Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2009
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
MANDALAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2009
Comprehensive Conservation Plan i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 3
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 5
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 7
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 8
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................................................ 9
Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem ................................................................................. 11
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................ 12
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 15
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 15
Mandalay Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................... 15
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 19
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 19
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 20
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 20
Geology, Hydrology, and Topography .............................................................................. 20
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 21
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 21
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 21
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 21
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 22
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 22
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 23
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 23
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 23
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 23
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 25
Planning Process and Public Involvement ................................................................................. 25
Wilderness review ...................................................................................................................... 25
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 26
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 26
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 26
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 26
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 27
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 27
ii Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 29
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 29
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 29
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 41
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 41
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 41
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 41
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 42
Resource Protection AND Refuge Administration ............................................................ 44
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 45
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 47
$5,000 ....................................................................................................................................... 50
$2,000 ....................................................................................................................................... 50
$20,000 ..................................................................................................................................... 50
$8,000 ....................................................................................................................................... 50
$5,000 ....................................................................................................................................... 50
$1,000 ....................................................................................................................................... 50
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 51
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 51
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 52
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 52
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 53
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 63
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 65
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 79
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 79
Draft Plan Comments and Service responses ........................................................................... 80
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................ 83
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................... 89
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 101
APPENDIX H. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 103
APPENDIX I. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 107
Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii
APPENDIX K. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................ 109
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 109
Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................. 109
APPENDIX L. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................................................. 111
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 111
Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 111
Selection Rationale ......................................................................................................... 113
Environmental Effects ..................................................................................................... 113
Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 113
Land Ownership and Site Development ................................................................................... 114
iv Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge within the Southeast Louisiana
National Wildlife Refuge Complex ......................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Location of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge in relation to regional
conservation areas .............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 3. Status and acquisition boundary of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge,
Terrebonne Parish, LA and vicinity (topo) ........................................................................... 16
Figure 4. Status and acquisition boundary of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge,
Terrebonne Parish, LA, and vicinity ..................................................................................... 17
Figure 5. Boundary of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge, Terrebonne Parish, LA ........................... 18
Figure 6. Public use areas and facilities on Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge ................................ 24
Figure 7. Current staffing chart for Mandalay and Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuges ............... 48
Figure 8. Proposed staffing chart for Mandalay and Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuges ........... 49
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of proposed projects ............................................................................................ 50
Table 2. Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the
goals and objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan ........................................... 51
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
Executive Summary
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
to guide the management of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana. The CCP outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as
mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat
management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues
the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and
state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge
staff held one public scoping meeting. Also, a 30-day public review and comment period of the draft
comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment was provided.
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A was a proposal to maintain
the status quo. Under this alternative, no new actions would be taken to improve or enhance the
refuge’s current habitat, wildlife, and public use management programs. The existing programs
would be continued with no changes. Species of federal responsibility, such as threatened and
endangered species and migratory birds, would continue to be monitored at present levels.
Additional species monitoring would occur as opportunistic events when contacts or volunteers
offer support. Current programs of marsh management would be maintained with no
improvements or adaptations. No progressive wetland restoration projects would be
implemented. All public use programs of fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation would continue at present levels
and with current facilities. No programs or facilities would be updated or expanded.
Acquisition of lands into the refuge would occur when funding is appropriated and willing sellers offer
land that is quality waterfowl habitat. Staff would consist of a manager and a biologist supporting
both Mandalay and Bayou Teche NWRs, along with supplementary support from the remainder of the
Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex staff when needed. The refuge headquarters would serve only
as administrative offices with no enhancement of the grounds for public use and interpretation.
Alternative B proposed management of the natural resources of Mandalay NWR based on maintaining
and improving wetland habitats, monitoring targeted flora and fauna representative of the Terrebonne
Basin, and providing quality public use programs and wildlife-dependent recreational activities. All
species occurring on the refuge would be considered and certain targeted species would be managed for
and monitored in addition to species of federal responsibility. These species would be chosen based on
the criteria that they are indicators of the health of important habitat or species of concern.
Wetland loss would be documented and, whenever possible, restored. Public use programs would
be improved by offering more facilities and wildlife observation areas. Public use facilities would
undergo annual reviews for maintenance needs and safety concerns. Overall public use would be
monitored to determine if any negative impacts would occur to refuge resources from overuse.
Education programs would be reviewed and improved to complement current refuge management
and current staffing. Archaeological resources would be surveyed.
2 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Land acquisitions within the approved acquisition boundary would be based on importance of the
habitat for target management species. The refuge headquarters would not only house small
administrative offices, but offer interpretation of refuge wildlife and habitats, as well as demonstrate
habitat improvements for individual landowners. The main interpretive facilities would be housed at
the Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex in Lacombe, Louisiana.
In general, under Alternative B, management decisions and actions would support wildlife species
and habitat occurring on the refuge based on well-planned strategies and sound scientific judgment.
Quality wildlife-dependent recreational uses, environmental education, and interpretation programs
would be offered to support and explain the natural resources of the refuge.
Alternative C proposed managing the natural resources of Mandalay NWR for maximized public use
activities including wildlife-dependent recreational activities. The majority of staff time and efforts
would support public use activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Federal trust species and
archaeological resources would be monitored as mandated, but other species targeted for
management would depend on which ones the public is interested in utilizing.
All refuge programs for conservation of wildlife and habitat, such as monitoring, surveying, and
managing marsh, would support species and resources of importance for public use. Emphasis
would be placed more on interpreting and demonstrating these programs than actual implementation.
Providing access with trails and by dredging for boat access would be maximized, as well as
providing public use facilities throughout the refuge.
Land acquisitions within the approved acquisition boundary would be based on importance of the
habitat for public use. The refuge headquarters area would provide small administrative offices, a
visitor center, and be developed for public use activities such as interpretation and outreach.
In general, under Alternative C, the focus of refuge management would be on expanding public use
activities to the fullest extent possible while conducting only mandated resource protection such as
conservation of threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and archaeological resources.
Based on the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the purposes for which Mandalay NWR
was established, and the focus of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem priorities, the Service
selected Alternative B, Resource-Focused Management, as the preferred management direction.
Implementing the preferred 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was
prepared to guide management actions and direction of 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. The draft of this CCP was
made available to state and federal government agencies, non-governmental agencies, conservation
partners, and the general public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were
considered in the development of this CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role that Mandalay NWR will play in support of the mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), and to provide long-term guidance to the
refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years.
The CCP will:
 Provide a clear statement of the desired future conditions when refuge purposes and goals
are accomplished;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuges;
 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, with 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, with the establishment of a Division of Economic
Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. In 1896, with a shift from research
pertaining to the relationship of birds and animals to agriculture to the delineation of the range of
plants and animals, the name was changed to the Division of Biological Survey.
On June 30, 1940, the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
4 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge within the Southeast Louisiana
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The 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 (Refuge System), as defined by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
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 comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
 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.
6 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
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). 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 comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service should 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 comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
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
Lands, U.S. Geological Survey, Louisiana State University, the Black Bear Conservation Committee,
and private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. The refuge
manager determines if a use is appropriate based on sound professional judgment; uses that are
illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe may not be found appropriate. When a use is
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
8 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 CCP.
This CCP 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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
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 3 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 the State’s 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
10 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 or “Breaux Act”)
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 created by this act 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 (WRDA) 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 are located 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 are located 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 expanded 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
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 migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning
from Central and South America. Geographically, the refuge lies 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;
 Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE;
 Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all threatened, endangered,
and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE;
 Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE;
 Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries;
 Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management;
 Enforce natural resource laws; and
 Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE.
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV) 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 LMV include:
 The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests;
 The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest
fragmentation);
 The effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
 The simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools;
 The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and
 The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
Priorities identified by the LMRE to which the refuge can contribute include:
 Continue to work with the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Task Force, private landowners, and
other entities to protect and restore coastal wetlands, consistent with the Coast 2050 Plan and
associated project planning, evaluation, and implementation activities;
 Consider all grant opportunities available to the LMRE Team and partners and work to
improve internal coordination of these programs to assure that the contributions to these
programs are of maximum benefit to the resource;
 Support environmental education efforts underway by Service offices to enhance and expand
knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of trust resources; and
 Control invasive/exotic species.
12 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 (LDWF) 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 2. Location of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge in relation to regional conservation
areas
14 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Mandalay NWR is approximately 5 miles west of Houma, Louisiana, in Terrebonne Parish
(Figures 3, 4, and 5). The refuge consists predominantly of freshwater marshes and cypress-tupelo
swamps, which provide excellent habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, and neotropical
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 National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Lacombe, Louisiana.
MANDALAY 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 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 with 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 Xeroxed 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.
16 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Status and acquisition boundary of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge, Terrebonne
Parish, LA and vicinity (topo)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 4. Status and acquisition boundary of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge, Terrebonne
Parish, LA, and vicinity
18 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Boundary of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge, Terrebonne Parish, LA
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
The concerns and issues of the community were numerous and complex. The Final
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Establishment of Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
provides additional details on the issues and concerns regarding the proposed 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 Mandalay NWR’s designation as a national wildlife refuge, this 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 sq mi/yr (16.4 sq km/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 and considerable shoreline erosion
along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). Additionally, the USGS has documented
approximately 19 sq mi (49 sq km) of land lost from October 2004 to October 2005 in the Terrebonne
Basin as measured following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
20 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
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.
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 National Wildlife Refuge 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 freshwater 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
freshwater marsh being lost by 2100. Although under the 1 and 1.5 meter scenarios, 90 percent and
nearly 100 percent is lost by 2050 respectively. Inland freshwater marsh follows much the same
pattern but the loss rate is greater in most cases. Swamps are actually predicted to fare worse than
freshwater 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 saltwater
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. The refuge lies within the Penchant Sub-basin and
receives freshwater from the hydrologic influences of the Atchafalaya River. The northern
Penchant Sub-basin supports extensive freshwater marsh and includes a predominance of flotant
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
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.
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 GIWW 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 GIWW 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.
22 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
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.
Although Mandalay NWR is primarily a refuge dedicated to the management and protection of migratory
birds, it 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 the nutria has 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-18th century from Mississippi and Alabama. The
native word “houma” means red, and the tribe’s war emblem was the crawfish. The tribe was 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 government 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 10
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, which have become popular sources of commerce.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
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, wood duck nest box program, wildlife monitoring, and oil and gas
operation monitoring. Marsh restoration projects on the refuge include the Mandalay Bank Protection
Demonstration CWPPRA project along the southern shoreline of the GIWW, 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 activities occurring when the refuge is closed at night.
Monitoring of wildlife is limited to monthly winter waterfowl surveys, and an annual alligator night count.
Approximately 20 wood duck boxes are maintained. Monitoring oil and gas activities requires planning
and coordination with the oil and gas operators 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 abandoning 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 2-person staff consisting of a refuge manager and a wildlife
biologist, working out of the headquarters near Houma. 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.
24 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. Public use areas and facilities on Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
III. Plan Development
PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
In October 2006, the planning process began with a biological review for 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 Service’s 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 NWR was held in Houma. Approximately 7 people
attended the open discussion of the CCP process to learn about future management plans for
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, which could be mailed to the refuge.
Approximately 11 comments and questions were recorded for the Mandalay NWR meeting. Input
obtained from the scoping meetings was used to develop the draft CCP. 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 CCP, the planning team identified a list of 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 members 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 CCP.
26 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 this CCP 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 is discussed in
the habitat management section, since managing habitat is the key to providing for the needs of fish
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 is 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 refuge’s overall efforts 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 marshes on the south side of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the open
water in the Hanson Unit, and possibly creating islands in Lake Hatch, if material is available from
dredging projects. Existing forests 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
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 and accessible by vehicle. No public boat launches are located on
the refuge. Under current funding and staffing, visitor services opportunities are limited.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Presently, two positions cover the administration of both Mandalay and Bayou Teche NWR’s from the
headquarters in Houma. Limited support is available from the staff of Southeast Louisiana NWR
Complex in Lacombe, a drive of several hours from Mandalay NWR. Funding is administered
through the Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex.
28 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
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, as well as 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 CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This 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 the Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment,
which was Section B of the draft CCP for Mandalay NWR. 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 as the preferred management direction.
Implementing the preferred 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 National Wildlife Refuge 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, identifies the projects associated with the various strategies.
30 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 resources as outlined in Chapter VII, we intend 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 with the fishery, which varies 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 2 young per year, with the exception of 2007 when only 1 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 this group of migratory birds.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
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, forage, and nests. 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 researching 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.
 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 threatened and endangered habitat present on the refuge. Only on rare occurrences, the
refuge may be used temporarily by these species as they migrate 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.
32 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 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
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, sunfish, 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’s Wildlife and
Fisheries Inland and Marine Fish Divisions and report all fish kills.
 Continue correspondence with local fishermen and sportsmen to assess species in daily
catch.
GOAL 2. To 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 (Barras et al. 1994).
34 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Additionally, the USGS has documented approximately 19 sq mi (49 sq km) 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 to 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 ft/yr (May and Britsch 1987).
In 2003, the Mandalay Bank Protection Demonstration CWPPRA project (TE-41) was constructed
along the southern shoreline of the Gulf Intracoastal 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).
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 3,500ac) 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 (refer to Mandalay Hunt Plan and
Furbearer Trapping Plan)
 Erosion control along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and other shorelines, placement of hard
structures along the waterway, and restoration of the 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 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.
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 portion of the ridge is bisected by the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The portion of the ridge on the refuge is bisected by an oil field location
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
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 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 Terrebonne Parish 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 the Natural Resources Conservation Service. These grass plantings have been an
overall success by diverting wave action from the waterway and minimizing the passage of aquatic
invasive species into the interior marsh of the Hanson Unit.
Strategies:
 Continue cooperation with Terrebonne Parish and Natural Resources Conservation Service
with marsh grass plantings and Christmas tree cradles on the refuge.
 Continue to cooperate with LDNR 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 Improvement Act.
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, lottery youth and
adult waterfowl, and recreational fishing. Additionally, alligator and nutria are harvested under special
use management permits.
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 boats and banks.
The Mandalay Nature Trail provides public recreational opportunities via hiking, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
36 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Objective 3.1: Develop and implement a Visitor Services Management Plan
Discussion: A visitor services plan is critical to the future direction 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
and supports visitor understanding and appreciation of the natural and cultural resources of the
refuge.
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 Management 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 these hunting and fishing activities is very important to the local
community as Mandalay NWR 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 programs to achieve population management and wildlife habitat
objectives.
Objective 3.3: Provide opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife 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 wildlife photography, especially for tourists visiting Terrebonne Parish. However, some of the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
most beautiful areas of the refuge are accessed by boat. Local swamp tours provide visitors insight
into the expansive freshwater 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 the refuge and maintain access points for watercraft where 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. Currently,
Mandalay NWR has no visitor services staff. Plans to participate in any additional activities with
current staff are not feasible.
Strategy:
 Continue current programs 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, provide
information panels for the 3 newly constructed kiosks.
Strategy:
 Improve office visitor contact area and develop interpretive panels for office and on Mandalay
Nature Trail.
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, to restore wetland areas, and to increase environmental stewardship. The
staff usually hosts several visits a year from local community groups such as Boy Scout troops,
garden club, bird club, and school groups. Staff members usually makes time in their schedule to
accommodate these activities. Currently, the refuge has no education/outreach staff.
Strategy:
 Develop environmental education program on refuge and in local schools if staffing increases.
38 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
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 Parish bird club, local garden club, and local
volunteers.
 Develop a friends group when additional staff is added to administer support.
GOAL 4. Protect the natural and cultural resources of the refuge to ensure their integrity and to fulfill
the mission of the 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 (e.g., refuse piles)
located along drainages off the refuge. Enforcement of laws pertaining to wildlife and other natural
resources is fundamental and necessary, especially in areas of high public use. The 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 approved acquisition boundary.
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
within the refuge.
 Contact local and national archaeological groups and cultural groups to determine if any
management activities may impact their archaeological sites.
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
informational signs should be written in clear, concise language and placed in appropriate locations.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Strategies:
 Maintain boundary signs and refuge entrance signs.
 Within 10 years of the date of this CCP, 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:
 Hire a full-time law enforcement officer.
 Retain co-lateral 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 freshwater 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 complex of
eight refuges to be used in all aspects of refuge administration, including habitat, wildlife, public use,
and protection projects and management.
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. The equipment referred to here is not separate from the other refuges in the Complex. Project
efficiency depends largely on age, condition, and maintenance of the equipment needed to
accomplish work projects.
40 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Strategies:
 Maintain programs, personnel, and equipment.
 Maintain a current data base containing 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
working equipment for all force account work planned.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
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 CCP, 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 CCP focuses on the importance of funding the operations and maintenance needs of the refuge
to ensure the staff can achieve the goals and objectives identified and are crucial to fulfill 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 adequate resources.
The following projects reflect basic needs of the refuge as identified during the development of this CCP.
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.
Project 1 – Monitor waterfowl use on refuge.
42 Mandalay National Wildlife 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 biologists 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 1 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 are 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.
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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
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 Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 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 costs to the refuge.
 Partner with the Corps to plan location and elevation of material to be stacked on refuge.
 Plan locations of sediment to ensure that tidal movement will reach all areas. No areas of
stagnated water shall 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 through the Corps navigation projects
and should be no immediate cost to the refuge. The inventory of plants and wildlife can be
accomplished by one 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.
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. These plans will show impacts of higher salinity to freshwater marsh resources
and impacts to resources for wildlife on the refuge.
44 Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
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 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 otherwise 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. Cost would be
$90,000 per year for salary, equipment, and supplies.
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 ins