; and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also
oversees the Federal Aid Program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars from excise taxes on
fishing and hunting equipment to State fish and wildlife agencies.
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The Service manages the 95-million-acre
National Wildlife Refuge System, which
encompasses 545 national wildlife refuges,
thousands of small wetlands, and other special
management areas. The majority of these
lands, 77 million acres, is in Alaska, with the
remaining acres spread across the other 49
States and several territories. Approximately
82 million acres in the Refuge System were
reserved from the public domain. The
remainder was acquired through purchase,
from other Federal agencies, as gifts, or through easement and lease agreements.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
An important milestone occurred in 1997 with the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, which has been called the “Organic Act” of the Refuge System. The Act
established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
The Act also recognized the outstanding recreational opportunities on refuges. The Refuge System
has long provided some of the Nation's best hunting and fishing, and our refuges continue to support
these deeply rooted American traditions. The law established compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation as priority public uses of the Refuge System.
The mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System is "...to
administer a national network of
lands and waters for the
conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States
for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.”
The mission of the Service is
working with others to “conserve,
protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit
of the American people.”
2 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Among other things, this far-reaching law required comprehensive conservation planning for each
refuge, and set standards to assure that all uses of refuges were compatible with their purposes and
the Refuge System's wildlife conservation mission. It also required the Service to conserve the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges, and consider the conservation of
the ecosystems of the United States in planning the growth of the Refuge System.
The Service’s planning process is premised on strong partnerships with State fish and wildlife
agencies. It provides an opportunity to use science in managing refuges, assuring an ecological
perspective as to how refuges fit into the greater surrounding landscapes. The planning process also
provides citizens with a meaningful role in helping to shape future management of individual refuges
and recognizes the important roles they play in the lives of nearby communities.
The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
• fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge;
• consider the needs of wildlife first;
• fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of the
Refuge System;
• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
• allow refuge managers authority to determine compatible public uses.
LACASSINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, the 123rd refuge
in the National Wildlife Refuge System, has been
prepared as mandated by the Act to guide
management actions and direction for the refuge for
the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will
receive first priority in refuge management; 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.
The mission of Lacassine National
Wildlife Refuge is to protect, restore,
enhance, and manage a representative
portion of freshwater wetland and
associated habitats for the benefit of
wintering waterfowl, other migratory
birds, threatened and endangered
species, and people.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to ensure that each refuge contributes to the Refuge System’s mission to
provide a network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
• provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
• ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation and
education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• ensure that refuge management is consistent with the purpose for which the refuge was
established;
• ensure that refuge management is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans and
contributes to the mission of the ecosystem in which it is located; and
• provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
INTRODUCTION
The mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential
executive orders, and international treaties guide administration of national wildlife refuges. Policies
for management options of refuges are defined in administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Refer to Appendix C for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
The Service also complies with all Federal, State, and regional policies and regulations for projects
within the boundaries of national wildlife refuges. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
requires Coastal Zone Permits for work that may affect the land use, water use, or natural resources
of the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Zone boundary is the northern bank of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway. Although the Service is exempt from Coastal Zone Permits, it is required to be consistent
with the Coastal Zone Management Program requirements for work within its boundary that may
affect resources south of the boundary, regardless of where the project occurs. A No Effect
Determination to the Coastal Zone area is applicable for projects described in this CCP that will be
accomplished within the refuge boundary.
4 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM LANDS
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
• conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
• monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
• manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation) as those uses benefit the
conservation of fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and
effective cooperation and collaboration with other Federal agencies and State fish and wildlife
agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and diversity of fish and wildlife species in the State of Louisiana.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is a State-partnering agency with the Service,
charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds and endangered species, as well
as managing State natural resources and approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and
wildlife management areas. The Department coordinates the wildlife conservation program and
provides public recreation opportunities on Louisiana wildlife management areas. The State’s
participation and contribution throughout this planning process provides for ongoing opportunities and
open dialogue to improve the ecological health and diversity of fish and wildlife. A vital part of the
planning process is integrating common mission objectives, where appropriate.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
The Service is increasing its efforts to adopt collaborative resource partnerships with private
landowners and local communities, as well as State and Federal governments within ecosystems.
The purpose is to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity, to
establish conservation priorities, to clarify goals, and to solve common threats and problems
associated with fish and wildlife resources. The synergy of all Federal, State, Tribal, and private
organizations, working together, will ensure that the Service not only protects the more important
areas, but also reduces redundancy and overlap.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Lacassine Refuge is a member and active participant of the Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Team (Figure 1). The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem is the primary wintering habitat for mid-continent
waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and migration habitat for songbirds returning from
Central and South America, and provides high-quality habitat for resident wildlife species.
Geographically, the refuge lies on the extreme southwestern boundary of the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem and has few opportunities to contribute to many of its goals and objectives. There are
some common targets applicable to the refuge and to which it contributes, but the refuge would more
appropriately contribute to the goals and objectives of the Service’s Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem.
The Texas Gulf Ecosystem lies between the Sabine River and the mouth of the Rio Grande River and
inland to include the historical coastal prairie. It is considered by many to be part of a larger
ecological Gulf Coast system that also includes portions of coastal Louisiana and Mexico. The Texas
Gulf Coast Ecosystem team has requested that Region 4 refuges in nearby Louisiana participate in
its team meetings.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES
Priorities identified by the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem to which the refuge can contribute
include:
• continue to work with the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Task Force, private landowners, and
other entities to protect and restore coastal wetlands, consistent with the Coast 2050 Plan and
associated project planning, evaluation and implementation activities;
• consider all grant opportunities available to the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Team and
partners and work to improve internal coordination of these programs to assure that the
contributions to these programs are of maximum benefit to the resource;
• support environmental education efforts underway by Service offices to enhance and expand
knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of trust resources;
• restore native prairie;
• control invasive and exotic species; and
• build regional and national support for the Service’s Fisheries Program.
TEXAS GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES
Priorities identified by the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem to which the refuge can contribute include:
• restore, conserve, enhance, and maintain approximately 500,000 acres of the historic Gulf
Coast prairies in Louisiana, Texas, and Mexico to ensure the continued existence of native
flora and fauna;
• maintain, restore, enhance, and create wetlands and associated habitats to achieve a net gain
in wetland quality, quantity (based on National Wetland Inventory data), and natural
productivity;
6 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 ecosystems
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
• increase ecological monitoring and research efforts and improve information management
capabilities in the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem;
• encourage Region 4 field stations with similar coastal resource objectives to participate in its
team meetings; and
• develop partnerships with other Service Regions, Mexico, natural resource agencies,
universities, and non-governmental organizations to plan and implement outreach programs.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as part of the last safety net to support
biological diversity—the greatest challenge facing the Service. According to the Lower Mississippi
River Ecosystem Team, the greatest threats to biological diversity within the Lower Mississippi Valley
include:
• the loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests;
• the loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest fragmentation);
• the effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
• the simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools;
• the effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and
• the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
Specific threats applicable to Lacassine Refuge include:
• gradual filling of Lacassine Pool with sediments and accumulated organic material (e.g., dead
plant matter), leading to loss of water volume, open water surface area, and excessively
dense and extensive emergent vegetation;
• colonization of invasive plant and animal species, which displace natural vegetation and
degrade those habitats on which native animal species depend; and
• problems associated with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Bayou Lacassine (Willow
Cutoff), including soil and marsh erosion caused by wave action and contamination resulting
from barge accidents.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on
threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern. Goals and
objectives in this CCP are stepped down from the following plans:
• Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan;
8 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
• North American Waterfowl Management Plan (e.g., Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Chenier Plain
Initiative);
• North American Waterbird Conservation Plan;
• United States Shorebird Conservation Plan;
• Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act;
• Coast 2050 – Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana;
• Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan;
• Fisheries Vision for the Future; and
• American Woodcock Management Plan.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation led efforts in the 1990s to form the Partners in Flight
program to combine resources and the knowledge of many people to protect the natural diversity of
our continent. Many partners have made the program successful by participating in Working Groups
to develop Regional Bird Conservation Plans. Lacassine Refuge is located within the Coastal Prairie
Physiographic Area 6 and can contribute to the plan’s actions for marsh restoration projects to benefit
migratory landbirds.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed by the United States and Canadian
governments in 1986, undertook an intensive effort to protect and restore North America’s waterfowl
populations and their habitats. With its update in 1994, Mexico became a signatory to the plan.
Restoration of wetlands and associated ecosystems is the main premise of the plan in order to
restore waterfowl populations to levels observed in the 1970s.
GULF COAST JOINT VENTURE (CHENIER PLAIN INITIATIVE)
Regional partnerships or joint ventures composed of individuals, sportsmen’s groups, conservation
organizations, and local, State, Provincial, and Federal governments were formed under the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan. One such partnership—the Gulf Coast Joint Venture—
formed to conserve priority waterfowl habitat range along the western United States Gulf Coast, one
of the most important waterfowl areas in North America. The Gulf Coast is the terminus of the
Central and Mississippi Flyways, which provides both wintering and migration habitat for significant
numbers of the continental goose and duck populations. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture’s greatest
contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is to provide wintering grounds for
waterfowl. A great diversity of birds, mammals, fish, shellfish, reptiles, and amphibians also rely on
the wetlands of the Gulf Coast for part of their life cycles.
The Gulf Coast Joint Venture is divided geographically into six initiative areas, one of which is the
Chenier Plain Initiative area of southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. The goal of the Chenier
Plain Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for significant numbers of dabbling ducks,
diving ducks, and geese, especially lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens), and greater white-
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
fronted geese (Anser albifrons), as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula).
Habitat objectives of this initiative are based on assumptions that food is the limiting factor affecting
waterfowl populations on the Gulf Coast (Ducks Unlimited 2006).
The refuge contributes to the objectives of this Initiative by:
• providing waterfowl foraging habitat through management of impounded freshwater marsh
(e.g., Lacassine Pool);
• increasing moist-soil management capabilities on up to 1,000 acres of early successional
wetlands (e.g., moist-soil units);
• providing resting and breeding habitat for mottled ducks and banding mottled ducks in
cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries;
• furnishing nest boxes for wood ducks (Aix sponsa) and black-bellied whistling ducks
(Dendrocygna autumnalis); and
• providing approximately 550 acres of croplands as food for wintering waterfowl.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan was developed under a partnership, the Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas, which is a group of individuals and organizations having interest and
responsibility for conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas. Lacassine Refuge is
located in the Southeast U.S. Regional Waterbird Conservation Planning Area. The refuge can
contribute to a key objective of this region, which is to standardize data collection efforts and analysis
procedures to allow better tracking of regional movements and the association of these movements
with environmental or land-use changes.
UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations throughout
the United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. Lacassine Refuge is located within
the Lower Mississippi, Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region. On a regional scale, the
refuge can help ensure that adequate quality and quantity of habitat is identified and maintained to
support the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate through the area.
COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION, AND RESTORATION ACT
In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act that
generates $50 to $60 million annually for Louisiana coastal wetland restoration projects via an 85/15
Federal/State cost-share, and which provided for the development of the 1993 Comprehensive
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan. The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and
Restoration Task Force, which is composed of five Federal agencies and the State of Louisiana,
determine funding of proposed projects. As mandated by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection,
and Restoration Act, the task force developed a detailed Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan in 1993,
that describes what restoration actions and projects should be implemented to address Louisiana’s
coastal land-loss crisis. A Priority Project List is developed and approved by the task force each year,
outlining which projects will receive funding.
10 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
COAST 2050: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE COASTAL LOUISIANA
Coast 2050, funded by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, is a
comprehensive, ecosystem-based plan developed to address coastal wetland loss throughout
southern Louisiana by private citizens, local, State, and Federal agencies, and the scientific
community. This plan, recognized by the State of Louisiana, five Federal agencies, and local coastal
parish governments, serves as the joint coastal restoration plan for the Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act. The overarching goal of the plan is to sustain a coastal ecosystem
that supports and protects the environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana, and that
contributes greatly to the economy and well-being of the Nation.
Coast 2050 strategic objectives include:
• to sustain a coastal ecosystem with the essential functions and values of the natural ecosystem;
• to restore the ecosystem to the highest practicable acreage of productive and diverse
wetlands; and
• to accomplish this restoration through an integrated program that has multiple use benefits
(Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). Lacassine Refuge is included in Region 4 of
this plan.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN
The Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan evolved from the Coast 2050 Plan, with the
overarching goal of reversing the current trend of degradation of the coastal ecosystem. This plan formed
the basis for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study, designed to identify critical
ecological needs, identify restoration efforts, establish restoration priorities, and identify scientific
uncertainties to present a strategy for addressing long-term needs of coastal Louisiana restoration.
Lacassine Refuge is located within Sub-province 4 of the Louisiana Coastal Area. The restoration plans
identified in the Louisiana Coastal Area relate directly and indirectly to the refuge through long-term efforts
to explore large-scale restoration projects that will influence the entire coastal zone of Louisiana.
FISHERIES VISION FOR THE FUTURE
In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries Program and
develop a vision. This vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program “is working with partners to
restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to support Federal
mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public.”
To achieve the vision, the Fisheries Program works with its partners to:
• protect the health of aquatic habitats;
• restore fish and other aquatic resources; and
• provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Together, the group developed a series of goals, objectives, and implementation actions to focus on
key needs. Lacassine Refuge can contribute to the program’s recreational fishing goal to provide
quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other related recreational enjoyment of aquatic
resources on Service lands.
AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan sets
management goals to restore woodcock population to levels consistent with the demands of
consumptive and non-consumptive users (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Reliable annual
population estimates, harvest estimates, and information on recruitment and distribution are essential
for comprehensive woodcock management, as well as conserving and managing habitat.
12 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
II. Refuge Description
INTRODUCTION
Created in 1937, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge was the 123rd refuge established within the
National Wildlife Refuge System. It is located at the edge of Grand Lake and 15 miles from the Gulf
of Mexico in Cameron and Evangeline Parishes in Louisiana (Figure 2). The refuge is strategically
located on the boundary of coastal marsh and agricultural habitats, as well as at the southern
terminus of the Mississippi and Central Flyways, making the refuge critically important to migratory
birds, especially wintering waterfowl.
Most of the 34,724-acre refuge consists of freshwater marsh with only a few natural ridges and levees
(Figure 3). The dominant feature of the refuge is Lacassine Pool, created by enclosing a 16,000-acre
marsh with a low levee. The refuge is bisected from east to west by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
and north to south by Lacassine Bayou. Habitat types and approximate acreage on the refuge
include: 14,700 acres of fresh marsh; 16,000 acres of impounded fresh marsh; 1,048 acres of open
water; 352 acres of forested wetlands; 348 acres of shrub wetlands; 1,109 acres of croplands (e.g.,
rice and fallow); 307 acres of managed fresh marsh (e.g., moist-soil plant impoundments); and 334
acres of coastal prairie plus roads, levees, etc. About 3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway are set aside with wilderness designation. The vegetative types occurring on the refuge
are primarily water-tolerant grasses, sedges, and shrubs. The types vary according to the frequency,
depth, and length of time water covers the area. Vegetation in the unmanaged marshes is
predominantly Bulltongue (Sagittaria lancifolia). Vegetation in Lacassine Pool consists primarily of
Bulltongue, maidencane (Pancium hemitomon), watershield (Brasenia schreberi), waterlily
(Nymphaea sp.), Spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), and southern bulrush (Scirpus sp.).
Lacassine Refuge provides valuable habitat for resident and migratory birds (e.g., ducks, geese,
shorebirds, neotropical migratory birds, and wading birds), mammals (e.g., rabbits, armadillos,
bobcats, coyotes, foxes, and raccoons), rodents, reptiles (e.g., snakes, turtles, lizards, and alligators),
and other wildlife. Lacassine Pool serves as a sanctuary for wintering waterfowl with a large
concentration of birds using the area to feed or rest. Large wintering concentrations of white-fronted
and snow geese can be found here, along with predominately puddle ducks, such as pintails, blue
and green-winged teals, mallards, gadwalls, shovelers, and American widgeons. Smaller
concentrations of diving ducks, and Canada and Ross’ geese also utilize the refuge.
Refuge habitat is managed for use by all native wildlife, with special emphasis on waterfowl.
Because of this management emphasis, an outstanding recreational fisheries resource was
developed. Management techniques used at Lacassine Refuge include prescribed burning,
managing for early successional wetland and emergent aquatic wetland plants, planting food crops
(e.g., predominately rice), and water level manipulation. Approximately 2,129 acres are managed for
early successional wetland (e.g., moist-soil) plants and agricultural crops to provide desirable
waterfowl food. The refuge also uses several management techniques to provide suitable conditions
for waterfowl within Lacassine Pool.
PURPOSE
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge was established on December 30, 1937, as Lacassine Migratory
Waterfowl Refuge by the following: 1) Executive Order 7780, “...as a Refuge and breeding ground for
migratory birds and other wildlife...;” 2) the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, “... for use as an inviolate
14 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
sanctuary, or any other management purpose, for migratory birds,” (U.S.C. 715d). Additional lands
were added to the refuge under 3) Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “...for the development,
advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...” [16 U.S.C.
742f(a)(4)] and 4) “...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its
activities and services” [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)].
PRIORITIES
Lacassine Refuge aims to conserve and restore desirable habitat and, in Lacassine Pool, to maintain
a desirable water depth and open water ratio considered valuable for fulfilling the purpose for which
the refuge was established.
Priorities of the refuge are to:
• develop and manage the refuge for migratory birds, with special emphasis on waterfowl
(especially northern pintail and mottled ducks);
• develop and manage the refuge for native flora and fauna common to the marshes in
Louisiana and rare and endangered species/habitat types;
• provide opportunities for research by serving as a demonstration area and outdoor laboratory
for those studying the ecology of southwest Louisiana wetlands; and
• encourage wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental educational and interpretation) on the refuge compatible with
the refuge’s mission and goals.
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION
FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT POPULATIONS
Although established to provide wintering habitat for waterfowl, Lacassine Refuge supports many
communities of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The refuge actually lies at the interface of higher
agricultural land and the coastal marshes and includes considerable acreage of marsh and agriculture
within its boundaries. It has a high plant and animal species diversity due to its different elevations and
water depths, although in this flat part of the country, these elevation differences are measured in inches
and feet rather than hundreds or thousands of feet. Wildlife species on the refuge are those indigenous to
the marshes of coastal Louisiana. Several nesting colonies of wading and water birds, such as ibises,
roseate spoonbills (Ajaia ajaja), and egrets are found here. A large population of alligators and
furbearers, such as nutria (Myocastor coypos) and raccoon, are on the refuge. Several hundred
thousand ducks and geese historically utilize the refuge as wintering habitat, while wood ducks (Aix
sponsa), mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula), and fulvous (Dendrocygna bicolor) and black-bellied
(Dendrocygna autumnalis) whistling ducks nest here during the breeding season.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 2. Location of refuges within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge
Complex
16 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Major features of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Threatened and Endangered Species
One federally listed threatened species occurs on the refuge – the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). The refuge may also attract transient Louisiana black bears, also a federally listed
threatened species.
The bald eagle was first listed on March 11, 1967, and several recovery plans have been written to
recover the species. It is currently designated as threatened in its current range of the conterminous
United States and Alaska. Although the bald eagle was recommended for delisting in 1999, it was
determined additional data would be needed before taking this action. Current threats are loss of nesting
habitat due to development along the coast and near inland rivers and waterways. Bald eagles are seen
on Lacassine Refuge and it has habitat that could contribute to the well-being of this species.
The Louisiana black bear was first listed on January 7, 1992. It is currently designated as threatened
in its entire range of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Lacassine Refuge is outside of known
occupied habitat (i.e., defined as an area with resident reproducing female Louisiana black bears);
however, it may receive rare use by transient animals. Male Louisiana black bears can travel far from
occupied habitats and have been documented in every parish in Louisiana at least once. Lacassine
Refuge does not provide habitat typically used by bears, but such long-ranging individuals may pass
through and use the area.
Species of Fish and Wildlife Service Management Concern
The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) is a Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, species of management
concern. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries personnel have identified Lacassine Bayou and
the Mermentau River as extremely important areas for paddlefish. Paddlefish populations have declined
throughout much of their historic range in North America due to habitat changes and over-fishing, mostly
to supply the caviar market. Due to their scarcity, and to threats posed from over-harvest, no harvest of
paddlefish is currently allowed in Louisiana. Despite prohibitions on harvest, some incidental take of
paddlefish in nets and with other tackle sometimes occurs. The refuge prohibits commercial fishing in the
portions of the streams that are within its boundaries and jurisdiction.
A 1988 amendment (Public Law 100-653, Title VIII) to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
mandated the Service to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds
that without additional conservation actions are likely to become candidates for listing under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.” Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 is the most recent effort to carry
out this mandate (USFWS 2002a). The report strives to accurately identify migratory and non-migratory
bird species, beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered, that represent the
Service’s highest conservation priorities in order to draw attention to species in need of conservation
action. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 lists birds of conservation concern at three geographic
scales – North American Bird Conservation Initiative Bird Conservation Regions, Fish and Wildlife Service
Regions, and National – to maximize the utility of the lists for partners, agencies, and organizations.
Three national plans were used to place birds on the lists: Partners in Flight, U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. Current conservation
assessment scores for each species were taken from the three plans, which were based on several
factors, including population trends, threats, distribution and abundance, and area importance.
18 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
While all the bird species included in Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 are priorities for
conservation action, the lists make no findings with regard to whether they warrant consideration for
Endangered Species Act listing. The Service’s goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional
listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions.
There have been 236 bird species recorded at Lacassine Refuge (USFWS 2002b, 1989a). The
refuge’s bird checklist is presented in Appendix D.
Table 1 lists birds known or expected to occur on Lacassine Refuge that are of management
concern. Refer to Appendix D for scientific names.
Species of Refuge Management Concern
The northern pintail has become a species of special concern to the refuge as populations have
steadily decreased over the years. The refuge hosted numbers well over 100,000 until the mid-
1980s, then saw peaks reduced by half in the 1990s. The northern pintail, however, is one of the few
ducks that continues to lag far behind its North American Waterfowl Management Plan population
objective. Southwest Louisiana is one of the key wintering areas for pintails, and the open, shallow
water habitats of flooded and managed rice fields are ideal for the species. Specifically targeting
pintails as a species of refuge management concern is therefore appropriate.
Alligator snapping turtles (Macroclemmys temminckii), one of the world largest freshwater turtles, are
becoming increasingly rare throughout their range. Commercial harvest is allowed in Louisiana,
despite being outlawed in all other states. These turtles, known to occur in Lacassine Bayou, are
occasionally taken on trotlines. Although there is currently no Federal or State protection, such
protection may be needed, since these long-lived creatures do not reach sexual maturity for many
years. They are vulnerable to over-harvest from which populations may take a long time to recover.
Waterfowl
Historically supporting over 500,000 ducks and 150,000 geese at peak population, the refuge serves
as one of the major wintering grounds for waterfowl in the Mississippi Flyway, and serves as host to
large concentrations of northern pintails and greater white-fronted geese, two species of particular
concern in the Mississippi Flyway. Other common wintering species include blue-winged and green-winged
teal, gadwall, American widgeon, northern shoveler, mallard, ring-necked duck (Aythya
collaris), and snow geese. Table 2 shows peak waterfowl numbers at Lacassine Refuge for three
recent years. Figures 4 and 5 show peak duck and goose population numbers from 1939 - 2002.
Lacassine Refuge is in the heart of rice farming country, which supports large numbers of geese.
The refuge’s largest concentration of white-fronted, snow, Ross, and Canada geese are found on its
farm units. Small numbers of white-fronted and Canada geese use the Lacassine Pool. The refuge
provides nesting habitat for wood and mottled ducks, black-bellied and fulvous whistling-ducks, and
blue-winged teal.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Table 1. Birds of management concern to Lacassine Refuge
Common Name Bird Conservation
Region 37 List
USFWS
Region 4 List National List
American Bittern X
Little Blue Heron X X
Reddish Egret X X X
White Ibis X
Northern Harrier X X
Peregrine Falcon X X X
Yellow Rail X X X
American Golden-Plover X X
Upland Sandpiper X
Whimbrel X X X
Long-billed Curlew X X X
Marbled Godwit X X X
Red Knot X X X
Stilt Sandpiper X X
Short-billed Dowitcher X X
Gull-billed Tern X X X
Common Tern X
Least Tern X X X
Black Tern X
Black Skimmer X X X
Black-billed Cuckoo X
Burrowing Owl X X
Short-eared Owl X X X
Chuck-will’s Widow X X
Whip-poor-will X
Red-headed Woodpecker X X X
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher X
Sedge Wren X X
Wood Thrush X
Golden-winged Warbler X X
Prairie Warbler X X
Cerulean Warbler X X
Prothonotary Warbler X X
Worm-eating Warbler X X
Louisiana Waterthrush X
Kentucky Warbler X X
Canada Warbler X
LeConte’s Sparrow X X X
Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow X
20 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Wading Birds (Water and Marsh Birds)
Lacassine Refuge provides nesting and feeding areas for large numbers of wading and marsh birds.
Historically, Black Grove and Blue Grove, located in the southern portion of Lacassine Pool, and Unit
C have been the main rookery sites and some are still used. Smaller rookeries in cypress (Taxodium
distichum), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), giant bulrush (Scirpus californicus), and willow
trees (Salix nigra) and shrubs have also been located around Lacassine Pool. White-faced (Plegadis
chihi) and white ibis (Eudocimus albus); great (Ardea alba), cattle (Bubulcus ibis), and snowy (Egretta
thula) egrets; great blue (Ardea herodias), Louisiana (Egretta tricolor), and little blue herons (Egretta
caerulea); anhingas (Anhinga anhinga); roseate spoonbills; and neotropical cormorants
(Phalacrocorax brasilianus) are a few of the more common species found on the refuge.
Table 2. Recent peak numbers of waterfowl on Lacassine Refuge
Species January 13, 2004 January 5, 2005 January 4, 2006
Mallard 26,141 2,600 13,773
Mottled 995 1,021 1,935
Blue-winged Teal 211 300 18,563
Shoveler 5,749 2,431 2,725
Gadwall 4,904 1,344 2,710
Wigeon 593 901 1,047
Green-winged Teal 28,150 46,770 47,221
Pintail 17,155 582 14,362
Wood Duck 0 0 0
Ring-necked 14,984 3,394 3,650
Black-Bellied Whistling Duck 369 0 0
Lesser Scaup 42 0 0
Redhead 0 0 0
Canvasback 0 0 0
Bufflehead 0 0 300
Ruddy Duck 0 0 0
Fulvous Whistling Duck 0 0 0
White-fronted Geese 2,104 669 3,425
Snow Geese 0 1,500 0
Canada Geese 0 0 0
Coots 2,392 7,480 3,454
Ducks/Geese Total 101,397 61,512 109,711
Puddle Ducks 83,898 55,949 102,336
Diving Ducks 15,395 3,394 3,950
Source: USFWS, 2006
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Peak Geese Populations for 1938-39 through 2001-02
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
Season
Number of Geese
Total Geese
Snow
White-fronted
Canada
Peak Duck Populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
Season
Number of Ducks
Total Ducks
Mallard
Pintail
Figure 4. Peak duck populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002
Figure 5. Peak goose populations for 1938-39 through 2001-2002
22 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge has a sizable breeding population of purple gallinules (Porphyrula martinica), common
moorhens (Gallinula chloropus), bitterns, and rails. Dense marsh vegetation makes surveying
difficult. Surveys for gallinules and moorhens are conducted in Lacassine Pool each August using an
airboat and consisting of six transects totaling 14.2 miles. All gallinules and moorhens within 150 feet
of transects are recorded.
Lacassine Refuge was designated a Globally Important Birding Area in 1998. The refuge provides
habitat for globally significant numbers of white-faced ibis and waterfowl, as well as nationally
significant numbers of roseate spoonbills.
Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species
The region’s strategic location is enhanced by a diversity of habitat types favored by shorebirds, including
beaches, marsh, estuarine tidal flats, rice fields, and crawfish ponds. The refuge provides resting and
feeding habitat mainly for spring migrating shorebirds. However, tremendous numbers of shorebirds are
attracted each fall to rice fields and crawfish ponds. Surveys are conducted during fall and spring
migration. Commonly present shorebirds include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), long (Limnodromus
scolopaceus) and short-billed (Limnodromus griseus) dowitchers, greater (Tringa melanoleuca) and
lesser (Tringa flavipes) yellowlegs, black-bellied plovers (Pluvialis squatarola), black-necked stilts
(Himantopus mexicanus), snipe (Gallinago gallinago), and sandpipers. If conditions are favorable,
Forster’s terns (Sterna forsteri), killdeers, and black-necked stilts nest on the refuge.
Raptors
Raptors of Lacassine Refuge include many species of hawks, owls, and vultures. Year-round
residents include the black (Coragyps atratus) and turkey (Cathartes aura) vulture; osprey (Pandion
haliaetus); sharp-shinned (Accipiter striatus), red-shouldered (Buteo lineatus), and Cooper’s
(Accipiter cooperii) hawks; American kestrel (Falco sparverius); and barn (Tyto alba), great horned
(Bubo virginianus) and barred (Strix varia) owls (USFWS 2002a 1989). Additionally, the golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos), a state-listed rare species, has been routinely recorded from Lacassine Refuge
and vicinity.
Other Migratory Birds
Lacassine Refuge is not as heavily used by migrating neotropical birds as the coast proper of
Louisiana. The refuge is not the first landfall the birds reach following their migration across the Gulf
of Mexico. The encroaching, non-native Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) has decreased the value
of the habitat to neotropical birds. The refuge has limited acreage that can support the preferred
species of trees and other vegetation important to neotropical migratory birds. Currently, some
levees are being cleared of tallows and are being replanted with native tree species. Mourning doves
(Zenaida macroura) are commonly seen along fencerows, levees, roads, and fields of the refuge.
Yellow-headed (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) and rusty (Euphagus carolensis) blackbirds are
rare species of the refuge. The red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and boat-tailed grackle
(Quiscalus major) are found on the refuge in abundance.
Mammals
Lacassine Refuge provides suitable habitat for armadillos, rabbits, squirrels, nutria, mink (Mustela
viso), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), skunks, opossums (Didelphis virginiana), otters (Lutra
candensis), raccoons, coyotes, and whitetail deer (Odocoilus virginianus). It is estimated that the
deer population on the refuge is approximately 300 individuals. Approximately 50 percent of the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
refuge, or 16,000 acres, is suitable deer habitat. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
estimates that excellent freshwater marsh habitat can support a potential density of one deer per 30
acres. On Lacassine Refuge, this species is concentrated on the spoil banks and agricultural fields
found throughout the refuge. Deer utilize marsh areas primarily for feeding and escape cover.
Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and swamp rabbits (Sylvilagus aquaticus) are found on the refuge in
abundance. A recent study shows that rabbits breed throughout the entire year at this latitude and
the number of rabbits produced annually in this type of habitat is greater than that of rabbits in more
upland habitats. Even though many predators prey on these rabbits, their population numbers are
considered high. A proposed annual harvesting of rabbits from the refuge would have no negative
impact on the population and would allow additional opportunities for recreational hunting.
Amphibians and Reptiles
As a freshwater marsh, Lacassine Refuge is a haven for reptiles and amphibians. Despite the
dominance of these creatures in the landscape, little is known about their populations on the refuge.
The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is the only member of this group that is managed.
In 2001, the refuge began participating in a statewide monitoring program for frogs, known as the
Louisiana Amphibian Monitoring Program. Three permanent sites were established and are
monitored during specific periods of the year.
In addition to the amphibian monitoring program surveys, drift fences have been in place on the
refuge since 2001 to monitor terrestrial reptiles and amphibians. The refuge has plans for expanding
its reptile and amphibian monitoring effort to determine the effects of oil and gas development on
these sensitive species. Drift fences and other survey techniques are planned to monitor reptile and
amphibian populations on sites disturbed by oil and gas development, as well as controlled sites in
the marshes east of Lacassine Pool.
Little is known about reptile and amphibian populations in Lacassine Bayou. This habitat should
support a different assemblage of species than is found in Lacassine Pool. The bayou also harbors
alligator snapping turtles, which have been identified as a species of concern (USFWS 2003).
Lacassine Refuge provides suitable habitat for a large population of alligators. Alligators are opportunistic
carnivores and a top predator on the refuge. Alligator populations are controlled in most areas of the
State by a harvest program that is closely regulated by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries, a program in which Lacassine Refuge has been a participant. The refuge’s harvest program
has followed the State’s recommendations; in some years, the harvest has been below the allotted quota.
Nest densities are much higher in Lacassine Pool in comparison to the fresh marshes located outside of
it. The 5-year average (1997-2001) nest density for Lacassine Pool is one nest per 43 acres, while the 5-
year average nest density outside of it is one nest per 106 acres.
Aquatic Species
Fish species present include catfish, bowfin, bass, bream, crappie, and gar. Fish populations of
Lacassine Refuge have periodically suffered from the negative effects of drought. In the early 1990s,
levees were upgraded so that the level of the Lacassine Pool could be raised from 4 to 5 feet mean
sea level. The deeper water areas provide a more stable water quality (e.g., temperature and
dissolved oxygen) that supports better fish habitat. As a result, fishing grew increasingly popular with
the public; fishing tournaments became a common, almost weekly, event on the refuge. The severe
droughts of the late 1990s and early 2000s essentially dewatered Lacassine Pool. Creel surveys are
conducted at Lacassine Pool during the months the area is open for public fishing. The refuge does
not closely monitor aquatic species outside of Lacassine Pool.
24 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Non-native Plant Species
Also known as exotic species, they pose problems at Lacassine Refuge because they displace native
vegetation. There are several invasive species present on the refuge, with the Chinese tallow tree
being the most prevalent. In Louisiana, old fields and pastures that once provided grassland bird
habitat are replaced with forests of the exotic, invasive Chinese tallow.
Tallow trees typically grow on elevated and undisturbed ground along fencerows and levees. Refuge
staff have worked to eliminate Chinese tallow from some levees and to replant with native species.
Chinese tallow control is a major management concern for the refuge, with prescribed burning and
herbicides used to control it. However, this exotic is a very resilient species, and tends to re-sprout
after the herbicide is applied. Its coppicing ability also restricts the usefulness of fire as a control
measure, although studies have found that in areas with sufficient fuel, such as in prairies with good
grass cover, summer burns kill or top-kill trees as tall as three meters (TNC 2003). Other non-native,
including non-invasive, species are water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), water lettuce (Pistia
stratiotes), common salvinia (Salvinia minima), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), alligator weed
(Alternanthera philoxeriodies) (USFWS 2000), bamboo (species unknown), Chinaberry (Melia
azedarach), St. Augustine grass, Bermuda grass, and lantana (Lantana camera).
Non-native Animal Species
The most invasive animal on the refuge is the nutria. The nutria is an exotic herbivore that can cause
significant damage to marsh habitats when populations become elevated, an event referred to as eat-outs.
Currently, nutria populations throughout the refuge and in the general area are relatively low,
causing minimal damage to habitats requiring a minimum of population control. Change in vegetative
communities outside of Lacassine Pool may occur again in future years. With favorable habitat
conditions and the nutria’s high reproductive potential, the population can expand rapidly. Although
nutria can be destructive to levees and vegetation, the species is beneficial in that it is available as a
food source for alligators, coyotes, and bobcats (USFWS 2003).
No exotic reptiles and amphibians are known to occur on Lacassine Refuge, but a few are established in
nearby parishes and others are expanding their range out of Florida. Of special concern is the brown
anole (Anolis sagrei) that displaces native green anoles (Anolis carolinensis). Efforts are made to monitor
reptile and amphibian populations; however, little may be done to stop species, such as the brown anole,
once established (USFWS 2003). The domestic cat (Felix catus) has established wild, free-roaming
populations throughout most of the United States. Feral cats can be devastating to native birds, but they
also prey very heavily on other native wildlife, such as snakes, lizards, and rabbits. What effect feral cats
have on the refuge’s wildlife population is unknown. The Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto)
occurs on the refuge, but apparently is harmless to other species.
HABITATS (INCLUDES LACASSINE POOL)
Lacassine Refuge is located on the boundary of the costal marsh and agricultural habitats. The
dominant feature of the refuge is the Lacassine Pool, which was created by enclosing a 16,000-acre
marsh with a low levee during the 1940s. The refuge consists predominately of freshwater marsh,
wetlands, and croplands (Figure 6).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Table 3 shows a breakdown of land cover/habitat types on the refuge.
Much of the refuge is impounded and is divided into management units (Figure 7) that are both
impounded (Units A, B, C, D, E1, F3, and G) and unimpounded (Units E2, F1, F2, H, I, and J). About
3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is designated as wilderness.
Table 3. Land cover/habitat types on Lacassine Refuge
Habitat/Cover Approximate Acres
Impounded Fresh Marsh (Lacassine Pool) 16,000
Natural (Unimpounded) Fresh Marsh 14,700
Forested wetlands 352
Shrub wetlands 348
Open Water 1,048
Managed Fresh Marsh (moist soil plant impoundment) 307
Coastal Prairie 334
Croplands (rice and fallow) 1,109
Roads, levees, miscellaneous 526
Total Acres 34,724
Source: USFWS 2003
Lacassine Pool
The most prominent feature on the refuge is the 16,000-acre impounded fresh marsh known as the
Lacassine Pool (Unit G), which provides sanctuary and food for thousands of ducks, geese,
shorebirds, and wading birds in peak years. Lacassine Pool is also a popular fishing area and is
heavily utilized during the fishing season.
Pool levees were constructed to maintain a maximum water elevation of 4.0 feet mean sea level
(MSL) and staff gauges were installed in Lacassine Pool to monitor water elevations. This elevation
information was established by interpreting historic data found in refuge files. Lacassine Pool
elevation water level of 4.0 feet MSL that was established during the 1940s, and carried throughout
the years in numerous surveys and documents, has always been assumed to be the correct water
level elevation. To date, research of the historic data to locate the origin of this elevation has proven
unsuccessful. Whether or not the origin of this elevation datum was surveyed by a professional
surveyor, estimated from maps, or just visually estimated, can only be assumed.
26 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. Habitats of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 7. Management units on Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
28 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
In 2005, John Chance Land Surveys, Inc., performed a new survey to gain better insight into
management of water levels in the Lacassine Pool area. This survey was conducted using the best
available science for data acquisition and adjusted to the latest accepted horizontal and vertical data.
The final adjusted results of this Global Positioning System (GPS) survey revealed that there is a 3.1-
foot difference between the historic accepted Lacassine Refuge vertical datum (assumed to be MSL)
and the survey contractor's GPS-derived elevations using North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NAVD88). This means when converting the 4-foot MSL to NAVD88, the elevation of the full pool is
0.8-NAVD88. This will be the new baseline for future management. The latest vertical adjustment at
Lacassine Refuge was determined from a fully constrained adjustment fixed to three of the National
Geodetic Surveys Continuously Operating Reference Stations and using the latest validated geoid
model (Geoid03 - 2004.65) for elevation determination in the Louisiana Coastal Zone.
New staff gauges have been installed at the three water control structures (within Lacassine Pool) and are
calibrated to the latest NAD83 horizontal datum and NAVD88 vertical datum. Managers of Lacassine
Pool will now be using the NAD83 and NAVD88 reference data and will report the accepted datum for
water levels accordingly. Water levels will still be managed at a level that will not negatively affect the
dikes and is still conducive to migratory birds and sport fisheries in Lacassine Pool.
Lacassine Pool has never been managed as a seasonally flooded moist-soil management area.
There are no capabilities to flood the area other than through natural precipitation. Gravity flow
dewatering is possible through three stop-log water control structures located on the north, southeast,
and southwest portions of the Lacassine Pool levee system. Early literature and documents
discussing Lacassine Pool, since its construction in the early 1940s, have never clearly indicated how
it should be managed to provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl.
Not being able to take advantage of dry weather conditions and applying prescribed fire to Lacassine
Pool at the appropriate time of the year has been the downfall of past and current pool management
actions. In addition, the complexity of managing for waterfowl and fish is a very dynamic public
process. In the past, if an annual drawdown was artificially induced by refuge management, it had to
be applied to the entire pool, which significantly affected access to the recreational fisheries resource.
Trying to manage for waterfowl and recreational fisheries access over the decades has now resulted
in the accumulation of more than 60 years of dead plant material, which is surfacing as a significant
management issue.
In an effort to manage Lacassine Pool for wintering waterfowl and fully aquatic species (e.g., fish for
recreational fishing), water levels are maintained at full pool, or as close to it as possible, during the
spring and summer months. In the winter, water levels are lowered so the waterfowl foods that are
produced can be made more available to waterfowl. This water level regime is highly dependent
upon weather conditions in any given year. A hurricane or tropical depression can completely flood
the area for an entire year. A heavy spring rain can do the same. A severe drought can do the
complete opposite so refuge managers must be flexible and have the ability to work with the dynamic
weather conditions of the area.
Though Lacassine Pool is recognized as a feeding area for some species of waterfowl, one of its
most important contributions to wintering waterfowl is serving as a sanctuary and resting area for
pintails. Recent research has documented the value of Lacassine Pool as a key diurnal roost site for
harboring pintails in southwest Louisiana, with pintails making frequent long, round-trip journeys to
foraging habitat at night (Cox and Afton 1996). Based on an experimental site within Lacassine Pool
(Unit D), the current water management regime along with 10-year, cyclic water drawdowns followed
by prescribed burning and then flooding appears to stimulate the growth of the aquatic plant Brasenia
(e.g., water shield), which is characterized as an excellent food for ringed-necked ducks, but of only
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
fair value for other waterfowl. It also allows for oxidation of dead plant material. This management
treatment, if continued, should allow for the growth of Brasenia and other beneficial waterfowl food
plants, create loafing areas for waterfowl, maintain sanctuary for wintering waterfowl, and maintain
fisheries habitat and customary and traditional access to recreational fishing. This is one of many
management strategies that may be applied to Lacassine Pool as the refuge develops an adaptive
water management plan.
Fire management has played a very important role in maintaining Lacassine Pool in the past. Former
managers prescribed burned units on a three-year rotation, such that the entire pool was burned
every three years. However, the majority of these burns were conducted during the winter months
and it is questionable as to how well the burns did in controlling nuisance vegetation, such as
maidencane. The burns did aid in controlling hazardous fuels and controlling some woody vegetation
in Lacassine Pool.
Forest
A limited bottomland hardwood forest (e.g., approximately 400 acres) is present on the refuge,
primarily in the riparian areas along the Mermentau River and Lacassine Bayou. There may be
opportunities for forest restoration on the existing refuge, and for acquisition of additional bottomland
hardwood forests within Lacassine Refuge=s acquisition boundary (Figure 8). Additional woody
vegetation is present on canal and stream banks, and on a series of ring levees in Lacassine Pool
that are associated with former oil and gas exploration sites. Chinese tallow, an invasive exotic plant
species, is a dominant woody species on the ring levees. Refuge staff have worked to eliminate
tallow from some levees, and to replant native species, such as bald cypress, tupelo gum (Nyssa
aquatica), black gum (Nyssa Sylvatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), common persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), live oak (Quercus virginiana), Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttalli),
swamp dogwood (Cornus foemina), red mulberry (Morus rubra), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and
buttonbush. The staff is monitoring the use of treated ring levees as compared to control sites on
other untreated levees, which remain dominated by Chinese tallow trees.
Prairie
The coastal prairie plant community, located along the Gulf Coast of the United States, once
encompassed an estimated 8.6 million acres. Today, only a tiny fraction survives: less than 100
acres of upland prairie in small, narrow patches paralleling railroad tracks, and another 100 to 300
acres of wet prairie in disjunctive remnants on private land.
Like Midwestern prairies, coastal prairie is dominated by grasses, such as little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), gamma grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum),
Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). Coastal prairies are
diverse with over 500 species of grasses, sedges, and wildflowers. However, coastal prairie is
distinct in several ways, including the presence of species that are not found in the Midwestern
prairies, such as slender bluestem (Schizachyrium tenerum), brownseed paspalum (Paspalum
plivatulum), and sweet goldenrod (Solidago odora). Prairie nymph (Herbertia lahue), Oklahoma grass
pink orchid (Calopogon oklahomensis), and prairie parsley (Polytaenia nuttalli) are a few of the rare
species found in coastal prairie habitat.
30 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Approved acquisition boundary of Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
The need for restoring and conserving coastal prairie is clear, but the scale of restoration adequate
for conserving prairie biodiversity has not been determined. A useful approach is to manage for
sensitive animal species considered indicators of environmental stress. From an ecological point of
view, recruitment of grassland birds to restored prairie may be an indicator of the restoration of
ecosystem function (USFWS 2003).
Croplands
Management of the 307-acre Unit A began with farming in 1950 and continued with either
cooperative farming or refuge farming until 1981. The refuge continued farming Unit A in a rotation
with moist soil, rice, millet, milo, and green browse through 2000. In 2001, the refuge reworked
levees and water control structures in Unit A to improve water management capability in the eight
fields that range in size from 12 to 48 acres. Water can usually be gravity-flowed into Unit A from
Lacassine Pool. A two-way pump is used to drawdown these fields and to provide a reliable method
for flooding the unit.
Unit B is a 724-acre area, which includes 579 acres of rice impoundments that have been managed
since 1990 by a cooperative farmer. Rice is planted in a field every other year, alternating with
wheat, rye grass, or fallow. The farmer harvests the first crop of rice and leaves the second crop for
waterfowl, which works out to be about 20-25 percent of the total rice crop. Wheat or rye is planted
as green browse for wintering geese.
The refuge acquired the 530-acre Unit F (Coto Unit) in 1996, and, since then, it has been
cooperatively farmed similar to Unit B. On average, 327 acres of rice are planted in a field every
other year, alternating with wheat, ryegrass, or fallow.
Early Successional Wetland Management
One unit of about 300 acres is available in Unit A and managed as early successional wetlands (e.g.,
moist-soil habitat). Historically, this unit has been managed on a three-year rotation. Grain crops
have been grown in the unit one year out of three to produce high-value waterfowl food, while setting
back plant succession. Early successional wetland management is time consuming and often
requires swift management action to address plant responses during the growing season.
In Unit C, farming was discontinued in 1981. In 1993, the refuge planted rice in the western portion of
the unit and began managing it as an early successional wetland. The refuge plans to convert the
western section of Unit C into early successional wetland habitat.
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
The six priority general public uses of Lacassine Refuge are hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Visitor
facilities are shown in Figure 9.
These wildlife-dependent uses are the Service’s primary focus for the development of visitor
use programs to increase visitor awareness and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources on
national wildlife refuges. These priority general public uses are described in more detail in the
following paragraphs.
32 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 9. Current visitor facilities at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Lacassine Refuge provides activities for more than 38,000 visitors annually (USFWS 2004). Until
visitor facilities are improved, the preponderance of visitation will likely continue to be for
recreational fishing and hunting. Until then, the more adventuresome will still come to drive its
limited road system and to hike some of its miles of levees. There are no designated hiking trails
on Lacassine Refuge; however, visitors are permitted on about 30 miles of refuge levees and
service roads at the Lacassine Pool and Unit B.
The refuge has no visitor center or tour route and the headquarters area is separated from the refuge
proper. Some exhibits in the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex Visitor Center,
located at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, will highlight Lacassine Refuge.
Hunting and Trapping
Currently, waterfowl hunting occurs on 10,434 acres. The farm unit on Unit B is a lottery hunt area for
senior hunters on Wednesdays and youth hunters on Saturdays, and is open during the second split
of the State's waterfowl season. The Duck Pond lottery hunt is open for adult hunters on
Wednesdays and Saturdays during both splits of the State's waterfowl season. The general public
hunt area is open Wednesday through Sunday for teal season and both splits of the regular State
season. All hunters are required to obtain a hunting brochure, which serves as a permit when signed.
Archery deer hunting occurs annually during October on the entire refuge, excluding the
headquarters area and the wildlife drive.
The refuge receives its alligator trapping quota from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries.
Fishing and Boating
Fishing has been the most popular recreational activity since the refuge was established. The
Lacassine Pool, created to provide migratory waterfowl habitat, has become a prime largemouth
bass fishing area. Fishing tournaments have occurred on the refuge for a number of years.
Persons participating in past tournaments have been encouraged to practice catch and release
techniques by tournament sponsors.
Two boat ramps are available at Lacassine Pool for ingress and egress to interior fishing waters.
Anglers are required to use launches off the refuge to access areas other than Lacassine Pool. The
refuge impoundment is restricted to 25 horsepower motors. The Unit D impoundment within
Lacassine Pool is restricted to non-motorized boats. Canals and major bayous outside the
impoundments have no restrictions on boat motor size. Only push poles and paddling are allowed in
the marsh (USFWS 2002c).
Wildlife Observation and Photography
There is a three-mile auto tour with interpretive signs at the Lacassine Pool public use area (Unit
D). Pull-offs are located along the drive to allow other visitors to continue along the drive. Visitors
are encouraged to remain in their vehicles to minimize disturbance of wildlife and to enhance
viewing. State Highway 14 passes by the refuge and is designated as the Jean Lafitte Scenic
Byway. Visitors can hike along levees for additional wildlife observation opportunities. A cypress
swamp observation deck is located at the headquarters. The refuge has two viewing platforms
located at the Lacassine Wildlife Drive and Unit B. The platforms are ideal to see optimum
wildlife populations while limiting disturbance to wildlife.
34 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Environmental Education and Interpretation
Environmental education programs are not available on-site because limited staff and facilities do not
allow for such programs. However, limited environmental education programs have been presented
to local schools. Students view a slide program, participate in a short activity, and receive an
educational package. No formal training has been conducted to encourage local educators to lead
and teach environmental education programs on site (USFWS 2002c).
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities.
Refuge Staff
Lacassine Refuge was administratively combined with nearby Cameron Prairie and Sabine National
Wildlife Refuges in April 2004, to form the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge was added to the Complex in December 2005. Cameron Prairie
Refuge serves as the Complex headquarters. Various positions throughout the Complex have been
or will be targeted as positions with Complex-wide responsibilities. The Complex staff supports,
directs, and helps manage the needs, resources, and staffs of Lacassine, Cameron Prairie, Sabine,
and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuges.
The Lacassine Refuge staff consists of 5 permanent employees, with occasional interns, volunteer
workers, and term appointments, supervised by the refuge manager. Positions include one refuge
manager, one wildlife biologist, one law enforcement officer, one heavy mobile equipment operator,
and one maintenance worker (USFWS 2006). A Complex project leader, stationed at the Complex
headquarters at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, supervises the Lacassine refuge manager.
COORDINATION/COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS
The refuge staff coordinates and cooperates extensively with State agencies, Tribal
governments, landowners, the public, conservation groups, oil and gas companies, and local
agencies and organizations. Lacassine Refuge is a component of several important regional or
ecosystem planning and management efforts, and works with all levels of government and non-governmental
organizations and private citizens to accomplish goals and objectives specific to
those efforts.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Facilities at Lacassine Refuge include those visitor facilities mentioned above, most of which
are around Lacassine Pool. The headquarters office is located some distance from the
Lacassine Pool. The refuge has no visitor center per se and has no plans for one during the life
of this comprehensive conservation plan. The headquarters area also includes some staff
housing – two houses and trailers – in addition to a maintenance shed and equipment storage
area. Table 4 lists the refuge’s equipment.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Table 4. Equipment at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Amphibious Marsh Master Forklift, Pettibone 10,000 LB
Amphibious Excavator, long reach on pontoons Tractor, Buhler 4WD, 145 PTO HP with cab
Bulldozer, Caterpillar D-5 Tractor, Ford TW-20, 120 HP with cab
Bulldozer, John Deere 350 Crawler Wide Tracks Tractor, Ford TW-5, 90 HP with cab
Dragline, 60’ Boom, Bucket Tractor Truck, Navistar, 4X2
Crane, Link-Belt LS-98 Crane, Crawler Mounted,
GM Diesel engine
Roads
Illinois Plant Road, Tidewater Road, and Streeter Road (i.e., Highway 127) provide access to the
refuge. Streeter Road is the only paved road on the refuge and is maintained by the Cameron
Parish Police Jury. The Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury maintains the portion of Illinois Plant
Road that is paved, with the graveled portion being maintained by the refuge. Parking lots,
located at two boat launches (e.g., Old and Tidewater) at Lacassine Pool and Unit B fishing area,
are graveled. During peak fishing periods, visitors are limited by parking lot capacity. The
headquarters office is accessed via Highway 3056.
RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS
Research Natural Areas are designated by Federal land management agencies to preserve plant
and animal communities in a natural state for research purposes. They protect vanishing native
habitats that exhibit outstanding ecological value by preventing unnatural encroachments and
activities that might modify ecological processes. At this time, Lacassine Refuge has no
designated Research Natural Areas.
WILDERNESS REVIEW
As part of the planning process, lands within the legislative boundaries of Lacassine National Wildlife
Refuge were reviewed for wilderness suitability. About 3,300 acres south of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway were designated as a Wilderness Area in the late 1970s. The Wilderness Area is
managed under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act as a unit of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. That is, it is “an area where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (The Wilderness Act,
September 3, 1964; [16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136]). Other than setting prescribed fires from
helicopters, the staff carries out no active management in this Wilderness Area. Visitation by the
public is permitted, but due to the area’s difficult access (by boat only), it is not heavily used.
No additional lands at Lacassine Refuge were found suitable for designation as wilderness as defined
by the Wilderness Act. The refuge does not contain an additional 5,000 contiguous roadless area,
nor does it have any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as wilderness. The
lands and waters of the refuge have been substantially altered by humans, particularly through
agriculture, water manipulation, levee and canal construction, pipeline laying, oil and gas
36 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
development, and seismic exploration. As a result of both extensive modification of natural habitats
and ongoing manipulation of natural processes, adopting a “hands-off” approach to management at
the refuge would not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, which is the
goal of wilderness designation.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL RESOURCES
In addition to the natural habitat and wildlife that Lacassine Refuge conserves, it also encompasses
resources of archaeological and cultural value; these tell of the long story of human habitation and
endeavor in the area. The refuge is located in a region with a rich human history and pre-history.
Prior to the arrival of European-Americans, the area was inhabited by the Atakapa Indians. The
Atakapa occupied the coastal and bayou areas of southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas
until the early 1800s (Couser 2002). Archaeological evidence suggests that settlements have been
present in this area since before Native Americans learned to make pottery, approximately two
thousand years ago. While “Atakapa” means "eaters of men" in the language of the neighboring
Choctaw, it is unknown whether the Atakapas' supposed cannibalism was for subsistence or ritual.
Before the arrival of European-Americans, Atakapans were hunters, gatherers, and fishers. Their
society consisted of loose bands that moved on a regular basis from place-to-place within a given
territory, gathering, hunting, and fishing. The alligator was very important to them, because it
provided meat, oil, hides, and even insect repellent (e.g., its oil). The Atakapan language has
fascinated linguists and is among the better-recorded Native American languages. At one time, it
was believed to be associated with other languages of the Lower Mississippi River, but later this
theory was abandoned, and it is now classified as an isolated language.
Most of what is known about the appearance and culture of the Atakapa comes from eighteenth and
nineteenth century European descriptions and drawings. The Atakapan people were said to have
been short, dark, and stout. Their clothing included breechclouts and buffalo hides. They did not
practice polygamy or incest. Their customs included the use of wet bark for baby carriers and
Spanish moss for diapers. According to another custom, a father would rename himself at the birth of
his first son or if the son became famous. In the creation myth of the Atakapa, humans were said to
have been cast up from the sea in an oyster shell. The Atakapa also believed that men who died
from snakebite, and those who had been eaten by other men, were denied life after death, a belief
that may have lent support to the notion that they practiced ritual cannibalism.
The various bands of the Atakapa were reported to have traded not only with other Indians but with
early French and Spanish explorers and traders, as well. After the appearance of these Europeans,
the Atakapa dwindled rapidly. An estimated 3,500 still survived in 1698; by 1805, only 175 remained
in Louisiana. Just nine known descendants were recorded in 1909. Their downfall was brought
about primarily by the invasion of and devastation from European diseases, rather than through any
direct confrontation with European settlers.
The next major phase of the area’s human habitation occurred after the Treaty of Paris in 1763
concluded the French and Indian Wars (Feldman 1998). The British had already expelled French-speaking
settlers—the Acadians—from Nova Scotia (in what is now one of the Maritime Provinces of
Canada), in 1755. Their exile occurred because of the widespread turmoil and upheaval sweeping
through French and British colonies in North America as England gained the upper hand in its
struggle with France for the control of North America. The Acadians first arrived in “New Acadia,”
now Louisiana, then a colony of Spain, in 1764, and this migration continued for the next two decades
(Hebert 2003). Even after all their wanderings after their expulsion from Acadia, the adjustment from
Maritime Canada, with its sub-arctic climate and rocky, hilly terrain, to the Mississippi Delta, with its
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
nearly subtropical climate and bayous, must have been difficult for the Acadians. Yet, over time, the
Acadians, later referred to as Cajuns, flourished and developed their own subsistence-based culture,
which included hunting, fishing, trapping, and some agriculture that produced a unique cuisine and
music, among other things.
Southern Louisiana is also known for its Creole culture and cuisine. While the Cajuns were
specifically French in origin, the Creoles trace their heritage to Spanish, African, Italian, and
French influences, indeed, to any other peoples who chose to live in New Orleans (Royal Café,
no date). The roots of Creole culture date to the early 1700s, with the French settlement of La
Nouvelle Orleans under its founder Jean Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville, governor of the
Louisiana Territory. In 1763, the Louisiana Territory was traded to Spain, and Spanish influence
increased. German and Italian immigrants and African slaves also contributed heavily to Creole
culture, cuisine, and music.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that three Indian middens found on the refuge be
included in the National Register of Historic Places. One of these sites is a fairly large shell mound
located at Onion Hill on Bayou Misere, which was partially destroyed during the digging on the
American-Louisiana Pipeline Canal. Another is located at Lacassine Point near Grand Lake. The
smallest of these sites is located on Bayou Lacassine near Short Cut-off Island.
Presently, the refuge does not have a cultural resources management plan. When one is written, it
will specify what measures need to be taken at Lacassine Refuge to identify, protect, and interpret
the area’s rich cultural history.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
In keeping with the purpose for its creation, management efforts at Lacassine Refuge are oriented
toward the improvement of habitats under its jurisdiction for the benefit of waterfowl, wading birds,
and shorebirds; threatened and endangered species; and other native fish and wildlife. To this end,
the refuge staff undertakes a vigorous program of active habitat restoration, management, and
manipulation that includes levee construction and upkeep, organic layer reduction in Lacassine Pool,
drainage, prescribed fire, planting, and exotic plant control.
Left to the whims of the weather, many or most refuge habitats would be either too wet or too dry to
be optimal for wildlife. Thus, the staff is always attempting to improve water level management on the
refuge through a variety of means. For example, in 2001, the refuge reworked levees and water
control structures in Unit A to improve water management capability in the eight fields that range in
size from 12 to 48 acres. Water can usually be gravity-flowed into Unit A from Lacassine Pool.
Biologists refer to Lacassine Pool as a closed aquatic ecosystem. This means there are no tidal
influences or flushing activities to aid in dispersing the tons of dead plant material generated each
year within Lacassine Pool. Water is replenished by rainfall. When constructed in the early 1940s,
Lacassine Pool was designed to be managed at approximately 4 feet MSL. There are deeper areas
(e.g., lakes) within Lacassine Pool that reach 7 feet in depth when its three spillways are set at
approximately 4 feet MSL.
Over a period of 60 years, dead plant material has accumulated and altered the entire aquatic
community. Grasses have thrived and in some areas, woody vegetation has begun to grow. Without
some form of intervention, Lacassine Pool will continue to fill in, be overtaken by undesirable plants,
open water areas will disappear, and the utilization of the area by migratory birds will significantly
diminish. Many local residents have observed these events happening over the years and have
38 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
voiced their concerns. Over the years, several biologists and teams have gathered to address the
management of the Lacassine Pool. Investigations and concerns date as far back as 1953.
Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Biologist, David Fruge (Fruge 1974), reported in August 1974 in a
wildlife management study titled, “The Vegetation of Lacassine Pool:”
“The three small, elevated spillways allow a negligible amount of the tremendous annual crop of
plant matter to escape from the impoundment. The resultant accumulation of this detritus
therefore will cause aggradations of the substrate with consequent lowering of water levels, and
continuing emergence of pop-ups, with resultant colonization by emergent species and
consequent elimination of open water areas and the associated floating-leafed submergent
community. This process was noted in refuge records as far back as 1953.”
Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Biologist, Jacob Valentine (Valentine 1979), reported in November
1979:
“Lacassine Pool has been in existence for about 36 years. The accumulation of organic material
laid down by generations of plants is proceeding at a greater rate under impoundment than in the
adjacent marshes. Under natural conditions, marshes are subject to drying which reduces the
organic material by oxidation. The accumulation of peat-mucks reduces the water holding
capacity of the impoundment, and ultimately the vegetation would succeed to a totally emergent
plant community.”
In 1993, the refuge manager experimented by raising the water level by approximately 1 to 1.5
feet to see if the vegetation, which was choking out the boat passageways and the open water
areas of Lacassine Pool, would be drowned out. After several years, the refuge staff
discovered that the higher water level did not help and actually may have contributed to the
problem. Also, the elevated water level was putting pressure on the dikes, which were not
designed to hold water at that higher elevation.
Background reading material (USFWS 2002d) prepared by Fish and Wildlife Service staff for a team
of veteran natural resource managers and biologists gathered to evaluate current management
practices and provide recommendations about future habitat and water management in 2002 stated:
“In 1993, the low part of the south levee was raised again and logs were added to raise Lacassine
Pool to 5.0 msl. This was done to increase water depth to former levels and to test the theory that
higher water levels would stress emergent vegetation. Success was short lived as the vegetation
recovered and organic levels continued to increase.”
During a Wildlife and Habitat Management Review conducted at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
in 2002, it was the general consensus among most biologists familiar with Lacassine Pool that it was
filling with vegetation, which decreases water depth and diminishes water volume.
Ring levees constructed in Lacassine Pool for oil and gas exploration have become infested with
20- to 30-year-old Chinese tallows. These tallows were treated with the herbicide Arsenal in
2001, and the levees replanted during February 2002 with woody vegetation more preferred by
passerine birds (e.g., bald cypress, sugarberry, red maple, common persimmon, black gum,
sweetgum, Nuttall oak, and buttonbush).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
The storm surge from Hurricane Rita in September 2005, which affected all of the marshes and
waterways of southwest Louisiana, also affected Lacassine Refuge, including the Lacassine
Pool. Fish kills caused from low dissolved oxygen levels in the water have been observed in
Lacassine Pool and adjacent marshes. Dikes and water conveyance infrastructure were
weakened. The entire refuge was inundated by salt water and littered with debris, some
containing hazardous materials. Strategies found in this document will be implemented to
reverse the damages caused by Hurricane Rita.
The refuge currently plays a significant role in coastal prairie restoration and is working closely with
the Cajun Prairie Habitat Preservation Society to restore this unique, threatened habitat. The refuge,
with partners, is in the process of actively restoring a significant acreage of coastal prairie on a former
Farm Service Agency property known as Duralde Prairie. This effort adds to the knowledge of prairie
restoration technology and increases the sources of plant material, both of which are limited.
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge is located in the 1,313-square-mile Cameron Parish, one of the
largest parishes in the State. Cameron Parish is situated in the extreme southwestern corner of
Louisiana, abutting the Gulf of Mexico to the south and Texas to the west. In 2003, the population of
the parish was estimated at 9,708, a slight decline (3 percent) from the 2000 Census (USCB 2004).
The median household income of the parish in 1999 was $34,232, compared to $32,566 for
Louisiana as a whole. The same relative prosperity is reflected in a poverty rate below the State
average. Approximately 12 percent of Cameron Parish residents lived below the poverty line in 1999,
compared to almost 20 percent for all of Louisiana. Educational attainment is below the State
average, however, with only 8 percent of the population aged 25 or higher having a Bachelor’s
degree or higher, as opposed to the statewide average of 19 percent.
In 2003, transportation and warehousing was the largest of 20 major economic and employment
sectors in the parish (STATS Indiana 2004). The Census Bureau classified occupations in Cameron
Parish as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older in Cameron
Parish (2000)
Occupation Number Percent
Management, professional, and related occupations 772 18.5
Service occupations 718 17.2
Sales and office occupations 954 22.8
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 199 4.8
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 594 14.2
Production, transportation, and material moving 947 22.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics
40 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
In terms of employment by industrial sector, the primary industries lumped as “agriculture, forestry,
fishing and hunting, and mining” predominate in Cameron Parish, as shown in Table 6.
In terms of its racial and ethnic breakdown, as reported in the 2000 Census, Cameron Parish is 92.5
percent white, non-Hispanic, 3.9 percent black or African American, 0.4 percent American Indian, 0.4
percent Asian, and 2.2 percent Hispanic or Latino origin (USCB 2004). (The percentages do not add
up precisely to 100 percent because of the difference between designated races — white, black,
Native American, and Asian — and ethnicities, which are Latino and non-Latino.) In addition, 1.6
percent in the Census reported some other race or two or more races. Overall, the population of
Cameron Parish has a greater percentage of non-Hispanic whites (92.5 percent) than the State as a
whole (62.5 percent). That is, it is less diverse and has fewer minorities.
Table 6. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry in Cameron
Parish (2000)
Industry Number Percent
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 696 16.6
Construction 470 11.2
Manufacturing 295 7.1
Wholesale trade 143 3.4
Retail trade 426 10.2
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 396 9.5
Information 52 1.2
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 155 3.7
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste
management services 206 4.9
Educational, health, and social services 677 16.2
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services 269 6.4
Other services (except public administration) 213 5.1
Public administration 186 4.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
REFUGE RELATED PROBLEMS
INTRODUCTION
Marsh loss is the most ominous problem faced by land managers in coastal Louisiana, and Lacassine
Refuge is no exception. Lacassine Refuge has to gradually eliminate or at least slow down the
marsh loss on the refuge or there may not be a Lacassine Refuge for future generations to enjoy. Of
all the problems faced by the refuge, this is the most expensive to solve. It cannot be done without
cooperation from adjacent landowners, State and Federal agencies, the academic community, and
ultimately, the public.
UNDESIRABLE OR INVASIVE SPECIES
Non-native invasive species are causing significant damage to the refuge’s natural, managed, and
agricultural ecosystems. Chinese tallow is the most prevalent and its control is a major management
concern for the refuge. Water hyacinth, common salvinia, hydrilla, and Macartney rose (Rosa
bracteata) are other common invasive species that infest the refuge.
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL WETLANDS (MOIST-SOIL UNITS)
There is a need to improve the refuge’s capability and flexibility to manage several of the
impoundments and early successional wetland (moist-soil) sites through better water control and
vegetative control methods. Optimal early successional wetland management requires very precise
methods to control water levels, such as pumps, wells, irrigation, and leveling.
CONTAMINATION
The greatest contaminant issues are related to agricultural and urban pesticide use and mercury.
Much of the watershed and area surrounding Lacassine Refuge is agricultural, primarily rice. There
is a possibility that some of the pesticides proposed and/or used for rice cultivation could have
impacts on the refuge, as they accumulate in the watershed and flow through the refuge in Lacassine
Bayou or other surrounding water bodies. Airborne contaminants could find their way into Lacassine
Pool and accumulate due to the lack of flushing typical of most marshes.
OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES
General Information
The Fish and Wildlife Service does not hold mineral rights on the majority of the refuge.
Consequently, Lacassine Refuge has had oil and gas exploration and production since its inception in
1937, with a total of 82 wells drilled on refuge property. Currently, only two of those original 82 wells
are in production. Most of the wells that were drilled have been properly plugged and abandoned, but
five of the remaining wells are listed in the Ashut-in@ status. A “shut-in” well is not producing and
either has mechanical problems down hole, or is not economically feasible to produce hydrocarbons.
Most of the “shut-in” wells on Lacassine Refuge have been in that status for many years. “Shut-in”
wells can be a problem because wells that have received no attention after long periods of time can
become potential environmental threats. Pressure can build up down-hole, and if not released, the
pressure can cause blow-outs. These blow-outs can have major negative environmental implications
because production, which includes hydrocarbons and highly saline-produced water, can be released
into the surrounding environment.
42 Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
As the need for oil and gas increases, the refuge will likely find itself with additional oil and gas
related activities, including wells, storage facilities, and pipelines. Additional coordination between oil
companies and refuge maintenance staff is required when actively managing the units containing
these pipelines. Acquisition deeds stipulated that oil and gas operations were not to interfere with the
purpose of the refuge, but ultimately stated that the refuge could not prevent the sub-surface owner
from exercising his rights to access and develop his minerals.
A mutually agreed upon special use permit is issued for all oil and gas operations to communicate
Service expectations and environmental concerns to all operating companies.
In accordance with current Fish and Wildlife Service policy, which is derived from a July 17, 1986,
Department of the Interior Solicitor’s opinion and Louisiana mineral rights law, owners of sub-surface
oil and gas mineral rights must be granted a reasonable and necessary means of extraction and
production. In more explicit terms the Solicitor’s opinion states:
The United States has a number of rights as a surface owner of refuge lands in Louisiana:
1. It may request the mineral owner to alter its proposed operation to accommodate existing
and planned uses of the refuge, provided that the burden on the mineral owner is not
unreasonable.
2. It may insist that the mineral owner use only the minimum amount of land that is required
to carry out the operations.
3. The necessary operations that are performed on the refuge must be carried out in a
manner which is least injurious to refuge resources.
4. Upon conclusion of each separable phase of operation, the mineral owner must restore
the surface to its original condition, insofar as is practicable. This will include filling pits no
longer required, leveling land, cleaning up spilled oil and salt water, reseeding, and repair
or replacement of damaged improvements.
5. Access roads damaged by the mineral operator must be put in a condition for use by the
United States, although they need not be completely regraded if damage is recurring and
unavoidable.
The United States may not:
1. Charge a mineral operator for excavation of dirt on the lease where the dirt is required in
order to carry out the operation.
2. Charge for destruction of timber unless such right was reserved by the United States
“grantor.”
3. Interfere with the reasonable and necessary operations of the mineral owner.
Mitigation
The refuge completed an invasive plant control mitigation project with oil and gas funds. About 110
acres were sprayed in Units D and E to control Chinese tallow.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Contamination Issues
Historically, wells were drilled using open, earthen pits for mud circulation and storage during drilling
operations. The drilling mud was oil-based and the cuttings that were removed from down-hole have
been known to contain heavy metals, naturally occurring radioactive material, and other forms of
contamination. These open-earth pits were closed or capped, but remain on the refuge. Information
exists on the locations of these closed pits, and plans for testing are being considered to try and
detect if any leaching or other residual impacts have occurred.
Transmission Pipeline Rights-of-Way
Rights-of-way were inherited for transmission lines that traverse the refuge for the purpose of
transporting oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined petroleum-based
product. Transmission lines are usually large in diameter and transport product to or from large
processing plants. These pipelines do not service mineral production from sub-surface minerals, but
require a corridor of refuge land for transportation. In contrast, flow lines are usually the smallest in
diameter and transport raw product from individual wells, from sub-surface mineral production,
through the production separation process. Gathering lines, similar to flow lines, usually “gather” the
production from multiple wells and transport it to production facilities. Permits for rights-of-way are
not issued for flow lines and gathering lines.
Existing oil and gas transmission lines and their associated rights-of-way on the Southwest Louisiana
National Wildlife Refuge Complex that have been in place for decades have become manageable
over the years. Their long-term effects on the environment, which have been identified as creating
pathways for saltwater intrusion into freshwater marshes, are being indirectly addressed through
numerous wetlands management programs and laws. These programs and laws include the
Louisiana Coastal Act, the Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act, the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and many local government and private watershed
initiatives, such as the Cameron Creole Watershed Management Plan. These laws and initiatives
have led to the development of significant wetland restoration projects which have mitigated negative
impacts associated with oil and gas transmission lines and associated rights-of-way.
Future Management
Existing oil and gas transmission lines on approved Fish and Wildlife Service rights-of-way currently
within a national wildlife refuge will be managed as