Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BAYOU SAUVAGE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
ORLEANS PARISH, LOUISIANA
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
March 2009
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
Relationship to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ............................................ 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 11
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 11
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 12
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 14
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 14
Climate Change ................................................................................................................ 14
Urbanization ...................................................................................................................... 15
Proliferation of Invasive Plants and Animals ..................................................................... 15
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 15
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 15
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 17
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 18
Hydrology and Water Quality and Quantity ....................................................................... 18
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 19
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 20
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 20
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 23
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 27
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 28
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 30
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 30
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 30
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 35
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 37
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 37
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 37
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 38
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 40
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 41
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 42
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 43
ii Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 43
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 43
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 44
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 44
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 46
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 49
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 54
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 57
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 57
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 57
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 57
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 58
Resource Protection and Refuge Administration .............................................................. 63
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 64
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 67
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 71
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 72
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 72
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 73
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 75
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 75
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 75
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 76
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 76
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 76
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 76
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 77
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................... 79
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................ 81
Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 81
Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 81
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) .............................................................. 81
Alternative B: Restore and Improve Ecological diversity and Augment Visitor Services
(Proposed Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 82
Alternative C: Custodial Management, While Maximizing Visitor Services ...................... 83
Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 84
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................... 85
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................... 107
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 109
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 109
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 109
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 109
Table of Contents iii
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 109
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 110
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 110
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 110
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 111
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 111
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 111
Alternative A (Current management--No Action) ............................................................ 111
Alternative B (Proposed Action – Restore and Improve Ecological Diversity and Augment
Visitor Services) .............................................................................................................. 112
Alternative C (Custodial Management, While Maximizing Visitor Services) ................... 112
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 119
Water Quality Impacts from Soil Disturbance and use of herbicides .............................. 119
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 119
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 120
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 120
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 120
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 120
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 121
Short-term Impacts Versus Long-term Productivity ........................................................ 121
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 123
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 123
SECTION C. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 125
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 135
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 139
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 153
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 153
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 155
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 165
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 181
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 185
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 187
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 189
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 189
Maintenance Management System Needs ............................................................................... 190
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 191
iv Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Bayou Sauvage NWR in relation to regional conservation area ......................... 7
Figure 2. Current and acquisition boundaries of Bayou Sauvage NWR ............................................. 10
Figure 3. General habitat types on Bayou Sauvage NWR ................................................................. 22
Figure 4. Impacts of Hurricane Katrina on Bayou Sauvage NWR ...................................................... 24
Figure 5. Location of public use areas on Bayou Sauvage NWR ....................................................... 34
Figure 6. Current staffing chart for Bayou Sauvage NWR and Southeast Louisiana
NWR Complex ..................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 7. Proposed staffing chart for Bayou Sauvage NWR .............................................................. 69
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Air quality statistics around Bayou Sauvage NWR ............................................................... 20
Table 2. Habitat types and associated acreages found on Bayou Sauvage NWR ............................. 21
Table 3. Socioeconomic profile - U.S. Census, 2005 American Community Survey ........................... 29
Table 4. Summary of projects .............................................................................................................. 70
Table 5. Bayou Sauvage NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and
objectives of the CCP .......................................................................................................... 72
Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Bayou Sauvage NWR .................... 85
Table 7. Summary of environmental effects by alternatives, Bayou Sauvage NWR ........................ 114
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was prepared to guide management actions and
direction for the refuge. 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.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best meet the goals and objectives of the
refuge and could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA describes
the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their
effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state and federal
government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment.
Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the Final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates;
and is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
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/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) traces its roots to 1871, with the establishment of the
Commission of Fisheries which was involved with research and the culturing of fish. This once
independent commission was renamed the Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of
Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 with the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. In 1896, with a shift from research pertaining to
the relationship of birds and animals to agriculture to the delineation of the range of plants and
animals, the name was changed to the Division of the Biological Survey.
2 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
On June 30, 1940, the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife along with their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal
programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine
mammals, and inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program, which
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars collected from excise taxes from the sale of fishing and
hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes 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;
and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
􀁹􇤠 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.
The following are just a few examples of the national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican in the State of Florida. As a result of over-hunting,
competition with cattle, and natural disasters, western refuges were established for species
such as the American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn
sheep (1936). The drought conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding
populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on
waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis
on waterfowl continues today but it now includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a
dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on establishing
refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in its
natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people 16 years of age and older fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating $108 billion in revenue. In 1995 a study was initiated on 15 refuges in an attempt
to glean information pertaining to refuge visitation. The refuges in the study were Chincoteague
(Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell
(Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North
Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas
(Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River (Louisiana). The study, which concluded in 2002,
revealed that visitation had grown 36 percent in that seven-year-period. At the same time, the
number of jobs generated in surrounding communities as a result of refuge visitation grew from 87 to
120. More than $2.2 million were pumped into local economies. Other findings also validate the
theory that communities near refuges benefit economically from the presence of the refuge.
Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew from $5.2 million to $6.8 million per refuge; a
31 percent increase during the study period. For each dollar spent on the Refuge System,
surrounding communities benefited with a gain of $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related
income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million man hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in
consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop
and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the
preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
4 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Bayou Sauvage NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; and research and recreation on refuge lands. They also provide a framework for
cooperation between Bayou Sauvage NWR and other partners, such as the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), National Park Service (NPS), Audubon Society, Friends of Louisiana
Wildlife Refuges, corporations, and private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. The refuge
manager determines if a use is appropriate based on sound professional judgment; uses that are
illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe may not be found appropriate. When a use is
determined to be appropriate, it must then be determined to be compatible before it is allowed on a
refuge. A compatible use is one that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will
not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the
purposes of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
􀁹􇤠 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 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.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. This policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation
for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in
scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) physiographic area represents a scientifically based land
bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native
land birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented
6 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act and subsequent agency policy is that the Service shall ensure timely
and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas and
national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the overall
health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Louisiana. Bayou Sauvage NWR is
located in a region which includes several other state and federal conservation areas (Figure 1).
RELATIONSHIP TO THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) (http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov) is vested
with responsibility for the conservation and management of wildlife in the state, including aquatic life,
and is authorized to execute the laws enacted for the control and supervision of programs relating to
the management, protection, conservation, and replenishment of wildlife, fish, and aquatic life, and
the regulation of the shipping of wildlife fish, furs, and skins. LDWF’s mission is to manage,
conserve, and promote wise utilization of Louisiana’s renewable fish and wildlife resources and their
supporting habitats through replenishment, protection, enhancement, research, development, and
education for the social and economic benefit of current and future generations; to provide
opportunities for knowledge of and use and enjoyment of these resources; and to promote a safe and
healthy environment for the users of the resources. LDWF is divided into seven divisions for
management of the state’s resources: Enforcement, Fur and Refuge, Public Information, Inland
Fisheries, Marine Fisheries, Management and Finance, and Wildlife.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of Louisiana. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Figure 1. Location of Bayou Sauvage NWR in relation to regional conservation area
8 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Bayou Sauvage NWR is located in eastern Orleans Parish, Louisiana, and is entirely situated within
the corporate limits of the city of New Orleans (Figure 2). It is the largest national wildlife refuge
located in an urban area of the United States and is one of the last remaining marsh areas adjacent
to the south shores of Lakes Pontchartrain and Borgne. The refuge consists of 22,265 acres of
wetlands and is bordered on three sides by water: Lake Pontchartrain to the north, Chef Menteur
Pass to the east, and Lake Borgne to the south. The western side of the refuge is bordered by the
Maxent Canal and fast lands that consist of bottomland hardwood habitat and exotic species, such as
Chinese tallow and china berry. Un-leveed portions of the refuge consist of estuarine tidal marshes
and shallow water. The Hurricane Protection Levee System, along with roadbeds, created freshwater
impoundments which altered the plant communities as well as the fish communities within these
impoundments. Small forested areas exist on the low, natural ridges formed along natural drainages
and along manmade canals.
Work on the this Draft CCP/EA was initiated in January 2007 and is scheduled for completion in late
2009. The Draft CCP/EA contains concepts to guide the development and implementation of land
use and management programs as well as associated facilities for the next fifteen years.
Consideration of the refuge’s physical, biological, and cultural resources, along with the
socioeconomic environment, refuge management and administration are taken into account and
analyzed to produce an overview of the refuge along with the challenges it faces. The EA is being
prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) guidelines. In
addition to documenting the existing natural, environmental, and socio-economic setting, the EA
evaluates the impact of the proposed and alternative actions, including the no action alternative, to
facilitate selection of the management plan most suitable for implementation.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Bayou Sauvage NWR is located within the corporate limits of the city of New Orleans,
approximately 18 miles east of the central business district. Bayou Sauvage NWR is one of eight
refuges managed as part of the Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Prior to
establishment of the refuge, area wetlands were threatened by urban expansion from the city of
New Orleans. The refuge was authorized under House Resolution 5262, sponsored on July 28,
1986, by Louisiana Representatives John Breaux and Lindy Boggs. Authorization originated
under a miscellaneous provision of the Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 (Public Law
99-645), and on November 10, 1986, the bill establishing Bayou Sauvage NWR was signed into
law by President Ronald Reagan.
The enacting legislation mandated that the Secretary of the Interior acquire 19,000 acres of land for
the refuge within four years and complete a master plan for operation of the refuge within two years.
In 2007, the refuge consisted of 22,265.12 acres in fee-title; 445 acres are managed through a
Memorandum of Understanding with the city of New Orleans for management purposes; and there
are 23,126 acres within the current acquisition boundary (Figure 2).
The purposes of the refuge were defined by the following authorities:
10 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Current and acquisition boundaries of Bayou Sauvage NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901 (b):
􀁹􇤠 For the conservation of the wetlands of the nation in order to maintain the public benefits they
provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties
and conventions.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 4401 2(b):
􀁹􇤠 To protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland
ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in North America;
􀁹􇤠 To maintain current or improved distributions of migratory bird populations; and
􀁹􇤠 To sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds consistent with the goals of
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the international obligations contained
in the migratory bird treaties and conventions and other agreements with Canada, Mexico,
and other countries.
Legislation designated that the refuge should serve the following purposes:
􀁹􇤠 To enhance the populations of migratory, shore, and wading birds within the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 To encourage natural diversity of fish and wildlife species within the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 To protect the threatened and endangered species and otherwise to provide for the
conservation and management of fish and wildlife within the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 To fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States respecting fish and wildlife.
􀁹􇤠 To protect the archaeological resources of the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 To provide opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent public uses and recreation in an urban
setting.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The lands within Bayou Sauvage NWR were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for
wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Appendix H). No lands in the refuge were
found to meet these criteria.
Although not within the refuge boundary, eastern Lake Pontchartrain and all of Lake Borgne were
designated as critical habitat for the threatened Gulf Sturgeon in 2003. These waters provide juveniles,
sub-adults, and adults feeding, resting, and passage habitat especially during winter months.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Bayou Sauvage NWR is located in the St. Bernard Delta of the Mississippi River, which is geographically
located at the southern end of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE). The LMRE includes the
deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River
and its distributaries. Prior to agricultural development, almost all of the Mississippi Delta was covered
with flood plain forests. Today, only about 23 percent remains in forest, and the remaining forest is highly
fragmented. The flood plain forests are primarily oak-gum-cypress cover type with co-dominant species
of overcup, willow, Nuttall, water, swamp chestnut, and cherrybark oaks, as well as sweetgum, water
tupelo, water hickory, willow, cottonwood, sycamore, sugarberry, red maple, box elder, bald cypress, and
green ash. Cotton, soybeans, and rice are the most widespread crops but winter wheat, corn, sorghum,
and sugar cane are also commonly cultivated. Although cleared of natural vegetation, flooded agricultural
fields can provide important wildlife habitat.
12 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Specifically, Bayou Sauvage NWR lies within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes ecoregion of the
LMRE. As the name implies, this ecoregion occupies the coastal zone of the Gulf of Mexico and is
defined by coastal prairie and marsh communities. Louisiana’s coastal marsh areas, in which Bayou
Sauvage NWR is found, are comprised of salt, brackish, intermediate, and fresh marsh habitat types.
Associated natural communities include cypress and cypress-tupelo swamps, live oak natural levee
forests, and some bottomland hardwood forests.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Lake Pontchartrain and adjacent lakes in Louisiana form
one of the larger estuaries in the Gulf Coast region. The estuary drains the Pontchartrain Basin, an
area of over 12,000 km2 situated on the eastern side of the Mississippi River delta plain. In
Louisiana, nearly one-third of the state population lives within the 14 parishes of the basin.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Bayou Sauvage NWR is a component of many regional and ecosystem conservation planning
initiatives, which are described in the following paragraphs.
The National Estuary Program, established as part of the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act
(CWA), seeks to protect and restore 28 designated estuaries of national significance that are deemed to
be threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. The Barataria-Terrebone National Estuary Program
focuses on two basin estuaries in southern Louisiana (Barataria to the south of New Orleans, and
Terrebonne to the west), between the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. Federal agencies participating
in the planning and assessment efforts include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States Geological Survey (USGS), Department
of the Interior (DOI), and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act (Public Law 105-383 and Public
Law 108-456) resulted in the establishment of a task force of federal and state agencies with
responsibilities over activities in the Mississippi River basin, the Louisiana coastline, and the Gulf of
Mexico. The task force includes eight federal and ten state agencies. This Mississippi River/Gulf of
Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force has prepared an “Action plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and
Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.” The goal is to reduce the so-called “dead zone”
in the coastal Gulf by half by 2015, and to reduce nitrogen loading to the Gulf by thirty percent.
As a result of The Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act, a water management plan is being
implemented which establishes environmental monitoring, implements restoration programs, and
constructs restoration projects within the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. A partnership of the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, regional planning organizations, universities, and parish agencies is
developing this management plan.
Two federal funding programs, the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program (WCRP) and the
State Wildlife Grants Program (SWG), resulted in the State of Louisiana developing a Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). In December 2005, the LDWF, as part of its mission to
manage, conserve, and promote wise utilization of Louisiana’s fish and wildlife resources and their
supporting habitats, released its Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan).
The conservation actions and strategies in this plan were developed through public focus groups held
across the state. Participants included invited conservation organizations, forestry and wildlife
associations, federal and state agencies, industry, universities, and private citizens. The intent of the
plan is to guide the conservation efforts of the LDWF over the next ten years.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, CWPPRA, (Public Law 101-646)
authorizes the development of comprehensive restoration and comprehensive conservation plans for
our nation’s coastlands. Forty percent of the coastal marshes of the continental United States
covered by this law are in Louisiana. In February 2008, there were 164 CWPPRA restoration projects
in Louisiana. Details for these restoration projects are available at the following website:
http://www.lacoast.gov/projects/list.asp. The majority deal with hydrologic management, shoreline
protection, and marsh creation.
Acting on the impetus of CWPPRA, the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities in Louisiana provides
state leadership, direction, and coordination in the development and implementation of policies,
plans, and programs which encourage multiple uses of the coastal zone and achieve a proper
balance between development and conservation, restoration, creation, and nourishment of coastal
resources. The following programs and activities have been established under this umbrella:
􀁹􇤠 Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (CPRA)
􀁹􇤠 Coastal Wetland Forest Conservation and Use Science (CWFCU)
􀁹􇤠 Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force; and
􀁹􇤠 Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority.
The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (CPRA), has prepared a master plan,
“Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master
Plan for a Sustainable Coast,” to incorporate hurricane protection and protection of coastal wetlands.
The CPRA plan marshals Louisiana’s Natural Resources and Transportation and Development
departments (and other state agencies) to work closely with the Governor’s Advisory Commission on
Coastal Protection, Restoration, and Conservation and the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) to
integrate within a single state authority coastal restoration and hurricane protection.
The Coastal Wetland Forest Conservation and Use Science working group (CWFCU) provides
information and guidelines for the long-term use, conservation, and protection of Louisiana’s coastal
wetland forest ecosystem. “Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana” is a plan prepared
by the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Authority, a task force of federal, state, and local interests attempting
to address Louisiana’s massive coastal land loss problem.
The Louisiana Native Plant Initiative and the Emergency Watershed Protection program are two
programs initiated by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The former program seeks
to conserve vanishing native plants by identifying resource areas and developing partnerships with
the Coastal Plain Conservancy, USGS National Wetlands Research Center, Barataria Terrebonne
National Estuary Program, and state universities; while the later program removes debris from
waterways and downed timber on forest lands.
The eight refuges that make up the Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex are:
Atchafalaya, Bogue Chitto, Bayou Sauvage, Breton, Bayou Teche, Delta, Big Branch Marsh,
and Mandalay.
Comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared for each refuge to provide managers with a
15-year strategy and broad direction to conserve wildlife and their habitats, to achieve refuge
purposes, and to contribute toward the mission of the Refuge System. In addition, the plans identify
appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent refuge uses available to the public, including hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
14 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as part of the last safety net to support
biological diversity – the greatest challenge facing the Service. According to the LMRE Team, the
greatest threats to biological diversity within the Lower Mississippi Valley include:
􀁹􇤠 loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland hardwood
forest;
􀁹􇤠 loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest fragmentation);
􀁹􇤠 effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
􀁹􇤠 simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools;
􀁹􇤠 effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and
􀁹􇤠 cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
There have been significant alterations in the region’s hydrology due to flood control levees, urban
development, river channel modifications, and degradation of aquatic systems from excessive
erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants. A critical issue facing the refuge is land loss due to
subsidence, erosion, major storm events, and salt-water intrusion. Compounding the situation, the
area has experienced four major droughts over the past 15 to 20 years. During droughts, more saline
water from Lake Pontchartrain has had to be introduced inside the impoundments to reduce
subsidence. The highly organic soils lose elevation from compaction caused by loss of moisture
during cycles of drought. In the past, these periods were fairly short and although some elevation
was lost, subsequent rainfall purged the salts left in the soils.
The ability of the river/floodplain ecosystem to transport and assimilate nutrients and chemicals has also
been impaired to the point that state and federal water quality standards are not met in many water
bodies. This is compounded by industrial and urban runoff and leaks from oil and gas pipelines. These
waste streams enter the refuge mainly through stormwater and non-point source runoff.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The culmination of recent findings on world climate has prompted the Service to include information
on climate changes and sea level rise as critical issues facing national wildlife refuges, especially
those located within coastal zones. According to the Environmental Defense Organization, on
February 2, 2007, the international group of experts tasked with evaluating climate science—the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—released their summary of the latest findings on global
warming. Their report summarizes research conducted from about 2001 through the end of 2005 and
concludes that "…numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include
changes in…the intensity of tropical cyclones." The report also finds that in the North Atlantic fiercer
hurricanes are "correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures." Additionally, John
Huffman’s report, Estimates of Future Sea Level Rise, developed four different scenarios to estimate
sea level rise. These scenarios included a "conservative" scenario, which projects a sea level rise of
56.2 cm (22 in) by 2100; a "high" scenario, which projects a rise of 345 cm (11.5 ft) by 2100, and two
mid-range scenarios projecting rises of 144 cm (4.8 ft) and 216cm (7 ft). Huffman predicts that the
sea level rise at the end of this century is most likely to fall within the mid-range scenarios (~5-7 ft).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
With the possibility of future habitat degradation due to world climate changes, the Service is
investigating modeling national wildlife refuges using SLAMM (Sea Level Rise Affects Marshes
Model) to predict how climate changes will affect different regions of the county, especially coastal
regions. At this time the Service is still working to assess probable long-term effects for each refuge;
monitoring the situation is advised until additional information is available.
URBANIZATION
Urban development (Bayou Sauvage NWR is located in east Orleans Parish, entirely within the corporate
limits of New Orleans, a city with a present population of over 250,000 with a metro area population of
approximately one million people) changes hydrology. Natural landscapes allow water to slowly and
gradually filter into the ground. Rooftops, driveways, roads, and other surfaces associated with urban
development are nonporous, causing water to accumulate above the surface and to run off in large
volumes and at higher velocities, causing flooding and erosion. Because of the variety of pollutants
associated with urban runoff–oil and grease from automobiles; nutrients and pesticides from lawns and
gardens; sediment from construction sites; bacteria from pets and improper sewage disposal; household
debris, etc.–urban development results in reduced water quality.
Urbanization is an ever-present threat to both refuge wildlife and habitat. The refuge is surrounded
by industry and housing to the south and west. Three major highways (Interstate10, U.S. 90 and
U.S. 11) traverse the refuge, leaving it vulnerable to environmental effects associated with urban
trash dumping. The old Recovery 1 landfill located south of U.S. Highway 90, adjacent to the refuge,
continues to be a potential threat for hazardous waste pollution. In addition, both an airport and drag
racing track have been proposed as potential new developments adjacent to the refuge.
Another potential source of pollution exists in the form of pipelines within and adjacent to the refuge. These
pipelines contain both petroleum products and natural gas. These include Collins Pipeline Company,
Creole Pipeline Company, Barnwell Production Company, and Southern Natural Gas Company.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE PLANTS AND ANIMALS
The introduction of exotic or nonnative plants on the refuge has threatened the natural aquatic
vegetation important to aquatic systems, and has choked waterways to a degree that often prevents
recreational use. Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) is a tree that grows and spreads rapidly, is
difficult to kill, and tends to take over large areas by out-competing native plants. It was introduced
from Asia and is planted widely as an ornamental tree. Birds disperse the seeds, which have spread
within the refuge where it is a significant threat to woody species. This species has been especially
invasive around the natural ridge levee.
Non-native wildlife is an issue of which the refuge administration has struggled with for many years.
Animals such as nutria compete with native wildlife for limited resources and many, like feral hogs, have
caused extensive habitat damage and alterations. Presently, the refuge has a trapping program that
allows nutria and hog populations to be controlled, thus reducing damage to habitat and food supplies.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Climate in this region is subtropical with mild winters and hot, humid summers. Temperatures
average 81.6 oF in summer and 54.0 oF in winter. Sporadic afternoon thunderstorms occur almost
daily in summer with rainfall averages 61.03 inches per year. The maximum 24-hour rainfall for the
16 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
area is 10.0 to10.5 inches with a recurrence interval of 25 years. According to a recent Weather
Channel special report, the New Orleans area is the most vulnerable in the country when it comes to
hurricanes. With the gradual warming of Gulf of Mexico waters, hurricanes and tropical storms from
the Gulf are likely to be more severe and more frequent. This leaves the New Orleans area, located
just above sea level, extremely vulnerable.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that warming of the
climate is undeniable and could cause changes in our stewardship of land. Examples of
potential changes are altered fire regimes, rain and snowfall patterns, access to water
resources, hydrology in rivers and wetlands, frequency of extreme weather events, and rising
sea level at coastal refuges.
Global climate change poses risks to human health and to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Important economic resources such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and water resources also
may be affected. Warmer temperatures, more severe droughts and floods, and sea level rise
could have a wide range of impacts. All these stresses can add to existing stresses on resources
caused by other influences such as population growth, land-use changes, and pollution.
According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by
about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The ten warmest years in the twentieth century have all occurred
within the past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Some climate models,
based on emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide,
predict that average surface temperatures could increase from 2.5 to 10.4oF by the end of this
century. Increases in atmospheric CO2 are attributed largely to human activities, which have
grown rapidly since 1945. The burning of fossil fuels adds 5.6 billion tons of carbon, and
deforestation contributes another 0.4 to 2.5 billion tons of carbon, to the atmosphere each year.
Global warming, resulting in melting of glaciers and ice sheets, will cause sea levels to rise.
Globally, sea level has risen 4 to 10 inches during the past century. NASA estimates that yearly,
50 billion tons of ice is melting from the Greenland ice sheet. NASA aerial surveys show that
more than 11 cubic miles of ice is disappearing from the ice sheet annually. Considering that
land less than 10 meters above sea level contains 2 percent of the world's land surface but 10
percent of its population, major impacts could be felt by large numbers of people living on the low
lying coastlands, particularly the Gulf and East Coast states.
Changes in coastal wetlands due to sea-level rise were modeled for Bayou Sauvage NWR using
the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM). This model simulates the dominant processes
involved in wetland conversions and shoreline modifications during long-term sea-level rise
(Clough and Park 2006, www.warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM). Dramatic changes are
projected for Bayou Sauvage NWR’s marshes and other near-shore habitats under the 1-meter
sea-level rise scenario. Swamp and freshwater marshes in the northwest and middle sections of
the refuge would likely convert to open water, and dike failure is likely in some areas (Nieves
2008, Bayou Sauvage SLAMM Analysis).
In addition to the rising seas, the effects of climate change and global warming will be changes in
weather/rainfall patterns, decreases in snow and ice cover, rising sea levels, and stressed
ecosystems. For the southeastern United States and the Bayou Sauvage NWR region, this can
mean extreme precipitation events; greater likelihood of warmer/dryer summers and
wetter/reduced winter cold; and, alterations of ecosystems and habitats due to these changes in
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
weather patterns–to name but a few possibilities. For example, a recent study of the effects of
climate change on eastern United States bird species concluded that as many as 78 bird species
could decrease by at least 25 percent; while as many as 33 species could increase in abundance
by at least 25 percent due to climate and habitat changes.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The geological history of the refuge dates to the Pleistocene Epoch when coarse, gravelly terraces
were fluvially deposited through upland river valleys now occupied by the Tchefuncte and Pearl
Rivers, north and east of the refuge. The depositional age of the Pleistocene sediments underlying
the refuge is from 35,000 to less than 25,000 years ago.
Between 4,500 and 700 years ago, the area was characterized by phases of Mississippi River
sedimentation and delta lobe abandonment associated with the St. Bernard Delta cycle. The
advancing delta lobes deposited prodelta silts and clays and delta font sands, silts, and clays. The
distributary channels, associated with delta formation and responsible for shoreline progradation, left
a network of relict natural levee deposits on the refuge; the most noticeable of these is the Bayou
Sauvage natural levee ridge. The crests of these natural levees form topographic ridges and provide
a firm and stable substrate.
As the Mississippi River sub-deltas developed, marshes became established along the base of the
natural levees and in the inter-levee basins. The buildup of organic material from the marsh and
swamp vegetation and the slow, constant subsidence has produced a sequence of peat deposits and
organic rich clays in these areas. After the abandonment of the Bayou Sauvage delta lobe around
200 years ago, natural subsidence characterized by marsh deterioration and shoreline erosion
accelerated in the absence of Mississippi River sedimentation.
The construction of massive navigation and flood control works has essentially stopped the natural
processes of the river. Historical flooding into the alluvial plain provided fish spawning sites, nutrient
and sediment exchange, and a wealth of aquatic and wetland habitats. The river is now stabilized,
fixed in place, and unable to move and function as the dynamic system that both created and
destroyed habitats such as riffles, oxbows, sand bars, willow banks, and side channels.
Consequently, the river and its tributaries and distributaries are now denied access to the flood plain,
so crucial physical and biological interactions between the rivers and flood plains no longer exist.
Natural patterns of erosion and sedimentation have been greatly altered. Erosion rates are increased
on both upland and alluvial soils. Sedimentation is increased in swamps, brakes, oxbow lakes, and
other depressional areas. Sediment loading in streams and rivers is increased, disrupting natural
patterns of aggravation and degradation.
The altered hydrology and sedimentation have disrupted natural geomorphic processes. Land and
lake formation associated with river meandering and sedimentation is no longer occurring, restricting
the formation of new oxbow lakes, meander lakes, and sloughs. Sediment transport from the
Mississippi River and its distributaries to coastal marshes and bays has been greatly reduced, and
the interface between fresh and salt water grossly modified. These hydrologic changes have reduced
the formation of new deltas and associated coastal marshes and significantly increased the erosion
and subsidence of existing marshes.
18 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
SOILS
The majority of the refuge soils are in the Clovelly-Lafitte-Gentilly soil association which is
characterized as level, very poorly drained soils that have a thick to thin mucky surface layer
underlain by clayey sediments. These soils exist at elevations ranging from 0 to approximately 1 foot
above sea level and are naturally flooded most of the year. Only the Bayou Sauvage natural levee
ridge, which reaches a maximum height of less than three feet, contains a Sharkey-Commerce soil
association which is slightly better drained and rated fair to good as potential habitat for woodland
wildlife. All of the soils on the refuge are poorly suited to construction of roads, buildings, and dry
trails, but are ideal for wetland plants and wildlife.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
The natural hydrology of the refuge has been altered considerably by human activities including
construction of roads, railroads, levees, spoil deposits, and canals. Natural drainage provided by the
Bayou Sauvage freshwater channel network, surface runoff, and estuarine tidal channels was
adversely impacted by construction of hurricane flood protection levees in the mid-1950s. Flap-gated
culverts were installed in the East Flood Protection Levee to facilitate drainage from the leveed areas
but were not capable of providing adequate drainage, thus runoff and precipitation are often
impounded inside the leveed areas. Presently, the only means available of lowering water levels in
the refuge are via drainage into the Maxent Canal and discharge at two of the pump stations on the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, or manually opening the flap gates in the protection levee when water
levels are very low in Lake Pontchartrain.
Rainfall is the main source of water for the fresh marshes. During dry periods some areas of the
refuge may dry up totally. Adding brackish water from Lake Pontchartrain can provide some relief,
but introducing too much brackish water damages freshwater grasses and other plants. Tides on the
refuge have an average diurnal range of 1.0 foot with a variation from 0.45 feet in Lake Pontchartrain,
north of Chef Menteur Pass, to 1.1 feet in Lake Borgne, near the Pass. Salinities in tidal areas range
from 3.95 to 3.89 parts per thousand (ppt) in Lake Pontchartrain to 5.38 ppt near the juncture of Chef
Menteur Pass and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
Headwater flooding from the Mississippi River has been eliminated. Backwater flooding has been
reduced in extent and duration in all major backwater areas, and distributary flooding has been
eliminated or restricted to designated outlets. Headwater and backwater flood events from alluvial
valley tributaries have also been reduced in extent, frequency, and duration. Conversely, the
frequency and duration of flooding has increased in all non-leveed areas. The floodplain available for
flood water storage has been reduced by 90 percent and the flood storage capacity has been
reduced from 60 to 12 days of mean daily discharge.
Under normal conditions, water inside the refuge is basically fresh. During Hurricane Katrina, some
of the hurricane protection levees failed and introduced saline waters for a prolonged period. The
Maxent Levee was overtopped by a 12- to13-foot storm surge and failed. Three of four refuge pumps
were lost and the screw gate water control structures were compromised. The entire refuge,
including relict ridges, was inundated for four weeks. It was a time of extremes; after the waters were
pumped off or receded, drought conditions lasting more than a year worsened conditions. Salinity
readings taken in water inside the levees ranged from 17 ppt up to the high 20s. Most of the
freshwater vegetation was killed – 80 to 90 percent of the hardwoods are now dead. Present salinity
in the water column is about 5 ppt, and salt levels are probably higher in the root zone.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Urban development also adversely affects hydrology and water quality in Bayou Sauvage NWR.
The Environmental Protection Agency has identified the Mississippi Delta as an area of significant
concern for surface and groundwater quality. The region's abundant rainfall, finely textured alluvial
soils, and intensive cultivation have contributed to serious non-point source pollution problems. An
estimated 12-45 tons of soil per acre are lost from agricultural lands in the LMAV each year leading to
increased water turbidity, siltation, pollution from pesticide and herbicide run-off, toxicity to fish and
other aquatic organisms, oxygen depletion, and eutrophication. High pathogen loads have led to the
closure of many of the shellfish grounds at the coast.
There is little long-term water quality data available for the refuge, although the USGS has done
several water quality investigations on Lake Pontchartrain, one of the largest lakes in Louisiana and
immediately contiguous to the refuge. Storm water runoff (particularly urban storm water runoff in the
vicinity of New Orleans) is the largest contributor to the pollution of Lake Pontchartrain, followed by
wastewater discharge and industrial and agricultural runoff. Sediment samples collected in Lake
Pontchartrain show increased contaminant levels (metals, pesticides, and PCB’s) in the vicinity of
New Orleans. Similar results would be expected for the waters and sediments of Bayou Sauvage
NWR. In 2002, the State of Louisiana classified the Bayou Sauvage from the New Orleans hurricane
levee to Chef Menteur Pass, a length of about three miles, as fully supporting two uses: the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and recreation.
AIR QUALITY
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (as amended in 1990 and 1997), required the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to implement air quality standards to protect public health and welfare.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were set for six pollutants commonly found
throughout the United States: lead, ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5).
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality operates National Ambient Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and State and Local Ambient Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) to measure ambient concentrations
of these pollutants. Areas that meet NAAQS are designated “attainment areas,” while areas not meeting
the standards are termed ���non-attainment” areas. While no pollutant monitoring data are available for
Bayou Sauvage NWR, per se, air quality is monitored on a regular basis in the city of New Orleans and
vicinity. The monitoring results indicate that all of the New Orleans area qualifies as an attainment area
for all monitored pollutants, and that air quality has improved since 1990 (Table 1). Currently, only the
Baton Rouge area is in non-attainment of EPA’s 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
20 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Air quality statistics around Bayou Sauvage NWR
Following Hurricane Katrina, the National Resources Defense Council collected ambient air samples
in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes in October and November 2005. Samples were analyzed for
both mold spores and heavy metals. The levels of mold spores found in the flooded areas of New
Orleans were very high and posed a health threat to people with allergies, asthma, and other
respiratory disease. The most common types of mold detected were Cladosporium and
Aspergillus/Penicillium species. High concentrations of metals (e.g., lead, arsenic, and chromium) in
ambient air samples were also found. Thick clouds of dust from drying sediment deposited by the
flooding were observed during the sampling. In Orleans Parish, lead concentrations in ambient air
samples exceeded the EPA national standard of 1.5 􀁐􅁧g/m3. Arsenic and chromium concentrations in
ambient air samples collected in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes were significantly higher than EPA
health-based screening levels. The concentrations of all three metals were higher than previous
monitoring data collected prior to Hurricane Katrina. It is unknown where and for how long these
moldy, dusty conditions persisted (or will persist) and to what extent residents are (or will be) exposed
to the mold and dust contamination during cleanup activities.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The refuge staff manages eight management units that consist of emergent marsh, both tidally
influenced and impounded, plus natural levee ridges, spoil banks and shallow open water bodies,
which constitute a wide range of habitats within the refuge boundaries (Table 2). These habitats
allow for good biological productivity and high species diversity of both terrestrial and aquatic
organisms. The freshwater lagoons, bayous, and ponds provide an excellent habitat for fish and
large numbers of shore and wading birds, ducks, and other waterfowl.
Metropolitan Statistical Area
2000
Population
CO
8-hr
(ppm)
Pb
Qmax
(μg/m3)
NO2
AM
(ppm)
O3
1-hr
(ppm)
O3
8-hr
(ppm)
PM 10
Wtd AM
(μg/m3)
PM10
24-hr
(μg/m3)
PM 2.5
Wtd AM
(μg/m3)
PM 2.5
24-hr
(μg/m3)
SO2
AM
(ppm)
SO2
24-hr
(ppm)
New Orleans, LA MSA 1337726 2 0.82 0.009 0.103 0.083 21.1 41 12.0 32 0.003 0.032
National Ambient Air Quality Standards -- 9 1.50 0.053 0.125 0.085 50 150 15 65 0.030 0.140
Parish/County
2000
Population
CO
8-hr
(ppm)
Pb
Qmax
(μg/m3)
NO2
AM
(ppm)
O3
1-hr
(ppm)
O3
8-hr
(ppm)
PM 10
Wtd AM
(��g/m3)
PM10
24-hr
(μg/m3)
PM 2.5
Wtd AM
(μg/m3)
PM 2.5
24-hr
(μg/m3)
SO2
AM
(ppm)
SO2
24-hr
(ppm)
Jefferson Parish (Kenner, Marrero) 455466 IN 0.13 0.009 0.100 0.083 ND ND 11.8 32 IN IN
Orleans Parish (City Park, Tulane) 484674 2 0.09 IN 0.089 0.068 21.1 41 12.0 30 ND ND
Plaquemines Parish 26757 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND IN IN ND ND
St. Bernard Parish (Arabi, Meraux) 67229 ND 0.82 ND 0.096 0.079 ND ND 10.7 IN 0.003 0.032
St. Charles Parish (Hanhville) 48072 ND 0.04 ND 0.092 0.076 IN IN IN IN ND ND
St. John the Baptist Parish (Garyville) 43044 ND ND ND 0.094 0.077 ND ND ND ND ND ND
St. Tammany Parish 191268 ND 0.04 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
St. James Parish (Convent) 21216 ND ND ND 0.103 0.078 ND ND IN IN ND ND
National Ambient Air Quality Standards -- 9 1.50 0.053 0.125 0.085 50 150 15 65 0.030 0.140
Air Quality Statistics by City, 2005
Air Quality Statistics by Parish/County, 2005
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Most of the Bayou Sauvage NWR is located inside massive hurricane protection levees, built to hold
back storm surges and prevent flooding in the low-lying city of New Orleans. The levees interrupt
natural water flow patterns and challenge refuge managers to maintain productive wetland habitats in
this altered environment. A network of pumps and flap gates provides a means of regulating water
levels seasonally to encourage the summer growth of emergent grasses that, in turn, provide
waterfowl food supplies in winter.
The refuge contains a variety of different habitats, including freshwater marshes, brackish marshes,
bottomland hardwood forests, lagoons, canals, borrow pits, chenieres (former beach fronts) and
natural bayous (Figure 3). The lower lying portions of the levee backslopes support bottomland
hardwood and swamp communities. The low lying, frequently flooded basins are dominated by
emergent vegetation, which are exposed to a salinity gradient, ranging from fresh in the upper ends
of the basin or near the base of natural levees to brackish near the Lakes. These salinity gradients
are responsible for the creation of distinct plant communities arranged in roughly parallel zones
between the swamp-hardwood communities and the open waters.
Table 2. Habitat types and associated acreages found on Bayou Sauvage NWR
Habitat Type Acres
Fresh Marsh 4,838
Non - Fresh Marsh 7,574
Water 6,062
Forest 2,652
Swamp 307
Scrub/Shrub 2,048
The refuge’s marsh zones are classified as fresh, intermediate, and brackish; with fresh and
intermediate zones confined primarily to the leveed areas of the refuge. The tidal marshes are
dominated by wiregrass. The leveed wetlands are more diverse with dominant vegetation
species being wiregrass, fall panicum, switchgrass, sprangletop, and coastal waterhyssop. The
freshwater bodies are characterized by coontail, water-celery, and southern niad. This variety of
aquatic vegetation species provides a diverse habitat for aquatic organisms and food for
migratory waterfowl. A wading bird rookery can be found in the scrub/shrub habitat of the refuge
from May until July, while tens of thousands of waterfowl winter in its bountiful marshes. The
marshes along Lakes Pontchartrain and Borgne serve as estuarine nurseries for various fish
species, crabs, and shrimp. Freshwater lagoons, bayous, and ponds serve as production areas
for largemouth bass, crappie, bluegill, and catfish.
22 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. General habitat types on Bayou Sauvage NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Vegetation communities within the refuge are representative of those communities found in an
abandoned delta lobe within the Mississippi Deltaic Plain and can be grouped into three major
categories: terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic. Regional landforms affect the distribution of the
vegetation primarily through control of the periodic flooding and salinity.
Terrestrial vegetation, often characterized by live oak and mixed hardwood communities, is
associated with higher natural levee ridges, which are well-drained and typically above the reach of
saline waters. The continued subsidence of the ridges, in addition to the saltwater intrusion due to
major storms and an extended drought over the past 15 to 20 years has continually compromised the
integrity of the area to support hardwood communities. Prior to the summer of 2005, the natural
levee ridge was a maritime bottomland hardwood forest dominated by live oak (Quercus virginiana)
and sugar berry (Celtis laevigata).
Marshes are categorized as either impounded (leveed wetlands) or tidal waters. Prior to Hurricane
Katrina the impounded marshes were primarily fresh with only a small area of intermediate marsh
between Turtle Bayou and the East Hurricane Flood Protection Levee and brackish marsh in the tidal
wetlands. The dominant vegetation is wiregrass, fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum),
switchgrass (P. virgatum), sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis), and coastal water hyssop/bagscale
(Sacciolepis striata) occupying the low flats. The tidal wetland areas are dominated by wiregrass with
marsh aster (Aster subulatus), saltmarsh lythrum (Lythrum lineare), Olney bulrush, and saltmarsh
bulrush. Smooth cordgrass dominated edges of marsh ponds, and hogcane (Spartina cynosuroides)
may dominate higher elevations along natural levees.
According to the Post Hurricane Katrina Refuge Damage Assessment, prior to Hurricane Katrina, the
total area of freshwater and brackish marsh (including open water) was 21,717 acres, with the
remaining 1,053 acres being upland margins along levees and berms. According to the Post
Hurricane Katrina Refuge Damage Assessment, comparison of pre- and post-hurricane imagery
showed conversion of 658 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh to open water, which amounted to
an overall marsh loss of 11 percent. Most of the marsh loss occurred in freshwater marsh,
particularly within Units 3 and 5. Total marsh area lost for these two units was 763 acres, or 21
percent of pre-storm marsh area in these units. This loss comprised 44 percent of all marsh lost
within the refuge (Figure 4).
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the refuge staff had been countering natural forces with vegetative
plantings and creating “fences” for holding sediment with organic materials such as used Christmas
trees, coir logs, and hay bales. When sediments build, they can quickly vegetate with submerged
aquatics and subsequently various emergent marsh plant species. Unfortunately, all progress was
destroyed during the 2005 storm season. No large scale dredging projects occur in the vicinity of the
refuge to create a beneficial spoil source. Bayous and drainages within the refuge which have silted-in
could provide small amounts of beneficial spoil for building up relict ridges.
WILDLIFE
Bayou Sauvage NWR was established in April 1990, to provide wintering habitat for migratory birds and
waterfowl. It is the largest such urban refuge in the Refuge System and is home to 340 species of birds.
Appendix I contains a list of wildlife species of concern and/or significance for management purposes.
24 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Impacts of Hurricane Katrina on Bayou Sauvage NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Migratory birds
Bayou Sauvage NWR is recognized as an important area for migratory waterfowl and other water
birds that depend on shallow water with submerged and emergent herbaceous aquatic plants. The
refuge lies within the Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV), which was established as one of the original
joint ventures under the NAWMP. The purpose of the NAWMP and GCJV was to formally establish a
federal-state-private partnership for the conservation and perpetuation of waterfowl populations.
Since its inception, the NAWMP and GCJV have expanded to embrace “all bird” conservation. The
GCJV has divided the western Gulf Coast into six initiative areas for addressing habitat/population
needs and objectives unique to those areas. Bayou Sauvage NWR lies within the Mississippi River
Coastal Wetlands Initiative Area described by Wilson, Manlove, and Esslinger (2002) and includes
waterfowl population and habitat objectives. The GCJV is currently developing priority bird lists and
habitat/population objectives for other bird groups.
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, surveys documented an average of 25,000, with peaks of up to 40,000,
migratory waterfowl using the refuge. Peak numbers were observed during periods of ample rainfall
that facilitated natural food production in the impounded areas. In drier years, numbers dropped to
around 10,000 to15,000 ducks. Moist-soil management began in the 1990s and waterfowl numbers
increased during this period. Since 2000, the number of neotropical species has decreased
consistently, not only on the refuge, but in the Lake Pontchartrain area in general. Christmas bird
counts show losses of water birds since 2000. The decrease is probably a result of reduced moist
soil plant production caused by droughts and hurricanes. Not only is emergent vegetation production
less, but certain species of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are also lost during periods of higher
salinities associated with droughts.
The total number of waterfowl lost within the refuge as a result of Hurricane Katrina is based on total
loss of marsh acreage, is 867, which is an 8.9 percent reduction in overall carrying capacity. Within
freshwater marsh, 1,089 acres of lost marsh translated to a loss of 545 waterfowl, or a 15.9 percent
reduction in freshwater marsh carrying capacity. Within brackish marsh, 658 acres of lost marsh
translated to a loss of 322 waterfowl, or an 11 percent reduction in carrying capacity for brackish
marsh. Based on these results, the heaviest loss of waterfowl in freshwater marsh was, as expected,
in Units 3 and 5. Less expected was the high number of birds lost within brackish marsh Unit 1.
The most common species observed is gadwall with widgeon, shoveler, mallard, teal, and pintail
occurring in smaller numbers. In December 2006, Unit 6 was full of ruddy ducks, a phenomenon not
observed previously. Few geese are observed during surveys.
Because the refuge is within an urban area with restrictions on hunting and weapons, the entire
refuge is a sanctuary. However, some consideration is being given to opening portions of the refuge
outside the Hurricane Levee Protection System to youth waterfowl hunting.
Wood ducks, mottled ducks, and black-bellied whistling ducks nest in the area. Limited mottled duck
nesting occurs on the levees. The range of black-bellied whistling ducks has increased eastward in
recent years. A wood duck box program is successfully providing nesting for both wood ducks and
black-bellied whistling ducks. Significant concern has been expressed, particularly in Texas, over
apparent population decline of mottled ducks. While the decline is either not shared or is much less
in Louisiana, the entire west Gulf Coast population is managed as one. In an effort to gain a better
understanding of the population status and trends, there is renewed emphasis being placed on a
multi-state pre-season banding program that was started in 1994, and in developing and conducting
annual breeding/production surveys.
26 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
The location of shallow-water and moist-soil habitats adjacent to the Mississippi River and Lake
Pontchartrain make Bayou Sauvage NWR attractive to shorebirds. Refuge wetlands provide important
migratory shorebird habitat when dewatered or when natural drying occurs and coincides with spring and
fall migration. Receding water exposes mudflats rich in invertebrate prey. In the past, large numbers of
shorebirds have congregated in Unit 6; Units 3 and 5 have also been used but with less regularity than
Unit 6 when water levels are optimum. The refuge is in the Gulf Coastal Prairie area of the lower
Mississippi/western Gulf Coast region of the Shorebird Conservation Plan. No highly imperiled species
use the refuge except possibly accidentally. Marbled godwit and Sanderling are species of high concern
listed in the shorebird plan that potentially use the refuge area.
The emergent marsh habitat supports marsh birds, the highest priority species being king rail, clapper
rail, yellow rail, sora, pied-billed grebe, horned grebe, least bittern, and American bittern. These birds
need a mosaic of open, shallow water with emergent vegetation. Secretive marsh bird surveys
before Hurricane Katrina revealed large numbers of nesting king and clapper rails and to a lesser
degree gallinules and least bitterns. Numbers of marsh birds are down since Hurricane Katrina.
Wading birds that utilize the abundant forage resources in the shallow water habitats on the refuge are
common. Over the past years, the wading bird rookery on the refuge had moved to trees on adjacent land
when trees died from prolonged exposure to deep water in Unit 6; those trees on adjacent lands are now
also dead from Hurricane Katrina’s winds and floods. The refuge is presently used as a feeding/resting
area with limited nesting. Priority species of regional concern expected to occur in the area include little
blue heron, tri-colored heron, yellow-crowned night heron, and white Ibis.
A number of gulls and terns use the refuge for loafing and feeding. Priority species of regional
concern possibly occurring on the refuge are Forster’s tern and black tern.
Other water birds of management concern that feed in the area are the eastern brown pelican,
which is observed year-round but does not breed on the refuge; the American coot and white
pelican winter in the area.
The position of Bayou Sauvage NWR as an oasis in the midst of development makes it an
important resting and feeding area to trans-Gulf migratory songbirds. The area is located in the
Gulf Coastal Prairie area in Bird Conservation Region 37 (BCR 37). According to the BCR Plan,
high-priority birds of concern common to the refuge are prothonotary warbler, sedge wren,
Swainson’s warbler, and painted bunting.
Most of the trees and freshwater vegetation were killed by the storm surge and saltwater intrusion
associated with the 2005 storm season. Management to encourage the development of vertical
structure (trees) would be beneficial.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The endangered eastern brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is a year-round resident of
southeast Louisiana. The number of nesting brown pelicans has substantially increased despite
loss of nesting habitat. Although they do not nest on the refuge, brown pelicans frequently use
the area for feeding and loafing. An occasional West Indian manatee, an endangered species, is
observed in the waters in the area during warm months, but departs during colder months.
Eastern Lake Pontchartrain and all of Lake Borgne were designated as critical habitat for the
threatened Gulf sturgeon in 2003. These waters provide juveniles, subadults, and adults feeding,
resting, and passage habitat especially during winter months. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) winters on the refuge and nests in the area.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Other Wildlife
Common mammals are white-tailed deer, squirrels, otter, raccoon, feral hog, nutria and mink. All
terrestrial species suffered during and after Hurricane Katrina. The population of these species declined
as a result of the storm. Some sign is observed of these species after the storm, but not in abundance
like before Hurricane Katrina. Large numbers of alligators and turtles existed on the refuge; however,
these species also experienced a population decline as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
Fisheries
A diversity of freshwater and saltwater species is found on the refuge. Common freshwater species
are bass, catfish, mullet, crappie, minnows, and bream. Saltwater species are flounder, red fish,
speckled sea trout, crabs, and shrimp. Fish assemblages in Lake Pontchartrain change seasonally
depending on the balance between the amount of freshwater entering the lake from drainages and
the amount of saltier Gulf waters that dominate during times of little rainfall.
Presently, most fishing in the refuge is by bank fishers. Anglers are seeking brackish water species
deposited in the impoundments during the storm surge. Speckled sea trout fishing and crabbing
have increased while large mouth bass and blue gill have declined. Before January 2007, salinities
were 13 to15 ppt. January 2007 was the first time salinity readings dropped to below 10 ppt since the
storm season of 2005.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Indigenous Native Americans were present in the area dating back to 1800 B.C. The original
inhabitants were nomadic hunters, who later gave way to sedentary mound building cultures. In
1699, Bienville, a French explorer, explored and named the areas surrounding Lake Pontchartrain. It
is likely that Bienville and his party were the first Europeans to investigate this area. Mathurin and
Perier Dreaux were among the first settlers to make their home in this area. In the 1720s they were
given a land grant located on the Bayou Sauvage natural levees. The property was named Gentilly.
This is associated with the westernmost portion of present day Bayou Sauvage.
Historical records reveal that the majority of the refuge area saw little settlement and development
prior to the twentieth century. Even after that date, most settlement in the area occurred on lands just
outside of the present refuge boundary. Possibly the earliest significant historic occupation in the
area seems to have been the plantation established by Barthelemy Lafon in approximately 1809.
Early maps of the area indicate that the Habitation Lafon was located along the south side of Bayou
Sauvage, just east of Turtle Bayou.
There are numerous archaeological sites located on the refuge. The study of the Big and Little Oak
Island sites began in 1935 and still continues. One of the most extensive studies was conducted by
Professor Shenkel at University of New Orleans in the 1980s. During this study several pits were dug
and many artifacts were discovered. These artifacts were thought to be a product of the Tchefuncte
culture, a widespread people located primarily in the Pontchartrain basin. The Tchefuncte were the
first people to widely use ceramics and were hunter-gatherers. The Tchefuncte culture is classified
as virilocal or patrilocal in structure and their organizational structure is defined as small bands, which
typically consisted of 25 to 50 individuals.
28 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
In 1993 a Phase I Archaeological Survey identified eight archaeological sites and one “Spot Find”
on refuge property or potential property. Two sites recognized for their archaeological
significance, Big Oak Island and Little Oak Island, have been placed on the National Register of
Historic Places because of their ability to contribute to the understanding the history of the region.
Three sites, Turtle Bayou, Bayou Sauvage, and Madere, are on natural levees of Bayou
Sauvage or its distributaries. These three sites have not been extensively examined and all have
the potential for containing significant cultural remains.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Regional Demographics and Economy
According to the 2005 American Community Survey, the population of the eight-parish, New Orleans
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was 1.3 million, and the population of the city of New Orleans
(which is synonymous with Orleans Parish) was 437,186 persons. Between its maximum population
of 627,525 in 1960 and 2005, the population of New Orleans slowly declined. Hurricane Katrina
resulted in a dramatic drop in population in New Orleans. In July 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau
estimated a population of 223,388 in the city, a decline of 54 percent, compared to an estimated of
437,186 in 2005, prior to Hurricane Katrina (Table 3).
However, the population of New Orleans is recovering from Hurricane Katrina. As of March 2007,
there had been a rebound in population to 255,000 people – a 14 percent increase from the July
2006 estimate. The Census Bureau estimated the entire New Orleans MSA population at that
time to be just over one million residents. Given the socio-economic and geographic links within
the MSA parishes, these population changes will impact the local economy and the public use of
Bayou Sauvage NWR. In recent years, the refuge has had approximately 150,000 visitors a year
(generating about $15 million), drawn from the regional population and tourists who visit New
Orleans. The 2005 census survey estimated that within the New Orleans MSA there were
218,000 elementary and high school students, all of whom could benefit from the refuge’s
environmental education programs.
The economy of New Orleans is characterized by a relatively large number of low and moderate
wage jobs associated with tourism, retail trade, and related services. The 2005 American Community
Survey found 24.5 percent of the people in Orleans Parish lived in poverty, seventh highest among
large counties in the country. The median household income of $30,771 for Orleans Parish is far
below the national average of $46,242.
New Orleans has always been primarily a commercial center, with manufacturing playing a secondary
role in its economic life. The busy port, besides adding to the city's cosmopolitan atmosphere, is the
foundation of the metropolitan economy, influencing many aspects of urban life. The economy of
New Orleans has historically been regulated by its location on one of the most productive river
systems in the world. Its key location on the Mississippi River and its close proximity to the Gulf of
Mexico encourage an economy based largely on shipping and port-related industry. Exports include
grain, petroleum, petrochemicals, and agricultural products. Today, the economy of New Orleans is
driven by tourism, with the port economies down significantly. Tourism visits to New Orleans were
down sharply in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with many conventions cancelled and hotels
closed or being used for aid workers. The numbers of scheduled airline flights into the city are still
below the levels prior to Hurricane Katrina. Community leaders have been working hard to restore
the tourism economy and important strides are being made with the reopening of most hotels and the
refurbishment of the Louisiana Superdome and the Convention Center.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Table 3. Socioeconomic profile - U.S. Census, 2005 American Community Survey
Characteristic
City of New
Orleans (Orleans
Parish)
St Bernard Parish New Orleans MSA United States
Demographic
Population
(number) 437,186 64,576b 1,292,774 288,378,137
Total Land Area
(sq. miles) 180.6 465.0 3153.4 3,537,438
Population Density
(pop./sq. mile) 2420 139 410 82
Race/Ethnicity (%
of Population)
White 28.0 86.4 57.0 74.4
Black/African
American 67.5 10.5 37.7 12.1
Hispanic/Latino (of
any race) 3.1 5.5 5.0 14.5
Asian 2.4 1.5 2.4 4.3
Education (% of
population over
25)
High School
degree 82.3 80.5 83.5 84.2
College degree 31.4 10.9 25.6 27.2
Economic
Median Household
Income $ 30,771 $ 34,858 $ 39,879 $ 46,242
Per capita Income $ 21,998 $ 18,441 $ 22,540 $ 25,035
Families below
poverty level (%) 21.8% -- 14.5% 10.2%
Individuals below
poverty level (%) 24.5% 21.0% 17.8% 13.3%
30 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The conservation priorities identified for Bayou Sauvage NWR include emphasis on restoration of
habitats for migratory birds, shore and wading birds, and efforts to enhance and maintain a diverse
balance of wildlife species.
The refuge now totals 22,265 acres, with a current approved acquisition boundary of 23,126 acres.
This initial acquisition was made possible through a partnership agreement between The
Conservation Fund, city of New Orleans, and the Service. There are several parcels of land that lie
within the existing refuge boundary that are not owned by the Service. Several of these parcels
compromise refuge management due to conflicting management purposes and disturbance to
wildlife. Acquisition of these parcels would eliminate access issues, improve management options
and tighten some unclear and confusing boundary issues.
VISITOR SERVICES
The priority public uses of the refuge are fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. The issues facing the Visitor Services Program center
on the re-establishment of services post Hurricane Katrina. Several primary public use areas of the
refuge are currently closed due to storm damage. Using the Final CCP and the visitor services plan,
the refuge will establish a plan for restoration of public services and access. The locations of current
public use facilities at Bayou Sauvage NWR are illustrated in Figure 5.
Fishing and Hunting
The primary objectives of Bayou Sauvage NWR are to provide habitat for the protection of fish and
other wildlife. Fishing is one of the main public uses of the refuge. Access to and recreational use of
the refuge resources are permitted in designated areas and in accordance with state and federal
regulations. Further, the use of these resources is subject to the following conditions: Bayou
Sauvage NWR is open 30 minutes before legal sunrise until 30 minutes after legal sunset. Sport and
recreational shell fishing are permitted from February 1 through October 31.
There are several public access points for fishing activities. There is a handicap accessible fishing pier on
Highway 90 at the Wayside Park location along the Bayou Sauvage waterway. Prior to Hurricane Katrina,
this site was rarely if ever used for fishing and this is not expected to change unless the bayou can be
deepened to improve fish habitat. Bank fishing at non-designated “pull offs” along Highway 11 was
popular with anglers prior to Hurricane Katrina; it is expected that this will not change as the recovery from
the hurricane continues. The Highway 11 boat launch provides boating access to anglers with 25 hp or
less engines. The Madere Marsh Unit off of Highway 90 is a popular site for anglers to catch bait.
Opportunities for crawfishing also abound at the Joe Madere Marsh site. Before Hurricane Katrina, there
was also fishing from along the Maxent Canal, at the Ridge Trail site, which is in an area just outside of
the refuge. The Ridge Trail site has not re-opened to the public. However, the site will be opened by the
time the CCP document is released. Salt marsh fishing occurred at the refuge on both sides of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway prior to Hurricane Katrina and still remains popular. Crabbing has been historically
popular at the Crabbing Bridge Road Site. The most commonly found fish on the refuge are bass, catfish,
bream, redfish, speckled sea trout, and gar.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Bayou Sauvage NWR serves as one of the last remaining non-hunted sanctuaries in the area for
wildlife and presently is not opened to hunting. However, the refuge is considering opening the
marshes outside of the Hurricane Protection Levee System to limited youth waterfowl hunting.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, wildlife viewing opportunities abounded on Bayou Sauvage NWR. The
refuge is part of the “America’s Wetland Birding Trail.” The Ridge Trail boardwalk was a popular
destination for visitors and tourists to view the diverse flora and fauna of Bayou Sauvage NWR. The
Ridge Trail offered a first-hand view of three habitat types: bottomland hardwood forest, swamp, and
marsh. While walking the trail, one could likely see a variety of birds, both resident and/or
neotropical, depending on the season, as well as the ever-present birds of prey, such as hawks and
turkey vultures. A myriad of reptiles and amphibians were commonly seen, as well as a variety of
mammals, such as raccoons, squirrels, and rabbits. The end of the board walk had an observation
deck with a viewing scope overlooking an old cypress swamp. From this deck, visitors could see
wading birds, ducks, and perhaps a bald eagle. The boardwalk and observation deck were destroyed
during Hurricane Katrina, but are being rebuilt as part of the recovery process.
Wildlife photography and viewing opportunities are also available along the north and south Maxent
Levees. Birders, in particular, took advantage of these locations. The Bayou Sauvage Bikeway, a
hard-surfaced 4.5 mile bike trail, was damaged by Hurricane Katrina and may be reopened as a
rougher, “dirt bike” type trail. The bike path offers excellent views of wildlife for photographers and
visitors. While walking or riding along the path, visitors may see wading birds, alligators, marsh
rabbits, or other resident wildlife.
The universally accessible Wayside Park Pier offers a close look at a portion of the actual historical
Bayou Sauvage waterway. Nearby, before Hurricane Katrina, Joe Madere Marsh offered several
marked canoe trails and excellent opportunities to view ducks, shorebirds, marshbirds, raptors, and
alligators, as well as lush marsh grasses.
Environmental Education
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the environmental education program consisted of an off-site (classroom
visits) component and an on-site component. Currently offered classroom programs include the
following:
“Endangered Species” is a program intended primarily for students in grades 4-6. This program
provides a look at why species become endangered and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s role in
protecting them. It features endangered species items confiscated by the Service’s wildlife
inspectors, and rangers bring live endangered species to the classroom as well.
“Creature Features” is a program for students in grade levels K-3, which offers students a fun and
educational lesson in how animals adapt to and survive in their environment. Live animals are
featured as well as a “modeling” component where the adaptations of a wetland animal are
demonstrated as a student is dressed up in articles based on that animal.
Both the “Endangered Species” and the “Creature Features” programs were popular before Hurricane
Katrina and are in more demand since Hurricane Katrina, probably due to more “advertising” of the
programs, and the fact that we cannot yet resume our on-site environmental education curriculum.
32 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
On-site Programs:
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the refuge offered two major on-site programs to the public. “Habitat Is
Where It’s At,” was for students in grades 4-6, and is a wetlands education curriculum which takes
place at the Ridge Trail Site. This is a three-part program consisting of a nature walk, dip netting in
the nearby Maxent canal, and a van tour of the refuge featuring wildlife viewing and education about
management and challenges facing an urban refuge.
“Wetlands Investigator” is a program made possible by a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant.
It was created to offer educational opportunities to underserved students in the metro New Orleans
area, particularly those in close proximity to Bayou Sauvage NWR. Students in grades 2-3 came to
the refuge and made an exploratory trek on the boardwalk, identifying flora and fauna, and then they
went on a swamp tour at the former “Swamp Tour Site” and where they observed flora and fauna up
close and got a first-hand view of the marshes of the refuge.
To get information to teachers about these opportunities, the education staff mails information to
schools in the metro New Orleans area, distributes an informational sheet at special events, and
issues press releases.
It is anticipated that on-site environmental education program offerings will be significantly re-tooled
to reflect habitat changes after Hurricane Katrina and to highlight the recovery of the refuge’s
ecosystems. An effort will also be made to tie the refuge’s natural processes and resources more
closely to larger issues of coastal preservation in the state.
Interpretation
An ambitious slate of weekend interpretive programs was offered at Bayou Sauvage NWR prior to
Hurricane Katrina, with peak programming occurring in approximately 2002. Refuge programs were
scaled back due to reduced staffing and the development and expansion of programs at Big Branch
Marsh NWR. Much of the staffing capability for these outings was provided by the Southeast
Louisiana NWR Complex’s full-time student intern/SCA program. Some of these programs included:
􀁹􇤠 Interpretive canoe tours were offered through the Joe Madere Marsh unit of the refuge, and
occasionally from the Highway 11 boat launch site or from the Maxent Levee near Blind
Lagoon, as dictated by water levels. These tours were free to the public, and reservations
were taken in advance. Usually a maximum of 12 canoes per trip was used.
􀁹􇤠 Interpretive nature walks, including nighttime or “moonlight” walks, were also offered at the
Ridge Trail boardwalk.
􀁹􇤠 Interpretive bike tours were offered on the Bayou Sauvage Bikeway. These trips were not as
popular as anticipated. Participants had to transport their own bikes to the refuge, and some
participants were looking more for a “ride” than an interpretive tour.
��􇤠 Birding tours were offered at the Ridge Trail and other sites on the refuge, including the
Maxent Levee. These were sometimes conducted by volunteers from local birding clubs, and
were fairly popular during certain seasons.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
􀁹􇤠 Junior Refuge Manager Program was offered at the Ridge Trail pavilion on selected
Saturdays mainly during spring and fall. Nature study booklets were developed at two
different levels (ages 6-9 and 10-12) and keyed to numbered stops set up at the pavilion and
along the Ridge Trail boardwalk. A staff person greeted and oriented participants at the
pavilion, and showed a 3-minute interpretive film about the Refuge System as an introduction.
Participants then followed the sequence of stops in the booklet, observing and answering
questions about the resources along the way. At the conclusion, the booklets were “graded”
and participants received a Bayou Sauvage Junior Refuge Manager badge.
Non-personal interpretation opportunities were also offered. Some of these opportunities included:
􀁹􇤠 The Ridge Trail boardwalk featured approximately 20 black and white 9 x 12 trailside
interpretive signs focusing on selected flora and fauna present along the route. There was
also a 2 x 3 wayside on bottomland hardwoods, and a 2 x 3 wayside entitled “Bayous” near an
overlook of the Bayou Sauvage waterway. That panel explained the origin of the term “bayou”
and the geologic significance of the waterway. The majority of these signs was destroyed by
Hurricane Katrina.
􀁹􇤠 The Wayside Park (Highway 90 Pier) kiosk still has a 3 x 3 interpretive panel in good shape
entitled “Bayou Sauvage – Highway to the Past,” which provides a sketch of the historical
significance of the waterway as a transportation route into New Orleans.
􀁹􇤠 The Highway 11 Boat Launch kiosk featured a standard 3 x 3 panel on Waterfowl Migration
and a 2 x 3 panel entitled “Be a Better Boater,” with recommendations for environmentally
friendly boating practices. The kiosk, brochure box, and panels were destroyed by Hurricane
Katrina, and were frequent targets of vandalism prior to that.
􀁹􇤠 At the Crabbing Bridge, a kiosk with a 3 x 3 “you are here” type panel indicates the start of the
Bayou Sauvage Bikeway. It is in good shape. Another 3 x 3 panel is entitled “Crabs and
Crabbing,” with blue crab biology, crabbing tips, and other information about this pastime. It
was badly defaced by spray paint. The kiosk was damaged by Katrina and was removed.
􀁹􇤠 At Exit 251 (swamp tour exit) of I-10, at the opposite end of the bike path was a kiosk that had
a “you are here” panel similar to the one at the Crabbing Bridge. It was likely stolen after
Hurricane Katrina. On the south side of the exit, at the swamp tour, was a kiosk that originally
had a Refuge System panel. That panel was later replaced by a refuge centennial panel,
which featured a map of all Louisiana national wildlife refuges. The exit and the swamp tour
are now closed and the kiosk panels have been removed.
34 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Location of public use areas on Bayou Sauvage NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities, including
construction. Refuge personnel are not assigned solely to Bayou Sauvage NWR, but support the eight
refuges in the Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex. Six positions share responsibility for Bayou Sauvage,
Breton, and Delta NWRs. The Complex staff consists of 27 permanent full-time employees (Figure 6 See
Chapter 5 under Funding and Personel). The refuge also benefits from the help of interns and volunteers.
The major management activities on the refuge include wetland restoration projects, law
enforcement, wildlife monitoring, environmental education, and providing public uses when they are
compatible with refuge purposes.
36 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
III. Plan Development
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat management and restoration, visitor and educational services, and
refuge administration. Issues and concerns are based on the professional judgment of the team
and on recommendations and discussions with personnel from other conservation agencies and
refuges. Also, issues and concerns arising from a February 2007 review of the refuge’s biological
program and a March 2007 review of the refuge’s visitor services program were considered.
Comments from the public made at a public scoping meeting held in June 2007, and comments
mailed to the refuge, were considered. Key issues included: restoration of the refuge due to
damages from Hurricane Katrina, migratory bird and waterfowl nesting habitats, invasive species
of plants and animals, refuge access, law enforcement, and re-establishing volunteer and
environmental education programs. The planning team considered federal and state mandates,
as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans.
All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues important to the public
fall outside the scope of the decisions made within this planning process. The team considered all issues
that were raised throughout the planning process. This plan attempts to balance the competing opinions
relating to important issues. The team identified the issues that, in its best professional judgment, are
most significant to the refuge. A summary of the significant issues follows.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Threatened and Endangered Species
The protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important responsibility
delegated to the Service and its national wildlife refuges. A number of federal threatened and
endangered species are thought to use, or have the potential to use, Bayou Sauvage NWR. These
include the eastern brown pelican, West Indian manatee, and Gulf sturgeon. Although the refuge
does not actively manage for these transient species, it does offer protection and habitat.
Invasive and Nuisance Species
An “invasive species” is defined as a species that is non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under
consideration, and whose interdiction causes or is likely to cause economic harm, environmental
harm, or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). These species are normally introduced by
direct or inadvertent human actions.
Both plant and animal nuisance and invasive species currently occur on the refuge. Animal species,
such as nutria and feral hogs, compete with native species for limited food supplies and can be
destructive to habitats. Removal of hogs has been accomplished by trappers working under a special
use permit issued by refuge management. Removal of nutria is through private trappers enrolled in
the state’s nutria removal program.
Nuisance and invasive plant species include the Chinese tallow tree, water hyacinth, cogon grass,
and the dodder plant. One commenter mentioned the need to control water hyacinth to reduce the
threat of choked waterways to a degree that permits recreational use. Another commenter
38 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
mentioned the need to conserve natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems and to
reduce the destructiveness of tallow trees around the natural ridge levee. Because of the
opportunistic and resilient nature of these species, they have thrived after Hurricane Katrina.
Resident Wildlife
While the Service’s primary goal is the protection of federal trust species, the refuge’s purposes
include improving natural diversity of resident fish and wildlife species. Therefore, it is the
responsibility of the refuge to manage resident wildlife within the refuge boundaries. This
management needs to be performed in conjunction with, and not to the detriment of, migratory, shore,
and wading birds within the refuge. An array of wildlife species indigenous to the LMRE inhabit
Bayou Sauvage NWR. The most widely recognized species include white-tailed deer, squirrel, rabbit,
otter, raccoon, and mink. Resident reptiles and amphibians include alligators, various snakes, frogs,
skinks, and turtles.
A commenter at the public scoping meeting suggested establishing a relocation trapping program to
restore the wildlife diversity of the refuge. Habitat restoration must take place before this comment
can be given full consideration.
Migratory Birds
A primary purpose of the refuge is to provide wintering and nesting habitats for migratory and resident
waterfowl, wading birds, and migrating song birds. The operation and management of the refuge
provides for the basic needs of these species, including feeding, resting, and breeding. Management
measures include planting vegetation and managing moist-soil in eight different water management
units that cater to a variety of different species. Comments from the biological review team and the
public expressed a desire to support and expand these efforts. A major issue facing the refuge is the
reduction in migrating waterfowl utilizing the refuge because of recent drought conditions and
previous hurricane damage to critical habitats. Several comments were made that the freshwater
marsh should be re-established to improve waterfowl use and diversity on the refuge.
The biological review team also identified a need to properly survey and monitor resident and
breeding waterfowl (i.e., mottled duck and marsh birds) populations to determine population numbers
and to identify management needs. Nesting boxes for wood ducks and black-bellied whistling ducks
exist and are used on the refuge and are a good source of valuable breeding information. These
surveys would help evaluate impacts of previous management actions, as well as uncontrollable
factors, such as weather and outside pollution sources.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
The refuge is located in the physiographic region known as the LMRE. The LMRE includes the
deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi
River and its distributaries. Prior to the 1920s, the lands that now make up the refuge were annually
recharged by flooding of the Mississippi River, which created primarily brackish marsh habitats.
Today, eight moist-soil water management units made up of fresh, intermediate, and brackish marsh
are situated between Lakes Pontchartrain and Borgne. A small section of bottomland hardwood
forest also exists along the natural ridge levee. The freshwater units’ primary source of fresh water is
precipitation, while the intermediate and brackish units receive tidal flows from the nearby lakes.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Moist-soil Water Management
Moist-soil management refers to management of land to provide moist-soil conditions during the
growing season to promote the natural production of beneficial plants. Seeds produced by these
plants often attract and concentrate waterfowl and other wetland wildlife species. Moist-soil
impoundments provide plant and animal foods that are a critical part of the diet of wintering and
migrating waterfowl and have become a significant part of management efforts on many refuges.
Preferred moist-soil plants provide seeds and other plant parts (e.g., leaves, roots, and tubers) that
generally have low deterioration rates after flooding, and provide substantial energy and essential
nutrients less available to wintering waterfowl in common agricultural grains (i.e., corn, milo, and
soybeans). Moist-soil impoundments also support diverse populations of invertebrates, an important
protein source for waterfowl. The plants and invertebrates available in moist-soil impoundments
provide food resources necessary for wintering and migrating waterfowl to complete critical aspects of
the annual cycle, such as molt and reproduction. Due to the highly organic nature of the soils at
Bayou Sauvage NWR, water management is a highly complex undertaking. It has been further
complicated by the residual salts remaining from Hurricane Katrina.
The eight water management units are managed to control water depths and to cater to resident and
migratory waterfowl. Habitat management of the refuge includes planting grasses and trees to
provide food and nesting resources, using Christmas trees and breakwater dikes as shoreline erosion
control, and some prescribed burning to control invasive plants and underbrush. As mentioned in the
Physical and Biological Resource sections of this plan, Hurricane Katrina greatly impacted waterfowl,
neotropical migratory birds, and resident wildlife habitats. One major issue is restoration of the
freshwater marsh habitat after Hurricane Katrina. The refuge staff seeks to re-establish the diversity
of the refuge to that observed prior to Hurricane Katrina by restoring the freshwater marsh units and
reforesting the natural levee ridge. The refuge staff plans to enhance management of the freshwater
units by exploring alternatives to reduce saltwater intrusion and soil salinities, and by the introduction
of fresh waters other than precipitation to fresh marsh units.
Several comments were made by public stakeholders and members of the biological review team that
reinforced the need to restore damaged habitats and to re-establish freshwater marsh to enhance fish
and wildlife diversity.
Fire Management
Fire plays a role in shaping the wildlife habitats of Bayou Sauvage NWR. Fire management consists
of both wildland fire suppression and prescribed burning activities. Prescribed burning is the
application of fire by man to achieve land use objectives under specific conditions. In contrast,
wildland fires that occur on the refuge are started by lightning strikes or from human activities under
non-prescribed conditions. Wildfires occur every year on the refuge. During the period from 1990 to
2006, there were 101 wildfires that burned over 2,000 acres on the refuge. A majority of the wildfires
were human-caused fires rather than natural lightning strikes.
There are many challenges to prescribed burning on Bayou Sauvage NWR. The biggest challenge is
managing smoke in the presence of a major interstate (I-10) and highways (U.S. 11 and 90), which
bisect the refuge, and the proximity of the refuge to residential areas and downtown New Orleans. In
addition to the challenges of smoke management, water levels can also limit the window of
opportunity for prescribed burning in certain units of the refuge.
40 Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Prescribed burning is used as a management tool in units inside the hurricane protection levees.
Currently, no prescribed burning is used in the marshes outside the protection levees primarily
because these brackish marshes are subsiding. There is little scientific data to support burning
subsiding marshes. Within the protection levees, prescribed burning is used in selected units to
encourage more desirable waterfowl food plant species, such as three-square, millet, and foxtail, over
undesirable species, such as cattails. In units where native waterfowl foods are abundant, less
prescribed burning is applied. Fire effects have been monitored over time at Bayou Sauvage N