Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
November 2007 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
SABINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Cameron Parish, Louisiana
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
November 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
PREFACE
.............................................................................................................................................
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.......................................................................................................................
3
I.
BACKGROUND
.................................................................................................................................
7
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
........................................................................................
7
The National Wildlife Refuge System
...........................................................................................
7
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
.........................................................
7
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
..........................................
8
Purpose and Need for Plan
..........................................................................................................
8
Legal Policy Context
.....................................................................................................................
9
Coastal Zone Management Compliance
.............................................................................
9
National Wildlife Refuge System Lands
..............................................................................
9
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency
...........................................................................................
9
Ecosystem Context
.....................................................................................................................
10
Overview
...........................................................................................................................
10
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Priorities
...................................................................
10
Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem Priorities
.............................................................................
12
Ecological Threats and Problems
...............................................................................................
12
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise
................................................................................
13
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives
........................................................................................
13
Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan
.........................................................................
13
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
..................................................................
14
Gulf Coast Joint Venture (Chenier Plain Initiative)
............................................................
14
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
..................................................................
14
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan
......................................................................
15
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
............................................
15
Coast 2050
: Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana
....................................................
15
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan
.......................................................
15
Fisheries Vision for the Future
..........................................................................................
16
American Woodcock Management Plan
...........................................................................
16
II.
REFUGE OVERVIEW
......................................................................................................................
17
Purpose
.....................................................................................................................................
20
Refuge Environment and Other Related Information
.................................................................
21
Impact of Hurricane Rita
...................................................................................................
21
Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations
.................................................................................
21
Education and Visitor Services
.........................................................................................
37
Refuge Administration
................................................................................................................
42
Refuge Staff
......................................................................................................................
42
Coordination/Cooperative Programs
.................................................................................
42
Facilities and Equipment
...................................................................................................
42
Roads
...............................................................................................................................
43
Research Natural Areas
.............................................................................................................
43
Wilderness Review
.....................................................................................................................
43
Archeological and Historical Resources
.....................................................................................
43
Table of Contents i
Socioeconomic Profile
................................................................................................................
44
Land Protection and Conservation
.............................................................................................
46
East Cove Unit
..................................................................................................................
47
Refuge-related Problems
...........................................................................................................
47
Introduction
.......................................................................................................................
47
Oil and Gas Activities
........................................................................................................
47
Wildfires
............................................................................................................................
51
Unauthorized Public Use
..................................................................................................
51
Water Level Management
.................................................................................................
51
Conservation Priorities
...............................................................................................................
51
III.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
..................................................................................................................
53
Public Involvement and the Planning Process
...........................................................................
53
Issues and Concerns
.................................................................................................................
54
Public Comments
..............................................................................................................
54
Biological and Public Use Review Comments
..................................................................
55
IV.
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
.........................................................................................................
57
Introduction
...............................................................................................................................
57
Vision
........................................................................................................................................
57
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
..............................................................................................
58
Goal A – Habitat:
.......................................................................................................................
58
Goal B – Fish and Wildlife Management
....................................................................................
64
Goal C – Oil and Gas Infrastructure and Activities
.....................................................................
70
Goal D – Public Use Management
.............................................................................................
72
Goal E – Cultural Resources
......................................................................................................
76
Goal F – East Cove Unit
............................................................................................................
77
Goal G – Refuge Complex Operations:
......................................................................................
79
V.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
..............................................................................................................
81
Introduction
...............................................................................................................................
81
Proposed Projects
......................................................................................................................
81
Project 1
: Hurricane Recovery
..........................................................................................
81
: Costs to Control Undesirable Plants and Animals
............................................
90
Project 2
Project 3
: Inventory/Monitor Wildlife Populations and Responses to Management Actions
.........................................................................................................................................
90
Project 4
: Partnerships, Volunteers, Friends and Interns
.................................................
91
Funding and Personnel
..............................................................................................................
92
Summary Table of Costs for 2007–2022
....................................................................................
93
Step-down Management Plans
..................................................................................................
95
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities
..........................................................................................
95
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
.......................................................................................
96
Plan Review and Revision
..........................................................................................................
96
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY
.................................................................................................................
97
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED
...............................................................
107
ii Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDIX C. LEGAL MANDATES
...................................................................................................
111
APPENDIX D. REFUGE BIOTA
........................................................................................................
117
APPENDIX E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
............................................................................................
137
Summary of Public Scoping
.....................................................................................................
137
Special Hurricane Damage Meeting
.........................................................................................
146
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses
........................................................................
146
APPENDIX F. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
..................................................................
173
APPENDIX G. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS
................................................................
175
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations
...........................................
175
APPENDIX H. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS
.......................................................................
185
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determinations
................................................
187
East Cove Unit Compatibility Determination
.............................................................................
208
APPENDIX I.
INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
.......................................
217
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS
................................................................................................
225
Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS)
..................................................
225
APPENDIX K. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
..................................................................
227
Table of Contents iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Ecosystems.
........................................................
11
Figure 2. Location of Sabine Refuge National Wildlife Refuge and the Southwest Louisiana
Figure 16. Organization chart for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge with current and
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
.......................................................................................
18
Figure 3. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge excluding the East Cove Unit.
..........................................
19
Figure 4. East Cove Unit managed by Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge.
............................
20
Figure 5. Hurricane recovery information for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
..................................
22
Figure 6. Vegetation of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
...................................................................
24
Figure 7. Vegetation of East Cove Unit.
.............................................................................................
25
Figure 8. Waterfowl survey results for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
............................................
29
Figure 9. Cameron Creole Watershed Project including East Cove Unit.
..........................................
36
Figure 10. Annual visits for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
.............................................................
37
Figure 11. Visitor facilities at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
..........................................................
38
Figure 12. Visitor facilities at the East Cove Unit.
...............................................................................
41
Figure 13. Prioritized hazardous material work units
..........................................................................
83
Figure 14. Canals scheduled for dredging
..........................................................................................
86
Figure 15. Canal cleaning.
..................................................................................................................
87
proposed positions.
..........................................................................................................
94
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Birds of management concern to the refuge.
........................................................................
27
Table 5. Cameron Parish - Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years
Table 6. Cameron Parish - Employment of civilian population 16 years and older
Table 7. Costs to repair, recover, and replace real and personal property damaged from
Table 9. Costs to inventory and monitor wildlife populations and responses to adaptive
Table 13. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals
Table 2. Annual peak wintering waterfowl populations on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
.............
28
Table 3. Annual peak wintering waterfowl populations on the East Cove Unit.
..................................
28
Table 4. List of heavy equipment at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
...............................................
42
and older (2000).
...................................................................................................................
45
by industry (2000).
................................................................................................................
46
Hurricane Rita.
......................................................................................................................
89
Table 8. Costs to control undesirable plants and animals.
.................................................................
90
management techniques.
......................................................................................................
91
Table 10. Cost to promote partnerships.
............................................................................................
92
Table 11. Cost of existing and proposed positions.
............................................................................
92
Table 12. Summary of costs for projects proposed to be completed from 2007–2022.
.....................
93
and objectives of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
..................................................
95
iv Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Preface
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which also includes Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge and Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge to the east within Cameron Parish, and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge in Iberia Parish. The Complex also has administrative oversight responsibilities for the state-managed Rockefeller Refuge in lower Cameron Parish. Some lands within the Complex, specifically the East Cove Unit of Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, are also part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project, a cooperative effort among local, state, and federal agencies and the private sector to restore 64,000 acres of marsh in Cameron Parish.
By September 23, 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service planning team that prepared the comprehensive conservation plan for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge had nearly completed a preliminary draft of this document for internal review and revision. Release of the refuge’s Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for public review and comment would have occurred shortly thereafter.
However, one day later, on September 24, Hurricane Rita—a Category 3 hurricane—roared across southwest Louisiana with winds in excess of 100 knots, leaving a broad swath of destruction in her wake. As a measure of the power of her destructive impact to one key industry alone, Rita demolished 69 offshore oil and gas platforms and four drilling rigs, and extensively damaged another 32 platforms and 10 drilling rigs.
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge bore the brunt of Rita’s 15–20 foot storm surge, which deposited many tons of debris onto the refuge. This debris came from the remnants of devastated coastal communities such as Holly Beach, Constance Beach, and Johnson’s Bayou, as well as oil and gas facilities. It contained a chaotic jumble of natural vegetation, construction debris, a myriad of household items, and an unknown amount of hazardous materials.
To assess the extent of the problem, the Service commissioned a survey by Research Planning, Inc., which was completed in January 2006. This study, entitled “Assessment of Hazardous Materials and Debris from Hurricane Rita in the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge,” details the stunning dimensions of the refuge’s predicament. Approximately 32,000 acres on the refuge have been impacted, including 1,700 acres of debris piles, seven million cubic meters of debris, and nearly 1,400 potential hazmat items positively identified. Estimates range from 115,000 to 350,000 gallons of hazardous liquids and gases.
Initially cleaning up this mess was an enormous challenge, but funding from Congress in June of 2006 allowed the Service to begin cleanup operations.
About $12 million has been allocated to remove surface debris and subsurface tanks and other heavier items that were sinking into the marsh. Personnel from the Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and Tennessee Valley Authority established an Incident Command Team to oversee the cleanup operation. Clean Harbors Environmental Services was contracted to conduct the debris removal using specialized equipment in sensitive wetland areas without road access. Hundreds of hazardous waste items, household goods, and commercial goods have been recovered.
Preface 1
In addition to habitat damage, Sabine’s facilities were devastated by Hurricane Rita. Five of eight buildings in the headquarters and visitor center area were immediately condemned and required demolition. The remaining three buildings need extensive repairs before they can be used. All public use facilities—including bridges, trails, boardwalks, and restrooms—received major damage and will require repairs before they can be reopened. These conditions represent a significant risk to health and human safety, requiring the Service to restrict refuge access to the public.
As this Comprehensive Conservation Plan goes to press, Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is slowly being reopened to public use as facilities are repaired or renovated. By removing hazardous debris, the refuge will avoid a significant risk of chemical and physical damage for decades to come.
All of these abrupt and drastic “on the ground” changes forced refuge planners and managers to step back, pause, and reconsider the management direction that Sabine National Wildlife Refuge should take in the coming 15 years. The three management alternatives that were described and evaluated in the Environmental Assessment, including the proposed alternative described in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan, were modified, as was the description of the existing refuge environment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to restoring the integrity of Sabine’s habitat and, when conditions permit, to realizing once more the refuge’s potential to provide wholesome wildlife-dependent outdoor activities to the public.
2 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the management of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, a unit of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, for the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted biological and public use reviews of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat management programs. The biological review team was comprised of biologists from federal and state agencies and nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. This diverse team presented the Service with recommendations to manage habitat, wildlife, refuge resources such as oil and gas, cultural resources, refuge administration, and visitor services. Public scoping meetings were then held to solicit public opinion on the issues the plan should address. The input received from the public also was considered during the planning process.
A planning team comprised of Service personnel, state agency representatives, nongovernmental organizations, and others then developed an environmental assessment to formulate a range of alternatives or different approaches to refuge management that the Service could reasonably undertake to achieve the goals and fulfill the purpose of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. Each alternative consisted of different sets of goals, objectives, and strategies for management of the refuge.
Three alternatives emerged for possible management direction and are summarized below.
ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION
Alternative A, the “No Action” alternative, is the baseline or status quo of refuge programs and is usually a continuation of current planning unit objectives and management strategies, with no change or changes that would have occurred without the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, which was severely affected by Hurricane Rita in September of 2005, is currently closed to many activities other than essential operations, hurricane cleanup, and restoration activities. Some limited public use activities are being allowed as areas are cleaned up. Fishing on areas accessible from off-refuge launches is being permitted for the first time since the hurricane.
Under this alternative, nonessential programs, including most maintenance and all public use, would cease at the refuge due to hurricane recovery efforts. However, research monitoring activities and the fire program, including both prescribed fire as well as extinguishing wildfires, would continue. Hazardous debris removal and Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) projects would continue. Oil and gas operations would continue. Law enforcement operations will increase to make sure that the over 300,000 annual visitors who normally use the Refuge comply with the closure. The Sabine Refuge staff would function at an office located off-site. The refuge’s cultural resources would continue to be protected.
As hurricane recovery is accomplished, the refuge would essentially be managed as it was prior to the devastation from the historic storm. Habitat and public use programs would be reinstated as facilities and resources are restored.
Executive Summary 3
ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ACTION
The Service’s proposed action, Alternative B, will continue to keep the refuge operational with minimal public use programs functional but at a reduced cost (near term), and increase marsh restoration, enhance fish and wildlife management, and expand public use (long term).
Over the near term, programs would continue throughout the refuge commensurate with the level of hazardous material cleanup and restoration. Over time, public use areas would be reopened as repairs to infrastructure and restoration of habitat occur. Fire and research programs would remain active. Existing oil and gas operations would continue at the normal level but new operations would be closely regulated under Service regulations and other federal law. Staff assigned to the refuge would function out of a hurricane-resistant building to be located at the original headquarters site.
Over the long term, under Alternative B, the Sabine Refuge will increase marsh restoration and enhance wildlife management, stepping up these efforts from current levels. A habitat improvement feasibility study will be performed for Unit 3. The refuge will improve marsh plant communities and shallow water, increase waterfowl food production, and provide habitats and sanctuary needs for migrating, wintering, breeding ducks (mottled ducks) and geese and other birds, fish, and wildlife. It will also protect and/or restore 43,200 acres of intermediate and brackish marsh and continue working toward restoring emergent marsh. The beneficial use of dredge material for marsh restoration will be continued. Sabine will closely monitor oil and gas activities to minimize impacts to wetland habitats and wildlife usage. It will also increase surface reclamation at former petroleum extraction sites to improve habitat for wintering migratory birds and other species. All new non-refuge mineral owners’ requests for petrochemical transmission infrastructure will be prohibited.
Like Alternative A, Alternative B will maintain salinity monitoring throughout the refuge at established discrete salinity stations. Improving water quality will be a major thrust for the refuge. Fire management objectives under Alternative B will be the same as Alternative A: the Sabine Refuge will continue to use fire as a multipurpose management tool for reducing hazardous fuels, promoting habitat diversity, and prescribe burn approximately 20,000 acres per year. Cultural resources will continue to be protected.
The refuge will provide additional opportunities for Friends groups, volunteers, partners and interns to assist the refuge.
Management of the East Cove Unit under Alternative B is nearly identical to Alternative A. The East Cove Unit will continue to be managed under an interagency management plan. Gates at the water control structures will be operated to restore preferred vegetated plant communities associated with intermediate or possibly slightly brackish environments. Staff will evaluate the use of terraces to improve vegetation of open-water areas. During the life of this plan, an assessment will be conducted to determine the need for sanctuary in the East Cove Unit and minimizing detrimental waterfowl disturbances. The invasion of exotic plant species, with special emphasis on giant salvinia, will be monitored. Public fishing access to East Cove will be improved.
ALTERNATIVE C: HOLD REFUGE IN CUSTODIAL FORM
Under this alternative, the Sabine and Complex staff would hold refuge property in custodial form. Major restoration and recovery efforts from the devastation caused by Hurricane Rita would be curtailed. The fire and research programs would remain active throughout the refuge. Oil and gas operations would continue at the normal level.
4 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
No active habitat management would be applied. Instead, the refuge and Complex staff would serve as good caretakers or custodians of the refuge, observing and monitoring the natural forces and ecological succession that would shape its habitats and effectively determine their suitability for wildlife. A “hands off” or passive approach to refuge management in an area that has been so heavily altered by a century of human activity—including grazing; oil and gas exploration and development; pipeline construction; canal, drainage ditch, levee and road building; hunting; introduction of exotic species; and so forth—would not lead to habitat conditions resembling those that would have occurred on the site today if these interventions had never taken place. Some of these interventions produced long-lived or virtually permanent results that cannot be undone simply by ceasing all active management. Resources that are presently used for Sabine would be assigned to higher priorities as determined by the Complex Project Leader and Complex staff to other refuges within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Alternative C would entail the following for habitat at Sabine:
y Units would not be actively managed; human intervention would be minimal.
y Water control structures would not be replaced.
y Plant species composition and vegetation communities would be inventoried to determine the
effects of succession.
y Units 1A, 1B, and 3 would change due to succession and loss of open water for waterfowl
(would become predominantly emergent vegetation, reducing accessible water habitat).
y No habitat improvement feasibility study would be performed for Unit 3. Levees may fail due
to deteriorating physical conditions; however, this may result in some desirable habitat for
waterfowl.
y No prescribed fires would be conducted.
y Fire management would be limited to hazardous fuel reduction and suppression of wildfires;
prescribed fire would not be used as an agent of disturbance and habitat renewal.
These actions would result in reduced capabilities to reverse progression of succession.
Under Alternative C, no effort would be made to reduce the accumulation of organic materials in impoundments through drawdowns and prescribed fire. There would be no need to replace and upgrade equipment and facilities such as pumps, tractors, and water control structures.
This alternative would result in very little effective high quality waterfowl sanctuary. That is, high ground would succeed to a mix of Chinese tallow, willow, and hackberry, while lower ground would revert to dense stands of maidencane. There would be few open areas.
With regard to public use, each of the six priority public uses would be permitted but facilities would be limited. However, actual opportunities to enjoy these uses on the refuge would, in all probability, decline. This would happen because of the decreased value of wildlife habitat that would occur due to no active management and the subsequent decline in wildlife diversity and abundance.
Management of the refuge’s cultural resources and the East Cove Unit under Alternative C would be identical to Alternatives A and B.
Executive Summary 5
SELECTION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
The planning team’s proposed action, Alternative B, forms the basis for this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. It is the most reasonable alternative to best achieve the purposes, vision, and goals of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. Implementation of the plan will also help fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintain and restore the ecological integrity of the refuge; address significant refuge issues and mandates; and will be consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.
Overall, the greatest risk to fish, wildlife, plants, and wildlife habitats in the Chenier Plain of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem—where the Sabine Refuge lies—is from extensive wetland habitat degradation and loss that has occurred over the past century. Louisiana has the highest rate of wetland loss of any state in the nation, estimated at 25–35 square miles a year, accounting for 80 percent of the national total (Esslinger and Wilson 2001). The wetland area in the Chenier Plain declined 16 percent from the mid-1960s to 1990. These habitat losses have led to commensurate impacts on wildlife populations, especially those species dependent on wetlands. Implementing the long-term management goals identified in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan will help achieve wetland preservation and restoration, a most important wildlife conservation priority in the Gulf Coast Ecosystem.
6 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
The mission of the Service is
working with others to “conserve, is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s
protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, and plants and their
fish and wildlife resources and their habitats.
habitats for the continuing benefit
Responsibilities are shared with other federal, state,
of the American people.”
tribal, and local entities; however, the Service has
specific responsibilities for endangered species, migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the Service for the management and protection of these resources. It also operates national fish hatcheries, fishery resource offices and ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars from excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The Service manages the 95-million acre
The mission of the National Wildlife
National Wildlife Refuge System, which
Refuge System is "...to
encompasses over 545 national wildlife
administer a national network of
refuges, thousands of small wetlands and
lands and waters for the
other special management areas. The
conservation, management,
majority of these lands, 77 million acres, are
and where appropriate, restoration
in Alaska, with the remaining acres spread
of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
across the other 49 states and several
and their habitats within the United States
territories. Approximately 82 million acres in
for the benefit of present and future
the System were reserved from the public generations of Americans.”
domain. The remainder has been acquired through purchase, from other federal agencies, as gifts, or through easement and lease agreements.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
An important milestone occurred in 1997 with the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, which has been called the “Organic Act” of the Refuge System. The Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The Act also recognized the outstanding recreational opportunities on refuges. The Refuge System has long provided some of the nation's best hunting and fishing, and our refuges continue to support these deeply rooted American traditions. The law established compatible wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation as priority public uses of the Refuge System.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Among other things, this far-reaching law required comprehensive conservation planning for each refuge, and set standards to assure that all uses of refuges were compatible with their purposes and the System's wildlife conservation mission. It also required the Service to conserve the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges, and consider the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States in planning the growth of the Refuge System.
The Service’s planning process is premised on strong partnerships with state fish and wildlife agencies. It provides an opportunity to use science in managing refuges, assuring an ecological perspective as to how refuges fit into the greater surrounding landscapes. The planning process also provides citizens with a meaningful role in helping to shape future management of individual refuges and recognizes the important roles they play in the lives of nearby communities.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
y fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
y fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge;
y consider the needs of wildlife first;
y fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System; y maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; y 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
y retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
SABINE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge was prepared as mandated by the Act to guide management actions and direction for the refuge for the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to ensure that each refuge in the System contributes to the System’s mission to provide a network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
y provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; y provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
y ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection, recreational, and educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
y ensure that refuge management is consistent with the purpose for which the refuge was established;
8 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
y ensure that refuge management is consistent with federal, state, and local plans and contributes to the mission of the ecosystem it is located in; and y provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
The Service complies with all federal, state, and regional policies and regulations for projects within the boundaries of its national wildlife refuges. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources requires coastal zone permits for work which may affect the land use, water use, or natural resources of the coastal zone. The coastal zone boundary is the northern bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Although the Service is exempt from coastal zone permits, it is required to be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program requirements for work within its boundary that may affect resources south of the boundary, regardless of where the project occurs. A “No Effect Determination” to the coastal zone area is applicable for projects described in this plan that will be completed within the refuge boundary.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM LANDS
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Appendix C provides a complete listing of the relevant legal mandates.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. These mandates are to:
y contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
y conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
y monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
y manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education, and interpretation), as these uses benefit the
conservation of fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
y ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for protection of fish and wildlife, and contribute to the overall health and diversity of fish and wildlife species in the State of Louisiana.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) is a state-partnering agency with the Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities relating to migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing the State of Louisiana’s natural resources and approximately 1.4 million acres of coastal marshes and wildlife management areas. The LDWF coordinates the state wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities on their wildlife management areas. The LDWF’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process provides for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological health and diversity of fish and wildlife. A vital part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is integrating common mission objectives where appropriate.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
The Service is increasing its efforts to adopt collaborative resource partnerships with private landowners and local communities as well as state and federal governments within ecosystems to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity; establish conservation priorities; clarify goals; and solve common threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The synergy of all federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only protects the more important areas, but also reduces redundancy and overlap.
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is a member and active participant of the Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) Team. This ecosystem (Figure 1) serves as the primary wintering habitat for midcontinental waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning from Central and South America, and numerous resident wildlife species.
Geographically, the refuge lies on the extreme southwestern boundary of the ecosystem and has few opportunities to contribute to many of the goals and objectives of the LMRE. There are some common targets that are applicable to the refuge and to which they contribute, but the refuge would more appropriately contribute to the objectives of the Service’s Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem (TGCE). The TGCE lies between the Sabine River and the mouth of the Rio Grande and inland to include the historical coastal prairie. It is considered by many to be part of a larger ecological Gulf Coast system that also includes portions of coastal Louisiana and Mexico. The TGCE Team has requested the participation of the staff of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge and other nearby southwest Louisiana national wildlife refuges in its ecosystem team meetings.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES
The priorities identified by the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Team, to which the refuge can contribute, include:
y 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.
y 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.
y Support environmental education efforts underway by Service offices to enhance and expand
knowledge, awareness and appreciation of trust resources.
10 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Ecosystems.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
y Restore native prairie.
y Control invasive and exotic species.
y Build regional and national support for the Service’s Fisheries program.
TEXAS GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PRIORITIES
The priorities identified by the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem Team, to which the refuge can contribute, include:
y Restore, conserve, enhance and maintain approximately 500,000 acres of the historic Gulf Coast prairies in Louisiana, Texas, and Mexico to ensure the continued existence of native flora and fauna.
y Maintain, restore, enhance and create wetlands and associated habitats to achieve a net gain in wetland quality, quantity (based on National Wetland Inventory data), and natural productivity.
y Increase ecological monitoring and research efforts and improve information management capabilities in the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem. y Encourage the Service’s Region 4 field stations with similar coastal resource objectives to participate in Ecosystem Team meetings. y Develop partnerships with other Service regions, Mexico, natural resource agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations to plan and implement outreach programs.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as part of the last safety net to support biological diversity—the greatest challenge facing the Service. According to the LMRE Team, the greatest threats to biological diversity within the Lower Mississippi Valley include:
y The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests. y The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites, e.g., forest fragmentation. y The effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices. y The simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools. y The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects. y The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
Specific threats applicable to Sabine National Wildlife Refuge include:
y Colonization of invasive plant and animal species which displace natural vegetation and deteriorate those habitats on which native animal species depend. y Prolonged flooding within refuge units which interferes with management strategies developed for ideal habitat conditions. y Problems associated with the adjacent Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including soil erosion caused by wave action and contamination resulting from barge accidents. y Problems associated with sea level rise and climate change.
12 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
GLOBAL WARMING AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The Service is mandated to address climate change in its management planning by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Secretarial Order 3226, issued on January 19, 2001. This order states that each bureau and office of the Department will consider and analyze potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises, when setting priorities for scientific research and investigations, when developing multi-year management plans, and/or when making major decisions regarding the potential utilization of resources under the Department’s purview.
There is scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this warming is human-caused increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, average global temperatures have risen by one degree Fahrenheit, with the most accelerated warming occurring in the past two decades (Schlyer 2006). It is not known what the complexity of effects that global warming will have on habitat and wildlife on national wildlife refuges. Hand-in-hand with global warming is sea level rise.
Coastal Louisiana has lost over 1.2 million acres of land along its coast in the last 100 years and 15,300 acres between 1990 and 2000, mostly due to the conversion of coastal wetlands to open water. Storm damages from the two hurricanes in 2005 contributed even more land loss.
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge has already participated in methods to combat wetland loss and participates in the coastal initiatives outlined below. Specific strategies identified by the refuge to help overcome sea level rise are discussed in Chapter IV, Management Direction.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern. The goals and objectives in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan are stepped down from the following plans:
y Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan.
y North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Chenier Plain
Initiative).
y North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
y United States Shorebird Conservation Plan.
y Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act.
y Coast 2050 – Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana.
y Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan.
y Fisheries Vision for the Future.
y American Woodcock Management Plan.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation led efforts in the 1990s to form the Partners in Flight program to combine resources and knowledge of many people to jointly protect the natural diversity of our continent. Many partners have made the program successful by participating in working groups to develop regional bird conservation plans. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Coastal Prairie Physiographic Area 6 Conservation Plan, and can contribute to the plan’s actions for marsh restoration projects to benefit migrant landbirds.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan was signed by the United States and Canadian governments in 1986 to undertake an intensive effort to protect and restore North America’s waterfowl populations and their habitats. Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994. The main premise of the plan is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by restoring wetlands and associated ecosystems.
GULF COAST JOINT VENTURE (CHENIER PLAIN INITIATIVE)
Regional partnerships or joint ventures composed of individuals, sportsmen’s groups, conservation organizations, and local, state, provincial, and federal governments were formed under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. One such partnership—the Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV)—was established to conserve priority waterfowl habitats along the western United States Gulf Coast, one of the most important waterfowl areas in North America. The Gulf Coast is the terminus of the Central and Mississippi Flyways and provides both wintering and migration habitat for significant numbers of continental goose and duck populations. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture’s greatest contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is to provide wintering grounds for waterfowl. A great diversity of birds, mammals, fish, shellfish, reptiles and amphibians also rely on the wetlands of the Gulf Coast for part of their life cycles.
The GCJV is divided geographically into six initiative areas, one of which is the Chenier Plain Initiative area of southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. The goal of the Chenier Plain Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for significant numbers of dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese (especially the lesser snow goose (Chen caerulescens) and greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons)), as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula).
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge contributes to the objectives of the Chenier Plain Initiative by providing sanctuary needs for migrating, wintering, and breeding ducks (mottled ducks), and geese. This sanctuary is provided by the refuge’s management of three impounded freshwater marshes: Units 3, 1A, and 1B. Management Unit 3, at 26,400 acres, is the largest freshwater marsh remaining in southwest Louisiana. Management units 1A and 1B comprise 5,138 acres and 1,800 acres of marsh, respectively. They are heavily used by a variety of wildlife, most notably ducks. Waterfowl foods in Management Unit 3 have been found to be available at densities significantly above the level required for efficient waterfowl use.
The refuge has also contributed to the Chenier Plain Initiative by maintaining unimpounded marsh areas, including 7,231acres of brackish marsh, 84,829 acres of intermediate marsh, and 33,730 acres of fresh marsh.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan was developed under a partnership called the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, which is a group of individuals and organizations having interest and responsibility for the conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas. The Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is located in the Southeast U.S. Regional Waterbird Conservation Planning Area. The refuge can contribute to a key objective of this region, which is to standardize data collection efforts and analysis procedures to allow better tracking of regional movements and the association of these movements with environmental or land use changes.
14 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations throughout the United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Lower Mississippi, Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region. On a regional scale, the refuge can help ensure that adequate quantity and quality of habitat is identified and maintained to support the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate through the area.
COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ACT
In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) that generates $50 to $60 million annually for Louisiana coastal wetland restoration projects via an 85/15 federal-state cost share, and which provided for the development of the 1993 comprehensive Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan. Funding of proposed projects is determined by the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, which is composed of five federal agencies and the State of Louisiana. As mandated by CWPPRA, the task force developed a detailed Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan in 1993 that describes the restoration actions and projects that should be implemented to address Louisiana’s coastal land loss crisis. A priority project list is developed and approved by the task force each year, outlining which projects will receive CWPPRA funding.
COAST 2050: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE COASTAL LOUISIANA
Coast 2050, funded by CWPPRA, is a comprehensive, ecosystem-based plan developed by private citizens, local, state, and federal agencies, and the scientific community to address coastal wetland loss throughout southern Louisiana. This plan, which is recognized by the State of Louisiana, five federal agencies, and local coastal parish governments, serves as the joint coastal restoration plan for CWPPRA. The overarching goal of the plan is to sustain a coastal ecosystem that supports and protects the environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana, and that contributes greatly to the economy and well-being of the nation. The strategic objectives of Coast 2050 are to (1) sustain a coastal ecosystem with the essential functions and values of the natural ecosystem; (2) restore the ecosystem to the highest practicable acreage of productive and diverse wetlands; and (3) accomplish this restoration through an integrated program that has multiple use benefits (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is included in Region 4 of this plan.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN
The Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan (LCA) evolved from the Coast 2050 Plan with the overarching goal of reversing the current trend of degradation of the coastal ecosystem. This plan formed the basis for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study, designed to identify critical ecological needs, identify restoration efforts, establish restoration priorities, and identify scientific uncertainties to present a strategy for addressing the long-term needs of coastal Louisiana restoration.
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is located within Sub-province 4 for the LCA. The restoration plans identified in LCA relate directly and indirectly to the refuge through long-term efforts to explore large scale restoration projects that will influence the entire coastal zone of Louisiana.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
FISHERIES VISION FOR THE FUTURE
In 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries Program and develop a vision. This vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program “is working with partners to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to support Federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public.” To achieve the vision, the Fisheries program works with its partners to:
y protect the health of aquatic habitats;
y restore fish and other aquatic resources; and
y provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
Together, the group developed a series of goals, objectives, and implementation actions to focus on key needs. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge can contribute to the program’s recreational fishing goal to provide quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other related recreational enjoyment of aquatic resources on Service lands.
AMERICAN WOODCOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan sets management goals to restore woodcock populations to levels consistent with the demands of consumptive and nonconsumptive users (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Reliable annual population estimates, harvest estimates, and information on recruitment and distribution are essential for comprehensive woodcock management as well as conserving and managing habitat.
16 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
II. Refuge Overview
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1937 and is one of more than 545 refuges within America’s National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest network of lands set aside specifically for wildlife. The refuge is located eight miles south of Hackberry, on State Highway 27 in Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Figures 2 and 3). It occupies the marshes between Calcasieu and Sabine lakes in southwest Louisiana, and encompasses 125,790 acres, consisting of 40,403 acres of open water and 85,387 acres of marsh grassland. This area contains a diversity of habitat including freshwater impoundments, wooded ridges and levees, canals, ponds, lakes, and bayous. Some of the largest wetland management efforts in Louisiana occur at Sabine. The refuge is managed to provide habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds and to preserve and enhance coastal marshes for wildlife and fish. Oil companies, however, still own the subsurface rights to the refuge and must be given reasonable access.
The East Cove Unit was established in 1937 as part of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. This unit, administratively transferred to Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge from Sabine in 1992, consists of 14,927 acres of brackish to intermediate marsh. These marshes are managed as a nursery for brown and white shrimp, blue crab, and many fish species. Located in Cameron Parish in the southwest corner of Louisiana, the East Cove Unit (Figure 4) is bordered on the west by Calcasieu Lake, and on the north, east, and south by privately owned marshes (USFWS 2002a; 2002b; 2001; 1998).
Sabine Refuge provides habitat for many species of wildlife, including ducks, geese, alligators, muskrats, nutria, raptors, wading birds, shorebirds, blue crabs, shrimp, and various fish. The refuge is one of the primary wintering refuges for waterfowl in the Mississippi Flyway. Olivaceous cormorant, snowy egret and common egret rookeries are present on the refuge. In the fall and spring many shorebird species can be found here. Numerous species of neotropical migrant songbirds pass through the refuge on their migration. Many species of fish and shrimp mature and grow in the “nursery” provided by the refuge’s intermediate and brackish marshes.
Management of this refuge is not as intensive as that of many smaller refuges. Because of man-made and natural factors, habitat losses have occurred on an estimated 40,000 acres of the refuge. There are currently four Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act projects underway on the refuge, with the goal of restoring its wetlands. These projects include marsh creation, shoreline protection, earthen terracing, and water control structures. These control structures were placed on the refuge to lessen saltwater intrusion and along with improved water management practices are attempting to reverse or slow habitat losses. Sabine was established to protect and provide habitat for migratory waterfowl. Today water level management and prescribed marsh burning still aim at providing quality habitat for waterfowl, but these practices also take other species into account.
Within the East Cove Unit, marshes are being managed to preserve the balance between salt and fresh water and to restore the historic marshes destroyed by saltwater intrusion (USFWS 1998). The Service is also cooperating with other agencies on the East Cove Unit to restore thousands of acres of freshwater marsh habitat by planting bulrush and constructing fences out of Christmas trees.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 2. Location of Sabine Refuge National Wildlife Refuge and the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
18 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge excluding the East Cove Unit.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 4. East Cove Unit managed by Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge.
PURPOSE
Executive Order 7764, dated December 6, 1937, stated the official purpose of the refuge: “…as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” A secondary purpose of the refuge is “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...” (16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)).
Sabine is managed according to goals, objectives, and strategies designed to maintain and restore habitat and manage water levels. Tools used to accomplish the refuge’s goals and objectives include operating water control structures and prescribed burning. The primary management goal is to maintain and perpetuate Gulf Coast wetlands for wintering waterfowl from the Mississippi and Central Flyways. The refuge is one of the largest estuarine-dependent marine species nurseries in southwest Louisiana (USFWS 2002c).
20 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
The management goals for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge are to:
y maintain and perpetuate refuge wetlands for wintering waterfowl (USFWS 1998);
y provide for the needs of endangered plants and animals;
y allow compatible public uses, such as hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife observation, and
photography; and
y promote research on marsh and aquatic wildlife (USFWS 2002c).
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION
IMPACT OF HURRICANE RITA
On September 24, 2005, Category 3 Hurricane Rita roared across Southwest Louisiana with winds in excess of 100 knots, leaving a broad swath of destruction in her wake. Sabine National Wildlife Refuge bore the brunt of Rita’s 15–20 foot storm surge, which deposited many tons of debris onto the refuge. This debris came from the remnants of devastated coastal communities such as Holly Beach, Constance Beach, and Johnson’s Bayou, as well as oil and gas facilities. It contained a chaotic jumble of natural vegetation, construction debris, a myriad of household items, and an unknown amount of hazardous materials.
In addition to habitat damage, the refuge’s facilities were devastated by Hurricane Rita. Five of eight buildings in the headquarters and visitor center area were immediately condemned and required demolition. The remaining three buildings need extensive repairs before they can be used. All public use facilities—including bridges, trails, boardwalks, and restrooms—received major damage and will require repairs before they can be reopened. These conditions represent a significant risk to health and human safety, requiring the Service to restrict refuge access to the public.
The Service has published a handout (Figure 5) to answer some of the more common cleanup questions. The following text contains descriptions of pre-hurricane conditions on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT POPULATIONS
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge boasts more than 250 bird species, 132 fish species, 36 reptile and amphibian species, and 28 mammal species. This diversity exists in spite of ongoing habitat changes on the refuge. Plant species composition has changed from an expansive area of emergent marsh dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamacense) to an area largely composed of shallow open water ponds and slowly eroding land dominated by saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens); seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum); Olney's three-square (Scirpus olneyi); and common reed (Phragmites australis) present today (Valentine 1979; Chabreck et al. 2001). This has been caused by changes in the salinity regime and water retention time on the refuge. Records indicate that the sawgrass die-off at Sabine occurred after the large tidal surge of Hurricane Audrey in 1957, which was followed by two years of drought. Dumping of oil field production waters (salinities of 200 ppt) (parts per thousand) into the marsh has also been blamed for the die-off. Habitat shift analysis has shown that while the species composition may have changed, there has not been a basin-wide shift to a more saline environment since 1949 (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2002). What has not changed is that waterfowl still flock to the refuge, but they are concentrated in the freshwater impoundments.
Areas in coastal southwest Louisiana outside of freshwater impoundment have experienced changes in vegetation (see Figure 6) due to increased salinity and freshwater retention time, according to surveys dating back to 1949 (O’Neil 1949; Chabreck et al. 2001). The increased salinity can be
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Figure 5. Hurricane recovery information for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
22 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
attributed to navigation channels and their maintenance, primarily the Calcasieu Ship Channel into nearby Calcasieu Lake. These channels allow salt water from the Gulf of Mexico into the marsh faster than fresh water can flow into it. Between 1875 and 1910, Calcasieu Lake salinities were low enough for the water to be used to irrigate rice, which cannot tolerate salinities over 0.6 ppt (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2002). Today, the average water salinity of Calcasieu Lake is between 8 and 12 ppt.
The other major factor contributing to shifting vegetation is canals and their associated spoil banks impeding the north-south flow of fresher water over the marsh. Combined with drought conditions, this can cause areas with salinities to more than double in some instances. Three areas of the refuge were impounded to prevent saltwater intrusion and lessen drought-induced salinity shifts in those areas.
The three impounded freshwater marsh management units are dominated by bulltongue (Sagittaria spp.), water shield (Brasenia schreberi), white water-lily (Nymphaea odorata), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.). Open water areas throughout the refuge host a variety of submerged aquatics that assist with marsh stabilization, add to detritus build-up, and provide food for waterfowl. Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), southern naiad (Najas quadalupensis), common bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris), fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and Ottelia (Ottelia alismoides) line the shallow areas along canals and bayous, in addition to occupying large expanses of open water. Over 25 acres in Management Unit 3 are inhabited by wild celery (Vallisneria americana), an important food of wintering canvasbacks. Vegetative species that occur on drier upland sites such as ridges and levees include Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), live oak (Quercus virginiana), rattlebox (Sesbania drummondii), black willow (Salix nigra), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), common elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), blackberry (Rubus spp.), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), blue vervain (Verbena hastate), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.) (USFWS 1996).
East Cove Unit Vegetation
As a result of habitat deterioration through erosion and saltwater intrusion, wildlife species and numbers on the East Cove Unit decreased dramatically in the past. The more diverse freshwater and intermediate marshes formerly present on the unit (Figure 7) were converted to brackish and saltwater marshes with monotypic stands of marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens). Implementation of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project has helped to reverse this trend (USFWS 2001).
Coastal Prairie
The prairie region of southwestern Louisiana was once very extensive (about 2.5 million acres) but today is limited to small, remnant parcels (Lester 2005). An abundance of wildlife and plant species can occur on coastal prairie, making the restoration of remnant sites very important for wildlife and their habitat.
Some coastal prairie (about 100 acres) occurs on Sabine with two tracts on Unit 5. The 65-acre Marceaux Island Prairie is registered in the Louisiana Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Natural Areas Registry. Other isolated tracts also occur on the refuge. The Marceaux Island Prairie occurs on an island (ridge) surrounded by marsh. Vegetation is quite diverse and is dominated by grasses and an abundance of forbs. Punctate cupgrass (Eriochloa punctata), a state rare plant, is common in the Marceaux Island Prairie. Prescribed fire is used to reduce any encroachment of woody species. Conversion of prairie to agriculture or other forest types; development and maintenance of pipelines, roads, and utilities; fire suppression and practices; and encroachment of invasive species all threaten this valuable ecosystem, resulting in habitat destruction, disturbance, fragmentation, and altered composition and structure.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 6. Vegetation of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
24 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Vegetation of East Cove Unit.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Threatened and Endangered Species of Management Concern
Species of special management concern, including those that are threatened or endangered, occur infrequently at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. The Calcasieu and Sabine lakes provide habitat for two species of sea turtles: the federally endangered Kemp’s ridley and the federally threatened loggerhead. The refuge provides access and habitat for these species, and Service personnel have seen Kemp’s ridleys on the refuge. The refuge staff has also radio-tracked loggerheads on the refuge. In addition, the refuge could potentially be used by the threatened bald eagle, which formerly nested in Cameron Parish, and the endangered wood stork.
Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 (USFWS 2002d) (BCC 2002) is a report that describes an effort to carry out a mandate (Public Law 100-653, Title VIII ) to identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The report strives to accurately identify migratory and nonmigratory bird species that represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities. BCC 2002 lists birds of conservation concern at three geographic scales—North American Bird Conservation Initiative Bird Conservation Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions, and National—to maximize the utility of the lists for partners and agencies.
In addition, three national plans are used to place birds on the lists: Partners in Flight, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. Current conservation assessment scores for each species were taken from the three plans which were based on several factors, including population trends, threats, distribution, abundance, and area importance.
While all the bird species included in BCC 2002 are priorities for conservation action, the lists make no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing. The Service’s goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions.
Table 1 lists the birds of management concern that are known or expected to occur on the refuge. The refuge’s bird checklist is presented in Appendix D.
Waterfowl
Migratory waterfowl use the refuge and are economically important in the area. Mottled ducks, wood ducks, and fulvous whistling-ducks are known to nest and raise young on the refuge. The refuge provides excellent wintering habitat for many other waterfowl species including white-fronted geese, lesser snow geese, and Canada geese. At least 20 duck species, including gadwall, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, American widgeon, mallards, and ring-necked ducks winter on Sabine (USFWS 1996). Aerial waterfowl surveys have recorded over 100,000 ducks on the refuge three out of five winters between the winter of 1994–95 and the winter of 1998–99, and one of those years over 200,000 ducks were counted. Gadwall, green-winged teal, and lesser snow geese frequent the refuge in higher numbers than other waterfowl species. Winter population surveys over the last ten years averaged almost 25,000 gadwall and 10,000 green-winged teal and snow geese, respectively (USFWS 2002c).
Table 2 shows the approximate peak wintering waterfowl numbers for Sabine for the years 1990 to 1998. Figure 8 relates the various waterfowl species and their relative numbers using the marshes of Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
26 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Birds of management concern to the refuge.
Common Name
Bird Conservation
USFWS
National
Region 37 List
Region 4 List
List
American Bittern
X
Little Blue Heron
X
X
Reddish Egret
X
X
X
White ibis
X
Northern Harrier
X
X
Peregrine Falcon
X
X
X
Yellow Rail
X
X
X
Black Rail
X
X
X
American Golden-Plover
X
X
Wilson’s Plover
X
X
Upland Sandpiper
X
Whimbrel
X
X
X
Long-billed Curlew
X
X
X
Marbled Godwit
X
X
X
Red Knot
X
X
X
Stilt Sandpiper
X
X
Short-billed Dowitcher
X
X
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
X
X
X
Gull-billed Tern
X
X
X
Common Tern
X
Least Tern
X
X
X
Black Tern
X
Black Skimmer
X
X
X
Black-billed Cuckoo
X
Burrowing Owl
X
X
Short-eared Owl
X
X
X
Chuck-will’s Widow
X
X
Whip-poor-will
X
Red-headed Woodpecker
X
X
X
Olive-sided Flycatcher
X
X
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher
X
Sedge Wren
X
X
Wood Thrush
X
Golden-winged Warbler
X
X
Prairie Warbler
X
X
Cerulean Warbler
X
X
Prothonotary Warbler
X
X
Worm-eating Warbler
X
X
Louisiana Waterthrush
X
Kentucky Warbler
X
X
Canada Warbler
X
LeConte’s Sparrow
X
X
X
Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow
X
X
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Table 2. Annual peak wintering waterfowl populations on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
Year
No. of Waterfowl Observed
1990
138,107
1991
134,909
1992
279,427
1993
204,804
1994
204,881
1995
153,912
1996
72,057
1997
136,977
1998
38,538
Source: USFWS, unpublished data
East Cove Unit Waterfowl
During 2001, six wintering waterfowl surveys were conducted for the Cameron Creole Watershed Project (Figure 8), which includes the East Cove Unit. Waterfowl numbers were below their long-term average, which may be a result of very low aquatic plant production due to extended periods of elevated salinities (USFWS 2002a). Table 3 shows approximate peak wintering waterfowl numbers for the East Cove Unit for the past 13 years.
The gadwall is usually the most frequently encountered duck during surveys on the East Cove Unit; it primarily consumes aquatic vegetation. The low number of waterfowl observed in 2000 and 2001 was due to the absence of aquatic vegetation. Aquatic vegetation within the Cameron Creole Watershed Project area began to disappear after extended periods of drought and high salinities. With the decrease in aquatic vegetation, there is an associated decline in waterfowl numbers. In addition, only one survey was conducted in 2000, compared to 45 between 1988 and 2000. With such sparse and sporadic data, it is hard to make reliable conclusions regarding population shifts, trends, and long-term effects of the Watershed Project on waterfowl populations (USFWS 2001).
Table 3. Annual peak wintering waterfowl populations on the East Cove Unit.
Year
No. of Waterfowl Observed
1988
2,400
1989
6,900
1991
3,400
1992
11,700
1993
9,500
1994
22,100
1995
17,870
1996
13,750
1997
15,729
1998
5,985
1999
72,498
2000
3,060
2001
6,176
Source: USFWS, 2002a
28 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Waterfowl Species
Figure 8. Waterfowl survey results for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
WATERFOWL AVERAGE NUMBERS PER SURVEY
COOTSUNIDENTIFIED WOOD DUCK RED BREASTED MERG. HOODED MERG. COMMON MERG. RUDDY DUCK COM. GOLDEN EYE SCAUP SPP. LESSER SCAUP GREATER SCAUP FULVOUS W.D. BLACK BEL. W.D. WHISTLING DUCK BUFFLEHEAD CANVASBACK REDHEAD RINGNECK WIGEON PINTAIL SHOVELER BW TEAL GW TEAL GADWALL MOTTLED MALLARD CANADA GOOSE WHITE FRONT SNOW GOOSE
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Total Average Sum of 61 Surveys
Wading Birds (Water and Marsh Birds)
Many wading bird species are present on the refuge year-round. Winter surveys have revealed that great egrets, white and white-faced ibis, and roseate spoonbills are the most abundant wading birds on the refuge and feed throughout the marshes during the winter months. Species such as white pelicans, tricolored herons, black-crowned night herons, green herons, great blue herons, and snowy egrets are also present in great numbers. Hundreds of cormorants utilize the refuge as well.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Many species of colonial nesting birds such as herons, egrets and cormorants have been observed nesting in trees and shrubs within Management Units 1, 1A, and 3. There are five active rookeries on the refuge (as indicated in a May 10, 2001 survey). Favored nesting areas include islands and abandoned levees. During the 1990s, as many as 5,000 white and white-faced ibis nested in bullwhip marsh on Unit 1B. Breeding bird surveys, conducted by boat from canals, have indicated that common moorhens and least bitterns are the most abundant species of this group during the summer. Numbers of more secretive species such as clapper rails and purple gallinules have not been determined (USFWS 1996).
East Cove Unit Wading Birds
Areas of highest wading bird use on the East Cove Unit include the shallow open ponds at the northeast boundary of the refuge and broken marsh between the Lambert Bayou and No Name Bayou near the Borrow Canal. Peak use of the unit by wading birds occurs with varying water levels (low and high), where fluctuating water levels create new shallow water areas for feeding (USFWS 2001).
Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species
Over 30 shorebird species utilize habitat on the refuge during their spring and fall migrations. As part of the International Shorebird Survey, a three-year study was conducted at several sites, near Calcasieu Lake, along the eastern portion of the refuge. That survey indicated that dowitcher species were the most abundant, with black-necked stilts second, and small shorebirds including sandpipers and plovers, third in abundance. Other species sighted include American avocets, yellowlegs, willets, dunlins and killdeer. A June survey of black-necked stilt nests indicated that as many as 214 nests occurred in a 384-acre, muskrat eat-out area (USFWS 1996).
East Cove Unit Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species
Shorebird use of the East Cove Unit has traditionally been very low, occurring only during low water levels, drawdown periods, and droughts. Even then, only a few hundred birds use this unit. Commonly observed species of shorebirds, gulls, terns, and allied species include Forster’s terns, black-necked stilts, laughing gulls, willets, dowitchers, black terns, black-bellied plovers, and dunlins (USFWS 2001).
Raptors
Many species of hawks, owls, and vultures utilize the refuge as a wintering ground. Red-tailed hawks, which are observed throughout the refuge in trees lining canal banks, are the most abundant of the wintering hawks. Year-round residents include barn owls, great horned owls, and black and turkey vultures (USFWS 1996). Black vultures can usually be found roosting in trees and on structures on Club House Island at the intersection of the Beach and Central canals.
East Cove Unit Raptors
Northern harriers are frequently observed flying low over the marsh during fall, winter, and spring. Several types of owls are year-round residents of the unit, including barn owls, great horned owls, barred owls, and screech owls. Potentially suitable habitat for these owls exists along levees and ridges. Barn owls have been recorded nesting in the nest box near the paired ponds for the past several years (USFWS 2001).
30 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Other Migratory Birds
Seventy-five species of migratory songbirds use the refuge levees during their spring migration. Several species of passerines are known to breed/nest on refuge levees during the summer months, including the orchard oriole, yellow-billed cuckoo, eastern kingbird, mourning dove, white-eyed vireo, northern cardinal, and common yellowthroat. Species such as the red-winged blackbird, boat-tailed grackle, eastern meadowlark, marsh wren, and seaside sparrow are known to nest in and among the marsh vegetation (USFWS 1996). Belted kingfishers and eastern kingbirds can be seen perched on trees and power lines above the canals along State Highway 27. Refuge personnel participate in two Christmas bird counts and a breeding bird survey route on the refuge each year.
Mammals
At least 28 species of mammals can be found on the refuge. The most common rodents include muskrat, nutria, marsh rice rat, and hispid cotton rat. The swamp rabbit and eastern cottontail are the only two lagomorphs found on the refuge. Many carnivorous furbearers live on the refuge, including river otter, mink, coyote and bobcat. Armadillo can frequently be seen on the levees. The only ungulate present is the white-tailed deer. Among the bats that have been documented to occur on the refuge are the red bat, Eastern pipistrelle, and Brazilian free-tailed bat (USFWS 1996).
East Cove Unit Mammals
Use of the East Cove Unit by several species of small mammals, including the muskrat and nutria, may be increasing as a result of improved water management, subsequent conversion of areas of brackish marsh to intermediate and freshwater marsh, and increases in the abundance of preferred food sources (USFWS 2001).
Otters are observed throughout the year on the East Cove Unit, with heaviest use seen during winter. In addition, coyotes have been observed both during aerial waterfowl surveys and from boats in the marsh (USFWS 2001).
Virtually the only game mammal found on the East Cove Unit and Cameron Creole Watershed is the white-tailed deer. During high water levels, deer are restricted to the ridges, levees, and areas of higher elevation. During low water levels, deer can venture into the interior of the marsh. Deer are regularly observed at the north end of the watershed along Big Pasture Road near the PPG camp and boat launch, as well as in the marsh west of the Cotton Well Road landing. Although deer are not frequently observed on the lake bank levee, signs of deer use are present (USFWS 2001).
Amphibians and Reptiles
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge harbors at least 35 species of amphibians and reptiles. Species most commonly encountered include: the American alligator, snapping turtle, alligator snapping turtle, red-eared slider, Mississippi green water snake, broad-banded water snake, western ribbon snake, speckled kingsnake, western cottonmouth, green anole, ground skink, Gulf coast toad, green treefrog, and southern leopard frog (USFWS 1996). Another species of note is the diamondback terrapin, a medium-size turtle that prefers open water in coastal salt marshes and estuaries (USFWS 2002).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Alligator Harvest
The nuisance alligator harvest on the refuge occurs during September. Harvest limits and dates are set by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and in some instances the regulations on Sabine are more restrictive. Sabine's alligator harvest is a sustained yield harvest, meaning that smaller alligators, which grow into the harvested size class during the year, replace the animals taken each year. The state decides how many alligators will be harvested by considering a number of factors including habitat type, annual productivity, and harvest data from previous years (USFWS 1996).
Consideration for public safety justifies a nuisance alligator harvest. Increased alligator numbers in conjunction with increasing public use on the refuge will most likely increase the number of negative human/alligator encounters. This could lead to increased alligator attacks on humans. By implementing a scientifically managed population-wide nuisance alligator harvest, human/alligator encounters may be controlled. Current and future harvest efforts should be in areas most accessible to the visiting public. Alligators also attack and eat domestic livestock and pets, and create traffic hazards when crossing roads. Vehicular and boat collisions with alligators on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge have decreased during years of intensive harvest (Borden-Billiot, pers. comm.).
East Cove Unit Alligator Trapping
Alligator trapping was initiated in the East Cove Unit in 1993. Initially, harvest quotas for this unit were reduced from the state allowed limit to err on the conservative side; however, the numbers gradually increased over the years up to the state limit. Alligator trapping on the East Cove Unit was discontinued in 2001 (USFWS 2002a).
Aquatic Species
Fish associated with the refuge marshes include Gulf menhaden, Atlantic croaker, gobies, pipefish, bay anchovy, inland silverside, western mosquitofish, pinfish, striped and white mullet, silver perch, bay whiff, bayou and rainwater killifish, speckled worm eel, sand sea trout, red drum, crappie, gar, sunfishes, largemouth bass, and catfish. Shellfish associated with these areas include blue and mud crab, and white, grass, and brown shrimp (Bush 2003; USFWS 1996). Many of these fish spend time maturing in these marshes before they return to the ocean. Recreational fishery populations have been greatly reduced over the last decade because of drops in water levels due to management and drought (USFWS 2002). Restocking efforts on the refuge failed and low populations are expected to continue in the future.
East Cove Unit Aquatic Species
The East Cove Unit serves as an important nursery for brown and white shrimp and blue crabs. Fish species present include gar, catfish, bowfin, bluegill, bass, crappie, flounder, and redfish (USFWS 2002b; 2001).
Invasive Plant Species
Several invasive plant species are present on the refuge. The Chinese tallowtree (Sapium sebiferum) is the most prevalent. It is found on canal and impoundment spoil banks and may be found on ridges. It is an introduced ornamental that has escaped to become the dominant woody species in Louisiana coastal marshes. Larger tallowtrees can be controlled by herbicide application or cleared, and small plants can be removed by burning woody growth before it reaches maturity.
32 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Salt cedar (Tamarix gallica) is found sparsely along canal banks and ridges throughout the refuge. It was introduced from Europe and can be an aggressive invader on dewatered, disturbed wetlands and especially on hydraulically deposited soils. Drought conditions probably contribute to its establishment and propagation. Methods of control include long-term deep flooding or application of herbicides licensed for aquatic use.
Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) is present on canal and spoil banks on the refuge. It was introduced as an ornamental, but has escaped and now can be found on higher elevated areas of the refuge. No methods of control or elimination were found in the literature, but may be similar to tallowtree.
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia sp.) was found in old borrow pits used to construct ring levees for oil and gas development in Management Unit 2. This is a South American and African plant introduced as an ornamental that produces quickly and has no natural predator in the United States. Repeated applications of the herbicide 2,4-D is the most practical method of reducing infestations.
Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is rapidly colonizing areas that have converted from emergent marsh to open water, and was found to be one of the most common species near terraces placed in an open water area in Unit 7. Though Eurasian milfoil is not native and is of less value to wildlife than other aquatic species, its presence is desired over the absence of vegetation in recently disturbed open water areas. The species is native to Eurasia and Africa and is believed to have arrived in North America during the late 19th century, possibly from shipping ballast. Methods of control include application of 2,4-D or biocontrol by introducing American Weevil.
Invasive Plant Species on the East Cove Unit
Salinity levels in the East Cove Unit usually control most noxious plants. One noxious plant species of concern—giant salvinia—was recently identified in Cameron Parish. This is a very aggressive, floating, aquatic plant that grows so thick on the water’s surface that it completely shades out submerged aquatic vegetation (USFWS 2001). The plant can tolerate a salinity of 8 ppt or greater, which falls within the salinity ranges of the East Cove Unit (USFWS 2002a).
Invasive Animal Species
The most common invasive animal on the refuge is the nutria. This rodent was first trapped on the refuge in the winter of 1941–42, and at the time refuge personnel wished they had more of them to control vegetation. However, numbers increased dramatically in 1954 and are now a problem in some years. The nutria has displaced the native muskrat in many of Louisiana’s coastal marshes and they can cause harm to fragile marshes when they occur in high densities. When warranted, harvest is used to control the population.
Feral hogs are common on the refuge and can be detrimental to nesting bird success. The hogs degrade habitat and can contribute to land loss by damaging healthy plants that hold the soils in many areas together. No harvest of feral hogs is conducted on the refuge at this time.
Another invasive animal species of concern potentially found on the refuge is the zebra mussel, which has caused great problems wherever it has become established in North America. Refuge personnel annually monitor canals throughout the refuge for this highly invasive mussel, but none have been found to date.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Habitats
The refuge is managed to balance the needs of reducing stress to wetland plants caused by waterlogging and saltwater intrusion while providing sufficient access to interior marshes for estuarine species.
Freshwater Impoundments. Three rain-fed freshwater impoundments created in 1951 and 1959 provide habitat for numerous species of waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, mammals, reptiles, and fish. Management Unit 3, which encompasses 26,400 acres, is the largest freshwater marsh remaining in southwest Louisiana. Management units 1A and 1B comprise 5,138 acres and 1,800 acres of marsh, respectively, and are highly utilized by a variety of wildlife, most notably ducks. Waterfowl foods in Management Unit 3 have been found to be available at densities significantly above the level required for efficient waterfowl use (Winslow 2003). The target water management level is 1.8 feet to enhance the growth and survival of desirable plant communities for waterfowl (USFWS 1996). Water depths can be reduced, but only rainfall can increase water levels in these impoundments.
Coastal Marsh. The refuge contains 91,173 acres of fresh, intermediate, and brackish marshes interspersed with low prairie ridges, man-made levees, meandering bayous, and canals. Traditionally, the area fluctuates from being a predominantly fresh marsh to a predominantly brackish marsh and reverts back from brackish to fresh, dependent upon weather cycles and precipitation.
Prescribed fire is one of the primary habitat management tools used on the refuge. Between 1984 and 2006, 85 prescribed fires were conducted restarting plant succession on over 241,304 acres on the refuge. These fires increase plant productivity and reduce the dangers of uncontrolled fires that may threaten people or property.
From fiscal years 2003 to 2006, over 80 wildfires burned 50,279 acres. Wildfires on the refuge are primarily caused by lightning strikes and seismic surveying activity.
Restoration and Mitigation Sites. Marsh re-creation using dredge material from channel dredging and linear terrace construction is currently being employed on the refuge. The basic principle behind both practices is to re-create habitat lost when areas convert from emergent marsh to open water.
Dredge Material. The Calcasieu Ship Channel that borders Sabine Refuge to the east is dredged on a two-year cycle to allow for large ship passage to the Port of Lake Charles. Sabine was chosen for a demonstration site to use dredged material to re-create marsh that had been lost. This use of dredge material will, ideally, allow managers to not only restore these marshes, but to connect the restored sites with the greater landscape, restoring hydrology, and improve habitat quality and diversity. To address concerns about dredge material contaminants, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) analyzes soil samples along the channel used for beneficial use. Thus far, four sites on the refuge have received dredge material for marsh re-creation efforts. Since 1975, 1,400 acres of marsh have been restored on Sabine using dredge-fill (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 2002).
Research has found that elevation of these constructed wetlands has more impact than the age of the restoration on achieving “natural” soil processes (Edwards and Proffitt 2002); however, decomposition rates on the sites do appear comparable to natural areas (Mills and Edwards 2003). The belowground biomass on restored sites is significantly lower than natural sites (Ford et al. 2003). There appears to be some difference between small mammal use rates of restored sites as compared to natural sites, though this may be due to elevation difference (Mills et al. 2003). Many of these studies are ongoing. Studies are being conducted to assess patterns of vegetation (breeding system, colonization, cover, dominance, genetic diversity, growth, and succession); levels of metal
34 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
contaminants in the sediment and biota; and use of the habitat by small mammals. Further studies of selected faunal use, dominant plant productivity, and elevation over time are currently being conducted. Analysis of the sites that experienced the brown marsh phenomenon is also underway.
Earthen Terraces. In 1990, “checker board” terraces were constructed in ponds along Calcasieu Lake in the West Cove Unit. These were followed in 2001 by the construction of 18,000 linear feet of planted, earthen terraces in Units 6 and 7 to mitigate for impacts due to oil and gas activities. The ACE and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) require compensatory mitigation for acreage loss due to dredge and fill activities in wetlands. Terraces are discontinuous low ridges constructed with bottom sediments excavated from adjacent pond bottoms. They are designed to reduce wind related wave intensity, slow water movement allowing fine sediments to settle within the area, provide favorable conditions for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) establishment, and increase abundance and habitat of fish and other aquatic species.
Ideal sites for terrace construction are areas where water bodies join or are threatening to join with another water body. No significant benefit to SAV has been found in two studies conducted on terraces at the refuge (Steyer 1993; Caldwell 2003), but research on other terrace configurations is ongoing. An unexpected secondary benefit is they have provided nesting habitat for seabirds such as least terns, forester’s terns, and black skimmers. Another secondary benefit is that terraces contribute to increased fish habitat quality as compared to sparsely vegetated open ponds (Bush 2003). Terrace construction for 2002 exceeded 40,000 linear feet in Unit 6. Terrace construction is also proposed for areas of Unit 5 as part of the CWPPRA East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration (CS-32) project.
East Cove Unit Coastal Marsh. The East Cove Unit consists of 14,927 acres of brackish and salt marsh that is closely managed to preserve a balance between salt and fresh water. The salinity of the water is constantly monitored and water levels managed to restore and maintain the historic marshes destroyed by saltwater intrusion. The East Cove Unit is part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project (Figure 9), a cooperative effort among local, state, and federal agencies and the private sector to restore 64,000 acres of marsh in Cameron Parish (USFWS 1998). Water control on the East Cove Unit and Cameron Creole Watershed is accomplished with the operation of five water control structures located along Calcasieu Lake’s eastern shore (USFWS 2002a). The refuge manager of Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge manages the Cameron Creole Watershed Project under a cooperative agreement among sponsors.
The Service does not currently conduct vegetation surveys or monitoring of the East Cove Unit. However, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conducts vegetation monitoring as part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project, every five years since 1983. According to these surveys, the major vegetation components of the East Cove Unit are marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens) and oystergrass or smooth cordgrass (S. alterniflora) (USFWS 2002a).
Additional information on East Cove vegetation can be found in the Cameron Creole Watershed 1993 Vegetative Monitoring Report, published by the NRCS in 1997.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 9. Cameron Creole Watershed Project including East Cove Unit.
36 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Wetlands
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, freshwater submerged aquatic plants increased and expanded their ranges on the Cameron Creole Watershed due to improved water management. Dominant submergent vegetation in fresh to intermediate marshes consists of coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), wild celery (Vallisneria americana), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), southern niad (Najas quadalupensis), and several pondweed species (Potamogeton spp.). In the past several years, submergents continued to spread further east and south in the watershed, into larger bodies of water from Broussard Lake to East Prong and from Bayou Bois Connine to North Prong. In brackish areas, large mats of widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime) continued to colonize, forming thick mats in open water areas from Lambert Bayou south to NoName Bayou. However, as a result of extreme rain deficits in 1999 and 2000, high salinity levels contributed to the overall decline and/or disappearance of aquatic vegetation (USFWS 2001).
Water level and salinity management on the East Cove Unit are based on the 1987 Resource Management Plan for Cameron Creole Watershed, established by the Cameron Creole Advisory Committee. During the year, salinities are recorded bi-weekly at 28 stations throughout the marsh, and are averaged to compare seasonal fluctuations from year to year. Water salinities within the Cameron Creole Watershed are directly but inversely correlated to seasonal rainfall—as rainfall decreases, salinity levels increase (USFWS 2001).
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
The Sabine Refuge is one of the premier attractions of the Creole Nature Trail All American Road (a National Scenic Byway), and attracts 300,000 visits annually (Figure 10). Visitors represent diverse groups with a variety of interests, including wildlife viewing, fishing, shrimping, crabbing, and hunting. The refuge’s visitor facilities (pre-hurricane) are shown in Figure 11. (Note: the refuge facilities were destroyed or heavily damaged by Hurricane Rita in September of 2005 and have not been replaced at the time this Comprehensive Conservation Plan was printed.)
Figure 10. Annual visits for Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 11. Visitor facilities at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
38 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Hunting and Trapping
Hunting of waterfowl and harvest of nuisance animals such as alligators, nutria, and muskrats is permitted on the refuge. Hunting and trapping of other wildlife species is not permitted on the refuge. During the 1993–1994 through the 2004–2005 waterfowl hunting seasons, an average of 3,166 hunters per year used the refuge.
Waterfowl. Hunting of ducks, geese, and coots has been allowed in designated areas of the refuge on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays during the state waterfowl seasons set by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. This Comprehensive Conservation Plan recommends changing the weekly hunting schedule to allow hunting on days that are coordinated with Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge’s hunting days. All hunters are required to have a refuge-issued permit.
Alligator. The alligator season generally occurs during September after alligator hatching occurs but prior to winter hibernation. The season is set by LDWF and may vary slightly depending on the duration of the nesting season. The refuge harvest follows state regulations, but may be more restrictive under certain conditions.
Refuge hunters must have at least two years of hunting experience and have the necessary equipment. A special use permit from the refuge is required. Alligators are processed at a check station prior to leaving the refuge or being sold. Data collected from each alligator include tag number, sex, weight, and length and girth measurements.
Alligators can be taken by fishing or shooting during daylight hours, between sunrise and sunset. The primary method for harvesting nuisance alligators on the refuge is by setting a line with a baited hook along bayous, canals or open lakes.
Nutria and Muskrat. Local trappers who operate under federal trapping permits conduct the harvest. The trapping season is established by LDWF. Trapping proceeds are shared between the Service and the trapper, with the permittee retaining a certain percentage of the harvest. The refuge manager designates the number of helpers and harvest quota, and may suspend trapping operations any time there is a need to protect waterfowl concentrations, when conditions prevent successful catches, or when trappers do not conform to the terms of the agreement. No trapping has occurred on the refuge since the winter of 1997–98 because nutria and muskrat populations have been low enough to not warrant a harvest.
Fishing and Boating
Fishing is permitted on designated waterways at Sabine. Between calendar years 2000–2005, an average of 107,030 people fished on the refuge annually. Fishing with rod and reel, pole and line, or jug and line is permitted. The use or possession of other types of fishing gear is prohibited on the refuge. Bank fishing along Highway 27 is permitted year-round.
Fishing and public access is permitted from March 15 through October 15 on designated waterways and on Management Unit 3 (motors up to 40 horsepower). Management Units 1A and 1B are open from March 15 to October 15 to nonmotorized boats only. Aside from Management Unit 3, trolling motors only are allowed in refuge marshes. The saltwater boat launch at West Cove is open year-round for fishing access into Calcasieu Lake. The West Cove Canal is closed to fishing from October 16 through March 14, and is used for boat passage only during this time.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
East Cove Unit Fishing and Boating
The East Cove Unit is open for public use (Figure 12), including fishing year-round, except during the state’s waterfowl hunting season and when the Grand Bayou Boat Bay is closed. Public use of the unit is restricted to boats only; no walking, wading, or climbing in or on the marsh, levees, or structures to fish, cast net, or crab is allowed (USFWS 2002b). An estimated 10 to 12 boats use the East Cove Unit daily when the boat bay is open.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge has two nature-viewing trails and two roadside “scenic overlook” viewing areas. From 2000–2005, 85,734 visitors walked the Wetland Walkway and the Blue Goose Trail annually. The refuge has also established several nonmotorized boating areas that allow the public to view and photograph wildlife in areas undisturbed by motorized traffic.
Scenic Overlooks. In cooperation with the Creole Nature Trail Scenic Byway, the refuge built two roadside “scenic overlooks” beside State Highway 27. These areas allow visitors on the refuge to stop and observe coastal marsh habitats and the wildlife inhabiting them without having to leave their vehicles.
Trails. There are two wildlife observation trails on the refuge, one in a freshwater impoundment and another in coastal brackish/saline marsh.
The Wetland Walkway, a one and one-half mile trail and boardwalk located approximately four miles south of the refuge headquarters with parking and facilities near State Highway 27, provides opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. There is a boardwalk over the impounded freshwater marsh of Unit 1B and wildlife can frequently be seen crossing the trail. The trail also features a raised observation tower that allow for spectacular views especially at sundown when the western sky frames acres of grassy marsh. Visitors can see wading birds, waterfowl, alligator, rabbits, armadillos, muskrat, nutria, nesting birds, butterflies, and migrant songbirds during various times of the year from the trail. The trail is open year-round from dawn until dusk.
The Blue Goose Trail is located on State Highway 27 just north of the refuge headquarters and features parking and a wildlife observation platform. Wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, diamond-backed terrapins, and many other brackish/saline marsh and shoreline species may be seen along the trail. The trail is open year-round from dawn until dusk.
Environmental Education and Interpretation
On-site and off-site education and interpretation to visitors and the community-at-large are presented by the Complex staff. Complex staff and volunteers taught 501 students on- and off-site, and an additional 467 were taught by teachers or scout groups while on the refuge in Fiscal Year 2003. Off-site education services were provided to 1,568 people at community seminars, festivals, and other public exhibitions. The public receives education through media events such as press releases and radio/television events.
40 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 12. Visitor facilities at the East Cove Unit.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
REFUGE STAFF
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which also includes Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge, Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge. The Sabine staff consists of four permanent employees, with occasional interns, volunteer workers, and term appointments supervised by the Refuge Manager. Positions include one Refuge Manager, one maintenance worker, one carpenter, and one refuge officer. Complex employees also perform many duties associated with management of Sabine. A Complex Project Leader stationed at the Complex headquarters at Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge supervises the Sabine Refuge Manager.
COORDINATION/COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS
The refuge staff coordinates and cooperates extensively with state agencies, tribes, landowners, the public, conservation groups, oil and gas companies, and local agencies and organizations. Sabine is a component of several important regional or ecosystem planning and management efforts, and works with all levels of government and nongovernmental organizations and private citizens to accomplish goals and objectives specific to those efforts.
Since the East Cove Unit is part of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project, refuge and Complex staff work closely with several state and local government agencies, including the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Agriculture Extension Service, and Cameron Parish Police Jury (USFWS 2002a). The Service and Miami Corporation have been part of a cooperative agreement since 1990 to jointly manage lands within the watershed project for the preservation and restoration of coastal wetlands and for the benefit of waterfowl and other biological resources. Miami Corporation agreed to provide 1.5 employees and the Service agreed to provide three employees for the management and operation of the Cameron Creole Watershed Project as part of the agreement. However, when administration and management of the East Cove Unit was transferred from Sabine to Cameron Prairie, a new cooperative agreement was developed, resulting in the Service providing two full-time employees and the Miami Corporation providing up to one employee on an as-needed basis (USFWS 2001).
In addition, since 75 percent of the watershed is private land with multiple landowners, an advisory committee was established prior to construction of the water control mechanisms in the watershed. This committee developed a management plan that was acceptable to all affected parties, and included the plan in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for the Cameron Creole Watershed Project. The Service adheres to the plan during day-to-day operations (USFWS 2002a).
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
The refuge’s heavy equipment is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. List of heavy equipment at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.
Tractor, John Deere Tractor, Kubota
42 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
ROADS
Oil and gas companies maintain the roads that they use and are responsible for on the refuge. State Highway 27, which is maintained by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development; is open to public traffic. Some of Vastar Road is open to the public during duck hunting season
Visitor parking on the refuge is provided at eight locations along State Highway 27. Parking lots are provided at the refuge headquarters; the Wetland Walkway; the Blue Goose Trail; the Northline Recreation Area (at the intersection of the Northline Canal and Roadside Canal); the Hog Island Gully Recreation Area; the 1A/1B Recreation Area, an overlook area on State Highway 27; and the West Cove area.
RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS
Research Natural Areas are designated by federal land management agencies to preserve plant and animal communities in a natural state for research purposes. They protect vanishing native habitats that exhibit outstanding ecological value by preventing unnatural encroachments and activities that might modify ecological processes. The Sabine Refuge encourages research and many research projects have and are currently being conducted on the refuge, but no specific research nature areas have been designated on the refuge.
WILDERNESS REVIEW
As part of the comprehensive conservation planning process, the lands within Sabine National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (The Wilderness Act, September 3, 1964; (16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136)).
No lands on the refuge were found suitable for designation as wilderness. Although the refuge contains contiguous roadless lands that are at least 5,000 acres in size (one of the criteria for wilderness designation), these lands and waters have been substantially altered by humans, particularly through agriculture, water manipulation, levee and canal construction, pipeline laying, oil and gas development, and seismic exploration. As a result of both extensive modification of natural habitats and ongoing manipulation of natural processes, adopting a “hands-off” approach to management at the refuge would not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, which is the goal of wilderness designation. These past and present human activities do not make the refuge’s lands practicable or suitable as wilderness. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further analyzed in this plan.
ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge contains several archeological sites with artifacts from the Atakapa people, who inhabited much of southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas before European colonization in the mid-1700s. Known sites can be found in almost all of the units of the refuge, though details are known for few of the sites. State regulations prohibit the disclosure of the contents of most of these sites, and several sites have only been identified from aerial photographs. Most of the known site locations on the refuge were identified by a cultural resource survey (Thomas et al. 1978). There are no programs allowing the public access to these sites, and there is little for the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
public to view on these sites due to the high subsidence and burial rates found in coastal Louisiana. Most sites abandoned before 800 A.D. are buried. Cultural sites have been damaged inadvertently due to canal construction and maintenance, mostly before the refuge was acquired.
Three archeological sites on the refuge were discussed in Thomas et al. (1978); these are located at the “Club House” at the intersection of the Central and Beach canals, and two oyster shell concentrations observed in the East Cove Unit. The cultural significance of these sites is unknown, but a cursory survey was conducted on the “Club House” site. The survey indicated that the material at the “Club House” was probably transported from nearby Shell Hill in order to raise the elevation of the “Club House.” The materials from this site are still of concern, but may not have originated on the site.
An Atakapa site, which may have served as a seasonal settlement, has been found near the refuge at the Hackberry Salt Dome. The Atakapa, named by the early French explorers for the Choctaw Indian word for “man-eater,” are believed to be one of the most technologically primitive Native American cultural groups in North America. The culture did not feature hierarchical leadership or an organized religious structure, though shamans were prominent members of the community. Most of their technological development centered on subsistence hunting, and their reputation as cannibals kept the group isolated from the Europeans until the mid-1700s.
The Atakapa probably subsisted by hunting, foraging, and fishing, and common foods were probably deer, raccoon, muskrat, turtle, alligator, and various fish and shellfish. Shell mounds are believed to have been a prominent feature in coastal Atakapa settlements. The Atakapa were semi-nomadic and probably only spent the spring and summer subsisting in small family groups on coastal lands, such as those currently occupied by the Sabine Refuge; the fall and winter were spent in larger settlements further inland.
The area was a “no-man’s land” between Spanish Mexico and French (later American) Louisiana frequented only by trappers and outlaws until the early 1800s. European settlement of southwest Louisiana during the late 1700s consisted mostly of isolated communities of Acadian, French, and Spanish settlers. After Louisiana was purchased by the United States in 1803, new Scottish-Irish settlers began to settle the area, but it was not until the railroads connected the area with the outside world after the Civil War that major settlements, most notably the City of Lake Charles, were founded.
The area now occupied by the Sabine Refuge was relatively undisturbed until oil was discovered in the region in the 1920s. The fur industry became a secondary source of income for the Texas Company, an oil company that owned much of the area currently occupied by the refuge. Declines in muskrat populations during the late 1920s and early 1930s led to the Texas Company (now Chevron
U.S.A. Inc.) selling surface rights to the federal government for the purpose of establishing the wildlife refuge. The company retains the subsurface rights to this day.
It is more than likely that many undiscovered archeological sites exist at Sabine. These sites may never be discovered due to the difficult survey conditions imposed by the marsh environment. The refuge at present does not have a Cultural Resources Management Plan. This plan, when completed, will specify the measures that need to be taken on the refuge to identify, protect, and interpret the area’s archeological and historical sites.
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is located in 1,313 square-mile Cameron Parish, Louisiana, one of the largest parishes (i.e., county equivalents) in the state. Cameron Parish is situated in the extreme southwestern corner of Louisiana, abutting the Gulf of Mexico to the south and Texas to
44 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
the west. In 2003, the population of the parish was estimated at 9,708, a slight decline (3%) from the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). The median household income of the parish in 1999 was $34,232, compared to $32,566 for Louisiana as a whole. The same relative prosperity is reflected in a poverty rate below the state average. Approximately 12% of Cameron Parish residents lived below the poverty line in 1999, compared to almost 20% for all of Louisiana. Educational attainment is below the state average, however, with only 8% of the population aged 25 or higher having a Bachelor’s degree or higher, as opposed to the statewide average of 19%.
In 2003 transportation and warehousing was the largest of 20 major economic and employment sectors in the parish (STATS Indiana 2004). The U.S. Census Bureau classified occupations in Cameron Parish are shown in Table 5.
In terms of employment by industrial sector, the primary industries lumped as “agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining” predominate in Cameron Parish, as shown in Table 6.
In terms of its racial and ethnic breakdown, as reported in the 2000 Census, Cameron Parish is 92.5% white, non-Hispanic; 3.9% black or African American; 0.4% American Indian; 0.4% Asian; and 2.2% Hispanic or of Latino origin (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). (These percentages do not add up precisely to 100% because of the difference between designated races—white, black, Native American, and Asian—and ethnicities, which are Latino and non-Latino.) In addition, 1.6% in the Census reported some other race or two or more races. Overall, the population of Cameron Parish has a greater percentage of non-Hispanic whites (92.5%) than the state as a whole (62.5%). That is, it is less diverse and has fewer minorities.
Table 5. Cameron Parish - Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older (2000).
Cameron Parish - Occupations of employed civilian population 16 years and older (2000)
Occupation
Number
Percent
Management, professional, and related occupations
772
18.5
Service occupations
718
17.2
Sales and office occupations
954
22.8
Farming, fishing and forestry occupations
199
4.8
Construction, extraction and maintenance occupations
594
14.2
Production, transportation, and material moving
947
22.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
Table 6. Cameron Parish - Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry (2000).
Cameron Parish – Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry (2000) Industry Number Percent Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 696 16.6 Construction 470 11.2 Manufacturing 295 7.1 Wholesale trade 143 3.4 Retail trade 426 10.2 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 396 9.5 Information 52 1.2 Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 155 3.7 Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services 206 4.9 Educational, health and social services 677 16.2 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 269 6.4 Other services (except public administration) 213 5.1 Public administration 186 4.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
In keeping with the purpose for its creation, management efforts at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge are oriented toward the improvement of habitats under its jurisdiction for the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory birds, wading and shorebirds, threatened and endangered species, and all other native wildlife. The refuge is managed for these goals through prescribed fire, water control structures, and marsh restoration projects that protect adjacent areas from erosion and return the area to a more “natural” hydrology.
46 Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
EAST COVE UNIT
The East Cove Unit has witnessed high rates of marsh loss over the years, much of it attributed to saltwater intrusion from the Calcasieu Ship Channel and oil and gas exploration. Widespread seismic surveying activities on this unit have altered marsh hydrology and increased wetland erosion. The Cameron Creole Watershed Project was instituted in 1989 to reduce saltwater intrusion on more than 64,000 acres of refuge and adjacent privately owned marsh. A 19-mile protective levee and five wa