Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
May 2009
Mandalay 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 .................................................................................................. 3
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 7
Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem ................................................................................... 9
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................ 10
II. Refuge Overview ........................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 13
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 13
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 17
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 17
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 18
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 18
Geology, Hydrology, and Topography .............................................................................. 18
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 19
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 19
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 19
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 19
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 20
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 20
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 21
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 21
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 21
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 21
III. Plan Development ........................................................................................................................ 23
Planning Process and Public Involvement ................................................................................. 23
Wilderness review ...................................................................................................................... 23
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 24
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 24
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 24
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 24
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 25
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 25
IV. Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 27
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 27
Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 27
ii Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
V. Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................... 39
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 39
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 39
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 39
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 41
Resource Protection AND Refuge Administration ............................................................ 42
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 44
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 46
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 50
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 50
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 51
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 51
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. Background .................................................................................................................................... 53
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 53
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 53
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 54
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 54
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 54
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 54
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 55
II. Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 57
III. Description of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 59
Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 59
Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 59
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ........................................................... 59
Alternative B – (RESOURCE-FOCUSED Management) .................................................. 59
Alternative C - (User-Focused Management) ................................................................... 59
Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 59
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................... 59
Alternative B: Resource-focused Management (Proposed Alternative) ............................ 60
Alternative C: User-Focused Management ....................................................................... 60
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ................................................. 77
IV. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 79
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 79
Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................................ 79
Public Health and Safety .................................................................................................. 79
Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 79
Climate Change ................................................................................................................ 79
Other Management ........................................................................................................... 80
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 80
Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 80
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................. 81
Other Effects ..................................................................................................................... 81
Summary of Effects by Alternative ............................................................................................. 81
Alternative A (current management- No Action) ............................................................... 81
Alternative B (Proposed Action – Resource-Focused Management) ............................... 82
Alternative C (User-Focused management) ..................................................................... 82
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 90
Table of Contents iii
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ............................................. 90
Wildlife Disturbance .......................................................................................................... 90
Vegetation Disturbance ..................................................................................................... 90
User Group Conflicts ......................................................................................................... 91
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ....................................................................................... 91
Land Ownership and Site Development ............................................................................ 91
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 91
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ......................................................................................... 92
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 92
V. Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................................... 93
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 93
Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................... 94
SECTION C. APPENDICES
Appendix A. Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix B. References and Literature Citations ....................................................................... 105
Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive Orders ................................................... 107
Appendix D. Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 121
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 121
Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations ............................................................................. 123
Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................. 129
Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ........................................................ 139
Appendix H. Refuge Biota .............................................................................................................. 141
Appendix I. Budget Requests ........................................................................................................ 143
Appendix J. List of Preparers ........................................................................................................ 145
iv Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Mandalay NWR within the Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex ........................ 2
Figure 2. Location of Mandalay NWR in relation to regional conservation areas ............................... 11
Figure 3. Status and acquisition boundary of Mandalay NWR in Terrebonne Parish and vicinity ...... 14
Figure 4. Status and acquisition boundary of Mandalay NWR in Terrebonne Parish and vicinity ...... 15
Figure 5. Boundary of Mandalay NWR in Terrebonne Parish ............................................................ 16
Figure 6. Public use areas and facilities on Mandalay NWR .............................................................. 22
Figure 7. Current staffing chart for Mandalay and Bayou Teche NWRs ............................................. 47
Figure 8. Proposed staffing chart for Mandalay and Bayou Teche NWRs ......................................... 48
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of proposed projects ............................................................................................. 49
Table 2. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP ................... 50
Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Mandalay NWR .............................. 62
Table 4. Summary of environmental effects by alternative ................................................................. 83
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Mandalay 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 met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) 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 Draft CCP/EA 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 Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The 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 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Mandalay NWR within the Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, 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 Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and 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 that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on 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 CCPs will serve as
the 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 CCPs that are prepared for each unit of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
4 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
􀁹􇤠 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 your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. 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 also 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.
Recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic activity. In 2006, 34.8 million
visited refuges in the lower 48 states for recreation. Their spending generated almost $1.7 billion of sales
in regional economies. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7
years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per
refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 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 same
refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief that communities near refuges
benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge,
up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding
communities benefited with $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 2005, 37,996
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $26 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife come 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.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP 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).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
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 Mandalay 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; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between Mandalay NWR and other partners, such as the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public
Land, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Louisiana State University (LSU), Black Bear Conservation
Committee, 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
found appropriate, it must then be determined to be compatible before it is allowed on a refuge. A
compatible use is a use 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.
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. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the 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
6 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
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.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) was signed into law by President Bush on
August 8, 2005. Section 384 of the Act establishes the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP),
which authorizes funds to be distributed to Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas producing states to
mitigate the impacts of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities. States to share these funds are
Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. (See further discussion below under
conservation plans and initiatives.)
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
Coastal Prairies 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 in conservation efforts,
and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
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.
Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). A Federal law, signed in 2005, authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to distribute $250 million for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2010 to oil
and gas producing states (Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and
coastal political subdivisions to be used for one or more of the following purposes:
􀁹􇤠 Projects and activities for the conservation, protection, or restoration of
coastal areas, including wetlands.
􀁹􇤠 Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources.
􀁹􇤠 Planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying with this
section.
􀁹􇤠 Implementation of a federally approved marine, coastal or comprehensive
conservation management plan.
􀁹􇤠 Mitigation of the impact of Outer Continental Shelf activities through funding
or onshore infrastructure projects and public service needs.
In a Continuing Resolution dated February 16, 2007, Congress approved a three percent
appropriation of the CIAP funds to be used by Minerals Management Service (MMS) to administer the
CIAP program. MMS will lead the CIAP by establishing an environment that will enhance partner
communications and an effective business relationship. Each eligible state will be allocated its share
based on its qualified Outer Continental Shelf revenue generated off of its coast in proportion to total
revenue generated off the coasts of all eligible states. MMS will respond to recipients needs and
provide advice through guidance, direction, training, and by ensuring that monitoring and evaluation
are incorporated into a system of accountability designed to accomplish the results intended by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
In the Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, developed in 2005 by the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Mandalay NWR is located in the Gulf Coast Prairies
and Marshes ecoregion and the Terrebonne management basin. LDWF’s strategy states that fresh
8 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
marsh habitat, which occurs on Mandalay NWR, is the marsh type that has undergone the largest
reduction in acreage of any of the marsh types over the past 20 years. LDWF lists 31 species as
state species of conservation concern that depend on this habitat type. Cypress-tupelo swamp
habitat, another predominant habitat on Mandalay NWR, is recognized as threatened by land loss
caused by subsidence, altered hydrology, coastal erosion, and saltwater intrusion. Eighteen species
are listed as state species of conservation concern in this habitat.
The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act program (CWPPRA) provides for
targeted funds to be used for planning and implementing projects that create, protect, restore and
enhance wetlands in coastal Louisiana. Passed in 1990 and authorized until 2019, the federal funds
for CWPPRA are managed by the CWPPRA Task Force, a group composed of five federal agencies,
including the Service and the State of Louisiana.
To address larger wetland restoration projects with more ecosystem-scale impacts than CWPPRA,
the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study (LCA) began in 2001. LCA seeks future
Water Resources Development Act authorization and funding to identify critical human and natural
ecological needs for coastal Louisiana, seeks alternatives to meet the needs including restoration
priorities, and presents long-term, large-scale strategies named the LCA plan. Mandalay NWR is in
the Deltaic Plain area of LCA.
Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana was approved in 1998 by the State of Louisiana
and its federal partners. Coast 2050 is a joint planning initiative among the Louisiana Wetland
Conservation and Restoration Authority, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) Authority, and the CWPPRA Task Force for protecting and sustaining the
state’s coastal resources for future generations in a manner consistent with the welfare of the people.
In this plan, Mandalay NWR is in Region 3 (Terrebonne, Atchafalaya, Teche/Vermilion). The plan
emphasizes that immediate attention should be placed in the Barataria Basin with ecosystem
strategies to restore swamps, restore and sustain marshes, protect bay/lake shorelines, and restore
barrier islands and Gulf shorelines.
In 1989, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 6 (LA R.S. 49:213.1 et seq. of the Second
Extraordinary Session of the Legislature) recognizing the catastrophic nature of Louisiana’s
coastal land loss and expanding the state’s capacity to respond to the crisis by creating the
Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority (State Wetlands Authority); the Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Fund (the Fund); the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities
(GOCA); and the Office of Coastal Restoration and Management. The State Wetlands Authority
is a policy level decision-making group made up of the Governor’s Executive Assistant for
Coastal Activities, the Commissioner of the Division of Administration, and the secretaries of five
state agencies - the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Environmental Quality, Natural
Resources, Transportation and Development, and Agriculture and Forestry. The State Wetlands
Authority is the sponsor and official author of the State Plan, an annual summary of coastal
restoration projects and recommendations for funding from the Fund. The Fund’s income is from
a portion of the state’s mineral income and severance taxes from oil and gas production on state
lands and is dedicated to state-sponsored coastal restoration projects. The GOCA coordinates
policy among the many agencies involved in Louisiana’s coastal restoration effort while the Office
of Coastal Restoration and Management within DNR handles day-to-day implementation of
coastal restoration in coordination with the Coastal Zone Management Office.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY ECOSYSTEM
Mandalay NWR lies within a physiographic region designated by the Service as the Lower Mississippi
River Ecosystem (LMRE). The LMRE serves as the primary wintering habitat for mid-continent
waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and migrating habitat for migratory songbirds returning
from Central and South America. Geographically, the refuges lie in the southern part of the LMRE.
Mandalay NWR has opportunities to contribute to many of the goals and objectives of the LMRE.
The following goals of the LMRE are applicable to the refuge:
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
LMRE;
􀁹􇤠 Restore, protect, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE;
􀁹􇤠 Restore, and/or protect imperiled habitats and viable populations of all threatened,
endangered, and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE;
􀁹􇤠 Restore, protect, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE;
􀁹􇤠 Restore, protect, and manage national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries;
􀁹􇤠 Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management;
􀁹􇤠 Enforce natural resource laws; and
􀁹􇤠 Restore, protect, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE.
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as part of the last safety net to support
biological diversity – the greatest challenge facing the Service. According to the LMRE team, the
greatest threats to biological diversity within the Lower Mississippi Valley include:
􀁹􇤠 The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forest;
􀁹􇤠 The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest
fragmentation);
􀁹􇤠 The effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
􀁹􇤠 The simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools;
􀁹􇤠 The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and
􀁹􇤠 The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
Priorities identified by the LMRE team to which the refuge can contribute include:
􀁹􇤠 Continue to work with the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Task Force, private landowners, and
other entities to restore and protect coastal wetlands, consistent with the Coast 2050 Plan and
associated project planning, evaluation, and implementation activities;
􀁹􇤠 Consider all grant opportunities available to the LMRE team and partners and work to improve
internal coordination of these programs to assure that the contributions to these programs are
of maximum benefit to the resource;
􀁹􇤠 Support environmental education efforts underway by Service offices to enhance and expand
knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of trust resources; and
􀁹􇤠 Control invasive/exotic species.
10 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
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 sustainability of fish and wildlife species in the State of Louisiana.
In Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov) is
vested with responsibility for 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, Coastal and Nongame Resources, Public
Information, Inland Fisheries, Marine Fisheries, Management and Finance, and Wildlife.
The participation of LDWF throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been
valuable. Not only have LDWF personnel participated in the biological reviews, they are also active
partners in annual hunt coordination, planning, and various wildlife and habitat surveys. A key part of
the planning process is the integration of common objectives between the Service and LDWF.
Several LDWF Wildlife Management Areas are located near Mandalay NWR (Figure 2).
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainability 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 11
Figure 2. Location of Mandalay NWR in relation to regional conservation areas
12 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Mandalay NWR is approximately five miles west of Houma, Louisiana, in Terrebonne Parish (Figures
3, 4, and 5). The refuge is predominantly freshwater marshes and cypress-tupelo swamps, which
provide excellent habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, and neotropical migratory songbirds. Access is
by boat, except for the headquarters building on Highway 182 (Bayou Black Drive) and a nearby
nature trail. Mandalay NWR is administered as one of eight refuges of the Southeast Louisiana NWR
Complex, headquartered in Lacombe, Louisiana.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Mandalay NWR was established on May 2, 1996, with the purchase of 4,416 acres under the
authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The refuge’s establishment was the culmination of supportive efforts from many conservation
organizations, including the Louisiana Nature Conservancy (LNC), the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, and the North American Wetlands Council; and private companies and individuals,
including the Dow Chemical Company and Mr. Michael St. Martin.
In the beginning, the public was divisive in its support of the refuge’s establishment. When the first
notices, draft documents, and news releases announcing the proposed Mandalay NWR were made
public in 1992, many negative public comments were received. Pre-written postcards by an individual
opposing the project were circulated. Of the 468 pre-written postcards received, 64 percent (296)
were opposed, 1 percent (6) was in support, and 35 percent (163) requested a hearing on the project.
The Service held a public hearing in December 1992 in Houma, Louisiana; more than 500 people
attended. Issues of concern included: (1) confusion between the proposed 15,000-acre Mandalay NWR
and a 500,000-acre Bayou Penchant Basin Plan, a non-acquisition basin-wide management project which
had no direct ties to the refuge; (2) that refuge establishment would result in a loss of revenue from the
local real estate tax base; (3) that the Service would initiate a basin-wide “land grab” through
condemnation or eminent domain; (4) that the Service would exclude oil and gas operations or impose
more restrictions on oil and gas production within the refuge; (5) that access for hunting and fishing in the
area would be lost; and, (6) there was local confidence that the current landowners were doing a good job
in managing and protecting the wetlands and wildlife resources in the area.
At the close of the extended public comment period after the hearing, 1,014 responses were received. Of
this total, 22 percent (227) supported the proposed refuge establishment; 53 percent (533) opposed it; 22
percent (227) requested that the Service “shelve” the project pending changes in local public opinion; and
3 percent (27) commented without indicating support or opposition. Again, most of the responses
opposing the project were from pre-typed letter and postcard campaigns. In a number of cases, some
individuals signed and sent multiple copies of the form letter; in other cases, a few individuals signed the
names and addresses of other people. Only 46 letters were personally written by individuals opposing the
project. The Service received a total of 202 written letters supporting the project.
14 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Status and acquisition boundary of Mandalay NWR in Terrebonne Parish and
vicinity
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 4. Status and acquisition boundary of Mandalay NWR in Terrebonne Parish and
vicinity
16 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Boundary of Mandalay NWR in Terrebonne Parish
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
The concerns and issues of the community were numerous and complex. The Final Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Establishment of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge provided additional
details on the issues and concerns regarding the refuge and how they were addressed. In brief, the Final
Environmental Assessment completed in 1995, recognized and took the concerns into consideration.
In 1994, the Terrebonne Parish Council (Council) formed the Lake Houma Advisory Committee to
study the feasibility of federal acquisition and public recreation at Lake Houma. A preliminary study
indicated that Lake Houma could possibly be acquired and managed in connection with the proposed
Mandalay NWR, once the refuge was established. At a February 1995 meeting, attended by the
Service, the Lake Houma Advisory Committee, adjacent landowners, representatives of elected
officials, and concerned citizens, there was general support for the establishment of the refuge, with
the possible addition of Lake Houma in the future. Two public meetings were held by the Council in
July and August 1995. During the public comment period, only one negative comment was received.
In August 1995, the Council unanimously passed a resolution in full support of Mandalay NWR and
the future Lake Houma proposal, and signed an agreement with the Service stating this support.
The purposes of Mandalay NWR, based upon land acquisition documents and its establishing
authority, are as follows:
“… for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.
16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
“… to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species… or
(B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973).
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Prior to the establishment of Mandalay NWR, the acreage was intensively developed by oil and gas
companies. Currently, there is only one active gas well on the refuge. However, there is a gathering
facility (Sunrise Canal), which has and will be used in the future to process and transport by pipeline
and barge petroleum products from the refuge and surrounding areas. Current mineral owners are
actively planning for additional exploration on and near the refuge. The refuge was previously owned
by the Southdown Sugar Plantation, and was used for oil field operations and cattle grazing.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
The primary ecological threats to Mandalay NWR are land loss, invasive species, and the potential of
contaminants from oil and gas operations. The refuge is in the Terrebonne basin, which experienced
land loss rates of 10.2 square miles per year (16.4 square kilometers per year) from 1978-1990.
During this time, 61 percent of all Louisiana coastal land loss occurred within the Terrebonne and
Barataria basins compared to the seven remaining Louisiana coastal hydrologic basins defined by the
CWPPRA Task Force. Most of these losses were interior marshes with some non-fresh land losses
skirting the bays. The refuge has experienced land losses from both internal marsh break-up as well
as considerable shoreline erosion along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Additionally, the USGS has
documented approximately 19 square miles (49 square kilometers) of land lost from October 2004 to
October 2005 in the Terrebonne basin, as measured following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Mandalay NWR has several invasive plant and animal species which occur on the refuge that include
but are not limited to hydrilla, common and giant salvinia, Eurasian watermilfoil, water hyacinth,
Chinese tallow, nutria, and feral swine. These non-native species out-compete native species, are
difficult to control, degrade water quality, and cause access problems in the waterways.
18 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
The Sunrise Oil and Gas Field contains a gathering station headquartered on the refuge with
flowlines to it from several wells off the refuge that supply raw petroleum to the station. The potential
for spills, leaks, and contaminants exist. Maintenance of existing facilities, developing new structures
for mineral extraction, and spills including clean up operations have the potential to adversely affect
wetlands. There are numerous oil and gas pipelines that traverse the refuge. The Southeast
Louisiana NWR Complex Contingency Plan will be utilized to address any such spill occurrences.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate in southern Louisiana is humid and subtropical with long, hot summers. The fall and
spring are warm and often free of killing frost. Winters are usually mild and cool, but temperatures
occasionally drop to the lower teens. The lowest recorded in recent history was 10º F.; the average
frost-free period is 264 days and extends from February 27 to November 18. The average annual
rainfall is 65 inches, but amounts exceeding 87 inches have been recorded. Tropical disturbances
and hurricanes occur often and can cause changes in salinity and storm-related flooding.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that warming of the
climate is undeniable. Coasts are projected to be exposed to increasing risks, including coastal
erosion, due to climate change and sea-level rise and the effect will be exacerbated by increasing
human-induced pressures on coastal areas. Coastal wetlands are projected to be negatively affected
by sea-level rise.
In an effort to address the potential effects of sea level rise on national wildlife refuges, the Service
contracted the application of the Sea-level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) for most Region 4
refuges (SLAMM Report for Mandalay NWR 2008).
Simulation results suggest that tidal fresh marsh will be at least 95 percent lost under all
scenarios; it is predominantly a question of when. The loss is gradual with 95 percent of tidal
fresh marsh being lost by 2100. Although under the 1-meter and 1.5-meter scenarios, 90 percent
and nearly 100 percent is lost by 2050, respectively. Inland fresh marsh follows much the same
pattern but the loss rate is greater in most cases. Swamps are actually predicted to fare worse
than fresh marshes in these simulations, being 99 to 100 percent lost by the year 2100, under
even the most moderate scenario run. Within the SLAMM model, swamps are not predicted to
vertically accrete as quickly as marshes do. Under all but the most extreme scenarios, migration
of salt marsh into Mandalay NWR is predicted.
GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, AND TOPOGRAPHY
Mandalay NWR is located within the Terrebonne Basin, an abandoned delta complex, characterized
by a thick section of unconsolidated sediments and a network of old distributary ridges extending
southward from Houma, Louisiana. The refuge lies within the Penchant Sub-basin and receives fresh
water from the hydrologic influences of the Atchafalaya River. The northern Penchant Sub-basin
supports extensive fresh marsh and includes a predominance of flotant marsh. In recent years, the
Penchant Sub-basin has experienced significant freshwater impacts from the Atchafalaya River.
Historic wetlands loss resulting from subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and oil and gas activity appears
to have moderated, but areas of cypress swamp and flotant marsh are experiencing stress from high
water levels. The lands of the refuge consist of freshwater marshes, swamps, upland ridges, bayous,
and other bodies of water.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
SOILS
The ridge soils of Mandalay NWR are predominantly Fausse clay and Cancienne silty clay loam. The
marsh soils are organic and mucky, and are affected by some sediment recharge from the
Atchafalaya River. Soil types are predominantly Kenner muck (very frequently flooded) and
Allemands muck (very frequently flooded).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
The main habitats of Mandalay NWR include freshwater marshes intersected by a major ridge with
associated swamp borders. The refuge contains 3,700 acres of freshwater marshes, 75 acres of
bordering swamps, 175 acres of upland ridges, and various oil-field canals and other water bodies.
Lake Hatch, approximately 200 acres, is the single largest water body on the refuge.
The marsh habitat north of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway consists predominantly of bull-tongue.
Other freshwater plants include pickerel weed, maidencane, alligatorweed, pennywort, lotus, white
waterlily, primrose, water hyacinth, cattail, bulrush, beggartick, cut-grass, spikerush, and several
species of sedges. The marsh vegetation south of the waterway is much the same, but maidencane
is dominant. Submerged plants such as cabomba, coontail, hydrilla, and pondweed are common.
The small acreage of higher ground supports a hardwood forest that is an extremely important
component of the refuge. The natural levee and spoil banks of the man-made canals are vegetated
by black willow, hackberry, nuttall oak, water oak, green ash, and swamp red maple. Low swamp
areas are dominated by cypress and tupelo gum. The canals are lined by willow and cypress.
Buttonbush is common in the intergradational areas between swamp and marsh.
Mandalay NWR provides productive freshwater fish habitat as well as nursery grounds for
commercial fish and shellfish found in the Gulf of Mexico.
WILDLIFE
The refuge provides excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl of the Mississippi Flyway. The most
common wintering waterfowl species include blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, American widgeon,
ring-necked duck, lesser scaup, mallard, gadwall, and northern pintail. Resident waterfowl species
include wood ducks, mottled ducks, and black-bellied whistling ducks.
Mandalay NWR and surrounding areas provide important shallow water and mudflat habitat for
shorebirds, particularly during the critical fall migration periods. The variety of emergent marsh
habitats are thought to support a significant number of waterbirds. The highest priority species are
king rail, clapper rail, pied-billed grebe, least bittern, American bittern, and purple gallinule. Marsh
birds depend on the erect emergent, herbaceous vegetation and intermingled mud flats for cover,
foraging, and nesting.
While several species of wading birds are commonly observed foraging in the shallow water habitats
on the refuge, priority species occurring include little blue heron, tricolored heron, yellow-crowned
night heron, wood stork, and white ibis. Usage of the refuge by gulls and terns is minimal.
The areas of forestland protruding into the marshes are important for trans-gulf migrating songbirds
and are important nesting sites for prothonotary warblers.
20 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Although Mandalay NWR is primarily a refuge dedicated to the management and protection of
migratory birds, the refuge currently supports a population of white-tailed deer that appears to be of
relatively low density. Squirrels and rabbits are the two primary small game animals on the refuge.
The refuge supports a significant population of furbearers, including raccoon, otter, muskrat, mink
and bobcat. Native furbearers have declined as nutria have become established in the region. Feral
hogs are also prolific.
Although no herpetological surveys have been conducted to date on refuge lands, commonly seen
species of reptiles and amphibians include alligators, alligator snapping turtles, eastern box turtles,
water moccasins, eastern mud snakes, bullfrogs, pig frogs, southern leopard frogs, and Gulf Coast
toads. The marshes of the refuge provide nursery grounds for many fish and shellfish. Freshwater
fish, such as largemouth bass, crappie, sunfish, and catfish, provide sport fishing opportunities.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The first inhabitants of Terrebonne Parish were unknown Native Americans dating back hundreds of
years ago. Some people claim the Houmas Indians were the original inhabitants of Terrebonne
Parish, but they actually arrived in the mid- to late-eighteenth century from Mississippi and Alabama.
The native word “houma” means red, and the tribe’s war emblem was the crawfish. They were
pushed from the higher ground to the coastal regions by European settlements in the late 1700s and
1800s.
The explorer LaSalle claimed Louisiana for France in 1682, but it was Iberville that actually brought
settlers in 1699. The first settlers were mostly of French ancestry, either from France or the Acadians
from Nova Scotia. The early French settlers called this area “terre bonne,” which means good earth,
because of the fertility of the soil and abundance of fish and wildlife. Most of the pioneers who came
to Terrebonne migrated from the Mississippi River, down Bayou Lafourche to Bayou Terrebonne.
They chose the area because of its isolated geographic location, minimum governmental controls,
and the abundant resources that made it easy to live off the land. During Spain’s domination in the
mid -1700s, both Spanish and Anglo-Saxons recorded land claims in the area. The Louisiana
territory was purchased by the United States in 1803, causing another large influx of colonists.
The Final Environmental Assessment for the proposed establishment of Mandalay NWR identified ten
known prehistoric sites within the boundaries of the proposed refuge, and states that other sites may
exist. Any future plans or actions that might affect eligible cultural resources will be carried out
according to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
In the mid-1800s, industry consisted largely of farming plantations, seafood, fur trading, and logging
with sugar cane being the principal agricultural industry. Canals were dug to decrease travel time
and to make trade more efficient. These canals were later abandoned with the construction of the
Intracoastal Waterway in 1923. The oil and gas industry began in the 1920s and brought a period of
economic development and prosperity that became the main economic focus of the area until the
bottom fell out of the oil industry in the early 1980s. Since that time, the Houma community has
begun to diversify. While the oil industry is still the primary source of revenue, alternative industries
are emerging, such as seafood production, medical businesses, and tourism.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The major management activities on Mandalay NWR include wetland restoration projects, control of
invasive species, law enforcement, a wood duck nest box program, wildlife monitoring, and monitoring oil
and gas operations. Marsh restoration projects on the refuge include the Mandalay Bank Protection
Demonstration CWPPRA project along the southern shoreline of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and the
Hanson Marsh Hydrologic Restoration NAWCA project. Exotic and invasive species have been
recognized as a habitat management challenge on the refuge since its establishment.
Law enforcement issues involve patrolling the refuge for unauthorized activities such illegal hunting,
commercial fishing, and littering, as well as patrolling for activities at night when the refuge is closed.
Monitoring of wildlife is limited to monthly winter waterfowl surveys, and an annual alligator night
count. Approximately 20 wood duck boxes are maintained on the refuge. Monitoring oil and gas
activities requires planning and coordinating with the oil and gas operator on the refuge. Duties
involve not only emergency procedures and supervision during spills, but dealing with legal matters
after spill events, and permitting and mitigating actions for ongoing activities, such as pipeline routes
(installation and removal), night activities, equipment use, drilling, seismic exploration, and plugging
and abandonment of structures.
VISITOR SERVICES
Visitor services consist of hunting and fishing opportunities, wildlife observation, and a nature trail;
refuge information is available at refuge headquarters and online (Figure 6). All access to refuge land
other than the refuge headquarters and the nature trail is by boat. Hunting opportunities at Mandalay
NWR include an open archery deer and feral hog season and a lottery waterfowl hunt for youth and
adults. The archery deer and feral hog hunts are held concurrently with the State of Louisiana deer
season. Waterfowl hunts are held on Wednesdays and Saturdays during the Louisiana waterfowl
hunting season, as well as two additional state youth waterfowl hunt days. The refuge has five
waterfowl blinds in the Hanson Unit. Each blind has a maximum capacity of 3 hunters for a total of 15
hunters each day. Five groups are chosen for each hunt date by lottery drawing from applications
received at the refuge office. Youths between the ages of 8 and 17 receive preference in the
drawing. Currently, the refuge staff estimates that about 50 percent of the hunt day opportunities are
used each year. Fishing is offered on the refuge year-round from sunrise to sunset. Most of the
fishing occurs in Lake Hatch and in the numerous old oilfield access canals found on the refuge. The
refuge has worked with a local landowner to establish a vehicle accessible nature trail near the refuge
office that gives visitors a chance to see areas similar to some of the habitat found on the refuge.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Presently, Mandalay NWR has a two-person staff, consisting of a refuge manager and a wildlife biologist,
that works out of the headquarters near Houma, Louisiana. They receive minimal assistance in areas
such as law enforcement, maintenance, and visitor services when needed from other staff of the
Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex. Mandalay NWR does have a separate refuge budget; funds and
projects are supplemented by the Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex administration.
22 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. Public use areas and facilities on Mandalay NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
III. Plan Development
PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
In October 2006, the planning process began with a biological review of Mandalay NWR to assess
the status of current biological information and programs on the refuge, identify information gaps and
needs, and gather input on potential management goals and objectives. Diverse teams, consisting of
Service, university, state, and non-governmental personnel, were invited to attend and provide input.
Issues discussed were marsh and forest management, aquatic systems, migratory birds, threatened
and endangered species, non-game birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, insects, water quality,
contaminants, urbanization, and land acquisition.
A visitor services review was conducted in November 2006 to provide guidance for managing the
education and visitor services program and resulted in the development of short- to long-term
recommendations to improve the quality of visitor experiences and understanding of the refuge. The
review team was composed of staff and other professionals from the Regional Office. General
recommendations were to develop a visitor services plan, strengthen the volunteer program, and
provide sufficient law enforcement.
Formal public involvement began with an open house held in April 2007 for the general public to give
suggestions and comments regarding the future of the refuge. Announcements giving the location, date,
and time for the scoping meeting appeared in local newspapers and were furnished to local residents.
The public meeting for Mandalay was held in Houma, Louisiana. Approximately seven people attended
the open discussion of the CCP process and future refuge management of Mandalay NWR. After
orienting attendees to the CCP process, they could move freely among the following discussion areas:
public programs and visitor facilities; wildlife and habitat management; and refuge administration. Each
area offered information and a chance to make written and oral statements (Appendix D). Also, comment
cards were available. Approximately 11 comments and questions were recorded for the Mandalay
meeting. Input obtained from the scoping meeting was used to develop the Draft CCP/EA. No major
conflicts were declared in the comments received from the public.
Initial planning began in May 2007, with a meeting of planning team members. Early in the process
of developing this Draft CCP/EA, the planning team identified issues and concerns that were likely to
be associated with the conservation and management of Mandalay NWR based on the reviews and
public scoping. A mailing list of the public, landowners, state and tribal agencies, non-profit
organizations, local governments, and other interested stakeholders was initiated.
WILDERNESS REVIEW
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The lands within the boundary of Mandalay NWR were reviewed for their suitability
in meeting the criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. The refuge does not
contain the required 5,000 contiguous road-less acres. Mandalay NWR comprises only 4,416 acres.
Further, the proximity of the city of Houma, urban sprawl, and Louisiana Highway 182 detract from
any semblance of a wilderness setting. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands on Mandalay NWR
for wilderness designation is not further analyzed in this Draft CCP/EA.
24 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation and management of threatened and endangered
species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through public scoping meetings, written comments, and personal contacts. All public
and advisory team comments were considered. The team considered all issues that were raised
throughout the planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing
opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best
professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A summary of the significant issues follows.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
The majority of issues pertaining to fish and wildlife populations on Mandalay NWR are discussed in
the habitat management section, since managing habitat is the key to providing for the needs of flora
and fauna. Because managing for migratory birds is one of the primary purposes of the refuge,
maintaining migratory bird habitat is central to management actions. While limited waterfowl hunting
is offered in some areas of the refuge, providing sanctuary for waterfowl during the hunting season is
an important function of the refuge. Mandalay NWR is a relatively new refuge; continued monitoring
of waterfowl populations during the winter and documenting usage of the refuge by other bird groups,
such as shorebirds, wading birds, raptors, and forest-dependent songbirds, are needed.
Continued control of invasive and exotic species, such as nutria and feral hogs, is a significant
management concern. Monitoring game species is a key component of population management and can
be addressed by surveying and collecting harvest information on white-tailed deer and small game.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
The land loss problem is one of the most important management issues, and predictions of continued
erosion indicate that restoration efforts must be considered in the overall efforts of the refuge in order to
sustain the current ecological conditions. Overall productivity of the refuge seems high and maintaining
existing habitats should be a higher priority than restoration, although restoring certain components, such
as bank lines, marshes, and hydrologic conditions, may be required for protection of existing habitats.
Efforts toward restoring refuge habitats should focus on the priorities of maintaining existing marshes and
ridge habitats; restoring bank lines and marshes along waterways to protect existing wetlands; and
maintaining habitat diversity through vegetation plantings in appropriate areas. Important issues to
address are erosion along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and floating, invasive species, such as water
hyacinth, common salvinia, and giant salvinia. Areas to consider for maintaining good waterfowl,
shorebird, and marshbird habitat are the intact marsh on the south side of the waterway, the open water
in the Hanson Unit, and possibly creating islands in Lake Hatch, if material is available from dredging
projects. Existing forest can be managed to provide resting and feeding habitat for songbirds, and can
possibly be enhanced or expanded. Planting soft woods and/or fruit bearing trees, such as willow and
sugarberry, will provide perching and foraging resources.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
The oil and gas operations on the refuge require monitoring by staff. Releases or spill events have the
potential to impact waterfowl and other water birds and large expanses of habitat if not controlled
immediately. Working with other agencies, staff must determine the best approaches to clean up spills.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
VISITOR SERVICES
Hunting and fishing are traditional recreational uses in Louisiana and are the primary reasons the
public visits the refuge. Archery deer and hog hunts are offered, as well as youth and adult lottery
waterfowl hunts on specifically designated days, times, and areas. Fishing and recreational boating
are permitted year-round from legal sunrise to legal sunset. Recreational crabbing is allowed. All
access to the refuge is by boat except the refuge headquarters and a nearby nature trail, both located
on Bayou Black Drive in Houma, Louisiana, and accessible by vehicle. No public boat launches are
located on the refuge. Under current funding and staffing, visitor service opportunities are limited.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Presently two positions cover the administration of Mandalay and Bayou Teche NWR’s from the
headquarters in Houma, Louisiana. Limited support is available from the staff of Southeast Louisiana
NWR Complex in Lacombe, a drive of several hours from Mandalay and Bayou Teche NWR’s.
Funding is administered through Southeast Louisiana Refuges as part of the Complex.
26 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats by considering the needs of all resources. First and
foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. A requirement of the
Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of
refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat
conservation and the purposes for which the refuge was established. The Service has identified six
priority wildlife-dependent public uses. These uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Described below is the proposed CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This
proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to
achieve the refuge vision.
Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered:
A - No Action (Current Management)
B - Resource-Focused Management
C - User-Focused Management
Each of the alternatives is described in Section B. Based on the mission of the Refuge System, the
purposes for which Mandalay NWR was established, and the focus of the LMRE priorities, the Service
selected Alternative B, Resource-Focused Management, as the proposed management action.
Implementing the proposed alternative will result in a diversity of habitats for a variety of fish and
wildlife species, enhance resident wildlife populations, restore wetlands, and provide opportunities for
a variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, education, and interpretive activities.
VISION
Mandalay NWR will be managed as a productive freshwater marsh that provides essential wintering
habitat for migratory birds along the Louisiana coast. The highest priority for the refuge will be to maintain
prime waterfowl, shorebird, and wading bird habitat. The refuge will play a critical role in coastal
restoration and erosion control efforts. This will be accomplished through agency coordination to ensure
quality coastal wetland habitat over the next 15 years. Mandalay NWR will provide the best possible
habitat for mammalian, fish, amphibian, reptilian, and other avian species. Visitors to the refuge will enjoy
a quality outdoor experience centered on the traditional uses of hunting and fishing, while cultivating a
conservation ethic that promotes stewardship of important wildlife habitat.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns
and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, partners, and the public. Chapter VII,
Plan Implementation - Mandalay, identifies the projects associated with the various strategies.
28 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of
the Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Mandalay
NWR. With adequate staffing and funding as outlined in Chapter VII, the Service intends to
accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years.
GOAL 1. Identify, conserve, manage, and restore populations of native fish and wildlife species
representative of the Barataria-Terrebonne Basin, with emphasis on migratory birds and threatened
and endangered species.
Background: The diversity and quality of habitats in Mandalay NWR provide areas for feeding,
roosting, nesting, and staging for numerous bird species. The refuge attracts upwards of 20 species
of migratory waterfowl (including 3 species of resident waterfowl), shorebirds, wading birds, neo-tropical
migratory songbirds, raptors, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and numerous fish species.
Bald eagles frequently use refuge habitats for foraging and nesting. Both freshwater and saltwater
species are supported, varying with the seasons and accompanying shifts in salinity. The refuge
wetlands are important spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for many aquatic species, including
crustaceans and fish species.
Historically, the freshwater marsh within Mandalay NWR has served as important wintering habitat for
migratory bird populations. Huge concentrations of waterfowl have wintered in this vicinity in the past.
Though marsh conditions have changed and deteriorated due to coastal erosion and saltwater
intrusion, this freshwater marsh continues to play a vital role for wintering migratory birds.
Objective 1.1: Manage and protect migratory bird populations.
Discussion: Mandalay NWR was established to provide wintering habitat for migratory birds. Up to
twenty duck species, including blue-winged teal, northern pintails, widgeon, gadwall, mallards, and
ring-necked ducks, may be found wintering on Mandalay NWR in any given year. In years past,
upwards of 20,000 ducks have used the refuge during the fall and winter. The refuge is also used
during winter months by white-fronted geese.
Mandalay NWR plans to manage freshwater marsh areas to attain the best quality wintering habitat
for migratory bird populations. Mandalay NWR management practices will provide ample submerged
and emergent aquatic vegetation as a winter food source for waterfowl. In order to attain the best
habitat for wintering waterfowl and promote beneficial native aquatic plant species, the control of
invasive/exotic aquatic plant species is critical.
Wading bird rookery areas will be maintained in wooded swamp areas.
Mandalay NWR is home to one active bald eagle nest. Since 2001, the breeding bald eagle pair has
fledged two young per year, with the exception of 2007, when only one fledged.
Shallow water mud flats are important foraging sites for shorebirds. Mandalay NWR is moderately tidally
influenced and water levels are drastically influenced from northern fronts during the winter months.
During these frontal passages, mud flats are exposed in several areas of shallow marsh. These areas
provide for foraging sites for numerous shorebird species, including black-necked stilts, dowitchers,
yellowlegs, plovers, and sandpipers. For shorebirds, Mandalay NWR and surrounding areas provide
important shallow water and mudflat habitat, particularly during the critical fall migration periods.
Maintenance of these conditions is critical to the continued use of the area by these migratory birds.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Marsh birds use portions of Mandalay NWR year-round. Species, such as purple gallinules,
common moorhens, least bitterns, American bitterns, and rails, are found using areas of
freshwater marsh. Marsh birds depend on the erect emergent, herbaceous vegetation and
intermingled mud flats for cover, foraging, and nesting. Pied-billed grebes, gallinules, moorhens,
and coots use the open water aquatic beds for foraging. Maintenance of suitable habitat is
important to support large numbers of these species.
Usage of the refuge by gulls and terns is thought to be minimal and restricted to foraging. Priority
species possibly occurring on the refuge are gull-billed tern (Sterna nilotica), and Forester’s tern
(Sterna forsteri).
The location of Mandalay NWR makes it one of the first and last land forms available to trans-Gulf
migratory songbirds. The “fingers” of forestland that protrude into the marshes are important for
trans-Gulf migratory birds as they gather the nutrient reserves in preparation for or recovery from
trans-Gulf migration. Management to maintain and possibly enhance or expand the area of forested
wetlands on the refuge is encouraged. These areas are also important nesting sites for prothonotary
warblers (Protonotaria citrea).
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Maintain wood duck boxes.
􀁹􇤠 Survey migratory wintering waterfowl and other species, such as mottled ducks and black-bellied
whistling ducks, to determine and record trends in waterfowl distribution.
􀁹􇤠 Band wood ducks, mottled ducks, and black-bellied whistling ducks when the opportunity
arises.
􀁹􇤠 Establish a partnership between the refuge and the research community to promote
monitoring and research to determine the most effective methods for waterfowl management.
􀁹􇤠 Modify management actions to improve waterfowl and other wildlife habitat.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct wading bird rookery surveys.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct bald eagle survey to attain use of refuge and monitor nest site off of Ridge Canal.
􀁹􇤠 Protect existing cypress stands on Mandalay NWR, located primarily within swamp habitat
adjacent to the natural ridge.
􀁹􇤠 Protect any nesting bald eagles from disturbance that could lead to nest abandonment.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct marsh bird survey to attain use of marsh and open water habitats on the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 Explore possibility of conducting migratory songbird surveys to attain use of marsh and
forested wetland areas by non-game migratory songbirds.
Objective 1.2: Manage and protect threatened and endangered species through implementation of
recovery plans.
Discussion: Currently, no threatened or endangered species use the refuge year-round. There is no
critical habitat present on the refuge. Only on rare occurrences, the refuge may be used temporarily
by threatened and endangered species during their migration through the area.
Strategy:
􀁹􇤠 Monitor any subsequent use of the refuge by migrating endangered species.
Objective 1.3: Monitor species of concern, targeted species, and species of federal responsibility in
order to assess management goals.
30 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Discussion: American alligators are opportunistic carnivores and a top predator on the refuge.
Mandalay NWR participates in the state alligator harvest program every fall. Alligator surveys are
conducted on Mandalay NWR, including a spotlight population count by refuge staff and an aerial
nest count by LDWF. The annual harvest quota (alligator tag allotment) and season dates are
determined by LDWF each year and are based on several environmental factors, including habitat
type, annual productivity, and harvest data from previous years.
Mandalay NWR also participates in the coast-wide nutria harvest program coordinated by LDWF.
Each year a minimum quota of nutria assigned to each trapper, set by the refuge staff, is harvested
from Mandalay NWR. The nutria is an invasive exotic herbivorous species from South America. It
destroys healthy marsh habitats by foraging on marsh vegetation thereby further increasing marsh
deterioration and coastal erosion. In some instances, these marsh habitats are so damaged that it
may take years for the vegetation to return. This rebound usually occurs only if the nutria population
is reduced well below the carrying capacity of these fragile marsh habitats.
Swine are regularly introduced into the wild in Louisiana, creating populations of feral hogs. These
hogs are generally live-captured and moved from occupied to unoccupied areas. Feral hogs are
prolific, with reproductive rates four times that of native ungulate species. Feral hogs jeopardize the
refuge mission by damaging habitat and impacting native plant and animal species. They have been
documented to cause soil erosion, leaching of minerals and nutrients, habitat destruction, native plant
species destruction, exotic plant species invasion, and changes in vegetative succession rates. Feral
hogs also impact native wildlife through direct competition for food and predation of native
amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and ground-nesting birds.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Conduct alligator surveys and harvest program (refer to Mandalay NWR alligator and
furbearer plan).
􀁹􇤠 Continue to participate in the nutria control program (refer to Mandalay NWR alligator and
furbearer plan).
􀁹􇤠 Continue feral hog control (refer to Mandalay NWR hunt plan).
Objective 1.4: Monitor resident and other species utilizing habitat on the refuge.
Discussion: The refuge currently supports a population of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) that
appears to be of relatively low density. The habitat on the refuge is not consistent with quality deer habitat
due to low elevations and year-round inundation. There are areas of higher elevation on the refuge that
include forested habitat and provide better management opportunities for game animals. These areas
occur mostly on spoil banks and on the wooded ridge in that portion of the refuge south of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway. These forested areas include hard-mast bearing trees (e.g., oaks) and other
woody species beneficial to deer and other small mammals. Deer use the marsh areas for foraging on
herbaceous vegetation, but management options for those habitats are limited.
Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and rabbits (Sylvilagus aquaticus) are the two primary small game
animals on the refuge. The above-mentioned forest management practices would improve squirrel
habitat. Squirrels are cavity nesters and any forest management plan developed for the refuge
should contain some protection of cavity trees for squirrel den sites in addition to promoting hard-mast
producing trees.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
The rabbit population on the refuge is subject to seasonal fluctuations due to the hydrology of the
area. Most of the refuge is flooded year-round and the remaining areas flood occasionally either from
high water levels in the Atchafalaya River or from strong southerly winds pushing water up from the
Gulf. These unpredictable high water events can dramatically impact the rabbit population,
particularly when they occur during the spring when the rabbits are nesting. Rabbit populations tend
to recover quickly without any additional management.
Coastal Louisiana traditionally supports a significant population of furbearers including raccoon, otter,
muskrat, mink, and bobcat. Since nutria have become established in the region, native aquatic
furbearer populations have declined. Controlling the nutria population is by far the most proactive
management strategy that benefits the native aquatic furbearers on the refuge.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Conduct forage surveys for white-tailed deer, herd density (browse surveys), and monitor
harvest.
􀁹􇤠 Explore possibility of surveys for squirrel and rabbit abundance.
􀁹􇤠 Survey densities of other fur-bearer species using habitat on the refuge.
Objective 1.5: Monitor fish and shellfish habitat on the refuge.
Discussion: The marshes on the upper end of the Bayou Penchant estuary provide nursery grounds
for many fish and shellfish found in the Gulf of Mexico, including white shrimp, brown shrimp, blue
crab, Gulf menhaden, Atlantic croaker, bay anchovy, spot, and Atlantic threadfin. Freshwater
sportfishing for largemouth bass, crappie, sunfishes, and catfish is popular and commercial fishers
catch catfish and gar within the surrounding vicinity of the refuge. Salinity can rise in the waters of
Mandalay NWR following significant weather patterns. Most recently (2005), Hurricane Rita raised
marsh salinities to 8-10ppm. Decaying storm debris increased oxygen demand and caused
significant fish kills in the area.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Monitor fish and shellfish species present on refuge via coordination with LDWF Inland and
Marine Fish Divisions and report all fish kills.
􀁹􇤠 Continue correspondence with local fisherman and sportsmen to assess species in daily
catch.
GOAL 2. Restore, improve, and maintain a mosaic of wetland habitats native to the Terrebonne
Basin in order to ensure healthy and viable plant and animal communities, with an emphasis on
migratory bird species.
Background: The key purpose of the refuge is to provide habitat for a natural diversity of wildlife, with
emphasis on wintering and nesting habitat for migratory and resident waterfowl, non-game migratory
birds, and threatened and endangered species.
Mandalay NWR is in the Terrebonne Basin. From 1978-1990, 61 percent of all coastal land loss
occurred within the Terrebonne and Barataria Basins when compared to the seven remaining
Louisiana coastal hydrologic basins defined by the CWPPRA Task Force. Most of the
Terrebonne Basin losses were interior marshes with some non-fresh land losses skirting the bays
32 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
(Barras et al., 1994). Additionally, the USGS has documented approximately 19 square miles of
land lost from October 2004 to October 2005 in the Terrebonne Basin following Hurricanes’
Katrina and Rita (Barras 2006).
The refuge has experienced land losses from both internal marsh break-up, as well as considerable
shoreline erosion along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. From 1944-1983, the north and south
shorelines of the waterway in the vicinity of Mandalay NWR have experienced an average land loss
rate of approximately 13.17 feet/year (May and Britsch 1987).
In 2003, the Mandalay Bank Protection Demonstration CWPPRA project (TE-41) was constructed
along the southern shoreline of the waterway. This 5-year demonstration project is intended to
evaluate several structural erosion control treatments in the highly organic soils along the waterway in
the refuge (Segura 2001) for potentially less-costly erosion control techniques. Monitoring is on-going
and it is too early at this time to form conclusions (Lear and Dearmond 2005). Continued
observation and monitoring should allow conclusions concerning which structures are working, as
well as which would be the most cost effective.
Objective 2.1: Manage, maintain, and improve, when possible, fresh and intermediate marsh and
other aquatic habitats for refuge resources.
Discussion: The refuge features freshwater marshes intersected by a major ridge with associated swamp
borders. It contains freshwater marshes (approximately 3,500 acres) that are diverse and nutrient rich
habitats, which play a vital role in the hydrology of this region and are home to an abundance of fish and
wildlife species. The marsh soils are primarily organic and mucky, and are affected by some sediment
recharge from the lower Atchafalaya River. Drainage is south to the Gulf of Mexico.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Monitor impacts of public use on habitat
􀁹􇤠 Control invasive plant species and invasive exotic mammals (nutria and feral hogs) (refer to
Mandalay Hunt Plan and Fur bearer trapping plan)
􀁹􇤠 Erosion control along waterway and other shorelines, placement of hard structures on
waterway, and restoration of waterway bank line.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain lakes and ponds.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain and increase production of fish and wildlife species when possible
􀁹􇤠 Creation of flotant marsh via cooperation with research projects, state and federal agencies,
and coastal restoration grants.
􀁹􇤠 Structural hydrologic management via completion of proposed Hanson Unit Marsh project and
replacement of water control structure on Ridge Canal.
􀁹􇤠 Continuously maintain marsh restoration and management project proposals on file and
search for funding sources/partners to assist in implementation and seek new funding for
future enhancement projects
􀁹􇤠 Develop a habitat management plan (HMP) by 2013
Objective 2.2: Manage, maintain, and enhance when possible bottomland hardwood and
cypress/tupelo swamp habitats and associated ridges and spoil banks for refuge resources.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Discussion: The refuge contains approximately 50 acres of bordering swamps, 175 acres of upland
ridges, and approximately 800 acres of oil field canals and other bodies of water. The cypress/tupelo
swamp areas provide excellent rookery habitat for wading birds and play an important role in the
hydrology of the refuge. The ridge soils are Sharkey clay in nature, and the narrow ridge is farmed
for sugarcane to the north of the refuge. The north and south portions of the ridge are bisected by
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. That portion of the ridge on the refuge is bisected by an oil field
location canal. This ridge and associated spoil banks along the canals contain several large hard
mast tree species and an abundance of soft mast species. The ridge and associated spoil banks
provide protection to interior marsh from erosion factors of the waterway, primarily wave action from
large marine transportation vessels.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Stabilize shorelines via cooperation with research projects, state and federal agencies, and
coastal restoration grants.
􀁹􇤠 Plant hardwood species when opportunity arises.
􀁹􇤠 Develop a habitat management plan (HMP) by 2013.
Objective 2.3: Support partnerships to protect natural habitats of the Terrebonne Basin.
Discussion: Since the establishment of Mandalay NWR, there has been a cooperative agreement
with the local Terrebonne Parish government to support coastal restoration efforts along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway and portions of marsh within the refuge. Christmas tree cradles were
established along the north bank of the waterway to prevent erosion. Also, several marsh grass
plantings have occurred within the south end of the Hanson Unit over the last several years through
coordination with Terrebonne Parish and NRCS. These grass plantings have been an overall
success and divert wave action from the waterway, as well as minimize the passage of aquatic
invasive species into the interior marsh of the Hanson Unit.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Continue cooperation with Terrebonne Parish and NRCS with marsh grass plantings and
Christmas tree cradles on the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 Continue to cooperate with LDNR’s coastal restoration monitoring system project and the
TE41 bank stabilization project on the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 Promote grass planting efforts to local community and school groups.
Goal 3. Provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education and
interpretation in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Background: Mandalay NWR is a relatively young refuge (established 1996). Management efforts during
the first 10 years have been focused on the following priorities: Maintenance of migratory bird habitat;
exotic/invasive plant and animal control; and public use and wildlife-dependent recreation. The refuge
was opened to public use in 2000, and currently hosts hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation activities.
Public hunting opportunities include archery deer and hog hunts and lottery youth and adult waterfowl
hunts. Additionally, alligator and nutria are harvested under special use permits.
34 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Fishing is the most common form of public use on the refuge. Fishing for largemouth bass, bream, and
catfish is very popular with local fishermen. Sport fishing in this region is considered to be a traditional
form of wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge regulations against unsupervised lines and nets and night
activities have restricted pre-establishment activities of frogging, trotlines, jug lines, and nets. Current
fishing is restricted to recreational hook and line fishing from both boats and banks.
The Mandalay Nature Trail provides public recreational opportunities via hiking, wildlife photography and
observation, interpretation, and environmental education.
Objective 3.1: Develop and implement a Visitor Services Management Plan
Discussion: A visitor services plan is critical to the future of the refuge’s visitor services program.
This plan will communicate the goals, objectives, and strategies for the visitor services program and
will outline future funding and staffing needs. The plan will also demonstrate how the visitor services
program is integrated with the natural and cultural resources management program.
The majority of Mandalay NWR is accessible by boat only. In March 2007, a nature trail near the
headquarters was opened. This strip of property runs through bottomland hardwoods into a fresh marsh
area. It provides vehicle access to a portion of the refuge. A visitor contact station is located within the
headquarters building. The majority of visitors are recreational fishermen or hunters, but since the nature
trail has opened, there has been an increase in visits for wildlife observation and photography.
Strategy:
􀁹􇤠 Develop a Visitor Services Plan by 2015.
Objective 3.2: Provide opportunities for hunting and fishing on the refuge in a manner which
minimizes conflicts between consumptive and non-consumptive user groups
Discussion: Hunting and fishing have been identified as priority public uses of the Refuge System.
Where appropriate and compatible, the best hunting and fishing opportunities possible will be made
available to the public. Historically, this area of south Louisiana is well known for its hunting, fishing,
and trapping traditions. These wildlife-dependent practices are ingrained in the culture of south
Louisiana. The continuation of hunting and fishing activities is very important to the local community
as the refuge is one of the few public areas accessible to the public. The majority of land surrounding
the refuge is owned by large corporations or families and lease prices for these properties are
increasing year-by-year. The refuge supplies the locals with an area to hunt and fish, as long as they
abide by the rules and regulations of the refuge. Through harvest of these natural renewable
resources, the refuge staff is able to manage and maintain wildlife populations at carrying capacity
and maintain the integrity of the habitat.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Evaluate user groups on a yearly basis.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain harvest records and make evaluations of harvest on a yearly basis.
􀁹􇤠 Manage hunting and fishing program to achieve population management and wildlife habitat
objectives.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Objective 3.3: Provide opportunities for wildlife observation and photography on the refuge.
Discussion: Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are two closely related priority wildlife-dependent
recreational uses of the Refuge System. Programs and facilities which enable visitors to
view and photograph wildlife and their habitats are an essential part of most national wildlife refuges.
The Mandalay Nature Trail provides the public with easy access to the refuge for wildlife observation
and photography, especially tourists visiting Terrebonne Parish. However, some of the most beautiful
areas of the refuge are accessed by boat. Local swamp tours provide visitors insight into the
expansive fresh marshes and cypress/tupelo swamps near the refuge. Because of the tremendous
volumes of water in Terrebonne Parish, many of the locals have a boat or access to a vessel. Many
of our hunters and fishermen also enjoy wildlife observation while utilizing the refuge.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Maintain and improve the Mandalay Nature Trail for birding and interpretation.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain habitat on refuge and maintain access points for watercraft were applicable.
Objective 3.4: Increase public outreach to emphasize resource management practices.
Discussion: The staff presently participates in 6-8 events each year. These events include local
festivals and community group meetings, and the Wildthings Festival in Lacombe, Louisiana.
Currently, Mandalay NWR has no visitor services staff. Plans to participate in any additional activities
with current staff are not feasible.
Strategy:
􀁹􇤠 Continue programs currently with minimal staffing; if staffing increases, provide more outreach
services.
Objective 3.5: Provide interpretation that promotes understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of
refuge resources.
Discussion: The Mandalay NWR headquarters currently provides a visitor contact station. In the
future, with ample space available at the headquarters, a visitor information and interpretive center
will be designed and constructed within the headquarters building. In the near future, information
panels will be provided for the three newly constructed kiosks at Mandalay NWR.
Strategy:
􀁹􇤠 Improve office visitor contact area, develop interpretive panels at office and on Mandalay
NWR nature trail by 2009.
Objective 3.6: Provide environmental education programs that promote understanding, appreciation,
and stewardship of refuge resources.
Discussion: Emphasis will be placed on the unique habitats within the refuge, the wetland forests
and freshwater marshes. Programs and opportunities will be designed to enhance public
awareness of coastal erosion issues, and efforts will be made to restore wetland areas and
increase environmental stewardship. The staff usually hosts several visits a year from local
36 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
community groups, such as Boy Scout troops, garden clubs, bird clubs, and school groups. The
staff usually makes time in their schedule to accommodate these activities. Current staffing at
the refuge severely limits the opportunities to provide environmental services. Currently, the
refuge has no education/outreach staff.
Strategy:
􀁹􇤠 Develop environmental education program on refuge and in local schools if staffing increases.
Objective 3.7: Manage the volunteer program to enhance all aspects of refuge management.
Discussion: The refuge has a handful of volunteers that assist with mostly maintenance projects.
Staff will continue to coordinate with these volunteers to accomplish projects on the refuge when
funding for such projects become available.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Maintain relationship with local Terrebonne bird club, local garden club, and local volunteers.
􀁹􇤠 When additional staff is added to administer support, develop a local friends group.
GOAL 4. Protect the natural and cultural resources of the refuge to ensure their integrity and to fulfill
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Background: Inherent in ensuring that future generations can enjoy the refuge is protection of its
resources. Cultural resources include archaeological resources, historic and architectural properties,
and areas or sites of tradition or religious significance to Native Americans (614 FW 1, Policy,
Responsibilities and Definitions). No comprehensive survey of refuge cultural resources has been
completed, but local archaeologists and refuge staff have knowledge of several Native American
middens (refuse piles) located along drainages off refuge. Enforcement of laws pertaining to wildlife
and other natural resources is fundamental and necessary, especially in areas of high public use.
Safety and protection of the people using the refuge is a priority. Also considered in this goal is
protection of the resources by acquisition of land included in the acquisition boundary recognized in
the initiating process of refuge establishment.
Objective 4.1: Protect known archaeological and historical sites on the refuge from illegal take or
damage in compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protections Act, the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the National Historic Preservation Act
Discussion: Although no thorough survey of the entire refuge has been accomplished, middens are
known to exist on banks of bayous just south of the refuge. These are obviously places where
nomadic groups camped as evidenced by mounds of clam shells left in the refuse piles. The slightly
higher elevation of the middens often create habitat for live oak trees.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Maintain refuge lands intact by preventing destruction or disturbance of historical ridge sites.
􀁹􇤠 Contact local and national archaeological groups and cultural groups to determine if any
management activities may impact their archaeological sites.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Objective 4.2: Maintain marked refuge boundary and other identifying/directional signs.
Discussion: Mandalay NWR is a relatively new refuge within the Refuge System, and is still being
surveyed to determine refuge boundaries. The majority of the boundary is posted, yet some of these
areas are affected by high water moving aquatic vegetation over the boundary posts, and in some
cases the posts are lost in the marsh. Because of frequent storm damage and vandalism, sign
replacement is necessary. Therefore, refuge boundary signing is of high priority. Direction and
information signs should be written in clear, concise language and placed in appropriate locations.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Maintain boundary signs and refuge entrance signs.
􀁹􇤠 Within 10 years of CCP approval, evaluate all refuge signage and replace/add signs as
needed.
Objective 4.3: Provide for visitor safety, protect resources, and ensure the public’s compliance with
refuge regulations.
Discussion: Public uses are limited to those that are compatible with refuge purposes, realizing that
wildlife needs and requirements come first. Therefore, protection of wildlife resources and laws
pertaining to wildlife are a priority of refuge law enforcement. Because of moderate visitor use, law
enforcement personnel also deal with issues such as hunter safety, illegal drugs, vandalism, thefts,
littering, and safety of visitors. Visitors should be able to enjoy a pleasurable experience with
adequate and safe access.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Obtain a full-time law enforcement officer.
􀁹􇤠 Retain collateral duty officer currently on staff.
􀁹􇤠 Work cooperatively with local, state, and other federal law enforcement agencies to enhance
resource protection.
Objective 4.4: Acquire those lands identified in the approved acquisition boundary.
Discussion: The 1996 establishing documents of Mandalay NWR contain an approved
acquisition boundary. Because of the severity of coastal erosion and importance of fresh marsh
habitat in south Louisiana, lands should be acquired by the Service that fall within the Mandalay
NWR acquisition boundary.
Strategy:
􀁹􇤠 When funding becomes available, purchase lands from willing sellers within the acquisition
boundary.
Objective 4.5: Maintain more than $3,000,000 worth of capitalized equipment for the Southeast
Louisiana NWR Complex of eight refuges to be used in all aspects of refuge administration, including
habitat, wildlife, public use and protection projects, and management.
38 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Discussion: The majority of equipment used by the Mandalay NWR staff is excess equipment
acquired from other refuges and government agencies. Since Mandalay NWR is one of a complex of
eight refuges, equipment is shared among the refuges instead of being assigned solely to Mandalay
NWR. Project efficiency depends largely on age, condition, and maintenance of the equipment
needed to get work projects accomplished.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Maintain programs, personnel, and equipment.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain a current database of all capitalized equipment and a maintenance schedule. Hire
staff maintenance person to maintain equipment and facilities.
􀁹􇤠 Replace or purchase additional equipment as needed in order to have well-maintained and
workable equipment for all force-account work planned.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
V. Plan Implementation
INTRODUCTION
Refuge lands are managed as defined under the Improvement Act. Congress has distinguished a
clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national wildlife refuges. National wildlife
refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation of the Nation’s fish and wildlife
resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects emphasize the protection and
enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but considerable emphasis is placed on
balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education.
To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this Draft CCP/EA for
Mandalay NWR, this section identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers,
partnerships opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management
plan, and plan review and revision.
This Draft CCP/EA focuses on the importance of funding the operations and maintenance needs of
the refuge to ensure the refuge staff can achieve the goals and objectives identified, which are crucial
to fulfilling the purpose for which the refuge was established. The refuge’s role in protecting and
providing habitat for waterfowl and endangered species is important. Proposed priority public use
programs will establish and expand opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, but not without the
resources for operations and maintenance.
PROPOSED PROJECTS
Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated costs for fish and wildlife
population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge
administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs identified
by the public, planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information. These projects were
generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and strategies. The primary linkages
of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
The refuge attracts 18 species of waterfowl, of which the mottled duck, wood duck, and black-bellied
whistling duck nest on the refuge. Over 20,000 waterfowl have been documented to use the refuge for
resting and feeding during peak migrations. Shorebirds; marsh birds; wading birds; neotropical migratory
songbirds; raptors, including osprey; mammals; reptiles and amphibians; and numerous fisheries exist on
the refuge. Bald eagles also inhabit the refuge by utilizing habitat for foraging and nesting. The refuge
marsh wetlands are spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for many aquatic species.
Freshwater species are supported with the fishery varying with the seasons and accompanying shifts
in salinity. The refuge wetlands are important spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for many
aquatic species, including crustaceans and fish species. On occasion, when salinities increase,
saltwater species may use the refuge.
40 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Project 1 – Monitor waterfowl use on refuge.
Hunting is offered on a portion of the refuge two days a week until noon during the State of Louisiana
State Waterfowl Season. A large portion of the refuge area remains closed to waterfowl hunting.
This provides “safe” habitat for resting and feeding to thousands of migratory waterfowl without
hunting pressure. Refuge staff will monitor migrating and wintering waterfowl use.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct annual waterfowl aerial surveys consisting of four to six surveys contingent on
weather conditions. Initial survey will be performed before State waterfowl hunting season
begins and last survey will be conducted after State waterfowl hunting season ends.
􀁹􇤠 Coordinate with LDWF on migration numbers on refuge.
Two USFWS biologists (refuge manager) will be required to conduct surveys on the refuge.
The annual cost will be $2,000.
Project 2 – Monitor species of concern, targeted species, and species of federal responsibility.
National wildlife refuges are mandated to manage for threatened and endangered species if
they occur on the refuge. However, refuges are also responsible for management of all native
species if the action does not negatively impact the threatened or endangered species. Refuge
management is geared toward managing the ecosystem as a whole.
􀁹􇤠 An overall faunal species list will be compiled from surveys conducted by Service and other
researchers. This list will be made available to the public through the refuge website. Within
the list, refuge staff will prioritize species based on regional and state lists of species of
concern, at risk/target species identified by Partners in Flight, and other plans.
􀁹􇤠 Develop a wildlife inventory plan based on species selected as priority species.
􀁹􇤠 Annual waterfowl surveys will be conducted from October to February.
􀁹􇤠 Secretive marsh birds will be surveyed and monitored as species of concern. Adaptive refuge
management actions will reflect data collected.
Project 3 – Provide brood habitat and nest sites for wood ducks to support 200 hatching wood ducks
each year.
The wood duck population increase is a success story resulting from the introduction of the wood
duck box nest program. They are a common resident in freshwater swamps, sloughs, and
marshes. Wood ducks seek tree cavities within one mile of water. However, brood success is
significantly higher when nests are next to water. Forested wetlands, scrub/shrub areas, and tree
lined bayous, canals, and sloughs are the preferred habitats of nesting wood ducks.
􀁹􇤠 The refuge will install and annually maintain 30 wood duck boxes in hardwood sloughs,
swamps, and marsh edges throughout the refuge.
Wood duck nesting cavities and habitat is abundant on the refuge and within the surrounding area.
As a result, nest box usage has been minimal in past years. Maintenance costs of $5,000 are
needed annually to maintain this program.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
The refuge provides a diversity of habitats for resident and migratory faunal species, including
wetland, aquatic, forestland, and scrub/shrub habitats. The purposes for which the refuge was
established include providing natural habitat for wintering and nesting waterfowl, non-game birds, and
threatened and endangered species.
Project 1 – Restore marsh in open pond areas over 5 acres in size and fortify the shoreline of the
refuge to ensure healthy and viable plant and animal communities and protect the integrity of the
refuge habitats.
The reduction or attempted halt of marsh subsidence and marsh loss is considered critical
through marsh creation projects and plantings for marsh stabilization.
􀁹􇤠 Develop grants through NAWCA, CWPPRA, and partnerships with the Barataria-Terrebonne
National Estuary Program, The Nature Conservancy, local universities, and other
organizations to restore marsh habitats in open water ponds to encourage less than 5-acre
pond sizes and resulting increased emergent marsh.
􀁹􇤠 Develop terracing, Christmas tree structures, dedicated dredging projects, etc., to accomplish
this objective.
􀁹􇤠 Utilize proven techniques for shoreline stabilization.
􀁹􇤠 Once new lands are formed, plant desired marsh grass if necessary.
Project 2 – Use beneficial dredged materials from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway through
cooperation with the Corps of Engineers when applicable, to fill open water areas and create new
emergent marsh on the refuge. These actions can create and restore hundreds of acres lost to
erosion and subsidence on the refuge, with little to no cost to the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 Partner with the Corps of Engineers to plan location and elevation of material to be placed on
refuge.
􀁹􇤠 Plan locations of sediment to ensure tidal movement will reach all areas. No areas of
stagnated water should exist.
􀁹􇤠 Monitor areas for vegetation growth and inventory species.
􀁹􇤠 Once new lands are formed, plant desired marsh grass if necessary.
􀁹􇤠 Identify wildlife use and monitor their use of the new area.
The cost for sediment placement will vary, but the funds will be provided through the Corps of
Engineers navigation projects; there should be no immediate cost to the refuge. The inventory of
plants and wildlife can be accomplished by one Service biologist for $5,000 annually. Planting can
be accomplished using volunteers and a one-time cost of $40,000 for plants, travel, and supplies.
The reduction or attempted halt of marsh subsidence and marsh loss is considered critical through
marsh creation projects and plantings for marsh stabilization.
42 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Project 3 – Develop monitoring programs for marsh loss, change in water depths, submerged aquatic
plants, and the impacts of public use activities on the resources. Evaluate long-term effects of
restoration and shoreline fortification projects.
􀁹􇤠 Develop historic GIS maps of soils, habitats, and boundaries.
􀁹􇤠 Establish salinity monitoring points and monitor monthly by taking readings, developing a
spreadsheet database, and evaluating changes. Coordinate with marsh survivability plots and
vegetation composition changes.
􀁹􇤠 Map vegetation types with the use of GPS and GIS to inventory special and unique areas of
the refuge requiring special management or protection.
􀁹􇤠 Implement a marsh subsidence monitoring plan to monitor the effects of refuge habitat
manipulations and the encouragement of wildlife plants, such as three-square and duck potato
in the marsh. This plan will show impacts of higher salinity to freshwater marsh resources and
impacts to resources for wildlife.
Operational funds should be dedicated for trained personnel performing basic wildlife
inventorying and monitoring. One biologist and one technician are needed to perform
inventorying, monitoring, and managing restoration and management programs. Sampling
schemes will use photo points and transects to monitor changes from management actions.
These monitoring programs will employ the use of field computers, data collectors, boats, and
GIS technology for documentation. A cost estimate per year of $30,000 will be required for this
work to be achieved. This estimate is primarily salary costs.
RESOURCE PROTECTION AND REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Project 1 – Provide adequate law enforcement protection for refuge resources, federal trust species,
personnel, and the visiting public.
Mandalay NWR hosts approximately 20,000 visitors annually for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent
recreation. The refuge will conduct a refuge Law Enforcement Program Review and
revise the Law Enforcement Plan. One full-time law enforcement position is needed and can patrol
both Mandalay and Bayou Teche NWRs to cooperate with state wildlife officers and the local sheriff
and city officers to:
􀁹􇤠 Protect hunters, fishermen, and other visitors and provide a safe experience while they are on
the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 Enforce refuge regulations and reduce unapproved and illegal activities.
􀁹􇤠 Rescue lost or stranded hunters, fishermen, and aid visitors in need.
􀁹􇤠 Protect refuge infrastructure, equipment, and cultural and natural resources.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct patrols in refuge-owned waterways or ponds for illegal commercial fishing activities.
One refuge officer is needed to achieve goals and perform law enforcement duties. The annual cost
would be $90,000 for salary, equipment, and supplies.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Project 2 – Maintain marked refuge boundary and other identifying and regulating signs.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct refuge boundary surveys on all lands and any new lands when acquired and post
accordingly.
􀁹􇤠 All existing refuge boundaries will be inspected and reposted by annually inspecting and
reposting 20 percent of the refuge boundary.
􀁹􇤠 Signs will be placed at all refuge entrance points along trails, water courses, and roads.
􀁹􇤠 Post signs to mark the portions of the refuge as “closed” so they are visible at all entrances.
􀁹􇤠 Replace all faded or damaged signs as observed.
The one-time cost for boundary surveys would be $20,000 due to logistics. The annual boundary
maintenance cost would be $5,000.
Project 3 – Meet current and expanded ability to maintain infrastructure for public use and
management capabilities of the refuge.
A field headquarters/maintenance facility is located in Houma, Louisiana. There are two employees
stationed in Houma, but no maintenance employee. All other employees are stationed at the
Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex in Lacombe.
􀁹􇤠 Even though staff share responsibilities with other refuges for equipment, office space, roads,
parking areas, facilities, equipment, boats, and vehicles, there is a need for one maintenance
staff person to assist with upkeep of facilities and equipment.
Project 4 – Administer oil and gas program with efforts guided to protect surface habitat and wildlife
on the refuge.
Mandalay NWR has one active gas well and collection facility located on the Sunrise Canal. There are
numerous plugged and abandoned wells throughout the refuge. Seven major transmission pipelines (8
miles) traverse the refuge. Spill events and releases are rare occurrences on the refuge. All activities
relating to oil and gas on the refuge must be requested through the use of a special use permit.
􀁹􇤠 Ensure all companies operating on refuge are permitted, identified, and in compliance with
refuge, state, and industry regulations.
􀁹􇤠 All activities are submitted for review and a determination is made by refuge manager if a
special use permit is required for activities requested or performed.
􀁹􇤠 Issue special use permits and assess mitigation for impacts to the surface of the refuge if they
cannot be avoided.
􀁹􇤠 Response to all spill events and releases is conducted immediately after located; however,
before work is performed, the response/clean-up company must consult with the refuge
manager to ensure methods are approved on the refuge.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct routine inspections of field and facility to ensure proper operating procedures are