DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

DELTA AND BRETON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

ST. BERNARD AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LOUISIANA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

July 2008 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................1

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2

Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 7

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9

Delta Refuge History and Purpose ............................................................................................... 9

Breton Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................... 12

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 13

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................14

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 15

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 15

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 19

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 19

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 19

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 19

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 19

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................20

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 20

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 20

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 21

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 21

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 22

Personnel, Operations and Maintenance .......................................................................... 22

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 23

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...................................................................... 23

Fish and Wildlife Population Management - Delta NWR ................................................... 23

Fish and Wildlife Population Management - Breton NWR ................................................ 24

Habitat Management - Delta NWR .................................................................................... 25

Habitat Management - Breton NWR ................................................................................. 25

Resource Protection - Delta NWR .................................................................................... 25

Resource Protection - Breton NWR .................................................................................. 27

Visitor Services - Delta NWR ............................................................................................ 27

Visitor Services - Breton NWR .......................................................................................... 27

Refuge Administration - Delta and Breton NWR ............................................................... 27

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 31
ii Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 31

Alternatives For Managing Delta NWR ...................................................................................... 31

Vision for Delta NWR ................................................................................................................. 31

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies for Delta NWR ...................................................................... 32

Habitat Management (Delta NWR) ................................................................................... 32

Fish and Wildlife Population Management (Delta NWR) .................................................. 33

Visitor Services (Delta NWR) ............................................................................................ 34

Refuge Administration and Protection (Delta NWR) ......................................................... 35

Alternatives For Managing Breton NWR .................................................................................... 36

Vision for Breton NWR ............................................................................................................... 37

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies for Breton NWR .................................................................... 37

Habitat Management (Breton NWR) ................................................................................. 37

Fish and Wildlife Population Management (Breton NWR) ................................................ 39

Visitor Services (Breton NWR) .......................................................................................... 40

Refuge Administration and Protection (Breton NWR) ....................................................... 41

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 43

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 43

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 43

Fish And Wildlife Population Management - Delta NWR .................................................. 43

Fish and Wildlife Population Management - Breton NWR ................................................ 44

Habitat Management - Delta NWR ................................................................................... 45

Resource Protection and Refuge Administration - Delta and Breton NWR ...................... 49

Visitor Services - Delta and Breton NWR: ........................................................................ 51

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 54

Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 58

Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 59

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 60

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 60

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 61

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 61

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 61

Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 62

Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 62

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 62

Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 63

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 63

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 65

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 67

Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 67

Features Common to all Delta NWR Alternatives ...................................................................... 67

Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 67

Description of Alternatives - Delta NWR .................................................................................... 68

Alternative A - No Action (Current Management) ............................................................. 68

Alternative B - User-Focused Management ...................................................................... 68
Table of Contents iii

Alternative C - Improved Habitat Restoration and Public Outreach Management 

(Proposed Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 68

Features Common to all Breton NWR Alternatives .................................................................... 69

Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 69

Description of Alternatives - Breton NWR .................................................................................. 70

Alternative A - No Action (Current Management) .............................................................. 70

Alternative B - Custodial Management .............................................................................. 70

Alternative C - Large-Scale Habitat Restoration and Improved Outreach Management 

(Proposed Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 70

Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue for Delta National Wildlife Refuge .............................. 71

Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue for Breton National Wildlife Refuge ............................ 79

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 87

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 87

Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................................87

Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 87

Climate Change ................................................................................................................87

Other Management ........................................................................................................... 88

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 88

Refuge Revenue-Sharing .................................................................................................. 89

Other Effects ..................................................................................................................... 89

Summary of Effects by Alternative .............................................................................................89

Alternative A for Delta and Breton NWRs (Current Management) .................................... 89

Alternative B for Delta NWR (User-Focused Management) .............................................. 89

Alternative C for Delta NWR (Improved Habitat Restoration and Public Outreach 

Management) (The Proposed Alternative) ........................................................................ 90

Alternative B for Breton NWR (Custodial Management) ................................................... 90

Alternative C for Breton NWR (Large-Scale Habitat Restoration and Improved Outreach 

Management) (The Proposed Alternative) ........................................................................ 90

Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 96

Wildlife Disturbance ..........................................................................................................96

Water quality ..................................................................................................................... 96

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ....................................................................................... 96

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 96

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ......................................................................................... 97

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 97

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 99

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 111

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 113

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 127

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 127
iv Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 131

APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 137

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS ................................. 151

APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 159

APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 161

APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 163

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 163

Maintenance Management System Needs ............................................................................. 164

APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 165
Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Boundaries of Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, 2005......... 10

Figure 2. Boundaries of Breton National Wildlife Refuge, Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, 

Louisiana, 2005 ................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3. Satellite imagery of Delta National Wildlife Refuge taken before and after Hurricane Katrina 

struck on August 29, 2005 ................................................................................................... 16

Figure 4. Satellite imagery of the northern islands in Breton National Wildlife Refuge in 2004 and 

after the hurricanes in 2005 ................................................................................................. 17

Figure 5. Satellite imagery of the southern islands in Breton National Wildlife Refuge in 2004 and 

after the hurricanes in 2005 ................................................................................................. 18

Figure 6. Location of oil and gas pipelines on Delta National Wildlife Refuge .................................... 26

Figure 7. Location of areas open to waterfowl hunting on Delta National Wildlife Refuge.................. 28

Figure 8. Current staffing chart for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges and Southeast 

Louisiana Refuge Complex. ................................................................................................. 55

Figure 9. Proposed staffing chart for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges and Southeast 

Louisiana Refuge Complex. ................................................................................................. 56

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of Projects (Delta NWR- Breton NWR) ................................................................. 57

Table 2. Delta National Wildlife Refuge Step-down Management Plans Related to ........................... 59

the Goals and Objectives of the CCP .................................................................................... 59

Table 3. Breton National Wildlife Refuge Step-down Management Plans Related to ........................ 59

the Goals and Objectives of the CCP .................................................................................... 59

Table 4. Comparison of Alternatives by Management Issues for Delta NWR..................................... 71

Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives by Management Issues for Breton NWR .................................. 79

Table 6. Summary of Environmental Effects by Alternative, Delta and Breton National Wildlife 

Refuges ................................................................................................................................. 91
vi Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges was 

prepared to guide management actions and direction for the Refuges. 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 Refuges or 

the purposes for which they were established. 

A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the 

Refuges and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment describe the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their effects on the 

environment. This Plan and the Environmental Assessment will be made available to state and 

federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. 

Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the Final Plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purposes of the plan are to develop a proposed action that best achieves the Refuge purpose; 

attain the vision and goals developed for the Refuge; contribute to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission; address key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and to be consistent with 

sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

• Provide a clear statement of Refuge management direction; 

• Provide Refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service 

management actions on and around the Refuge; 

• Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education 

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and 

• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the 

Commission of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once independent Commission 

was renamed the Bureau of Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 

The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology 

and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals 

to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to 

the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896. 
2 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries was combined with the Department of 

Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey on June 30, 1940 and transferred to the Department of 

Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through Federal programs 

relating to wild birds, endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and 

specific fishery and wildlife research activities (142 DM 1.1). 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95 

million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest 

collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million 

acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United 

States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national 

fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service 

enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps 

foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state 

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 is: 

“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear 

legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were 

initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete 

comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public 

involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and 

recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines 

for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

• Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

• Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the refuge system; 

• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system; and 

• Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine 

compatible public uses. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Breton 

National Wildlife Refuge, the second oldest refuge, was established in 1904 for the protection of 

colonial nesting birds in Louisiana such as sandwich and royal terns, and the brown pelican. Western 

refuges were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and 

desert bighorn sheep (1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters 

decimated once abundant herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s ADust Bowl@ severely 

depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Depression 

focused on Awaterfowl production areas@; i.e. protection of prairie wetlands in America=s heartland. 

The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in 

response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973 the Service began to focus on 

establishing refuges for endangered species. 

Each year approximately 40 million visitors enjoy wildlife refuges, most to observe wildlife in their 

natural habitats, and that number continues to grow. As the number of visitors grows, there are 

significant economic benefits to local communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, 

either fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 

15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs 

generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more 

than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); 

National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); 

Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); 

San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); 

Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River (Louisiana) B the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. 

Other findings also validate the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. 

Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from 

$5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities 

benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and 

Laughland, unpubl. data). 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005, 37,996 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more 

than $26 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that 

ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must 

be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the refuge system serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stipulates that Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners 

and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for active public 

involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the Plans. 

All lands of the System will be managed in accordance with an approved Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (Plan) that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving 

refuge unit purposes. The Plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, 

practices, and legal mandates including Service compatibility standards, and other Service policies, 

guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1). 
4 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the 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. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and management of the Delta and Breton National Wildlife 

Refuges are provided in Appendix C. 

Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making 

decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural 

resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation 

between Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuge and other partners such as the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, and private landowners, etc. 

Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) are closed to public use unless specifically 

and legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be appropriate and 

compatible. The refuge manager determines if a use is appropriate based on sound professional 

judgment; uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe may not be found 

appropriate. When a use is found appropriate, it must then be determined to be compatible before it 

is allowed on a refuge. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the 

refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the 

refuge system or the purposes of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on 

mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to: 

• Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

• Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

• Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

• Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and 

• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

The Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. As priority public uses 

of the refuge system they receive priority consideration over other public uses in planning and 

management. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy 

The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans...” The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while achieving 

refuge purpose(s) and System mission. It provides for the consideration and protection of the broad 

spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and associated ecosystems. When 

evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field 

experience, knowledge of refuge resources, the refuge’s role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, 

and best available science, including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service. 

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA) identifies undeveloped coastal barrier lands 

along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and includes them in a coastal barrier resource system. Objectives 

of the Act are to restrict most Federal expenditures that encourage development within the system to 

minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful Federal expenditures, and minimize damage to natural 

resources. Breton National Wildlife Refuge is located in Unit LA-03P under the CBRA and is 

classified as an “otherwise protected area.” 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) was signed into law by President Bush on August 

8, 2005. Section 384 of the Act establishes the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) which 

authorizes funds to be distributed to Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas producing states to mitigate 

the impacts of outer continental shelf oil and gas activities. States to share these funds are Alabama, 

Alaska, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. (See further discussion below under 

conservation plans and initiatives.) 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the 

environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection 

information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem 

levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected 

parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The 

conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and 

integrated where appropriate into this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, 

and the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, 

academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico working 

to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated 

approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The international and national bird 

initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners In Flight, Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve 

migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 

1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed the 

Plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994 making it a truly 
6 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

continental effort. The Plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, 

non-governmental organizations, private companies and many individuals, all working towards 

achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species 

and people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These 

projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North American 

landscape. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the 

Coastal Prairies physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning 

effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily nongame land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, 

and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses 

on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than 

the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort 

throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird 

species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, 

organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation 

goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach 

programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. 

Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the 

conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird 

populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive 

species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from 

abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, 

marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are 

federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping 

cranes, interior least terns, and gulf coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan 

is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures. 

Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). A Federal law, signed in 2005, authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to distribute $250 million for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2010 to oil 

and gas producing States (Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and 

coastal political subdivisions to be used for one or more of the following purposes: 

• Projects and activities for the conservation, protection, or restoration of coastal areas, 

including wetland 

• Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources. 

• Planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying with this section. 

• Implementation of a federally-approved marine, coastal or comprehensive conservation 

management plan 

• Mitigation of the impact of Outer Continental Shelf activities through funding or onshore 

infrastructure projects and public service needs 

In a Continuing Resolution dated February 16, 2007, Congress approved a three percent 

appropriation of the CIAP funds to be used by Minerals Management Service (MMS) to administer the 

CIAP program. MMS will lead the CIAP by establishing an environment that will enhance partner 

communications and an effective business relationship. Each eligible State will be allocated their 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

share based on the State’s Qualified Outer Continental Shelf Revenue generated off of its coast in 

proportion to total revenue generated off the coasts of all eligible States. MMS will respond to 

recipients needs and provide advice through guidance, direction, training, and by ensuring that 

monitoring and evaluation are incorporated into a system of accountability designed to accomplish 

the results intended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

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 state 

fish and game agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing 

refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the 

protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife 

populations in the State of Louisiana. 

 

In Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) 

(http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov) is vested with responsibility for conservation and management of 

wildlife in the state, including aquatic life, and is authorized to execute the laws enacted for the 

control and supervision of programs relating to the management, protection, conservation, and 

replenishment of wildlife, fish, and aquatic life, and the regulation of the shipping of wildlife fish, furs, 

and skins. LDWF’s mission is to manage, conserve, and promote wise utilization of Louisiana’s 

renewable fish and wildlife resources and their supporting habitats through replenishment, protection, 

enhancement, research, development, and education for the social and economic benefit of current 

and future generations; to provide opportunities for knowledge of and use and enjoyment of these 

resources; and to promote a safe and healthy environment for the users of the resources. LDWF is 

divided into seven divisions for management of the state’s resources: Enforcement, Fur and Refuge, 

Public Information, Inland Fisheries, Marine Fisheries, Management and Finance, and Wildlife. 

The participation of LDWF throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been 

valuable. Not only have LDWF personnel participated in the biological reviews, they are also active 

partners in annual hunt coordination, planning, and various wildlife and habitat surveys. A key part of 

the planning process is the integration of common objectives between the Service and LDWF. Both 

Delta and Breton refuges are located adjacent to or in close proximity to lands managed by LDWF; a 

Memorandum of Understanding between LDWF and the Service exists relating to management of 

some of the state-owned barrier islands as part of Breton NWR. 

The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing 

opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State 

of Louisiana. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common 

mission objectives where appropriate. 
8 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Delta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located in Plaquemines Parish, in extreme southeast 

Louisiana at the mouth of the Mississippi River (Figure 1). Access to the Refuge is by boat only; the 

nearest town is Venice, across the Mississippi River from Refuge lands. The Refuge office is located 

in Venice, Louisiana. 

Breton National Wildlife Refuge consists of a chain of barrier islands located in Plaquemines and St. 

Bernard Parishes in southeast Louisiana (Figure 2). Access is limited to seaplanes or to boats that 

are able to venture offshore. 

Both Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges are administered by the Southeast Louisiana Refuge 

Complex, Lacombe, Louisiana. 

DELTA REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

 

Delta Migratory Waterfowl Refuge was established by Executive Order No. 7229 on November 19, 

1935, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The initial acres forming Delta NWR 

were purchased from Joseph Leiter and the Delta Duck Club in 1935 to provide sanctuary and habitat 

for wintering and migrating waterfowl. The name was changed from Delta Migratory Waterfowl 

Refuge to Delta National Wildlife Refuge in 1940. Subsequent land purchases enlarged the Refuge 

to its current acreage of 48,799. 

The land development of the area began in 1862 when a breach in the natural levee of the 

Mississippi River occurred approximately 100 miles below New Orleans. The breach, called a 

crevasse, was supposedly cut in a narrow portion of the levee by three daughters of a man named 

Cubit, and is called Cubits Gap. The crevasse was cut to permit access to a large open water area 

known as Bay Rhondo and to attract fish to nets set in the cut. Tons of sediment were carried 

through the cut into Bay Rhondo forming huge splays. Splay in biological terms is a vegetated, 

emergent marsh that develops from sediments deposited in open water as a result of overflow of the 

natural banks or levees of a river or channel or as the result of a natural or created crevasse or 

sediment diversion. As it expanded, the Cubits Gap delta attracted large concentrations of wintering 

and migratory waterfowl; peak populations in excess of 400,000 ducks and 500,000 geese have been 

recorded. Drawn by the abundant wildlife resources, the area has attracted waterfowl hunters for 

many years. Today the primary public use remains hunting, with less significant use by anglers. 

The purposes of Delta National Wildlife Refuge, based upon land acquisition documents and its 

establishing authority, are as follows: 

Executive Order 7229, dated November 19, 1935 - as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife. 

Executive Order 7383, dated June 5, 1936 - as a migratory waterfowl refuge, is subject to the 

use...for quarantine purposes; 
10 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 1. Boundaries of Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, 2005 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 2. Boundaries of Breton National Wildlife Refuge, Plaquemines and St. Bernard 

Parishes, Louisiana, 2005 
12 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Executive Order 7538, dated January 19, 1937 - for waterfowl refuge purposes, is subject to use... 

with the improvement of navigation in the Mississippi River and the uses thereof, and the 

administration of the area for wildlife conservation purposes by the Department of Agriculture [now 

Interior] shall be without interference with any existing or future uses or regulations of the War 

Department [ now Army Corps of Engineers]. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act - for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management 

purpose, for migratory birds. 16 U.S.C. 

BRETON REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

Breton National Wildlife Refuge, established on October 4, 1904 by an unnumbered Executive Order 

signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, is the second oldest refuge in the United States. It 

encompasses Breton Island and the Chandeleur Island chain. Executive Order 369-A , signed on 

November 11, 1905, established the Breton Island Reservation. The name was changed to Breton 

Island Refuge on October 4, 1938, by Executive Order 7938 signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

Throughout history the islands have been continually reconfigured due to tidal action, winds, and 

tropical storms. The islands were once home to a fishing community that included a school, until 

1915 when a hurricane forced residents to evacuate the settlement. Then an unnamed hurricane 

destroyed the settlement and it was never rebuilt. More recently, a series of storms starting in the 

late 1990’s have caused devastating erosion to the islands. Hurricane Katrina destroyed the historic 

lighthouse located on the northern end of the Chandeleurs. Subsidence, tropical storms, and 

hurricanes have drastically reduced the dune and beach habitat that formerly supported thousands of 

colonial nesting seabirds. 

 

The purposes of Breton National Wildlife Refuge are as follows: 

Executive Order 7983, dated October 4, 1938 - as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds, and other wildlife; Provided, that nothing herein shall affect the recovery of the oil and gas 

deposits from any of the island areas under the mineral leasing act....or the necessary operations 

pertaining to such recovery. 

Public Law 93-632, dated January 3, 1975 designated all of the federally-owned lands in Breton 

NWR, with the exception of North Breton Island, as part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 

Refuge management objectives are to provide sanctuary for nesting and wintering seabirds; 

protect and preserve the wilderness character of the islands; and, provide sandy barrier beach habitat 

for a variety of wildlife species. 

Public use centers on fishing from the beaches and in the shallow water surrounding the islands. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Delta NWR has no special designations. 

Breton NWR, except for North Breton, has been designated as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System; all of the Refuge is designated as part of the critical habitat for wintering piping 

plovers, and as a Globally Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy in association with 

The Nature Conservancy. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

In the mid-1990’s the Service developed a landscape level approach to natural resource 

management based on watersheds named the Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation. Delta and Breton refuges are located within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

(LMR). The dominant land forms of the LMR ecosystem are the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River 

and the deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the 

Mississippi River and its distributaries. Refuge management projects reflect and support ecosystem 

goals. 

A team of resource managers assigned to the LMR ecosystem developed resource goals to address 

the natural resources and their habitats of concern to the Service: 

• Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats 

• Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands 

• Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species and species of concern 

• Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated 

with the wetlands and waters of the ecosystem 

• Restore, manage, and protect National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries 

The following are support goals which are essential to the overall accomplishment of the ecosystem 

resource goals listed above: 

• Increase public awareness and support for the LMR ecosystem resources and their 

management 

• Enforce natural resource laws 

• Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

In the Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, developed by Louisiana Department 

of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Delta and Breton refuges are located in the Gulf Coast Prairies and 

Marshes ecoregion. Delta Refuge is situated in the fresh and intermediate marshes of the Mississippi 

management basin; Breton is located in the Pontchartrain basin, constituting the most rapidly eroding 

area along the Louisiana coast. Although no specific strategies for partnering with the Service are 

listed for the habitats on Delta and Breton, more general strategies on which the Service can partner 

with LDWF include: 

• partner to promote protection and support efforts for shoreline stabilization and habitat 

restoration of barrier islands 

• work with interested groups to promote appropriate use of dredge material and to develop 

improved management techniques for vegetated pioneer emerging delta habitat 

The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act program (CWPPRA or “Breaux Act”) 

provides for targeted funds to be used for planning and implementing projects that create, protect, 

restore and enhance wetlands in coastal Louisiana. Passed in 1990 and authorized until 2019, the 

federal funds created by this act are managed by the CWPPRA Task Force, a group composed of 

five Federal agencies, including the Service, and the State of Louisiana. 

 
14 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

To address larger wetland restoration projects with more ecosystem-scale impacts than CWPPRA, 

the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study (LCA) began in 2001. LCA seeks future 

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorization and funding to identify critical human and 

natural ecological needs for coastal Louisiana, seeks alternatives to meet the needs including 

restoration priorities, and presents long-term large-scale strategies named the LCA Plan. Delta and 

Breton Refuges are located in the Deltaic Plain area of LCA. Neither Delta nor Breton NWRs are 

included directly in the five critical restoration areas. The Refuges may be affected by long-term 

studies such as the Mississippi River Hydrodynamic Study and the Mississippi River Delta 

Management Study. Presently, the LCA emphasis is on areas west of Delta and Breton Refuges. 

Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana was approved in 1998 by the State of Louisiana 

and its Federal partners. Coast 2050 is a joint planning initiative among the Louisiana Wetland 

Conservation and Restoration Authority, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Coastal 

Zone Management (CZM) Authority, and the CWPPRA Task Force for protecting and sustaining the 

state’s coastal resources for future generations in a manner consistent with the welfare of the people. 

In this plan, Delta and Breton NWRs are located in Region 2 (Breton, Barataria and the Mississippi 

River). The plan emphasizes that immediate attention should be placed in the Barataria Basin, an 

area west of the refuges. 

In 1989, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 6 (LA R.S. 49:213.1 et seq. of the Second 

Extraordinary Session of the Legislature, Appendix A) recognizing the catastrophic nature of 

Louisiana’s coastal land loss and expanded the state’s capacity to respond to the crisis by creating 

the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority (State Wetlands Authority); the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Fund (the Fund); the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities (GOCA); 

and the Office of Coastal Restoration and Management. The State Wetlands Authority is a policy 

level decision making group made up of the Governor’s Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities, the 

Commissioner of the Division of Administration, and the secretaries of five state agencies - the 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Environmental Quality, Natural Resources, Transportation and 

Development, and Agriculture and Forestry. The State Wetlands Authority is the sponsor and official 

author of the State Plan, an annual summary of coastal restoration projects and recommendations for 

funding from the Fund. The Fund’s income is from a portion of the state’s mineral income and 

severance taxes from oil and gas production on state lands and is dedicated to state sponsored 

coastal restoration projects. The GOCA coordinates policy among the many agencies involved in 

Louisiana’s coastal restoration effort while the Office of Coastal Restoration and Management within 

DNR handles day to day implementation of coastal restoration in coordination with the Coastal Zone 

Management Office. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

Several major ecological threats that cause land loss and damage to both Delta and Breton NWRs 

are tropical storms, subsidence, sea level rise, and oil and gas development. Both Refuges are 

located in an area frequently in the path of tropical storms and hurricanes. Out of the 92 major 

hurricanes (category 3 or higher) recorded making landfall between Texas and Maine from 1851 

through 2004, 85 entered the Gulf of Mexico. Even storms coming onshore in states other than 

Louisiana can affect Breton and the Chandeleur Islands, which are located off the mainland in the 

Gulf of Mexico. The marshes of Delta NWR absorb frequent storm surges not affecting the higher 

elevated lands. Although even tropical storms can cause impacts such as nest loss of ground 

nesting birds, much vegetation and land loss have been caused by such notable hurricanes as the 

unnamed storm of 1947, Camille in 1969, Georges in 1998, Ivan in 2004, and Katrina and Rita in 

2005. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

A comparison of images of the Bulls Bay area of Delta NWR taken before and after the summer of 

2005 depicts the alteration and loss of land (Figure 3). No studies are yet complete to give exact 

wetland loss on Delta NWR caused by Hurricane Katrina, but the satellite imagery illustrates it is 

substantial. 

Breton NWR was slowly rebuilding after a series of hurricanes and tropical storms that began 

occurring in the late 1990s. Several storms affected the islands during 2005, especially Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. Some estimates calculate up to 70% of the islands existing land form was lost. The 

storms’ effects on Breton NWR are depicted in satellite imagery taken in 2004 and 2005 (Figures 4 

and 5). 

The land that forms Delta and Breton NWRs is located in a delta lobe created 3,000-4,000 years ago 

in the St. Bernard deltaic plain of the Mississippi River. Approximately 2,000 years ago, the 

Mississippi River abandoned the St. Bernard delta complex and moved to the west forming the 

LaFourche delta complex. As the cycle of land loss changes progressed in the abandoned delta, the 

Chandeleur Islands started to form. This land loss continues today and threatens the existence of the 

Chandeleur Islands and other lands located in the relic deltaic plain not presently receiving sediment 

input. The natural processes of land formation, subsidence, and sea level rise have been 

accelerated and altered by man’s activities such as building levees, digging canals, and our use of 

fossil fuels. 

Active oil and gas development and exploration occur on Delta NWR and in areas adjacent to both 

Refuges. Mineral rights are owned by both private companies and the government. While impacts 

on the riverine and marine ecosystems are minimized and mitigated when possible, accidents do 

occur that cause biological and ecological damage. Waterfowl and other water birds are susceptible 

to oiling and are especially vulnerable during nesting. Vegetation and soil soak up oil and, depending 

on type, severity and amount of oiling, have to be removed from the site. Assess to structures and 

facilities cause loss of habitat and hydrological changes to the ecosystem. 

One emerging threat to Delta NWR is the proposed abandonment of the current birds foot delta (so 

named because of its shape) in favor of sediment diversions and other restoration activities closer to 

New Orleans. While the Service certainly understands the need for restoration activities throughout 

the coastal zone, and that the abandonment of the current delta may be in the best interest of the 

resource, many factors must be considered. Of primary importance to the Service is that current 

Refuge resource values be compensated/mitigated for if lost due to activities upstream from the 

Refuge. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a new national wildlife refuge if Delta 

NWR is sacrificed in the name of coastal restoration. This would ensure that resource values are not 

only replaced, but that they remain available for use by the public. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

The climate in southeast Louisiana is relatively mild due to the subtropical influence of the Gulf of 

Mexico and cooler, drier air from the central plains. Summers tend to be hot and humid, and winters 

are mild. Average yearly precipitation is 66 inches. Louisiana is impacted by tropical weather 

disturbances with an average frequency of one tropical storm every 1.6 years, one hurricane every 

3.3 years, and a major hurricane every 14 years (Roth 1998). 
16 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 3. Satellite imagery of Delta National Wildlife Refuge taken before and after Hurricane 

Katrina struck on August 29, 2005 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Figure 4. Satellite imagery of the northern islands in Breton National Wildlife Refuge in 2004 

and after the hurricanes in 2005 
18 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 5. Satellite imagery of the southern islands in Breton National Wildlife Refuge in 2004 

and after the hurricanes in 2005 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that warming of the 

climate is undeniable and could cause changes in our stewardship of land. Examples of potential 

changes are altered fire regimes, rain and snowfall patterns, access to water resources, hydrology in 

rivers and wetlands, frequency of extreme weather events, and rising sea levels at coastal refuges. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Geologic processes creating the current landform were built by the Mississippi River as it shaped its 

deltaic plain. The northern boundary of the St. Bernard delta complex coincided with the south shore 

of the modern day Lake Pontchartrain. The Mississippi River abandoned the St. Bernard delta 

complex about 2,000 years ago. Development slowed and the natural progression of coastal land 

loss began in the abandoned delta. 

Delta NWR consists of low-lying marshlands formed by sediments deposited by the current of the 

Mississippi River as it flowed through Cubits Gap and breached its natural levee. Remnants of 

natural ridges can be found along the existing or abandoned courses of river distributaries or 

abandoned coastlines. Breton NWR consists of the barrier islands created at the edge of the old St. 

Bernard delta. These islands are dynamic and are constantly altered and worn down by tropical 

storms, wind, and tidal action. Early literature on Breton and the Chandeleur Islands mentions trees 

and a generally higher elevation than exists today. Present elevations of the existing islands are not 

much higher than sea level. 

HYDROLOGY 

The marshes and ponds of Delta NWR range from fresh where influenced by the Mississippi River to 

brackish closer to the shoreline with the Gulf of Mexico and Breton Sound. The system is open and 

not managed by any control structures on the Refuge. Breton and the Chandeleur Islands are 

surrounded by shallow sea water and contain interior ponds that can be somewhat fresher from 

rainfall. 

AIR QUALITY 

Breton NWR’s status as a Class I Wilderness Area confers additional protection for air quality. Air 

quality issues are coordinated with and overseen by the Service’s Air Quality Branch in Denver, 

Colorado. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

The marshes, shallow ponds, and mud flats of Delta NWR attract large concentrations of wintering 

and migratory waterfowl, other wetland dependent birds, and reptiles and amphibians. Two basic 

marsh zones occur within the marsh habitat - fresh marsh nearest the main tributaries and the 

brackish marsh zone nearest the Gulf of Mexico. The fresh marsh zone is located primarily on 

mineral soil and to a very limited extent on flotant (floating mats of emergent vegetation). 

Approximately 60% of the Refuge consists of the fresh marsh zone. The predominant plants are 

delta duck potato, elephant ear, wild millet, and three-square. The marsh is tidally flooded in depths 

ranging from a few inches to a foot. The fertile soil, vegetative composition, and shallow water 

environment result in a highly productive habitat for fish and wildlife. Land loss causes the 

conversion of marsh into open freshwater ponds. A few hundred acres of forested wetlands occur on 

Delta NWR on the Mississippi River natural levees. Soils are very coarse and are less frequently 
20 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

flooded, resulting in vegetation communities dominated by trees and low shrubs. Predominant trees 

are black willow and red maple. Low shrubs include groundsel, wax myrtle, and marsh elder. 

Scattered throughout the understory where sunlight reaches the forest floor is a herbaceous 

community of elephant ear and sedges. This habitat is valuable for cover for deer and small 

mammals. The trees provide an important staging area for migratory birds because of the proximity 

to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Most of the islands of Breton NWR provide sandy beach habitat. Islands wide enough to receive 

some protection from Gulfside wind and tides provide vegetative cover of black mangrove, grounsel 

bush, and wax myrtle. Shallow bay waters around the islands support beds of manateegrass, 

shoalgrass, turtlegrass, and widgeongrass. 

WILDLIFE 

Both Delta and Breton NWRs are located in an extremely rich estuary system that is important to 

wading, sea, and shore birds, migratory waterfowl and songbirds, crabs, shrimp, and both fresh and 

saltwater fish. 

Wintering waterfowl populations begin building on Delta NWR in the fall and peak in mid-December 

and January. Recent surveys document 30,000 to 50,000 snow geese and 80,000 to 150,000 ducks. 

The most common species observed are gadwall, northern pintail, American wigeon, green-winged 

teal, and snow geese. The most common resident marsh and waterbirds are great blue heron, little 

blue heron, white ibis, glossy /white-faced ibis, great egrets, snowy egrets, tricolored herons, yellowcrowned night-herons, and black-crowned night-herons. The refuge serves as a staging area for 

many passerine birds during migration, and large concentrations of shorebirds are sometimes 

observed feeding in the mudflats. 

Because of the lack of high ground, no large numbers of mammals exist on Delta, but a few whitetailed deer, rabbits, and raccoons survive the harsh environment. Nutria is probably the most 

abundant mammal on the refuge. 

In the past, Breton NWR has supported large colonies of colonial nesting seabirds and still provides 

some nesting habitat, although very limited in comparison to previous years. Before hurricane 

Katrina, terns numbered 35,000 to 50,000 nests; brown pelicans averaged 6,000 to 8,000 nests and 

peaked at approximately 12,000 nests; and black skimmers averaged 3,000 nests. In the nesting 

seasons following Katrina, terns numbered 7,000 nests; brown pelicans produced 2,500 nests; and 

black skimmers numbered 450-500 nests in 2007. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There are no known cultural resources on Delta or Breton NWRs. Geologically, Delta NWR is 

relatively young and since formation little to no human habitation or development has occurred. 

Infrastructure has been associated with the oil and gas industry. Early settlements and a lighthouse 

that were constructed on the Chandeleur Islands were destroyed by past severe weather events. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Delta NWR is not located near any urban centers; the closest town is Venice, which is across the 

Mississippi River from actual Refuge lands. The Refuge is in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana’s most 

southern parish, where the Mississippi River meets the Gulf of Mexico. There are no incorporated 

communities anywhere within the parish. The parish is bisected by the Mississippi River. Most of the 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

population is distributed along a narrow band of land on each bank of the river. Sources of income 

are the seafood industry, the off-shore oil industry, shipping, and citrus groves. Millions of pounds of 

shrimp, oysters, crab and fish are produced annually by the commercial fishing industry. The parish 

is also considered a “sportsman’s paradise” for sports fishing. Encompassing seventy miles of the 

Mississippi River, Plaquemines Parish is the eighth largest port in the United States and is noted for 

exporting coal, petro-chemicals, and grain. In 2005, the parish population was 28,995 and the 2003 

median income was $38,173 for a household. In August of 2005, the entire parish was devastated by 

Hurricane Katrina which caused extensive structural damages and flooding, major losses to the 

commercial fishing industry, and a substantial decrease in population. The decrease is not from 

hurricane related deaths so much as from people not returning to the area after evacuating. 

Residents are trickling back as housing and other infrastructure is repaired or replaced, but major 

questions remain about levee protection and the viability of local communities. 

Breton NWR is a remote chain of islands off the Louisiana and Mississippi mainland and is 

considered part of Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, LA. St. Bernard Parish contains no 

incorporated communities, but is immediately adjacent to New Orleans. Many of the communities 

have rich historical backgrounds which began as large sugar cane plantations. Seventy-four percent 

of the parish is some form of wetland and approximately two-thirds of the parish is surrounded by 

water. In the past, economic activities were associated with wildlife, fisheries, and agricultural 

pursuits, but within the past thirty to forty years, economic development has become based more on 

suburban and industrial activities in support of New Orleans. The 2005 population of the parish was 

65,364 and in 2003 the median household income was $36,156. Later in 2005, Hurricane Katrina 

flooded the entire parish when the massive 25’ storm surge coursed through Lake Borgne and the 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a shipping channel. The 14 to 15’ high levees were destroyed and 

every structure in the parish was affected. In 2006, because of the effects of Hurricane Katrina, its 

population was estimated to be 25,489. The parish is presently in a phase of rebuilding and growth. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The major management activities on Delta and Breton NWRs include wetland restoration projects, 

law enforcement, wildlife monitoring, and monitoring oil and gas operations. Marsh restoration 

projects on Delta NWR mainly rely on creating emergent marsh through crevasses (breaches in the 

natural levee). Water flowing through the crevasse carries sediments which are deposited in the 

shallow ponds behind the levee. Over time, the splays created by the deposited sediments become 

vegetated. The majority of the crevasses are funded by mitigation dollars paid by oil and gas 

companies in compensation for loss of wetlands. No sediment carrying currents are available for 

restoration on the islands. Beach nourishment is possible only if dredged materials from a nearby 

source are available because transportation costs are prohibitive. 

At present, no law enforcement position exists for Delta and Breton, although law enforcement staff 

from the Complex patrol the areas periodically and partner with LDWF agents for coverage of the 

Refuges. Law enforcement issues involve oil and gas concerns, illegal hunting and commercial 

fishing, general trespassing, and controlled substance use. Monitoring of wildlife is restricted to 

winter waterfowl surveys, summer bird colony and production assessments, periodic alligator 

surveys, and coordination with universities in conducting specific wildlife related studies. Monitoring 

oil and gas activities requires diligence and is very time consuming. Duties involve not only 

emergency procedures and supervision during spills, but dealing with legal matters after spill events, 

and constant permitting and mitigation actions for ongoing activities such as flowline routes 

 
22 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

(installation and removal), night activities, equipment use, drilling, seismic exploration, and plugging 

and abandonment of structures. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Both Refuges are accessible by boat only. Hunting and fishing are the primary public uses on these 

Refuges. Delta NWR is open to waterfowl, archery deer, and rabbit hunting. Sport fishing is 

permitted year-round during day-light hours, and only after 12:00 pm in the waterfowl hunting areas 

during the state waterfowl hunting season. Species caught most are freshwater catfish, largemouth 

bass, and sunfish during the spring and speckled trout and redfish in the fall. 

Public use on the islands centers on fishing for speckled trout and redfish from the beaches and in 

the shallow waters, and primitive camping associated with fishing. Both Refuges offer excellent bird 

watching opportunities, but due to inaccessibility, few bird and other wildlife observation visits are 

made. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

Refuge personnel are not assigned solely to Delta or Breton NWRs, but rather support all eight 

refuges in the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex. Six positions share responsibility for Delta, 

Breton, and Bayou Sauvage Refuges. The Complex staff consists of 27 permanent full-time 

employees (see staffing chart, Chapter V). The Refuges also benefit from the help of interns and 

volunteers. Most Complex staff work out of the headquarters office in Lacombe, LA. A satellite office 

for Delta and Breton is located in Venice, LA. One maintenance staff position works out of the Venice 

office. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

III. Plan Development 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns and opportunities related to fish and 

wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered 

species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as 

applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining 

public input through public scoping meetings and personal comments. All public and advisory team 

comments were considered, however some issues important to the public fall outside the scope of the 

decisions to be made within this planning process. The team has considered all issues that arose 

through this planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing 

opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best 

professional judgment, are most significant to the Refuge. A summary of the significant issues for 

Delta and Breton Refuges follows. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT - DELTA NWR 

Delta NWR is recognized as an important area for migratory birds. For migratory waterfowl, an 

average of 35,000 (peaks of 60-80,000) snow geese and 80-90,000 (peaks of 100-150,000) ducks 

have historically used the area during winter. Many more ducks, especially blue-winged teal, migrate 

through in fall and spring. Snow geese and northern pintail are the most numerous of the high priority 

wintering waterfowl species utilizing the Refuge. About 65% of the Refuge provides sanctuary that is 

critical in an area that is heavily hunted for waterfowl. A portion of the Refuge is open for waterfowl 

hunting four mornings a week during the state waterfowl season. It is possible that the snow geese 

wintering on the Mississippi River delta are a subpopulation that may have unique morphological 

features and perhaps remain somewhat isolated from the large population during reproduction and 

migration as it does on the wintering grounds. Delta NWR is an open system with no controlled 

water management. Wintering populations are closely tied to availability of natural food resources; 

no direct waterfowl management other than habitat management is possible. 

Delta NWR is an important area in the eastern half of Louisiana for mottled ducks. Nesting is 

reportedly boom or bust depending on river stages in the spring. Although mottled ducks are 

common on the Refuge in summer, there are few documented nests. Delta NWR could be a 

contributor to mottled duck population management efforts by participating in the preseason banding 

program and managing vegetation on the spoil banks and dredge spoil sites to develop and maintain 

better mottled duck nesting habitat. 

The shallow water and mudflat habitats of Delta NWR attract shorebirds, marsh birds, and wading 

birds. The location of the Refuge makes it one of the first and last land forms available to trans-gulf 

migrant songbirds. Management to encourage the development of trees would be beneficial and 

could be replanted following devastating hurricanes. 

The Mississippi River delta is one of the largest, most productive estuaries in the world. The area 

supports a wide variety of fish from fresh to salt tolerant depending on the time of the year and is an 

important nursery area. 
24 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Currently a small number of wildlife surveys and monitoring programs are implemented on the 

Refuge. Waterfowl surveys are conducted during winter months and occasionally alligator surveys 

are accomplished in the fall. Specific knowledge of wildlife resources including migratory songbirds, 

fish resources, and mottled ducks has been gained through research conducted in cooperation with 

universities and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT - BRETON NWR 

Breton NWR, including the Chandeleur Island chain, has been designated as a Globally Important 

Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy in association with The Nature Conservancy. 

Historically, Breton NWR has supported thousands of colonial nesting birds. Large nesting colonies 

of brown pelicans; laughing gulls; and royal, Caspian and sandwich terns used the islands. Less 

abundant, but still in impressive numbers were nesting black skimmers and sooty terns, with 

occasional common, least, Forster’s and gullbilled terns within the colonies. Hurricanes and tropical 

storms have been devastating to the fragile island chain. In the past the storms and hurricanes would 

significantly rearrange the islands, but usually the bird colonies would rebound as the dynamic 

islands rebuilt after storms. After the destructive 2005 hurricane season which included Katrina and 

Rita, it is doubtful the islands will ever regain enough land above the waterline to provide safe nesting 

sites for significant numbers of birds. All nesting colonies are posted as closed areas where they 

occur. 

The Eastern and Caribbean subspecies of the brown pelican remains endangered in California, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Texas, Virgin Islands, Washington, Central and South 

America. It was extirpated from Louisiana during the 1960’s and later reintroduced at three sites, one 

of which was North Island of the Chandeleurs. The Louisiana population grew exponentially after the 

reintroductions and Breton NWR had the largest number of nesting pelicans in the state for a period 

of time. In order to learn more about nesting site fidelity and migratory movements of the Breton 

NWR brown pelicans, 6,700 juvenile brown pelicans were banded from 2000 through 2004. Several 

adults were monitored by satellite telemetry placed on them in 2004. Both the banding and satellite 

telemetry studies were discontinued after the devastation of nesting habitat by hurricanes in 2005. 

Wading birds such as reddish and snowy egrets, clapper rails, white ibis, and herons such as 

Louisiana, black-crowned night, and little blue have been observed in small rookeries in the past. 

Red-winged blackbirds also nest on the islands. A non-breeding group of magnificent frigate birds 

persistently resides near North Island. 

Waterfowl, primarily redhead and scaup, use the islands as a wintering and migration stop-over site. 

The Chandeleur Islands are one of only four Gulf of Mexico wintering grounds for redheads, which 

primarily winter where they can feed in the seagrass beds. Aerial survey records from 1992 through 

2004 document a high of 166,000 ducks, which were primarily scaup. Average numbers for 

redheads have been approximately 10,000, with highs of up to 20,000. A small number of 

buffelhead, gadwall, and blue-winged teal have been observed using the shallows and sounds 

adjacent to the islands and interior marshes for feeding and protection during inclement weather. 

There is never a time when small shorebirds are absent from the sandy beaches which supply 

foraging habitat. Federally listed as threatened and endangered in 1985, the piping plover is 

considered threatened throughout its wintering range along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and 

Caribbean beaches and barrier islands. Breton is internationally recognized as a critically important 

wintering site for the piping plover by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

Presently, no special management considerations are made on Breton NWR because of the 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

remoteness and lack of visitation during winter. Shorebirds of interest observed on Breton NWR are 

Wilson’s plover, American oystercatcher, snowy plover, dowitchers, sanderling, dunlin, red knot, and 

least and western sandpipers. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT - DELTA NWR 

Located at the mouth of the Mississippi River, Delta NWR is part of the active delta, a dynamic 

system that is vulnerable to natural forces including salinity fluctuation, seasonally high volumes of 

fresh water and sediment, subsidence, and frequent and sometimes very severe storms. The most 

critical issue facing the Refuge is land loss due to subsidence, erosion, major storm events, sea level 

rise, salt-water intrusion, and the proposed abandonment of the existing delta from restoration 

projects upriver. 

For the past several decades, the Refuge staff has implemented the crevasse program to counter the 

land loss. Cuts (crevasses) in the natural levee are strategically located so that water from the 

Mississippi River and its distributaries spills through the cuts and deposits sediment in shallow bays. 

The sediment builds to form splays or mudflats that are quickly vegetated and become emergent 

marsh. Opportunities to use this method have been largely exhausted for the most effective 

locations. Other options, methods or locations should be explored. Beneficial deposition of dredged 

materials available from dredging the Mississippi River is one option to be investigated. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT - BRETON NWR 

During the past decade, vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and beach nourishment using materials 

dredged from the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) were methods used to assist rebuilding of the 

islands. Results were positive with accumulations of up to 4’ of sand in some locations. Although the 

long-term projection for the future of the islands was still problematic, the success of these 

management actions gave hope for short-term elevation increases creating safer nesting areas. 

Based on early analyses it is believed that so much material was permanently removed from the 

island system with the strong hurricanes in 2005, that there isn’t enough material to rebuild the 

islands which is what occurred after storms in the past. A source of dredged materials for island 

rebuilding has been the MRGO, however, it is generally thought that the MRGO increased the 

velocity of Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge, thus increasing damages to infrastructure in its path. All 

dredging has been halted and the opposition to its existence as a shipping channel has increased 

significantly. This source of beneficial spoil for future nourishment of Breton Island is doubtful. 

Given the current circumstances, future habitat management depends on the amount and sources of 

sediment and funding available, and any new technologies which can be developed. The Service 

has contracted with USGS to obtain information on sediment loss at the Chandeleurs and the 

availability of suitable dredge material for restoration. This information will be used to determine the 

feasibility of restoration options and the sustainability of restoration efforts. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION - DELTA NWR 

The oil and gas operations on the Refuge began in 1942 and continue today with five operators and 

three major pipelines (Figure 6). The fields producing the oil and gas have considerable age on the 

equipment and flowlines. This requires constant monitoring by Refuge staff. Releases or spill events 

have occurred numerous times and have the potential to impact huge numbers of waterfowl and large 

expanses of habitat if not controlled immediately. Working with the Coast Guard, Refuge staff must 

determine the best approach to clean up spills. In addition, violations pertaining to illegal hunting and 

fishing, general trespassing and controlled substances are prosecuted. 
26 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 6. Location of oil and gas pipelines on Delta National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

RESOURCE PROTECTION - BRETON NWR 

Law enforcement is involved with every release or spill event involving oil and gas on the Refuge. 

They work cooperatively with the State of Louisiana and other Federal Agencies to investigate each 

event to determine if charges will be filed. Other violations involve illegal fishing. 

VISITOR SERVICES - DELTA NWR 

Hunting and fishing are traditional recreational uses in Louisiana and are the primary reasons the 

public visits the Refuge. The Refuge is accessible by boat only and travel may be hazardous due to 

the required crossing of the Mississippi River channel where rough water, fog and swells from ships 

and crew boats are common. Most hunting is for waterfowl. Deer hunting is minimal since the deer 

population is small and limited small game hunting is attempted. A portion of the Refuge is open to 

waterfowl hunting until noon on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays during the state 

teal, general waterfowl, and special “light” goose conservation seasons (Figure 7). 

An archery deer either sex hunting season is offered during October and after the close of the 

waterfowl season. Rabbits can be hunted using shotguns and dogs during the state season after the 

end of the waterfowl season. These hunts have been offered for many years and presently there are 

no critical issues or reasons for any changes. This Draft CCP includes discontinuing primitive 

camping because no adequate areas exist. 

Sport fishing is allowed year-round during daylight hours except in the area open for waterfowl 

hunting; in the Refuge waterfowl hunting area, fishing is permitted only after noon during the state 

waterfowl hunting seasons. Most months the Refuge waters are muddy with only bass and catfish 

being caught. When the Mississippi River is low and brackish water flows into the Refuge during fall 

and early winter, speckled trout and redfish come into the Refuge. No commercial fishing is allowed. 

The Refuge headquarters for Delta NWR is located in Venice, LA. The headquarters consists of office 

space, boat and equipment storage, and a maintenance area all located inside a security fence. 

There are no public restrooms or visitor center. A kiosk offering general information was located 

outside the gate, but was destroyed by hurricane Katrina in 2005. Developing an outdoor visitor 

contact area at the Venice site would provide important outreach information. 

VISITOR SERVICES - BRETON NWR 

Due to the remoteness of the islands, public use opportunities are limited. The primary public use is 

recreational fishing. Charter fishing boats are available for users to visit the refuge. Adjacent state 

waters are open for waterfowl hunting, but the number of waterfowl hunters is minimal. A small 

number of visitors enjoy bird watching and photography; the number of trips for these uses is very 

few. This Draft CCP includes discontinuing primitive camping on the islands. Primitive camping has 

been permitted in the past. Due to the extreme loss of land and the critical need for feeding, loafing, 

and nesting areas by colonial seabirds on the remaining land above water, camping will not be 

allowed until sufficient land area is available to accommodate the needs of wildlife and camping. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION - DELTA AND BRETON NWR 

Presently six positions cover the administration of Delta, Breton and Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife 

Refuges with support from other staff of Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex. All Delta refuge staff 

but one are stationed at the complex headquarters in Lacombe, LA, a two-hour drive from the Venice 

sub-office. A maintenance worker works full-time out of the Venice sub-office. 
28 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 7. Location of areas open to waterfowl hunting on Delta National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Funding is administered through Southeast Louisiana Refuges as part of the complex; neither Delta 

nor Breton NWR have separate budgets. Mitigation funds based on payments by private companies 

for loss of wetlands during oil and gas operations occurring on the Delta NWR provide partial 

financing for habitat restoration and monitoring efforts on Delta NWR. 

 

Wilderness Review 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The results of the wilderness review are included in Section C, Appendix H. 
30 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. 

A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is for the Service to 

maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are 

appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation are therefore emphasized in this plan. 

Described below is the proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan for managing the Refuges over 

the next 15 years. This proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and 

strategies that will be used to achieve the vision of each Refuge. 

Three alternatives for managing each Refuge were considered. Because different alternatives were 

considered for Delta and Breton Refuges, these alternatives will be listed and discussed separately. 

Each set of alternatives is described in the Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment. 

ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGING DELTA NWR 

The three alternatives considered for managing Delta NWR are as follows: 

A - No Action (Current Management) 

B - User-Focused Management 

C - Improved Habitat Restoration and Public Outreach Management (Proposed) 

Each of these alternatives is described in the Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment 

(Section B). The Service chose Alternative C (Improved Habitat Restoration and Public Outreach 

Management) as the proposed management direction. 

Implementing the proposed alternative will result in expanding current habitat restoration efforts to 

include not only interior marsh, but also Gulf shoreline; activities open to the public will remain at 

present levels with the exception of eliminating the primitive camping location; public outreach will be 

improved with kiosks and a wayside exhibit, updated brochures and maps, and establishing 

communication with and providing information within the school systems and in surrounding parishes. 

VISION FOR DELTA NWR 

Delta National Wildlife Refuge will continue to serve as a haven of prime habitat managed for the 

conservation and preservation of migratory birds and other wildlife. The Refuge will serve as a 

showcase of land management stewardship and coastal habitat restoration, demonstrating a balance 

between intensive wildlife management strategies and safeguarding the Refuge’s ecological integrity. 

Visitors to the Refuge will enjoy a quality outdoor experience centered on the traditional uses of 

hunting and fishing, while cultivating a conservation ethic that promotes stewardship of this and other 

important wildlife habitat. 
32 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES FOR DELTA NWR 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented for Delta NWR are the Service’s response to the 

issues, concerns and needs expressed by the planning team, the Refuge staff and partners, and the 

public and are presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the 

projects associated with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Delta National Wildlife Refuge. With adequate 

staffing and funding as outlined in Chapter V, Plan Implementation, the Service intends to accomplish 

these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT (DELTA NWR) 

Goal 1. Manage, preserve and restore the physical and ecological functions of coastal 

wetland habitats for fish and wildlife resources.

Discussion: Delta NWR is located in the active Mississippi River delta and contains marsh, shallow 

ponds, channels, and bayous. Trees and scrub/shrub habitat exist on the higher ground along the 

banks of passes and the river. These lands are formed from sediments deposited from the water as it 

drains toward the Gulf. The natural levees and embankments slope gradually away from the water 

flow and quickly give way to large, open water ponds and mudflats. 

Objective 1.1: Continue to maintain quality interior emergent marsh and initiate a restoration 

program that focuses on restoration of the Gulf shoreline which will aid in protecting interior marsh. 

Discussion: The land forming Delta NWR is new geologically. This dynamic system is vulnerable to 

natural forces such as salinity fluctuation, seasonally high volumes of fresh water and sediment, 

subsidence, and frequent and sometimes very severe storms. Water within the river system is fresh, 

but becomes more brackish toward Breton Sound and the Gulf of Mexico. The most critical issue 

facing the Refuge is land loss due to subsidence, erosion, major storm events, sea level rise, and 

salt-water intrusion. Refuge staff has been effectively countering these natural forces by strategically 

locating crevasses (cuts) through the natural levees. During high river stages, water from the 

Mississippi River spills through the crevasses and deposits sediment in shallow bays, creating first 

submerged mud flats that are quickly vegetated by submerged aquatics and later by emergent marsh 

plants as elevation increases. Creation of delta splays has been a very effective technique to build 

interior marsh, but opportunities to use this method have largely been exhausted. The Refuge 

continues to search for other locations and options for marsh creation and protection, one of which is 

to use beneficial deposition of dredged materials along the Breton Sound and Gulf of Mexico 

shoreline. This area is experiencing rapid erosion and subsidence since it is further from the river’s 

sediment source and bears the brunt of severe weather events. 

Strategies: 

• Proactively seek funding and partners, and explore new technologies for restoration projects 

such as dedicated dredge disposal to rebuild the Gulf shoreline 

• Continue to monitor existing crevasses, reconstruct vital crevasses that have silted in, and 

identify potential sites for new crevasses 

• Develop a Habitat Management Plan by 2018 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

• Seek research opportunities through universities, conservation agencies, and other interested 

parties 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT (DELTA NWR) 

Goal 2. Manage, preserve and protect coastal fish and wildlife species with special emphasis 

on migratory birds and threatened and endangered species.

Discussion: Based on its location and habitat, Delta NWR is recognized as an important area for 

migratory birds including many species of waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, gulls and 

terns, and songbirds. The Refuge is one of the first and last land forms available to trans-gulf 

migrants. Refuge resources provide critical cover and foraging areas to resident species such as 

mottled ducks, nesting marsh and wading birds such as rails, bitterns, herons and ibis. 

 

Objective 2.1: Protect and monitor federal trust species and targeted species of management 

concern and interest. 

Discussion: The Service is the principle federal agency charged with protecting and enhancing more 

than 800 species of migratory birds that spend all or part of their lives in the U.S. In addition, the 

Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries share 

responsibility for administration of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which combines both U.S. 

and foreign species. “Trust species” for the Service are those covered by the many laws and 

mandates designating federal responsibility for their protection and conservation. In addition, plans 

such as bird conservation plans for waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, etc. contain lists of birds of 

concern which are targeted for management purposes. Management programs on Delta NWR target 

those migratory and resident birds that depend on marsh, mud-flats, and other habitats occurring on 

the Refuge. No critical habitat or federally listed threatened or endangered species reside on the 

Refuge, although some species may use the area temporarily. 

Strategies: 

• Continue monthly waterfowl surveys during November through February, and the mid-winter 

waterfowl survey 

• Continue to maintain a closed area “sanctuary” to provide protection and rest for wintering and 

migrating waterfowl 

• Provide nesting, brood rearing and molting habitat for mottled ducks with material from 

dedicated dredging and protect nests from predators 

• Partner with LDWF in surveying, monitoring nesting and broods, and banding mottled ducks 

• Continue to monitor bird rookeries 

• Initiate secretive marsh bird surveys 

• Initiate predator control to protect nesting birds 

• Monitor shorebirds and other neotropical migrants during peak migration periods 

• Continue monitoring and research projects on alligators, deer, and other endemic species 

• Continue to monitor exotic species such as nutria and assess any related environmental 

damage 

• Create and maintain data bases on research and monitoring projects 

• Monitor any occurrences or reports of threatened or endangered species 

• Periodically monitor fisheries 

• Revise the Wildlife Inventory Plan by 2022 
34 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

VISITOR SERVICES (DELTA NWR) 

Goal 3. Provide the public with quality recreation activities, environmental education, 

interpretation, and outreach opportunities that lead to enjoyment and greater understanding 

of and appreciation for the fish, wildlife, cultural resources, and natural systems of the 

Mississippi River delta system. 

Discussion: Other than the office in Venice, access to the Refuge is restricted to boat and can be 

hazardous due to rough water, fog and the wakes caused by other large vessels such as ships and 

crew boats traveling the Mississippi River. After navigating the busy Mississippi River to reach the 

Refuge, the visitor must travel an intricate and often confusing network of canals, passes, and 

marshes. Most visitor use centers on hunting and fishing. While Delta NWR attracts waterfowl 

hunters from a wide geographic area, fishing is more limited. During most months Refuge waters are 

muddy and mainly bass and catfish are caught. However, in the fall when the Mississippi River is low 

and brackish water flows into the Refuge, speckled trout and redfish can be caught and fishing visits 

increase. Non-consumptive uses are offered during daylight hours, but because of difficult access, 

few visits are made specifically for wildlife observation and photography. Wildlife observation is an 

incidental use that occurs in association with hunting and fishing and while traveling through the 

Refuge to the Gulf. No roads or hiking trails exist on the Refuge. 

Objective 3.1: Offer visitors fresh and salt water recreational fishing, recreational crabbing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and hunting for waterfowl, deer, rabbit, and hogs. (Hogs may be taken 

with bow and arrow during deer archery season.) 

Discussion: Hunting and fishing regulations specific to the Refuge are available in a brochure that is 

obtainable online, at the Lacombe and Venice offices, and can be mailed by request. Hunters are 

required to have in their possession a signed refuge hunting regulations brochure which serves as a 

refuge hunt permit. Sport fishing is allowed year-round during daylight hours with the exception that 

during the State waterfowl hunting season, fishing is only permitted after 12:00 pm in the hunting 

areas 

Strategies: 

 

• Continue waterfowl hunting on Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday mornings; 

archery deer hunting; marsh bird harvest; and rabbit hunting 

• Review and update hunt plans as required 

• Maintain the recreational fishing program, with additional outreach on kiosks at area marinas 

to promote fishing opportunities on the Refuge and familiarize anglers with species found 

seasonally 

Objective 3.2: Improve visitor services and the outreach program. 

Discussion: Because of the lack of access to the Refuge and the limited facilities on site, 

environmental education and outreach activities involve Refuge staff going to schools and providing 

materials, exhibits, etc. to the public. All informational facilities at the Venice office were destroyed by 

Hurricane Katrina. Historically, little to no staff is present at the Refuge; it is 8 miles from the Venice 

office and a 2-hour drive from the Lacombe headquarters. Presently, one person works out of the 

Venice office. For security purposes, the building is located behind a fence with the gate locked 

when staff is not present. Improving methods of communication and accessibility to refuge 

information within limited options is desirable. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Strategies: 

• Write a Visitor Services Plan by 2013 

• Initiate an environmental education/outreach program in the form of classroom presentations 

about Delta NWR to be offered in Plaquemines and surrounding Parishes. Augment with 

items such as a “traveling trunk” which teachers can arrange to borrow and which would 

feature hands-on items such as furs, skulls, water and silt samples, duck wings, etc. to 

illustrate Refuge resources 

• Complete the Delta NWR interactive CD Rom project and distribute copies to area schools 

and teachers 

• Install interpretive and orientation kiosk and wayside exhibits at the Venice headquarters 

building to orient visitors to Delta NWR and the primary resources 

• Place visitor information kiosks with Delta NWR information at the commercial marinas in the 

Venice area; consider partnering with LDWF at Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area 

• Develop a Delta NWR Refuge brochure and/or tear sheet with map 

• Regularly update and improve Refuge information on the web site 

• Explore web-based interaction methods between visitors and law enforcement such as wildlife 

sightings, bag reports, or current Refuge conditions and regulations 

• Explore setting up and offering a special wildlife viewing tour or opportunity, possibly in 

conjunction with the Friends of Louisiana Refuges, LDWF, or sponsored by a local oil field 

related business that might have boats available 

 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND PROTECTION (DELTA NWR) 

Goal 4: Provide sufficient administration and protection to conserve trust resources on Delta 

NWR.

Discussion: Delta NWR is administered as one of eight refuges under the Southeast Louisiana 

Refuge Complex. Presently six staff members share direct responsibility for Delta, Breton, and 

Bayou Sauvage Refuges with assistance from approximately 20 other staff members working on the 

Complex of refuges. One of the six positions, a maintenance position, is located out of the Venice 

office and the rest work out of the Complex headquarters in Lacombe, LA. Law enforcement is an 

important tool for protection of the natural resources of the Refuge as is supervision of the intensive 

oil and gas activities occurring on the Refuge. To develop and increase outreach, environmental 

education, and interpretation is time consuming; improved communication with the public will require 

consistency and follow-up. 

Objective 4.1: Enforce all Federal and State laws applicable to the Refuge 

Discussion: No law enforcement position is dedicated to patrolling the Refuge. The four Refuge 

officers working on the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, along with assistance from agents of 

LDWF, intermittently check Delta NWR. Most violations involve hunting out of season, using lead 

shot, over possession and controlling commercial activities. 

 

Strategies: 

• Update the Law Enforcement Plan by 2012 

• Hire a full time law enforcement officer to share with Breton NWR 

• Continue to partner with LDWF to provide protection to resources and visitors 

• Maintain Refuge boundaries by posting or inspecting 20% of the boundary annually 
36 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Objective 4.2: Follow national Service policies for managing oil and gas activities on a 

national wildlife refuge. 

Discussion: Oil and gas activities on Delta NWR are among the most complex of any national 

wildlife refuge, with an active and spread-out field of operations and aging infrastructure. The issue is 

further complicated by the existence of a mix of mineral ownerships, which change frequently. 

Monitoring and permitting these activities claim a significant portion of management time and 

resources. Spills and other accidents only complicate an already challenging responsibility. 

Strategies: 

• Work with the Service Regional Office Realty personnel and Bureau of Land Management to 

clarify federal mineral ownership and authorities 

• Monitor oil and gas activities; use Special Use Permits to set conditions in area of nonfederal 

mineral ownership 

• Use mitigation to lessen impacts 

• Continue to work with the U.S. Coast Guard, the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinators Office, and 

the legal system in the event of oil spills 

Objective 4.3: Maintain refuge equipment in good condition and appearance. 

Discussion: More than $3,000,000 worth of capitalized equipment exists for the Refuge Complex of 

eight refuges to be used in all aspects of refuge administration, including habitat, wildlife, public use, 

and protection projects and management. Equipment is shared among the refuges instead of being 

assigned solely to one refuge. Project efficiency depends largely on age, condition, and maintenance 

of the equipment needed to get work projects accomplished. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain a current data base containing all capitalized equipment and a maintenance 

schedule 

• Replace or purchase additional equipment as needed in order to have well-maintained and 

working equipment for all force account (Refuge staff) work planned 

ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGING BRETON NWR 

The three alternatives considered for managing Breton NWR are as follows: 

A - No Action (Current Management) 

B - Custodial Management 

C - Large-scale Habitat Restoration and Improved Public Outreach Management (Proposed) 

Each of these alternatives is described in the Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment 

(Section B). The Service chose Alternative C (Large-scale Habitat Restoration and Improved Public 

Outreach Management) as the proposed management direction. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Implementing the proposed alternative will result in partnering with other conservation agencies and 

large corporations to carry out restoration projects based on dedicated dredging, vegetation 

restoration, and exploring landscape scale efforts to restore the barrier islands. Activities open to the 

public will remain at present levels with the exception of eliminating primitive camping. Public 

outreach will be improved with kiosks and a wayside exhibit at the Venice headquarters, updated 

brochures and maps, and establishing communication with and providing information within the 

school system and surrounding parishes. 

VISION FOR BRETON NWR 

Breton National Wildlife Refuge was the second NWR established by President Teddy Roosevelt and 

the only refuge that he actually visited. It will continue to serve the purpose for which it was 

established, which is to provide habitat for the conservation and preservation of colonial nesting 

seabirds and other wildlife. The wilderness character of the refuge will be maintained. The Refuge 

will partner with other agencies, organizations, and individuals to protect and restore the fragile and 

dynamic coastal barrier island habitat. Public use will emphasize fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography on the refuge; outreach will focus on interpretation and environmental education 

programs based on Breton’s natural resources. Visitors to the Refuge will enjoy a quality outdoor 

experience resulting in an enhanced appreciation for wildlife and their habitats and for the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES FOR BRETON NWR 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented for Breton NWR are the Service’s response to the 

issues, concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the Refuge staff and partners, and the 

public and are presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the 

projects associated with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Breton National Wildlife Refuge. With adequate 

staffing and funding as outlined in Chapter V, Plan Implementation, the Service intends to accomplish 

these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT (BRETON NWR) 

Goal 5. Manage, conserve, and, if feasible, restore the physical and ecological functions of 

barrier island habitats for fish and wildlife resources. 

Discussion: The islands are highly dynamic and constantly evolving. The most influential effect on 

the islands is their transformations resulting from strong storms and overwash. Over the years, 

hurricanes and severe storms have changed the face of the islands in both dramatic and subtle ways. 

Severe storms in recent history have resulted in significant loss of the land existing above water such 

as Hurricane Andrew (1992), Hurricane Danny (1998), Hurricane Georges (1998), Tropical Storm 

Isidore (2002), Hurricane Lili (2002), and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005). Usually, there is poststorm recovery to some extent. After the devastating 2005 storm season, serious concerns now exist 

regarding the amount of recovery possible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

recently concluded that warming of the climate is undeniable and could cause changes in our 

stewardship of land. Examples of potential changes are frequency of extreme weather events and 

rising sea levels at coastal refuges. At this point in 2007, it is difficult to set specific wildlife habitat 

goals. Refuge staff has learned from the past that small-scale restoration projects can no longer 
38 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

achieve lasting benefits. It will take working in partnership with others to achieve large-scale and 

costly restoration of the barrier islands. Information to be provided by USGS on sediment loss and 

the availability of suitable dredge material will be used to determine the feasibility of restoration 

options. 

Objective 5.1: Monitor and maintain island habitat with large-scale restoration projects. 

 

Strategies: 

• Develop and maintain partners such as USGS, TNC, UNO, Gulf of Mexico Foundation, 

Conoco Phillips, Shell Oil, and local schools for conservation projects 

• Seek funding and partners for dedicated dredge disposal projects to create 2,000 acres of 

restored sandy beach and bayside emergent habitat 

• If restoration is successful or land rebuilds, proactively search for funding and partners for 

sand fencing and vegetative planting projects. Construct approximately 1,000 linear feet 

of sand fencing and plant 20,000 plants of species such as sea oats, bitter panicum, 

seaside blue stem, and additional appropriate species for the site 

• Participate in landscape level coastal initiatives such as CWPPRA, LCA, CIAP, and Coast 

2050 

Objective 5.2: Protect the islands that are under Wilderness status in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the Wilderness Act of 1954. 

Discussion: On January 3, 1975, Chandeleur and the west Breton Islands became part of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. The Breton Wilderness, according to the Clean Air Act, is 

listed as a Class 1 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Area. This means that the islands are given 

special consideration and protection from pollutants. The main result of this designation is the 

responsibility of new point sources to consult with the Service on proposed releases and how these 

releases will impact the overall air quality ‘budget’ for the area of the Refuge. Refuge personnel work 

closely with the Air Quality Branch of the Service located in Lakewood, Colorado on this issue. 

The 1964 Wilderness Act, directly and by reference in subsequent wilderness legislation, generally 

prohibits commercial activities, motorized access, and roads, structures, and facilities in units of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Objective 5.3: Seek research possibilities with universities and conservation agencies such as 

USGS and DNR. 

Discussion: The Service has partnered in the past with such agencies as DNR, COE, and the 

Coastal Research Lab at the University of New Orleans for restoration projects and resource 

information needs, and will continue in the future to seek partners to sponsor and support beneficial 

projects. 

Objective 5.4: Develop a Habitat Management Plan by 2018. 

A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is one of several step-down plans developed in conjunction with 

a CCP for refuges. The HMP provides a detailed description of all refuge habitats; identifies refuge 

priority species, species groups, and communities, and their habitat requirements; assesses the 

refuge’s potential contribution to the habitat needs of the resources of concern and reconciles 

conflicts among them; and, develops desired habitat goals and objectives. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT (BRETON NWR) 

Goal 6. Manage, preserve and protect coastal fish and wildlife species with special emphasis 

on migratory birds, colonial nesting waterbirds, and threatened and endangered species. 

Discussion: Because of their location, the islands serve as habitat for many migratory bird species 

either for an entire season or only a matter of hours or days. The islands give refuge to migrants on a 

regular basis or may serve as a haven to birds blown off course and not following normal migration 

patterns. Breton NWR, including the Chandeleur Islands chain, has been designated as a Globally 

Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy in association with The Nature Conservancy. 

The Refuge is used by ducks, primarily redhead and scaup, as a wintering and migration stop-over 

site. The Chandeleur Islands are one of only four Gulf of Mexico wintering grounds for redhead, 

which primarily winter where they can feed in the seagrass beds. 

In the past, large colonies of nesting brown pelicans, laughing gulls, black skimmers, and royal, 

Caspian, sandwich, sooty, common, least Forster’s, and gullbilled terns used the islands. It is 

unknown if the islands will rebuild or be restored to the extent that the colonies can return. 

Threatened and endangered species using the Refuge are the eastern brown pelican (nesting) and 

the piping plover (wintering). Several species of sea turtles are commonly observed in the vicinity of 

the Refuge and are considered threatened or endangered, depending on the species. The most 

common of these is the loggerhead, but other species occur including green, leatherback, and 

Kemp’s ridley. 

Objective 6.1: Depending on the quantity and success of habitat restoration and recovery, continue 

to protect and monitor colonial nesting seabirds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, 

and other targeted species and species of federal responsibility. 

Discussion: The amount of biological projects that can be accomplished on the islands largely 

depends on whether or not any of the land and bird populations rebound after hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. If restoration is attempted and is successful, on-going projects underway before the storms can 

be resumed and expanded. Until that unknown issue is resolved, Refuge staff will continue to 

monitor developments. 

Strategies:

• If the brown pelican nesting population increases in response to habitat recovery and 

 restoration, resume banding juveniles and begin a telemetry study on adult brown pelicans 

• If the nesting population of terns increases in response to habitat recovery and restoration, 

 begin a banding program to determine migration patterns 

• Continue to conduct winter surveys of piping plover 

• Continue surveys of colonial nesting birds 

• Continue aerial waterfowl survey of wintering diving ducks 

• Monitor shore bird populations during peak migration periods 

• Monitor wading birds during peak breeding season 

• Record observations of sea turtles and any nesting activity 

• Develop and maintain a data base of survey information 

• Determine effective methods of and initiate predator control in ground nesting bird 

 colonies 
40 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

• Revise Breton’s wildlife inventory plan as part of Delta’s plan by 2022 

VISITOR SERVICES (BRETON NWR) 

Goal 7. Provide the public with quality recreational activities, environmental education, 

interpretation, and outreach opportunities that lead to enjoyment and greater understanding 

of, and appreciation for fish, wildlife, and barrier islands.

Discussion: Recreational activities on Breton revolve around fishing, principally wade fishing in the 

shallow waters. Access is either by boat or float plane. Disturbance to the nesting colonies is 

discouraged by posting them as closed to prevent anglers and other visitors from walking through the 

nesting birds. Wildlife observation and photography are allowed but are not common because of the 

harshness of the environment, remoteness, insects, and rapidly changing weather patterns. The 

Refuge does not offer transportation to the islands for any of the uses open to the public; visitors 

must rely on privately owned boats and charter fishing businesses. 

Objective 7.1: Maintain current visitor services and programs of fishing, wildlife observation, and 

photography, except in certain portions identified with “Area Closed” signs to protect bird nesting 

areas. Primitive camping will be discontinued. 

Discussion: Breton NWR was established over 100 years ago. At this time there are no plans to 

change management of the recreational uses other than the elimination of primitive camping because 

so little of the islands remain above water. 

Strategies:

• Maintain existing fishing program; partner with LDWF for enforcement of regulations 

• Explore possibilities of providing a tour of the islands for wildlife observation and interpretation 

as part of a Delta NWR special event 

• Develop a Visitor Services Plan as part of Delta NWR’s Visitor Service Plan within six years of 

CCP approval 

Objective 7.2: Improve the quality and quantity of information about Breton NWR offered to the 

public. 

Discussion: No facilities or staff exist on the islands and, as already discussed, access is limited. 

Therefore, most of the public does not experience the Refuge and what it has to offer. Information 

can be presented in association with Delta NWR. Although the two refuges are dissimilar in habitat, 

hydrology, and priority species, they are logistically close. Improving methods of communication and 

accessibility to Refuge information within limited options is desirable 

Strategies:

• Include information about Breton NWR at wayside panels and kiosk at Venice Headquarters 

• Improve and maintain current information on the web page and make it interactive so that 

information is two-way; include interpretative information 

• Update the Breton general refuge brochure as needed 

• Include maps on kiosks; place fishing information and maps at local marinas; place small 

kiosk or panel at marina including fish identification 

• Include information about the refuge system, colonial nesting birds and wading birds on kiosks 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

• Ensure staff located at the Delta/Breton office receive appropriate training to properly 

represent the Service to the public 

• Communicate key issues in articles in local newspapers, Plaquemines Parish special events 

and festivals, Southeast Louisiana Refuges headquarters and special events 

Objective 7.3: Improve environmental education program in conjunction with Delta NWR’s 

environmental education program. 

Discussion: Because of the lack of staff and access to the Refuge, environmental education and 

outreach activities involve Refuge staff going to schools and providing materials, exhibits, etc. to the 

public in venues such as festivals and other special events. 

Strategies:

• Develop classroom programs for students in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes 

• Conduct teacher workshops 

• Partner with corporations for funding of specific programs 

• Create a power point program on a CD with lesson plans for teachers 

Objective 7.4: Build a volunteer program. 

Discussion: In the past, Plaquemines Parish 4-H, school groups, corporations, and individuals 

assisted Refuge staff with restoration projects, banding pelicans, and beach sweeps, but all volunteer 

contacts ended when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the islands and adjacent parishes. The 

volunteer program needs to be rebuilt. 

Strategies:

• Detail Southeast Louisiana Refuges volunteers to Breton 

• Explore the possibility of finding retired teachers to assist with environmental education in 

schools 

• Orient Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Inc. to Breton and identify projects for them 

• Use students, youth, groups, and college interns to develop Grade Level Expectations (GLE) 

linked lesson plans and other projects 

• Continue to develop corporate sponsors to partner in creating environmental education 

educator kits 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND PROTECTION (BRETON NWR) 

Goal 8. Provide sufficient administration and protection to conserve trust resources on 

Breton NWR.

Discussion: Breton NWR is administered as one of eight refuges under the Southeast Louisiana 

Refuge Complex. Presently six staff members share direct responsibility for Delta, Breton, and 

Bayou Sauvage Refuges with assistance from approximately 20 other staff members working on the 

Complex of refuges. All personnel work out of the Complex headquarters in Lacombe, LA. Law 

enforcement is an important tool for protection of the natural resources of the Refuge. 
42 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Objective 8.1: Enforce all Federal and State laws applicable to the Refuge. 

Discussion: No law enforcement position is dedicated to patrolling the Refuge. The four Refuge 

officers working on the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, along with assistance from agents of 

LDWF, intermittently check Breton NWR. Most violations involve fishing violations. 

Strategies:

• Update Law Enforcement Plan by 2012 

• Hire a full time law enforcement officer to share with Delta NWR 

• Partner with LDWF to provide protection to resources and visitors 

• Maintain Refuge boundaries by posting or inspecting 20% of the boundary annually 

Objective 8.2: Follow national Service policies for managing oil and gas activities on a national 

wildlife refuge. 

Discussion: Compared to Delta NWR, oil and gas issues are not as complicated on Breton NWR. 

Ownership of minerals under the federally-owned islands belongs to the Service. Occasionally, 

requests are received regarding seismic and other exploratory methods in the area. Monitoring and 

enforcement is involved with every release or spill event that affects or potentially will affect the 

Refuge and its resources. 

Strategies:

• Monitor oil and gas activities; use Special Use Permits to set conditions 

• Use mitigation to lessen impacts 

• Continue to work with the U.S. Coast Guard, the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinators Office, and 

the legal system in the event of oil spills 

Objective 8.3: Maintain refuge equipment in good condition and appearance. 

Discussion: More than $3,000,000 worth of capitalized equipment exists for the Refuge Complex of 

eight refuges to be used in all aspects of Refuge administration, including habitat, wildlife, public use, 

and protection projects and management. Equipment is shared among the refuges of the Complex 

instead of being assigned solely to one refuge. Project efficiency depends largely on age, condition, 

and maintenance of the equipment needed to get work projects accomplished. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain a current data base containing all capitalized equipment and a maintenance 

schedule 

• Replace or purchase additional equipment as needed in order to have well-maintained and 

working equipment for all force account (staff) work planned 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Congress has distinguished a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national 

wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges, unlike other public lands, are specifically dedicated to the 

conservation of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

Priority projects emphasize the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and 

foremost, but considerable emphasis is placed on balancing the needs and demands for wildlifedependent recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this CCP for Delta and Breton 

National Wildlife Refuges, this section identifies specific projects, funding and personnel needs, along 

with partnership opportunities, and required step-down management plans. 

This CCP focuses on the importance of funding the operations and maintenance needs of the 

Refuges to ensure the refuge staff can achieve the goals and objectives identified and are crucial to 

fulfill the purpose for which each Refuge was established. The Refuge’s role in protecting and 

providing habitat for migratory waterfowl, birds and endangered species is critical. Proposed priority 

public use programs will establish and expand opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, but not 

without specialized staff and resources for operations and maintenance. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge 

administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs identified 

by the public, planning team, and Refuge staff based upon available information. These projects 

were generated for the purpose of achieving Refuge specific objectives and strategies. The primary 

linkages of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT - DELTA NWR 

The Refuge attracts 15 species of waterfowl, of which mottled ducks nest on the Refuge. Over 

400,000 waterfowl have been documented to use the Refuge for resting and feeding during peak 

migrations. Shorebirds; wading birds; neotropical migratory songbirds; raptors; mammals; reptiles 

and amphibians; and numerous fisheries exist on the Refuge. Threatened species occurring on the 

Refuge include the Gulf sturgeon and piping plovers. Endangered species occurring on the Refuge 

include eastern brown pelicans and interior least terns. The Refuge marsh wetlands are spawning, 

nursery, and feeding grounds for many aquatic species. 
44 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Project 1 – Monitor waterfowl use on Refuge

Hunting is offered on a portion of the Refuge four days a week until noon during the State of 

Louisiana State Waterfowl Season. Another portion of the Refuge area remains closed to public 

entry during waterfowl season and it is the only designated area closed to hunting within the 

Mississippi River delta area. This provides “safe” habitat for resting and feeding to thousands of 

migratory waterfowl without hunting pressure. Refuge staff will monitor migrating and wintering 

waterfowl use. 

• Conduct annual waterfowl aerial surveys consisting of four to six aerial surveys contingent on 

weather conditions. Initial survey will be performed before the state waterfowl hunting season 

begins and last survey will be conducted after the state waterfowl hunting season ends. 

• Coordinate with LDWF on migration numbers on the Refuge. 

One USFWS biologist will be required to conduct aerial surveys on the Refuge. The annual cost will 

be $20,000.00 most of that is for airplane flight time rental. 

Project 2 – Monitor species of concern, targeted species, and species of Federal responsibility.

National wildlife refuges are mandated to manage for threatened and endangered species if they 

occur on the Refuge. However, refuges are also responsible for management of other wildlife 

species if the action does not negatively impact the threatened or endangered species. Refuge 

management is geared toward managing the ecosystem as a whole. 

• A faunal species list will be compiled from surveys conducted by Fish and Wildlife Service 

biologists and other researchers. This list will be made available to the public through the 

Refuge website. Within the list, Refuge staff will prioritize species based on regional and state 

lists of species of concern, at risk/ target species identified by Partners in Flight, and other 

plans. 

• Develop a wildlife inventory plan based on species selected as priority species. 

• Secretive marsh birds will be surveyed and monitored as species of concern. Adaptive 

management actions will reflect data collected. 

• Partner with college and university researchers to record micro and macro invertebrate use 

associated with crevasse work and established splay sites. 

The initial cost for researchers and planning documents will be approximately $75,000. The annual 

survey cost for one biologist’s time of $5,000. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT - BRETON NWR 

The Refuge attracts twenty-three species of shore and sea birds, of which thirteen species nest on 

the Refuge. Historically, over twelve thousand brown pelican nests were documented annually on 

the Refuge. Shorebirds; sea birds; reptiles; and numerous fish exist on and around the Refuge. 

Threatened species occurring on the Refuge are piping plovers. Endangered species occurring on 

the Refuge include eastern brown pelicans and interior least terns. The sandy beach habitat is 

crucial for many species of sea and shore birds nesting, resting and feeding activities. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Project 3 – Perform banding on juvenile brown pelicans.

The Refuge provides important nesting habitat for endangered brown pelicans. They use the Refuge 

due the abundant food resource in nearby waters and the high elevation of the islands that provide 

small woody or grassy areas desirable for nesting. Important research is gathered by the banding of 

juvenile brown pelicans to determine if the birds return to the islands for nesting and monitor their 

travels. Refuge staff will: 

• Conduct annual monitoring and nest counts prior to banding activities. 

• Conduct banding activities with no fewer than one hundred juveniles banded yearly. 

• Coordinate with LDWF on nesting numbers on the Refuge. 

Staff required will be a minimum of six to perform bandings and two to conduct nest counts. Annual 

costs are estimated to be $5,000 for banding and $2,000 for nest counts. 

Project 4 – Monitor species of concern, targeted species, and species of Federal responsibility.

National wildlife refuges are mandated to manage for threatened and endangered species if they 

occur on the Refuge. However, refuges are also responsible for management of other wildlife 

species if the action does not negatively impact the threatened or endangered species. Refuge 

management is geared toward managing the ecosystem as a whole. 

• Develop a wildlife inventory plan based on species selected as priority species. 

• Partner with local colleges or universities to conduct research concerning remaining available 

nesting habitat since Hurricane Katrina with carrying capacity estimates provided for nesting 

usage per species. 

• Threatened and endangered species will be surveyed and monitored. Adaptive refuge 

management actions will reflect data collected. 

The initial cost for researchers and planning documents will be approximately $75,000. The annual 

survey cost for one biologist’s time of $5,000. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT - DELTA NWR 

Refuge wetlands are highly productive and they offer a lush vegetative habitat that is important to 

wildlife resources. The Palustrine Emergent marsh offers fresh and brackish habitats for many 

resident and migratory species. It also provides important aquatic habitat for many sport and 

commercial fish species. The primary purpose of the Refuge is to provide sanctuary and habitat for 

wintering waterfowl. This purpose is threatened by the loss of coastal Louisiana wetlands. The rate 

of marsh loss due to erosion and subsidence is increasing each year and the following projects will 

greatly reduce marsh habitat loss. 

Project 5 – Construction of ten crevasses at key locations to allow sediment loaded water to flow into 

ponds or bays formerly closed off to sediment flow that will build new splays allowing these areas to 

become vegetated habitat. Refuge staff will: 

• Identify ten areas with sufficient water flow nearby that have been closed off or a levee is 

prohibiting the influx of sediment enriched water into an open bay or pond. 
46 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

• Ensure these ponds or bays have access for the sediment enriched water to exit the pond or 

bay to increase flow through the area which increases sediment stacking elevations. 

• Seek creative funding through partnerships or work within mitigation circumstances to 

accomplish these crevasses. 

Each crevasse established will be designed so that it will continue to produce elevated marsh for a 

period of twenty years minimum. The coastline will continue to subside and these crevasses will help 

compensate for the natural loss and increase beneficial vegetation resources for waterfowl and other 

wildlife and fish on the Refuge. The size of splay and acres of emergent marsh created by each 

crevasses will depend on location, water sediment load, and river flows. 

The one time construction of these smaller crevasses will be an estimated $700,000 

Project 6 – Use beneficial dredged materials from the Mississippi River to fill an open water bay and 

create new emergent marsh on the Refuge just north of Pass-a-loutre Pass. This partnership with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can create and restore hundreds of acres lost to erosion and 

subsidence on the Refuge with no cost to the Refuge. 

• Partner with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to plan location and elevation of material to be 

stacked on the Refuge. 

• Stack sediment at elevation of 7’ +MLG to ensure compaction does not put sediment under 

water, allowing it to become vegetated. 

• Plan locations of sediment to ensure tidal movement will reach all areas. No areas of 

stagnated water shall exist. 

• Monitor areas for vegetation growth and inventory species. 

• Once new lands are formed, plant desired marsh grass if necessary 

• Identify wildlife use and monitor their use of the new area. 

The cost for sediment placement will be $20,000,000 but the funds will be through the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers navigation projects and no immediate cost to the Refuge. The inventory of plants 

and wildlife can be accomplished by one USFWS biologist for $5,000 annually. Planting can be 

accomplished using volunteers and a one time cost of $40,000 for plants, travel, and supplies. 

The reduction or attempted halt of marsh subsidence and marsh loss is considered critical through 

marsh creation projects and plantings for marsh stabilization. 

Project 7 – Dredge Main Pass to increase flow of sediment to canals and crevasses on the Refuge to 

build marsh and create beneficial splays. 

These splays are critical habitat and the filling in of the open bays and ponds will generate new 

vegetation growth needed by migratory waterfowl and other species of wildlife on the Refuge. 

• Propose Main Pass dredge as a CWPRA project. 

• Dredge the first eight miles of the pass from the Mississippi River to a depth of twenty feet and 

a width of two hundred feet. 

• Stack sediment at elevation of 7’ +MLG to ensure compaction does not put sediment under 

water, allowing it to become vegetated. 

• Use spoil generated from a suction dredge and place the spoil as beneficial fill in available 

open ponds or bays, creating hundreds of acres of new emergent marsh and reducing 

erosion. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

• Plan locations of sediment to ensure tidal movement will reach all areas. No areas of 

stagnated water shall exist. 

• Monitor areas for vegetation growth and inventory species. 

• Once new lands are formed, plant desired marsh grass if necessary 

• Identify wildlife and monitor their use of the new area. 

The cost of this project would be an estimated $40,000,000 but would increase new emergent marsh 

for a minimum of twenty years creating potentially hundreds or more acres of marsh. The inventory 

of plants and wildlife can be accomplished by one USFWS biologist for $5,000 annually. Marsh 

planting can be accomplished with volunteers for $20,000, the cost of plants and supplies. 

Project 8 – Dredge Pass-a-loutre Pass and place mined sediment on refuge to fill open bay and 

create hundreds of acres of new emergent marsh. 

• Plan placement of sediment to the east side of the bay away from the area used by the COE 

for dredge work in the Mississippi River as a CWPPRA project. 

• Stack sediment at elevation of 7’ +MLG to ensure compaction does not put sediment under 

water, allowing it to become vegetated. 

• Use generated spoil from suction dredge and place as beneficial fill in available open ponds or 

bays, creating hundreds of acres of new emergent marsh and reducing erosion. 

• Plan locations of sediment to ensure tidal movement will reach all areas. No areas of 

stagnated water shall exist. 

• Monitor areas for vegetation growth and inventory species. 

• Once new lands are formed, plant desired marsh grass if necessary 

• Identify wildlife use and monitor their use of the new lands. 

• Improve flow for the area south of the Refuge to create hundreds of acres of emergent marsh 

on the State WMA that could provide stability to the marsh area and have benefits for the 

Refuge. 

Although no immediate cost to the Refuge for the sediment placement, the cost is $30,000,000 for 

the sediment work. The inventory of plants and wildlife can be accomplished by one USFWS 

biologist for $5,000 annually. Marsh planting can be accomplished with volunteers for $20,000, the 

cost of plants and supplies. 

The inventory of plants and wildlife can be accomplished by one USFWS biologist for $50,000. 

Planting can be accomplished using volunteers and $20,000 for the cost of plants and supplies. 

Project 9 – Dredge section of Main Pass in bend of the pass that is restricting flow of sediment to 

established crevasses and canals approximately 7 miles west of the Mississippi River. 

• Use Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to plan and perform placement of dredged sediment to 

the south side of Main Pass in an open bay to create beneficial fill and establish new 

emergent marsh habitat. Also create one new crevasse to the east of the dredged site. 

• Use spoil generated from suction dredge and place it as beneficial fill in available open ponds 

or bays, creating several acres of new emergent marsh and reducing erosion. 

• Stack sediment at elevation of 7’ +MLG to ensure compaction does not put sediment under 

water, allowing it to become vegetated. 

• Plan locations of sediment to ensure tidal movement will reach all areas. No areas of 

stagnated water shall exist. 

• Monitor areas for vegetation growth and inventory species. 
48 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

• Once new lands are formed, plant desired marsh grass if necessary 

• Identify wildlife and monitor their use of the new marsh. 

• Improve flow for a new crevasse east and south of the dredged site to create a minimum of 

twenty acres of emergent marsh on the Refuge over the next twenty years. 

The immediate cost to the Refuge for the sediment placement is $5,000,000 for the sediment work 

and crevasse creation. The inventory of plants and wildlife can be accomplished by one USFWS 

biologist for $5,000. Planting can be accomplished using volunteers and $10,000 for the cost of 

plants and supplies. 

Project 10 – Shoreline protection along the Breton Sound and Gulf of Mexico, propose as a 

CWPPRA project. 

• Plan and construct a reef block around perimeter of the Refuge to establish erosion barrier. 

• Fill behind barrier to the vegetated marsh with dredged material to a height of 5’ to 6’ which 

will support the reef block. 

• Plant area behind reef block to provide additional erosion protection. 

Erosion from the Breton Sound and the Gulf of Mexico is a serious threat to protection of the delta 

marsh. The outer boundaries of the Refuge have eroded and water depths have increased making 

any regeneration of vegetation impossible. These areas are a priority to address or the Refuge will 

continue to shrink in size until the Refuge is absorbed by the Gulf of Mexico. 

The cost to the Refuge for the reef block and dredge stacking will be significant estimated at 

75,000,000. 

Project 11 – Develop monitoring programs for marsh loss, change in water depths, submerged 

aquatic plants, and the impacts of public use activities on the resources. Evaluate long term effects 

of restoration and shoreline fortification projects.

• Develop historic GIS maps of soils, habitats, and boundaries. 

• Establish salinity monitoring points and monitor monthly by taking readings, develop a 

spreadsheet database, and evaluate changes. Coordinate with marsh survivability plots and 

vegetation composition changes. 

• Map vegetation types with the use of GPS and GIS to inventory special and unique areas of 

the Refuge requiring special management or protection. 

• Implement a marsh subsidence monitoring plan to monitor the effects of Refuge habitat 

manipulations and the encouragement of wildlife plants, such as three-square and duck potato 

in the marsh. These plans will show impacts of higher salinity to freshwater marsh resources 

and impacts to resources for wildlife on the Refuge. 

Operational funds should be dedicated for trained personnel performing basic wildlife inventories and 

monitoring. One biologist and one technician are needed to perform inventorying, monitoring, and 

managing restoration and management programs. Sampling schemes will use photo points and 

transects to monitor changes from management actions. These monitoring programs will employ the 

use of field computers, data collectors, boats and GIS technology for documentation. A cost estimate 

per year of $120,000 will be required for this work to be achieved. This is primarily salary costs. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Habitat Management - Breton NWR 

The Refuge is valuable as important habitat to several species of threatened and endangered 

species. The sandy beach habitat is used for nesting by sea and shore birds and it provides 

abundant food sources year-round. The primary purposes of the Refuge are to provide sanctuary for 

nesting and wintering seabirds, protect and preserve the wilderness character of the islands, and 

provide sandy beach habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Through natural succession these 

islands were estimated to disappear in 300 years. However, the rate of island loss due to erosion 

and subsidence was greatly increased from Hurricane Katrina. It is estimated that unless action can 

be undertaken to restore the islands they may be lost permanently in ten years. 

Project 12 – Plan and coordinate a research project that will determine if the islands are able to be 

saved and restored. Refuge staff will: 

• Develop a scope of work and contract with the U.S. Geological Services and the University of 

New Orleans to determine current status of islands and the ability to rebuild without 

restoration. And if unable to recover without restoration efforts, what recommendations or 

actions would they propose if any. 

• Work within mitigation circumstances to accomplish restoration work with no cost to USFWS. 

A beneficial use of dredged material was used on North Breton Island three times from dredge work 

nearby of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However 

the MRGO has been closed and no future maintenance is planned. Other sources of dredge material 

will be explored. 

Project 13 – Perform dedicated dredge disposal and restore the Refuge to pre-Hurricane Katrina 

levels. This restoration will greatly benefit sea and shore birds in regard to nesting, loafing, and 

feeding habitat into the future. 

• Propose dredge and placement as a CWPPRA project. 

• Stack sediment at elevation of 5’ +MLG to ensure compaction does not put sediment under 

water, allowing it to become vegetated. 

• Plan locations of sediment to ensure tidal movement will reach all areas. 

• Monitor areas for vegetation growth and inventory species. 

• Once new lands are formed, plant desired marsh grass if needed 

The estimated cost is $150,000,000 for the dedicated dredging and placement work. This is a one 

time rebuilding of the entire Chandeleur Island chain. Individual islands based on priority use of 

migratory birds can be rebuilt for less. Project #12 will better determine if the life expectancy and 

natural process of building and declining will make this project feasible. Once the islands have rebuilt, 

planting beach and dune plant species along with sand fencing can be accomplished using 

volunteers and $90,000 for the cost of plants and supplies. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION AND REFUGE ADMINISTRATION - DELTA AND BRETON NWR 

Project 14 – Provide adequate law enforcement protection for Refuge resources, Federal trust 

species, personnel, and the visiting public. 
50 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Annually Delta NWR hosts approximately 12,000 visitors for hunting, fishing, and wildlife-dependent 

recreation while Breton NWR hosts approximately 9,000 visitors. Visitation has been down for the 

last two years but is expected to increase as recovery from Hurricane Katrina occurs. General 

services are now returning to the area such as restaurants, lodging, marinas, and grocery stores. 

The Refuge will conduct a Law Enforcement Program Review and revise the Law Enforcement Plan. 

A full-time law enforcement position is needed to cooperate with state wildlife officers, the local sheriff 

and city officers to: 

• Protect hunters, fishermen and other visitors and otherwise provide a safe experience while 

they are on the Refuges. 

• Enforce Refuge regulations and reduce un-approved and illegal activities. 

• Rescue lost or stranded hunters, fishermen and aid visitors in need. 

• Protect Refuge infrastructure, equipment, and cultural and natural resources. 

• Conduct patrols in the Refuge owned bays or ponds for illegal commercial fishing activities. 

One refuge officer is needed to achieve goals and perform law enforcement duties on both Refuges. 

Cost would be $90,000 per year, salary, equipment and supplies. 

Project 15 – Maintain marked refuge boundary and other identifying and regulating signs. 

• Conduct refuge boundary surveys on all lands and any new lands when acquired and post 

accordingly. 

• All existing refuge boundaries will be inspected and reposted by annually inspecting and 

reposting 20 percent of the boundary. 

• Signs will be placed at all refuge entrance points along trails, water courses, and roads. 

• Post signs to mark the portions of the Refuge as “closed so they are visible at all entrances. 

• Replace all faded or damaged signs as observed. 

The one time cost for boundary surveys will be $100,000 due to travel constraints and logistics. The 

annual boundary maintenance cost will be $5,000. 

Project 16 – Maintain Wilderness designation on Breton Refuge. 

• Ensure all actions on Breton are in compliance with the Wilderness Act. 

Project 17 – Meet current and expanded ability to maintain infrastructure for public use and 

management capabilities of the Refuge.

A maintenance and field headquarters for both Refuges is located in Venice, LA. From the office it is 

an eight mile boat ride to Delta NWR and a sixteen mile boat ride to Breton NWR. There is only one 

maintenance employee stationed in Venice. All other employees are stationed at Southeast 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Lacombe, LA. 

• Staff share responsibilities with other refuges, equipment, office space, roads, boat launch, 

parking areas, refuge facilities, equipment, boats and vehicles must be maintained regularly 

through a maintenance management system. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Project 18 – Administer oil and gas program with efforts guided to protect surface habitat and wildlife 

on the Refuges. 

Delta NWR has one of the oldest oil and gas programs on any national wildlife refuge with 489 wells 

drilled since 1942. Many of these wells are inactive but reserved for future potential and have been 

shut in but not plugged and abandoned. Numerous flowlines are located throughout the Refuge, 

some have been cleaned and some are still active. Spill events and releases are common 

occurrences. 

Breton NWR has several oil and gas transmission lines under the Refuge from off-shore activities. 

The minerals are federally owned and currently have a moratorium against drilling. However, the 

Refuge is located within miles of several platforms and facilities and can be greatly impacted with any 

release or spill event. 

All activities relating to oil and gas on the Refuges must be requested as a special use permit for 

review. 

• Ensure all companies operating on the Refuges are permitted, identified and in compliance 

with Refuge, state, and industry regulations. 

• All activities are submitted for review and a determination is made by refuge manager if a 

special use permit is required for activities requested or performed. 

• Issue special use permits and assess mitigation for impacts to the surface of the Refuges if 

they can not be avoided. 

• Response to all spill event and releases are conducted immediately after located, however 

before work is performed the response/clean-up company must consult with the refuge 

manager to ensure methods are approved. 

• Conduct routine inspections of field and facility to ensure proper operating procedures are in 

place and no releases are occurring. 

• Provide guidance for wildlife oriented protection methods such as bird cannons, mylar 

steamers and predator eyes during spill events. 

VISITOR SERVICES - DELTA AND BRETON NWR: 

Access to both Refuges is by boat only. The Delta/Breton Refuge Office has been repaired since 

Hurricane Katrina and is open for use by visitors. Plaquemines Parish was hit hard by Hurricane 

Katrina and many residents have relocated and will not return. The infrastructure of the parish is still 

recovering and it will be a slow recovery due to the high cost of living and lack of confidence in the 

levee system. Two of the schools have reopened and have minimal attendance due to low 

population numbers. The area is known across the United States as one of the premier waterfowl 

and fishing destinations that will continue to draw visitors from out of Louisiana for opportunities for 

outdoor recreation. 

Project 19 – Maintain facilities at the Delta/Breton facility. 

The Delta/Breton facility was moved from the Refuge to the new location in Venice, LA in 1979. It 

was damaged severely by Hurricane Georges and the decision was to replace it in 2001. The 

building was complete and had a staff of three employees before Hurricane Katrina hit in August 

2005 which severely damaged the facility. It has been repaired but only one maintenance position 

remains for maintenance items at the facility. The facility is used for lodging of staff conducting work 

on the Refuge over night. The office has established a visitor parking area and viewing area of the 
52 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

historic Mississippi River. It offers a viewing area of the river at the south foremost point able to be 

viewed by vehicle access. A large kiosk offers information about the USFWS, the refuge, wildlife, 

other brochures, and hunting permits. 

• Maintenance of facilities and all equipment located at site is performed by one maintenance 

employee. 

• Continue managing the Refuge from the Bayou Lacombe’ Center Complex Office. 

A refuge operations specialist stationed at Venice, LA is needed. The cost will be $90,000 per year 

for salary, benefits, equipment and supplies. 

Project 20 – Improve visitor services and interpretation.

Established in 1935 Delta NWR is well established but due to it’s remote location has never been fully 

developed to the potential of programs, facilities and staff to best support visitor services and wildlifedependent recreation. 

Established in 1904 the Breton NWR is the second oldest refuge and the only one known to have 

been visited be President Theodore Roosevelt. However due to it’s remote location it has never been 

fully developed to the potential of programs, facilities and staff to best support visitor services and 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

One of the first and primary duties is to develop a step-down Visitor Services Plan with services that 

include wildlife-dependent recreation and education. Refuge staff will: 

• Update Visitor Services Plan. 

• Post visitor hours and contact information and maintain a staff contact present throughout 

those hours for contact with the visiting public by phone at minimum. 

• Staff will develop, maintain and improve interpretive exhibits for the new kiosk and develop 

interpretive talks specific to each Refuge. 

• Interactive CD/ROM will be developed and distributed to educate students about the 

Mississippi River Delta Region and the Refuge. 

• Volunteers will be used to supplement the education programs and visitor contact centers. 

• All local public events held within the Plaquemines Parish area will be attended by staff 

promoting the Refuge when possible and identified as needed. 

• Develop a self-guided boat tour of the Refuges and distribute brochures at local marinas 

• Plan and construct new kiosk or information sites with maps at local marinas in Venice, 

Louisiana. 

• Improve visitor contact stations, kiosks, parking areas, and maintain Refuge entrance sign 

quality and appearance. 

Project 21 – Improve and enhance hunting and fishing opportunities while minimizing conflicts 

between consumptive and non-consumptive users.

Quality fishing opportunities may be promoted with initiatives. Fishing opportunities at the Delta 

Office have been minimal and only opportunistic. The Refuge staff will provide: 

• Maintain the road to the Refuge office. 

• The Refuge will construct and maintain kiosks at the Venice Office and local marinas to 

promote safe hunting and fishing opportunities. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

• Provide hunting and fishing brochures with maps. 

Project 22 – Provide opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. 

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the Refuges will be promoted. Delta NWR 

provides emergent marsh habitats for viewing waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and a variety of 

other fauna and flora. Breton NWR offers sandy beach habitats for viewing shore and sea birds. 

• Offer occasional birding tours led by Refuge staff or volunteers. 

• Provide temporary photo blinds in designated areas by staff. 

• Provide a viewing area at office with interpretive panels and benches. 

• Develop a self guided boat tour with information guiding visitors as to what they might expect 

to see depending on the time of year. 

Project 23 – Increase public outreach and environmental education to emphasize resource 

management practices.

Marsh and beach restoration, crevasse program and other habitat management programs can be a 

source of information for educating the public about refuge resources and management. Education 

on refuge management will be focused on first-hand observations where possible. Interpretation of 

refuge resources will promote understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of refuge resources. 

• Develop a formal, curriculum-based environmental education programs for students in 

Plaquemines and surrounding parishes that, through first-hand experiences, promote 

understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of refuge resources and support for refuge 

management practices. Small group tours can be achieved when properly planned. 

• To complement on-site programming, provide relevant classroom educational programming 

with the same goals of promoting understanding and stewardship of refuge resources. 

• Maintain liaison contacts with area school systems and curriculum coordinators to 

continuously upgrade refuge education programs in the classroom and on the Refuge to 

match curriculum needs. 

• Establish schedule of tours available for refuge visitors requesting tours in advance. 

• Develop general brochures of the Refuges and distribute. 

• Supply refuge brochures, including hunt brochures, bird lists, general brochures, and quarterly 

events calendars, to parish convention centers, state welcome centers, and other tourist hubs. 

• Provide schedules of planned programs to local newspapers and use volunteers, members of 

local bird groups, interns, and refuge staff. 

• Establish times at the facility office to have environmental education programs available for 

the public or groups upon request to be held at the viewing area. Provide guided outings 

schedules to local newspapers. 

• Recruit full-time volunteer interns to supplement Refuge staff in delivering school curriculumbased environmental education programs, refuge interpretive programs, and to assist refuge 

personnel in refuge management, while providing developmental experiences that allow 

students to explore future career opportunities with the Service. 

• Recruit volunteers and volunteer groups, such as recreational vehicle campers, to supplement 

and assist Refuge staff, and to provide education, visitor services, maintenance, and clerical 

duties. 

• Maintain and develop agreements with the Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Inc., to 

cooperate on projects and provide Refuge support. 
54 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

• Support Refuge volunteers of all types by providing recreational vehicle spaces at the office 

site. 

• Issue press releases on important events on the Refuge, including public events and changes 

to public use programs (e.g., hunting and fishing). 

• Update and maintain an interactive refuge web site with links to hunt brochures, bird lists, trail 

maps and guides, refuge maps, tear sheets, contacts for refuge assistance, signup for 

programs, etc. 

• Develop and deliver refuge education programs for adults through civic groups and to 

neighborhood groups surrounding the refuge. 

• Develop a monitoring plan with schools to evaluate educational program results and 

effectiveness relative to Grade Learning Expectations. 

• Develop portion of office in Venice to a visitor center for the Refuge featuring information on 

visitor service opportunities on the Refuges, audio-visual interpretive exhibits and displays, 

and environmental education resources for visiting school groups and teachers. 

• Visit school career fairs to promote Student Career Employment and Student Temporary 

Employment Programs and Youth Conservation Corps Programs to increase Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s career awareness within the nearby community. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

The current Refuge Complex staffing chart includes staff identified for Delta and Breton National 

Wildlife Refuges (Figure 8). The proposed staffing chart (Figure 9) will utilize identified staff to 

accomplish the proposed projects (Table 1). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Figure 8. Current staffing chart for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges and Southeast 

Louisiana Refuge Complex. 
56 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 9. Proposed staffing chart for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges and 

Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Table 1. Summary of Projects (Delta NWR- Breton NWR) 

PROJECT 

NUMBER REFUGE PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST * 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

1 Delta Aerial surveys of waterfowl 

on refuge 

$20,000 $20,000

2 Delta Monitor and manage other 

trust resource populations 

$75,000 $5,000

3 Breton Banding Brown Pelicans $5,000 $2,000

4 Breton Monitor and manage other 

trust resource populations 

$75,000 $5,000

5 Delta Crevasse construction $700,000 0

6 Delta Marsh restoration from 

beneficial dredge 

$20,020,000 $5,000

7 Delta Main Pass dedicated 

dredge project 

$40,020,000 $5,000

8 Delta Pass-a-loutre dedicated 

dredge project 

$30,020,000 $5,000

9 Delta Main Pass dedicated 

dredge with TVA 

$5,000,000 $5,000

10 Delta Shoreline protection, 

CWPRA proposal 

$75,000,000 $0

11 Delta Monitoring program for 

marsh loss 

$120,000 $120,000

12 Breton Plan and coordinate study 

of island loss and potential 

restoration 

$1,000,000 0

13 Breton Perform dedicated dredge 

restoration 

$150,000,000 unknown

14 Delta & Breton Provide adequate LE for 

refuge resources, species, 

and visitors 

$90,000 $90,000
58 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

PROJECT 

NUMBER REFUGE PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST * 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

15 Delta & Breton Maintain marked boundary 

and signs 

$100,000 $5,000

16 Delta & Breton Wilderness determination $5,000 $5,000

17 Delta & Breton Maintain current and 

expanded infrastructure for 

public use and 

management capabilities 

$100,000 $100,000

18 Delta & Breton Administer oil and gas 

program 

$70,000 $70,000

19 Delta & Breton Maintain facilities at Venice $90,000 $90,000

20 Delta & Breton Improve visitor services 

and interpretation 

$60,000 $20,000

21 Delta & Breton Improve hunting and 

fishing opportunities 

$10,000 $10,000

22 Delta & Breton Provide opportunities for 

wildlife observation and 

photography 

$10,000 $10,000

23 Delta & Breton Increase public outreach 

and environmental 

outreach 

$60,000 $20,000

* cost estimates are rough undocumented and funding sources would be various and not all FWS funding. 

PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this CCP is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, private 

organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. Partnerships are critically important 

to achieve refuge goals, leverage funds, minimize costs, reduce redundancy, and bridge 

relationships. In the immediate vicinity of the Refuges, opportunities exist to establish and maintain 

partnerships with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in managing the Pass-a-loutre 

WMA, local marinas, Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard Parish organizations, U.S. Customs, and 

the U.S. Coast Guard. 

The refuge staff can work with neighboring private landowners through the Partners Program or 

through agreements for managing neighboring land to compliment the refuge management program. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the Refuges. A step-down management 

plan provides more specific guidance on activities, such as habitat and visitor services management. 

Step-down plans (Tables 2 and 3) are developed in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, which requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and 

involvement prior to their implementation. 

Table 2. Delta National Wildlife Refuge Step-down Management Plans Related to 

 the Goals and Objectives of the CCP 

Step-down Plans Completion Date Revision Date 

Fisheries Management 1994 2009 

Visitor Uuse 1994 2009 

Station Safety 2003 2008 

Disease Contingency 1993 2008 

Hunting Plan 1994 2009 

Sign Plan 2015 2030 

Law Enforcement 1988 2008 

Wildlife Inventory 1996 2011 

Habitat Management 2012 2027 

Table 3. Breton National Wildlife Refuge Step-down Management Plans Related to 

 the Goals and Objectives of the CCP 

Step-down Plans Completion Date Revision Date 

Fisheries Management 1994 2011 

Visitor Use 1994 2011 

Sign 2015 2030 

Law Enforcement 1985 2008 

Wildlife Inventory 1996 2011 

Habitat Management 2012 2027 
60 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is 

directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More 

specifically, adaptive management is a process by which projects are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within 

a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the Refuges. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation 

activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The CCP will be reviewed annually in development of refuge annual work plans and budget. It will 

also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when conditions 

change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a 

major refuge expansion. The CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down management plans to 

address the completion of specific strategies in support of goals and objectives. Revisions to the 

CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
Environmental Assessment 61

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for Delta and 

Breton National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. This Environmental Assessment is part of 

the comprehensive conservation planning process for these Refuges. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act requires the development of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) for 

all refuges. Following a public review and comment period on the draft CCP, a final decision will be 

made by the Fish and Wildlife Service that will guide Delta and Breton Refuges’ management actions 

and decisions over the next 15 years, provide understanding about the Refuges and their 

management activities, and incorporate information and suggestions from the public and refuge 

partners. 

The draft CCP proposes a management direction for each Refuge, which is described in detail 

through a set of goals, objectives, and strategies. The draft CCP addresses current management 

issues, provides long-term management direction and guidance for the Refuges, and satisfies the 

legislative mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. While the 

Plan provides general management direction, subsequent step-down plans will provide more detailed 

management direction and actions. 

The Environmental Assessment determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management 

alternatives. The intent is to support informed decision-making regarding future management of the 

Refuges. Each alternative presented in this Environmental Assessment was generated with the 

potential to be fully developed into a final comprehensive conservation plan. The predicted biological, 

physical, social, and economical impacts of implementing each alternative are analyzed in this 

Environmental Assessment. This analysis assists the Fish and Wildlife Service in determining if the 

alternatives represent no significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No 

Significant Impact, or if the alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed 

analysis through an Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision. Following public 

review and comment, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select alternatives to be fully developed for 

these Refuges. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the CCP and EA is to establish and implement management directions for Delta and 

Breton National Wildlife Refuges for the next 15 years. 

The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the 

Refuges. The Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for each 

Refuge. 

The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency 

managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified a 

range of alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected 

Alternative C, Improved Habitat Restoration and Public Outreach Management, as the proposed 
62 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

management action on Delta NWR; and Alternative C, Large-scale Habitat Restoration and Improved 

Public Outreach Management, as the proposed management action on Breton NWR. In the opinion 

of the Service and the planning team, Alternative C is the best approach to guide each Refuge’s 

future direction. 

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management 

of these Refuges, thus necessitating the need for this plan. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 

years. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an 

alternative to implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Delta and Breton National Wildlife 

Refuges. The finalized CCP will include a Finding of No Significant Issues (FONSI) which is a 

statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. This determination is based on an evaluation of the Service and refuge system 

mission, the purpose(s) for which the Refuges were established, and other legal mandates. 

Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of the plan will begin and will be monitored 

annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Delta and Breton NWRs are considered together in this Environmental Assessment and 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan because of their proximity to each other and the fact that they are 

managed by the same staff members within the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex. 

Both refuges are located in extreme southeast Louisiana in an area defined by the meeting and 

mingling of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Delta NWR, accessible only by boat, is in 

Plaquemines Parish at the mouth of the Mississippi River. The Refuge consists of 48,799 acres of 

low-lying wetlands associated with the Mississippi River, mudflats, canals and passes, and spoil 

banks along the waterways. Breton NWR, located in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, 

consists of a chain of barrier islands located off the mainland in Breton and Chandeleur Sounds. 

Access is limited to seaplanes or to boats that are able to venture offshore. A satellite office serving 

both refuges is located in Venice, Louisiana. No refuge facilities or staff are located on Delta or 

Breton. Both refuges are administered from Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex located in 

Lacombe, Louisiana. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service developed this plan in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described within this Plan also meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Refuge staff achieved compliance with this Act 

through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of an environmental assessment in this 

document, with a description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives (Chapters III and IV in this section). When fully implemented, the 

Plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the Refuges were 

established. The laws that established these Refuges and provided the funds for acquisition state the 
Environmental Assessment 63

purposes. Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service 

allows and encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or 

does not detract from, the Refuge’s mission and purposes. 

COMPATIBILITY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands 

and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be 

found to be appropriate and compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In 

addition, “wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are 

compatible and not inconsistent with public safety.” 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the system, as listed in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. This Plan has been written with 

input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and 

state agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in 

setting the management direction for Delta and Breton Refuges. The Service, as a whole, and the 

refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas 

to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many 

individuals for the lands and waters administered by the Refuges. 

The planning process for Breton NWR began with the concurrent review of the biological and visitor 

services programs held April 27-29, 2004. During the biological review professionals from 

universities, and state and federal conservation agencies assessed the status of current biological 

information and programs on Breton, identified information gaps and needs, and refuge staff gathered 

input on potential management goals and objectives. The visitor services review resulted in the 

development of short- to long-term recommendations to improve the quality of visitor experiences and 

outreach regarding Breton NWR. The planning process was interrupted in 2005 by turnovers in key 

personnel on the planning team and refuge staff, and the complete disruption in work priorities 

caused by the tropical storm season of 2005, which included Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Both Delta 

and Breton Refuges were in the direct path of Katrina; Breton was slammed by both devastating 

storms and smaller tropical disturbances. 

A decision was made in 2006 to combine Breton’s and Delta’s comprehensive conservation planning. 

A review of Delta’s biological program occurred June 26-28, 2006; the visitor services review was 

held July 12-13, 2006. Formal public involvement began with a meeting to discuss both Refuges held 

May 23, 2006 at a public library in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. Because of the devastation caused by 

Hurricane Katrina to the entire area, it was difficult to locate a meeting room. Two people attended 
64 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

this meeting. A second meeting was held in Metairie, Louisiana on June 29; 10 people attended. In 

addition to the meetings, fliers were placed throughout St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish, and 

news releases were sent to the Times Picayune, Biloxi Sun Herald, and Plaquemines Gazette. The 

CCP process and request for public input was discussed during an interview on “Outdoors with Don 

Dubuc,” a local radio program. 

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the planning process. 

Many issues that are very important to the public often fall outside the scope of the decisions to be 

made within this planning process. In some instances, the Service cannot resolve issues some 

people have communicated to us. We have considered all issues throughout our planning process, 

and have developed plans that attempt to balance the competing opinions regarding important 

issues. 

A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in Section C. Appendix D. Public 

Involvement - Summary of Public Scoping Comments. 
Environmental Assessment 65

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview. 
66 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Environmental Assessment 67

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the Refuge's purpose and vision, and the goals identified in the CCP; the 

priorities and goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystem Team; the goals of the Refuge 

System; and the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the 

significant issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the public during public 

scoping. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated for each Refuge represent different approaches to 

provide permanent protection, restoration, and management of the Refuges’ fish, wildlife, plants, 

habitats, and other resources as well as compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge staff 

assessed the biological conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting each Refuge. 

This information contributed to the development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the 

alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents different sets of objectives for reaching refuge 

goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on how much progress it would make and how it would 

address the identified issues related to fish and wildlife populations, habitat management, resource 

protection and conservation, visitor services, and refuge administration. A summary of the 

alternatives for Delta NWR is provided in Table 4, and for Breton NWR in Table 5. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL DELTA NWR ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These 

common features are summarized to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative 

descriptions. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities’ access to public information and 

participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. This assessment has not 

identified any adverse or beneficial effects for any alternative unique to minority or low-income 

populations in the affected area. None of the alternatives will disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, nor health impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

Delta NWR has existed over 70 years and, therefore, has several well-established programs that will 

remain no matter which alternative is chosen. Public uses, including traditional hunting and fishing 

programs, will continue with relatively few changes among all alternatives. Even before the Refuge 

was established, the land was hunted and fished as part of a private club. Boats are the only access, 

which limits other public uses. Mineral exploration and extraction has been in place since before the 
68 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Refuge existed also. An extremely complex mixture of federal and private possession continues 

among both surface and subsurface ownership. The same Service policies will remain in effect 

regarding oil and gas activities under each alternative. Certain mandated responsibilities such as 

protection of federal trust species, archaeological and historical resources, and wetlands; prevention 

and control of invasive species; and payment of revenue sharing in lieu of taxes will be accomplished 

under all alternatives. All alternatives contain maintenance of refuge equipment, which is required to 

meet safety standards. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES - DELTA NWR 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to 

help achieve the Refuge’s purposes and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired 

conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into three 

alternatives for Delta NWR. These alternatives represent different management approaches for 

managing the Refuge over a 15-year time frame while still meeting the Refuge’s purposes and goals. 

The three alternatives are summarized below. A comparison of the alternatives in table form follows 

the general description. 

 ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

 ALTERNATIVE B - USER-FOCUSED MANAGEMENT 

 ALTERNATIVE C - IMPROVED HABITAT RESTORATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 

MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

This is the “status quo” alternative. Under this alternative, no new actions would be taken to improve 

or enhance the Refuge’s current habitat, wildlife, and public use management programs. The 

existing programs would be continued with no changes. Restoration efforts would remain focused on 

increasing emergent marsh by creating crevasses; environmental education, interpretation, and 

outreach would remain low-key relying on the public to make requests; staff would continue to consist 

of a manager, a refuge operations specialist, two park rangers, and two maintenance positions. 

These staff positions will continue to specifically support Delta, Breton, and Bayou Sauvage Refuges, 

along with supplementary support from the remainder of the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex 

staff when needed. 

ALTERNATIVE B: USER-FOCUSED MANAGEMENT

Alternative B emphasizes maximizing public use opportunities on the Refuge. The traditional uses of 

hunting and fishing on Delta would remain, but days and hours would be expanded so that they are 

similar to the adjacent state wildlife management area. On-site wildlife dependent public uses of 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation would be 

supported by refuge staff, equipment, facilities, and resources as much as possible. Under this 

alternative, federal trust species would be monitored to meet mandates, but most resources would 

accommodate public demands. Species targeted for management would depend on which ones the 

public is interested in utilizing. All refuge management programs would support species and 

resources of importance for public use. Providing access to this remote Refuge would be 

emphasized. The focus of refuge management would be on expanding public use activities to the 

fullest extent possible, while conducting only mandated resource protection for migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species. 
Environmental Assessment 69

ALTERNATIVE C: IMPROVED HABITAT RESTORATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 

MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE)

Alternative C, the Service’s proposed alternative, would emphasize management of the wetland 

resources of Delta NWR based on expanding restoration efforts to include not only the crevasse 

program, but also restoring the Gulf shoreline. This is presently the area of the most land loss since it 

is the most distant from the land-building sediments of the Mississippi River, and the first location on 

the mainland in the path of hurricanes and other strong storms. Restoration efforts would adapt to 

changing conditions as practices and techniques are assessed. Although no changes are planned in 

the traditional hunting and fishing program that has been in effect for many years, public outreach 

would be expanded and improved. Because access to the Refuge is difficult, outreach would center 

on providing information in venues such as the Venice office, local marinas, in the Parish schools, to 

teachers in workshops, and web pages. Wildlife monitoring would be expanded to include not only 

wintering, migratory waterfowl but also nesting mottled ducks, neo-tropical migrants, and other water 

birds such as rails and shorebirds. Three staff positions - an assistant manager, a biologist, and a 

park ranger (law enforcement) - would be added to current staffing. Management decisions and 

actions would support wildlife species and habitat occurring on the Refuge based on well-planned 

strategies and sound judgment. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL BRETON NWR ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These 

common features are summarized to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative 

descriptions. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities’ access to public information and 

participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. This assessment has not 

identified any adverse or beneficial effects for any alternative unique to minority or low-income 

populations in the affected area. None of the alternatives will disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, nor health impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

Breton NWR has existed for over 100 years and has well-established programs that will remain in 

effect under all alternatives. Established public uses will continue with relatively few changes among 

all alternatives. Boats and float planes are the only access, which limits visitation. The Wilderness 

Status designated to certain Refuge lands in 1975 will remain under all alternatives. The same 

Service policies will remain in effect regarding oil and gas activities under each alternative. Certain 

federally mandated responsibilities such as protection of colonial nesting birds, threatened and 

endangered species, migratory birds, and archaeological and historical resources; the prevention and 

control of invasive species; and the payment of revenue sharing in lieu of taxes will be accomplished 

under all alternatives. All alternatives include maintenance of refuge equipment, which is required to 

meet safety standards. 
70 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES - BRETON NWR 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to 

help achieve the Refuge’s purposes and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired 

conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into three 

alternatives for Breton NWR. These alternatives represent different management approaches for 

managing the Refuge over a 15-year time frame while still meeting the Refuge’s purposes and goals. 

The three alternatives are summarized below. A comparison of the alternatives in table form follows 

the general description. 

 ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

 ALTERNATIVE B - CUSTODIAL MANAGEMENT 

 ALTERNATIVE C - LARGE-SCALE HABITAT RESTORATION AND IMPROVED OUTREACH 

MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

This is the “status quo” alternative in which current habitat, wildlife, and public use management 

would continue with no changes. Restoration efforts would remain as small-scale projects 

undertaken by volunteers and refuge staff; environmental education, interpretation, and outreach 

would be included in complex activities centered at headquarters in Lacombe; staff would continue to 

consist of a manager, a refuge operations specialist, two park rangers, and two maintenance 

positions. These staff positions will continue to specifically support Delta, Breton, and Bayou 

Sauvage Refuges, along with supplementary support from the remainder of the Southeast Louisiana 

Refuge Complex staff when needed. 
Environmental Assessment 

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY ISSUE FOR DELTA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Table 4. Comparison of Alternatives by Management Issues for Delta NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

No Action 

(Current Management ) 

Alternative B 

User- Focused 

Alt

Improved H

and Pu

(Propos

Goal 1. Manage, preserve and restore the physical and ecological functions of coastal wetland habitats 

wildlife resources. 

Habitat Management and Restoration 

1. Protect and maintain quality interior emergent marsh and associated habitats by creating crevasses. 

1. Direct habitat protection and restoration projects to maximize public use opportunities, with an emphasis on historical uses of migratory bird hunting and fishing. 

1. Continue to interior emerginitiate restorafocuses on resshoreline to phabitat. Strategy: Proand partners, technologies fprojects such disposal to rebshoreline whicinterior marsh Strategy: Conexisting crevavital crevasseand identify pocrevasses. Strategy: DevManagement Strategy: Seeopportunities t
72 Delta and Breton Nati

Issues 

Alternative A 

No Action 

(Current Management ) 

Alternative B 

User- Focused 

Alt

Improved H

and Pu

(Propos

Habitat Management and Restoration (cont.) 

conservation ainterested par

GOAL 2. Manage, preserve and protect coastal fish and wildlife species with special emphasis on migr

threatened and endangered species. 

Wildlife 1. Protect and monitor 

federal trust species and targeted species of management concern and interest. 

1. Protect and monitor federal trust species and species of public interest. 

1. Same as AStrategy: Conwaterfowl survNovember thrthe mid-winter Strategy: Conclosed area to and rest for wmigrating wateStrategy: Prorearing and mmottled ducks goals and objeAmerican WatPlan; create ndedicated drecontrol to protStrategy: Parsurveying and broods, and bStrategy: Conrookeries; initibird surveys 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

No Action 

(Current Management ) 

Alternative B 

User- Focused 

Alt

Improved H

and Pu

(Propos

Wildlife (continued) Strategy: Initi

to protect grouStrategy: Monother neo-troppopulations duperiods Strategy: Conresearch projedeer, and otheStrategy: Conexotic species any consequedamage Strategy: Credata bases on monitoring proStrategy: No federally listed endangered sRefuge, althoumigrate througtemporarily; moccurrences othreatened or Strategy: Perfisheries 
74 Delta and Breton Nati

Issues 

Alternative A 

No Action 

(Current Management ) 

Alternative B 

User- Focused 

Alt

Improved H

and Pu

(Propos

Wildlife (continued) Strategy: Rev

Inventory Plan 

GOAL 3. Provide the public with quality recreational activities, environmental education, interpretation

opportunities that lead to enjoyment and greater understanding of and appreciation for the fisresources, and natural systems of the Mississippi River delta system. 

Public Use 1. Offer visitors fresh and 

salt water fishing, crabbing, wildlife observation and photography, and hunting for waterfowl, deer, rabbit, and hogs 

1. Expand public hunting program to match the adjacent state wildlife management area. Initiate and expand non-consumptive use program. 

1. Same as AStrategy: Conhunting WednSaturday, and archery deer hharvest; rabbiStrategy: Revplans as requStrategy: Maifishing prograoutreach on kto promote fisthe Refuge anwith species fo2. Improve visoutreach progStrategy: WriPlan by 2013 Strategy: Initieducation/outform of classro
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

No Action 

(Current Management ) 

Alternative B 

User- Focused 

Alt

Improved H

and Pu

(Propos

Public Use (continued) about Delta N

Plaquemines parishes. Ausuch as a “trateachers can aand which woitems such as and silt samplto illustrate ReStrategy: ComNWR interactiand distribute schools and teStrategy: Instorientation kioexhibits at the headquarters visitors to Deltand their primStrategy: Plackiosks with Deinformation at marinas in the Consider partLDWF(Pass-aStrategy: DevRefuge brochwith map Strategy: Regimprove Refug
76 Delta and Breton Nati

Issues 

Alternative A 

No Action 

(Current Management ) 

Alternative B 

User- Focused 

Alt

Improved H

and Pu

(Propos

Public Use (continued) web site 

Strategy: Expinteraction mevisitors and laas wildlife sighor current refuregulationsStrategy: Expoffering a spetour or opportconjunction wLouisiana Refsponsored by related busineboats availabl

Goal 4. Provide sufficient administration and protection to conserve trust resources on Delta NWR. Administration - Law Enforcement 

1. Enforce all Federal and State laws applicable to the Refuge 

1. Same as Alternative A 1. Same as A

Strategy: UpEnforcement Strategy: Hirenforcement Breton NWR Strategy: Paprovide proteand visitors 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

No Action 

(Current Management ) 

Alternative B 

User- Focused 

Alt

Improved H

and Pu

(Propos

Administration - Law Enforcement (cont.) 

Strategy: Maboundaries binspecting 20annually 

Administration - Oil and Gas Activities 

2. Follow national Service policies for managing oil and gas activities on a national wildlife refuge 

2. Same as Alternative A 2. Same as A

Strategy: WoOffice Realty Management mineral owneStrategy: Moactivities; use Permits to seof nonfederaStrategy: Uslessen impacStrategy: Cothe U.S. CoaLouisiana Oil Office, and ththe event of o

Administration - Equipment 

3. Maintain refuge equipment in good condition and appearance 

3. Same as Alternative A 3. Same as A
78 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

ALTERNATIVE B - CUSTODIAL MANAGEMENT 

Under Alternative B, all active management other than mandated ones would cease. Nature would 

be allowed to take its course regarding the future of the islands with no restoration activities 

accomplished. If the islands fail to rebuild after the devastating 2005 hurricane season and continue 

to erode, areas available to the public may diminish. With the land area diminishing, both wildlife and 

the public will have less space to share as priority is given to colonial nesting birds. Nesting areas 

are off-limits to the public. Environmental education and interpretation will concentrate on the history 

of the formation and subsequent changes and erosion of the Chandeleurs and Breton Islands. 

ALTERNATIVE C - LARGE-SCALE HABITAT RESTORATION AND IMPROVED PUBLIC 

OUTREACH MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative C, the Service’s proposed alternative for Breton NWR, would explore implementing largescale restoration efforts in cooperation with partners. Partners are necessary to supply expertise and 

funding for the daunting task of restoration. Studies would be performed to determine the feasibility 

and costs associated with rebuilding and re-establishing the Chandeleurs and Breton Islands, or 

portions of the Islands. Restoration efforts would adapt to changing conditions as practices and 

techniques are assessed. The only planned change in the traditional public uses on the Refuge is 

elimination of primitive camping, but public outreach, environmental education and interpretation 

would be expanded and improved. Because the Refuge is remote and few guests other than wade 

fishers actually visit the islands, outreach would center around providing information in combination 

with Delta NWR at the Venice office, at local marinas, in the Parish schools, to teachers in 

workshops, and on web pages. The three staff positions - an assistant manager, a biologist, and a 

park ranger (law enforcement) - suggested as additions to Delta NWR would also administer Breton 

NWR. Management decisions and actions would be based on well-planned strategies and sound 

judgment. 
Environmental Assessment 

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY ISSUE FOR BRETON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives by Management Issues for Breton NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B Alte

(Propose

Goal 1. Manage, conserve and, if feasible, restore the physical and ecological functions of barrier islan

and wildlife resources. 

Habitat Management and Restoration 

1. Monitor and restore sandy beach habitat by using refuge staff and funds with volunteer assistance for small scale projects such as erecting sand fencing and planting emergent vegetation. When available use beneficial dredge material to restore sections of the islands. 

1. Monitor existing habitat and changes over time; perform no active restoration on the islands. 

1. Monitor and habitat with larprojects. Strategy: Devpartners such Shell Oil, TNCMexico Foundschools for conStrategy: Seepartners for dedisposal projecacres of restorbayside emergStrategy: Proafunding and pafencing and veprojects. Cons1000 linear feeand plant 20,0such as sea oaseaside blue sappropriate sp
80 Delta and Breton Nati

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B Alte

(Propose

Habitat Management and Restoration 

2. Protect the islands that are under Wilderness status in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 3. Seek research possibilities with universities and conservation agencies such as USGS and DNR. 

2. Same as Alternative A.

Strategy: Partlevel coastal inCWPPRA, LCA20502. Protect the under Wilderneaccordance wiregulations of tof 1964. (Sam3. Seek reseauniversities anagencies such (Same as Alt. A4. Develop HaPlan by 2018 

Goal 2. Manage, preserve and protect coastal fish and wildlife species with special emphasis on migra

nesting waterbirds, and threatened and endangered species. 

Wildlife 1. Protect colonial nesting 

seabirds; monitor colonies and post nesting areas as closed to protect them from disturbance. 

1. Same as Alternative A 1. Depending 

success of habrecovery, contmonitor coloniStrategy: Concolonial nestin
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B Alte

(Propose

Wildlife (continued) 

2. Monitor and protect federally listed threatened and endangered species. 3. Monitor and protect targeted species and species of federal responsibility such as redhead ducks and other 

2. Same as Alternative A 3. Same as Alternative A 

Strategy: If the nesting popularesponse to harestoration, resjuveniles and bstudy on adult Strategy: If the of terns increahabitat recovebegin a bandindetermine migStrategy: Detemethods and icontrol in groucolonies 2. Monitor and listed threatenspecies (Same Strategy: Conwinter surveys Strategy: Recsea turtles, turother threatenespecies. 3. Monitor and species and spresponsibility sducks and othe(Same as Alte
82 Delta and Breton Nati

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B Alte

(Propose

Wildlife (continued) migratory birds.

Strategy: Conwaterfowl survdiving ducks Strategy: Monpopulations duperiods Strategy: Monduring peak br4. Develop and base of survey 5. Revise Bretinventory plan plan by 2022.

Goal 3. Provide the public with quality recreational activities, environmental education, interpretation, 

opportunities that lead to enjoyment and greater understanding of, and appreciation for fish, wislands. 

Public Use 1. Maintain current visitor 

services and programs of fishing, wildlife observation, and photography except in certain portions identified with “Area Closed” signs to protect bird nesting areas

1. Same as Alternative A except that if land area decreases and suitable sites for colonial bird nesting become more limited, public access may become more restricted

1. Same as AlStrategy: Mainprogram; partnenforcement oStrategy: Explproviding a touwildlife observainterpretation aNWR special e
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B Alte

(Propose

Public Use (continued) Strategy: Deve

Services Plan aNWR’s plan by 2. Improve the of information aoffered to the pStrategy: IncludBreton NWR aand kiosk at VeStrategy: Imprcurrent informapage and make that information interpretative inStrategy: Incluplace fishing inmarinas; place at marina incluidentification Strategy: Incluabout the Refunesting birds akiosks Strategy: Ensuthe Delta/Bretoappropriate trarepresent the S
84 Delta and Breton Nati

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B Alte

(Propose

Public Use (continued) Strategy: Com

issues in articlenewspapers, Pspecial events Southeast Louheadquarters a3. Improve enveducation progwith Delta NWRprogram Strategy: Deveprograms for sPlaquemines aParishes Strategy: Condworkshops Strategy: Partcorporations foprograms Strategy: Creaprogram on a Cfor teachers 4. Build a voluStrategy: DetaLouisiana RefuBreton 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B Alte

(Propose

Public Use (continued) Strategy: Expl

finding retired twith environmeschools Strategy: OrieLouisiana Refuidentify projectStrategy: Use groups, and codevelop Grade linked lesson pprojects Strategy: Contcorporate sponcreating enviroteacher kits 

Goal 4. Provide sufficient administration and protection to conserve trust resources on Breton NWR. 

Administration - Law Enforcement 

1. Enforce all Federal and State laws applicable to the Refuge 

1. Same as Alternative A 1. Same as Al

Strategy: UpdaEnforcement PStrategy: Post closed to all puStrategy: Hire enforcement ofDelta NWR Strategy: Part
86 Delta and Breton Nati

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B Alte

(Propose

Administration - Oil and Gas Activities Administration - Equipment 

2. Follow national Service policies for managing oil and gas activities on a national wildlife refuge 3. Maintain refuge equipment in good condition and appearance 

2. Same as Alternative A 3. Same as Alternative A 

provide protectand visitors 2. Same as AlStrategy: Monactivities; use Sto set conditionactivities Strategy: Use impacts Strategy: Contthe U.S. Coast Louisiana Oil SOffice, and the event of oil spi3. Same as Al
Environmental Assessment 87

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can be 

reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the six alternatives described in Chapter III of 

this environmental assessment. For each alternative, the expected outcomes are portrayed through 

the 15-year life of the CCP. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects will be the same under each alternative and are summarized under six 

categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, cultural resources, refuge 

revenue-sharing, and other effects. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this environmental assessment will 

disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority 

and low-income populations. Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and 

environmental education is anticipated to provide a benefit to the residents residing in the 

surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under 

its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts 

as part of long-range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperatures commonly referred to as global warning. In relation to comprehensive planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be 

considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and 

Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 
88 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts—grasslands, 

forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert—are effective both in preventing carbon 

emissions and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The conclusions 

of the Department of Energy’s report noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon 

sequestration and may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial 

biosphere. 

Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. 

The actions proposed in this comprehensive conservation plan would preserve or restore land and 

water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, contributes positively to efforts to 

mitigate human-induced global climate changes. 

Coastal refuges are especially vulnerable to sea level rise, a predicted impact of climate change. 

Both Delta and Breton NWRs are in open water systems with no current or planned water control 

management. Neither Refuge contains water control structures nor are any structures feasible. The 

impacts of subsidence, sea level rise, and storm events are the same for all alternatives. Restoration 

projects might slow the impacts of sea level rise in the short term for small, localized areas; but in the 

long term, will not change global issues. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All management activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations; utility lines and easements; soils; water and air; and historical and 

archaeological resources would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, 

any existing and future wildlife regulations, oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport 

operations on the Refuges would be managed identically under each of the alternatives. Thus, the 

impacts would be the same. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

No known cultural and historic resources exist on Delta or Breton NWRs. All alternatives protect any 

cultural resources discovered in the future, and none of the alternatives include developments that 

would adversely affect any resources. In most cases, new management actions would require review 

by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist in consultation with the State of Louisiana Historic 

Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Therefore, the determination of whether a particular action within an alternative has the potential to 

affect cultural resources is an on-going process that would occur during the planning stages of every 

project. 

Service ownership of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides two 

major types of protection for these resources: protection from damage by federal activity and 

protection from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that any actions 

by a Federal agency which may affect archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the State 

Historic Preservation Office, and that the identified effects must be avoided or mitigated. The 

Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust, 

and avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. Development of off-refuge lands has the potential 

to destroy archaeological artifacts and other historical resources, thereby decreasing opportunities for 

cultural resource interpretation and research. 
Environmental Assessment 89

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING 

 

Annual Refuge revenue-sharing payments to St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes would continue 

at the same rates under each alternative. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible effects on the soils; water 

quality and quantity; noise; transportation; human health and safety; children; hazardous materials; 

waste management; aesthetics and visual resources; and utilities and public services. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

The following section describes the environmental consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. Table 6 summarizes and addresses the likely outcomes for the specific 

issues, and is organized by broad issue categories. 

ALTERNATIVE A FOR DELTA AND BRETON NWRS (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

The current or no-action alternative would maintain the status quo and was developed using 

anticipated conditions in the areas of Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges over the next 15 

years. It assumes that current conservation management and land protection programs and activities 

by the Service, federal, state, and other organizations would continue to follow past trends. This 

alternative is included for the purpose of comparison to baseline conditions. 

Both Refuges have been established for many years. Some of the management programs, 

especially restoration, need to be reevaluated. Both Delta and Breton NWRs suffer severe land loss 

caused by several factors, which have been accelerated by frequent, destructive storms. 

Circumstances are now at a turning point. We can either let things continue to deteriorate or we can 

expand restoration efforts. Current management has not been able to keep up with the rate of land 

loss. The environmental effects of pursuing Alternative A would result in decreasing emergent 

wetlands and diminished wildlife resources compared to the proposed alternative. 

The remoteness of these Refuges makes outreach, interpretation, and environmental education more 

difficult. No staff is permanently present on either Refuge. Under present management programs, 

few educational activities and minimal outreach are offered. Management under Alternative A would 

not directly adversely impact the natural resources of the area, but the Refuges would not achieve 

their potential for providing important habitat. Alternative A is not considered to be the most effective 

management strategy for achieving the vision and goals of the Refuges. 

ALTERNATIVE B FOR DELTA NWR (USER-FOCUSED MANAGEMENT) 

Alternative B emphasizes managing Delta NWR for wildlife-dependent recreational uses. This 

alternative fulfills some aspects of the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, but falls short of fulfilling the 

mission of the Refuge System, the purposes of the Refuge, and the goals of the Lower Mississippi 

River Valley Ecosystem and other conservation plans. Mandated species, such as those listed as 

threatened and endangered, would continue to be monitored, but by focusing on species of interest 

only to the public, the status of other important species could be overlooked. 

If the majority of staff time and funds support public use, then wildlife-dependent recreation, and 

environmental education and interpretation could be more successful than in the other alternatives. 

The socioeconomic value of the Refuge to the surrounding Parishes would be the highest of the three 
90 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

alternatives, but possibly at the expense of the biological values. Alternative B is not considered to 

be the most effective management strategy for achieving the vision and goals of the Refuge. 

ALTERNATIVE C FOR DELTA NWR (IMPROVED HABITAT RESTORATION AND PUBLIC 

OUTREACH MANAGEMENT) (THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Implementing Alternative C is considered to be the most effective management action for meeting the 

purposes of Delta NWR. The purposes of the Refuge will be addressed with expanded restoration 

projects that will improve and protect habitat, and provide better-quality wildlife resources. Public uses 

will remain the same, but outreach and educational activities will be expanded so that knowledge and 

stewardship of the river delta is emphasized. Educational activities and outreach can be reevaluated 

to present more information off-site than is currently offered. If the public is more educated regarding 

the benefits and problems involved in the Mississippi River ecosystem, support and partnerships 

could increase. Monitoring and surveying of targeted species will increase as new positions are 

added. This alternative would add 15 new positions to current staffing for the entire Complex, three 

of which would specifically administer Delta, Breton and Bayou Sauvage NWRs. The biological 

environment would improve following the guidelines developed in Alternative C. 

ALTERNATIVE B FOR BRETON NWR (CUSTODIAL MANAGEMENT) 

The size and amount of land above mean high tide on Breton and the Chandeleur Islands has 

steadily declined over many decades. According to USGS, erosion has resulted in a 41% decrease 

in the total area of Louisiana’s barrier islands from 1880 to 1982. By itself, Hurricane Katrina reduced 

the islands by one-half of their pre-storm size. Alternative B focuses on monitoring Breton NWR to 

document changes, in other words “watchful waiting” with no interference by man. The environmental 

consequences of this alternative would be the rapid disappearance of the islands and the nesting, 

feeding and loafing habitats they offer. Predicted sea level rise, accelerated by global climate 

change, will combine with the geologic processes that continually reshape Louisiana’s coast to 

decrease the tremendous biological treasure of these Islands. Wildlife will be negatively affected as 

the Refuge islands become increasingly overtopped by Gulf water. Eventually, the barrier islands will 

no longer supply wave and storm buffering benefits to the mainland. 

ALTERNATIVE C FOR BRETON NWR (LARGE-SCALE HABITAT RESTORATION AND IMPROVED 

OUTREACH MANAGEMENT) (THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative C is considered to be the best management action to fulfill the purposes of Breton NWR. 

Partnering with other conservation agencies, the feasibility of and funding for restoring specific areas 

of the Refuge will be planned and accomplished. If successful, restoration will provide positive 

environmental effects such as an increase in nesting habitat and buffering from storms. If colonies of 

terns, gulls, pelicans, and other seabirds return and successfully produce young, research can 

resume and increase in scope; predator control can be initiated to support nesting success. With the 

increase in outreach, education, and possible wildlife observation trips for the public, the message of 

the biological importance of these barrier islands could create more support, awareness, and 

stewardship within the community. 

 
Environmental Assessment 

Table 6. Summary of Environmental Effects by Alternative, Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

DELTA NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B A

(Prop

Wetland Habitat Restoration Create and maintain crevasses 

to protect and preserve interior emergent marsh; includes monitoring 

Slightly increasing quality 

Would not be a management focus, but would include restoration mitigation projects 

Slightly increasing quality 

In additioprogramof Gulf smonitorin

Inc

Waterfowl Conduct winter surveys and 

maintain area closed to hunting for protection and resting 

Slightly increasing quality 

Conduct winter surveys; expand hunting area and opportunities Increasing public use quality; 

Decreasing biological quality 

Conduct maintain hunting fresting; cnesting hpredator monitorin

Increas

h

Neo- tropical Migrants and Breeding Birds 

Conduct random, irregular monitoring as part of research studies 

Slightly increasing biological 

quality 

Offer birding trips during peak migration periods 

Increasing public use quality 

Monitor dmigration periods 

Incre

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Monitor sightings and reports from the public 

Stable 

Monitor sightings and reports from the public 

Stable 

Monitor sfrom the 
92 Delta and Breton Nati

DELTA NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B A

(Prop

Resident Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles 

Continue monitoring proposed by LDWF and universities 

Increasing biological quality 

Monitor only species of interest to the public 

Increasing public use quality; 

Decreasing biological quality 

Continue proposed universit

Incre

Fisheries Periodically conduct fish 

surveys 

Slightly increasing biological 

quality 

Randomly survey anglers regarding quality of experience 

Increasing public use quality; 

Decreasing biological quality

Periodicasurveys 

Slig

bio

Exotic Species Continue to monitor; take action 

if cause environmental damage 

Increasing quality 

Monitor if impacts affect public 

Slightly increasing quality 

Continue action if damage

Inc

Public Uses Offer visitors fresh and salt 

water fishing, crabbing, wildlife observation and photography, and hunting for waterfowl, deer, rabbit, and hogs 

Stable 

Expand public hunt program 

Increasing public use quality; 

Decreasing biological quality

Offer viswater fiswildlife ophotograwaterfowhogs 
Environmental Assessment 

DELTA NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B A

(Prop

Environmental Education, Outreach, and Interpretation 

Maintain satellite office in Venice for information; respond to requests from the public 

Stable 

Maintain satellite office in Venice; use Refuge staff and equipment to provide access for visitors; initiate environmental ed. & outreach to classrooms, marinas, exhibits, and in tours 

Increasing biological, public 

use and socioeconomic 

quality 

Maintain Venice; ied. & ouclassrooexhibits, 

Inc

Law Enforcement Enforce all Federal and State 

laws; post Refuge boundaries 

Stable 

Enforce all Federal and State laws; post Refuge boundaries 

Stable 

Enforce laws; ad& inspecannually Increasi

Oil and Gas Activities Monitor and enforce national 

policies and guidelines 

Increasing quality 

Monitor and enforce national policies and guidelines 

Increasing quality 

Monitor apolicies a

Inc
94 Delta and Breton Nati

BRETON NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B A

(Prop

Barrier Island Restoration Restore beach habitat with 

small-scale projects accomplished by staff and volunteers; includes monitoring 

Slightly increasing quality 

Perform no active restoration; monitor changes in land size 

Decreasing quality 

Working restore blarge-scamonitorinhabitat m

Inc

Wilderness Protection Protect current Wilderness area

Increasing quality 

Protect current Wilderness area 

Increasing quality 

Protect carea 

Inc

Seabird colonies Monitor and protect from 

disturbance 

Stable to deceasing quality 

as colonies and habitat 

decrease 

Monitor and protect from disturbance 

Stable to decreasing quality 

as colonies and habitat 

decrease 

Monitor adisturbancontrol fobirds; resnumbers 

Incre

col

Migratory birds Continue winter waterfowl 

surveys 

Slightly increasing quality 

Continue winter waterfowl surveys 

Slightly increasing quality 

Continue surveys; shore birmaintain surveys 

Inc
Environmental Assessment 

BRETON NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B A

(Prop

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Monitor wintering piping plovers and nesting sea turtles 

Increasing quality 

Monitor wintering piping plovers and nesting sea turtles 

Increasing quality 

Monitor wplovers aturtles 

Inc

Public Uses Maintain current program 

Stable 

Close primitive camping and maintain other current uses; possible further restrictions of access if islands continue to decrease Stable to decreasing quality 

Maintain with poswildlife oStable to 

Outreach Maintain current program 

Stable 

Ensure public is well informed on any closures and restrictions 

Decreasing quality 

Improve of inform

Inc

Environmental Education Maintain current program 

Stable 

Include history of islands in offsite programs 

Decreasing quality 

Improve conjunct

Inc

Law Enforcement Enforce all Federal and State 

laws; post closed areas 

Slightly increasing quality 

Enforce all Federal and State laws; post closed areas 

Slightly increasing quality 

Enforce laws; ponew poswith Delt

Inc

Oil and Gas Activities Monitor and enforce national 

policies and guidelines 

Increasing quality

Monitor and enforce national policies and guidelines 

Increasing quality

Monitor apolicies a

Inc
96 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative A—the no action alternative—there are numerous unavoidable impacts, including 

law enforcement that is not adequate for protecting biological resources and significant visitor use; 

continued degradation of the biological functions of wildlife habitat due to wetland loss occurring at a 

rate faster than current restoration efforts can reverse; and a continued decrease in biodiversity. 

Over time, if these issues are not addressed, they will continue to impact Refuge resources. 

The proposed alternatives also have some unavoidable impacts. These impacts are expected to be 

minor and/or short-term in duration. However, the Refuge will attempt to minimize these impacts 

whenever possible. The following sections describe the measures the refuge will employ to mitigate 

and minimize the potential impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed alternative. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities such as wildlife observation may be less disturbing than 

others, all of the public use activities proposed under the proposed alternative will be planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed alternative are not considered to 

be significant. Nevertheless, the refuge will manage public use activities to reduce impacts. 

Providing access for fishing opportunities allows the use of a renewable natural resource without 

adversely impacting other resources. Hunting will also be managed with restrictions that ensure 

minimal impact on other resources. General wildlife observation may result in minimal disturbance to 

wildlife. If the refuge determines that impacts from the expected additional visitor uses are above the 

levels that are anticipated, those uses will be discontinued, restricted, or rerouted to other less 

sensitive areas. 

WATER QUALITY 

Negative impacts could result from the creation and maintenance of emergent wetlands and barrier 

islands that require dredging. These projects involve large equipment and suspended particles in the 

water column cause water to become cloudy. This is expected to be a minor short-term impact. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed alternative is not expected to negatively affect the owners of private 

lands adjacent to Delta NWR. Expected positive impacts include active rebuilding of degrading 

wetlands, law enforcement patrolling in the area, and more diverse wildlife remaining in the area. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the [proposed] action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 Code of Federal Regulations, 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. 

Impacts can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. 

They can also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the present and the 
Environmental Assessment 97

future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially canceling out each 

other’s effect on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action 

contributing an incremental impact on the resource. In addition, sometimes the overall effect is 

greater than merely the sum of the individual effects, such as when one more reduction in a 

population crosses a threshold of reproductive sustainability, and threatens to extinguish the 

population. 

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not 

take place in a vacuum; there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource 

in some way in the past, or are affecting it in the present, or will affect it in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. So any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of 

what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else will likely happen to it. 

The refuge staff is not aware of any past, present or future planned actions that would result in a 

significant cumulative impact when added to the Refuges’ proposed actions, as outlined in the 

proposed alternatives. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance, but still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

The actions proposed for implementation under the proposed alternative include wildlife and 

population management; wetland restoration; resource protection; public use; and administrative 

programs. These actions would result in both direct and indirect effects. A direct action would be 

creation of emergent marsh or barrier island habitat by cutting crevasses or dredging material from 

one area to move to another. An indirect effect would be minor impacts from siltation due to the 

disturbance of soils while restoring habitat. Providing expanded visitor services by offering more 

information and education off the Refuges could affect the number of visitors by increasing interest in 

the Refuges. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions proposed under the proposed alternative are 

dedicated to maintaining the long-term productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this Plan for 

long-term productivity far outweigh any impacts from short-term actions. While wetland restoration 

activities would cause short-term negative impacts, the educational values and associated public 

support gained from the improved visitor experience would produce long-term benefits for the entire 

ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the refuges’ long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the refuges’ natural resources. The plans proposed 

under the proposed alternatives have been carefully conceived to achieve that threshold. Therefore, 

implementing the proposed alternatives would lead to long-term benefits for wildlife protection and 

land conservation that far outweigh any short-term impacts. 
98 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Environmental Assessment 99

V. Consultation and Coordination 

Several teams and groups were involved in the planning process with representation from the 

Service, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, universities, and others as listed below. 

Breton NWR Biological Review - April 27-29, 2004: 

A team of biologists and managers, including key Refuge staff, conducted a review of the wildlife and 

habitat management programs on Breton NWR from April 27-29, 2004, held at Complex 

headquarters in Lacombe, Louisiana. All attendees were familiar with the islands and were involved 

in previous or current studies of the area. Attendees included: 

George Bodie, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA 

Barbara Boyle, former deputy Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Donna Dittman, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 

Debbie Fuller, USFWS, Ecological Services, Lafayette, LA 

James Harris, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Tom Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Rockefeller Refuge, Cameron Parish, LA 

Tommy Michot, U.S. Geological Service, Lafayette, LA 

Chuck Hunter, Chief of Planning and Resource Management, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

Charlotte Parker, Wildlife Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Michael Poirrier, Ponchartrain Institute for Environmental Sciences, Univ. of New Orleans, New 

 Orleans, LA 

Denise Reed, Laboratory for Coastal Restoration Science, Univ. of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 

Nancy Roeper, USFWS, Arlington, VA 

Elizabeth Souheaver, former Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Shelley Stiaes, Refuge Operations Specialist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Bob Strader, Supervisory Wildlife Management Biologist, USFWS, Jackson, MS 

Nancy Walters, former Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Breton NWR Visitor Services Review - April 27-29, 2004: 

The Breton NWR Visitor Services Review, held at the same time as the Biological Review, met to 

provide guidance for managing the education and visitor services program. Attendees included: 

Rosa Boudreaux, Buras High School, Buras, Louisiana 

Wayne Burgess, 4-H Program, Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Belle Chasse, Louisiana 

Donna Bush, Photographer and volunteer, Pearl River, LA 

Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

David Gegenheimer, Fisherman, Gretna, LA 

Richard Hale, Birdwatcher and volunteer, Slidell, LA 

Doug Hunt, Park Ranger, Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Van Janssen, Islander Lodge, Venice, LA 

Gary Tucker, Visitor Services Specialist, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

Delta NWR Biological Review - June 26-28, 2006: 
100 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

During the period June 26-27, 2006, a site trip and biological review was conducted for Delta NWR by 

a team of biologists and refuge managers from the Service and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries (LDWF). Attendees included: 

Todd Baker, Area Manager Pass a Loutre, LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA 

Diane Barth, Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Jack Bohannan, Refuge Manager, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Pon Dixson, Deputy Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Cedric Doolittle, Fisheries Biologist, USFWS, Baton Rouge, LA 

Barrett Fortier, Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Houma, LA 

James Harris, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Chuck Hunter, Chief of Planning and Resource Management, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

Ken Litzenberger, Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Randy Myers, Waterfowl Biologist, LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA 

Charlotte Parker, Wildlife Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Bob Strader, Supervisory Wildlife Management Biologist, USFWS, Jackson, MS 

Barry Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture Coordinator, USFWS, Lafayette, LA 

Christian Winslow, LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA 

Paul Yakupsack, Refuge Manager, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Houma, LA 

Delta NWR Visitor Services Review - July 12-13, 2006: 

The Delta NWR Visitor Services Review met July 12 and 13, 2006, at Complex headquarters in 

Lacombe, LA, to provide guidance for managing the education and visitor services program. 

Attendees included: 

Diane Barth, Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Gay Brantley, Park Ranger, Black Bayou Lake NWR, Farmerville, LA 

Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Ken Litzenberger, Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Charlotte Parker, Wildlife Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Gary Tucker, Visitor Services Specialist, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Team was comprised of refuge staff from the Southeast 

Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. This team was the primary decision-making team for 

the Draft CCP/EA. The group was tasked with defining and refining the vision; identifying, reviewing 

and filtering the issues; defining goals; developing objectives and strategies; developing feasible 

alternatives, and outlining realistic plans for the future of Delta and Breton NWRs. Core team 

members included: 

• Ken Litzenberger, Project Leader 

• Pon Dixson, Deputy Project Leader 

• Charlotte Parker, Wildlife Biologist/Natural Resource Planner 

• Jack Bohannan, Refuge Manager 

• Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger 

• James Harris, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist 

• Diane Barth, Park Ranger 
Appendices 101

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results help 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing 

water. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated 

need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of objectives 

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Anadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to 

fresh water to breed. 

Beneficial dredging Using the spoil for restoring and building elevation from dredging that 

would take place regardless of the use of the spoil (see dedicated 

dredging). 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, 

CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 
102 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the 

national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 25.12 (a)). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP):

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Crevasse Relatively small opening or breach in levee or embankment 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the 

National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 

(Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, 

among other things, it’s prehistory and cultural history, the nature and 

extent of known cultural resources, previous research, management 

objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, and a general 

statement on how program objectives should be met and conflicts 

resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate information from 

a field offices background or literature search described in Section VIII 

of the Cultural Resource Management Handbook 

(Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Dedicated Dredging Dredging for the purpose of restoring and building elevation (see 

beneficial dredge). 
Appendices 103

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

An area designated by the United States Congress to be managed as 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural 

(e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Emergent Marsh Wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants. 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need 

for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact 

(40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot 

be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 
104 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable 

units (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Improvement Act.: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “go along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K). 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative 

Management Concern: See Issue 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA 

with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision making 

(40 CFR 1500). 
Appendices 105

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is required to develop 15-year Comprehensive Conservation Plans for 

all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the 

six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; 

or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and 

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 
106 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best 

achieve the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May be from natural ignition 

or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife believe require protective measures and/or management 

guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species include the 

following: (1) State-listed and candidate species; (2) species or groups 

of animals susceptible to significant population declines within a 

specific area or statewide by virtue of their inclination to aggregate 

(e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of recreation, commercial, 

and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges that encompass 

Congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge 

Service Manual 602 FW 106 S). 
Appendices 107

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director and Secretary, and recommended for designation by the 

President to Congress. These areas await only legislative action by 

congress in order to become part of the Wilderness System. Such 

areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” 

(Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the Federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for 

any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Splay Splay in biological terms is a vegetated, emergent marsh that develops 

from sediments deposited in open water as a result of overflow of the 

natural banks or levees of a river or channel or as the result of a natural 

or created crevasse or sediment diversion. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting 

CCP goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP/EIS the study area includes the lands within 

the currently approved Refuge boundary and potential Refuge 

expansion areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 
108 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System Mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study area must meet the 

following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5) 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 
Appendices 109

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CIAP Coastal Impact Assistance Program 

CWPPRA Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE environmental education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FR Federal Register 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

LCA Louisiana Coastal Area 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

PUNA Public Use Natural Area 

RM Refuge Manual 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS) 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geologic Survey 
110 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 111

Appendix B. References and Literature 

Citations 

A Blueprint for the Future of Migratory Birds. Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan 2004-2014. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 27 pp. 

Coast 2050: Toward a sustainable coastal Louisiana. 1998. Internet source 

http://www.coast2050.gov. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA): A response to Louisiana’s 

land loss. 2006. Internet source http://www.lacoast.gov. 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 

1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 460 pp. 

Elliott, L., and K. Mc Knight. 2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Lower Mississippi/Western 

Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region. Gulf Coastal Prairie Working Group and Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley/Western Gulf Coastal Plain Working Groups. 64 pp. 

Fuller, D.A. 1988. The occurrence of sea turtles on the Chandeleur and Breton Islands, Louisiana. 

LSU-CFI-88-14. Baton Rouge, LA. Louisiana State University, Center for Wetland 

Resources. 

Fuller, D.A. 1989. Sea turtle strandings on the Chandeleur and Breton Islands, Louisiana. 

LSU-CFI-89-06. Baton Rouge, LA. Louisiana State University, Center for Wetland 

Resources. 

Fuller, D.A. 1990. 1990 surveys for nesting and stranded sea turtles on the Chandeleur and Breton 

Islands, Louisiana. LSU-CFI-90-03. Baton Rouge, LA. Louisiana State University, Center for 

Wetland Resources. 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, 

New York. 250 pp. 

The Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities. Internet source http://www.goca.state.la.us. 

Hoese, H.D. and J.M. Valentine, Jr. (eds.). 1972. Biology, U.S.L. Studies on the Chandeleur Islands. 

Research Series No. 10. The University of Southwestern Louisiana, Office of Institutional 

Research. 60 pp. 

Lagueux, C.J. and C.L. Campbell. 1991. Nesting distribution and abundance of sea turtles on Breton 

National Wildlife Refuge. Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research. University of Florida, 

Gainesville, FL. 

Laycock, George. 1965. The Sign of the Flying Goose: A Guide to the National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 299 pp. 
112 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Lester, Gary D., S.G. Sorensen, P.L. Faulkner, C.S. Reid, and I.E. Maxit. 2005. Louisiana 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. Baton Rouge, LA. 455 pp. 

Lohoefener, R., W. Hoggard, C.L. Roden, K.D. Mullin, and C.M. Rogers. 1988. Distribution and 

relative abundance of surfaced sea turtles in the north-central Gulf of Mexico: spring and fall 

1987. Pp 47-50 in Schroeder, B.A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea 

Turtle Conservation and Biology, 7-11 February 1988, Jekyll Island, Georgia. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-SEFS-214. 

Louisiana -Ecosystem Restoration Study. 2004. Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA). 

Internet source, http://lca.gov. 

New Employee Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Offshore Minerals Management. 2007. Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). Internet source. 

 http://www.mms.gov/offshore/CIAPmain.htm 

Penland, S., and R. Boyd. 1981. Shoreline changes on the Louisiana barrier coast. 

Oceans. Pp. 209-219. 

Penland, S., P. Connor, P. McCarty, C. Aganjar, K. Westphal, A. Sallenger, and J. Williams. 2001. 

The impact of Hurricane Camille on the Chandeleur Islands in Southeast Louisiana. 

Internet source, http://coastal.uno.edu. 

Penland, S., P. Connor, P. McCarty, C. Aganjar, K. Westphal, A. Sallenger, and J. Williams. 2001. 

The impact of Hurricane Georges Camille on the Chandeleur Islands in Southeast Louisiana: 

a comparison with Hurricane Camille. Internet source, http://coastal.uno.edu. 

Penland, S., A. Beall, D. Britsch, and S.J. Williams. 2001. Ponchartrain Basin Land Loss - Process 

Classification. Pp. 129-148 in S. Penland, A. Beall and J. Waters (eds.), Environmental Atlas 

of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, New Orleans, LA. 

Peyton, S. 1997. Fish assemblage characteristics of the interior ponds on Delta National Wildlife 

Refuge and Pass a Loutre Wildlife Management Area, Louisiana: Final Report. Alabama 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Auburn University, AL. 35 pp. 

Piping Plover Atlantic Coast Population Revised Recovery Plan. 1996. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Roth, D.M. 1998. A historical study of tropical storms and hurricanes that have affected Southwest 

Louisiana and Southeast Texas. National Weather Service. Lake Charles, LA. 

Williams, S.J., S. Penland, and A.H. Sallenger, Jr., (eds.). 1992. Louisiana barrier island erosion 

study: atlas of shoreline changes in Louisiana from 1853 to 1989. USGS and LGS. 103 pp. 

Wilson, B.C., C.A. Manlove, and C.G. Esslinger. 2002. North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative. North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, Albuquerque, NM. 28pp+appendix. 
Appendices 113

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and 

Executive Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by Federal 

agencies with respect to identification of information to be made 

public; publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance 

of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific 

meetings and hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency 

actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects of 

antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act 

authorizes the President to designate as national monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or 

controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to important 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American Society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with states and other non-Federal interest 

for conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous 

fish and contribute up to 50 percent as the Federal share of the cost 

of carrying out such agreements. Reclamation construction 

programs for water resource projects needed solely for such fish are 

also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

This act strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 
114 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with Federal funds, or leased by a Federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by the 

Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or for 

the religious purposes of Indians. 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, preservation of natural resources and protection of fish 

and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were established 

under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on Federal lands, including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on Federal lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. 

This Act and its amendments charge Federal land managers with 

direct responsibility to protect the “sir quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, as 

amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that Federally 

permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act standards, 

state water quality laws, and any other appropriate state laws. 

Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with 

regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the act are to 

minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful Federal expenditures, 

and minimize the damage to natural resources by restricting most 

Federal expenditures that encourage development within the CBRS. 
Appendices 115

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the CBRA, expanded the CBRS to include 

undeveloped coastal barriers along the Great Lakes and in the 

Caribbean, and established “Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs)”. 

The Service is responsible for maintaining official maps, consulting 

with Federal agencies that propose spending Federal funds within 

the CBRS and OPAs, and making recommendations to Congress 

about proposed boundary revisions. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

(1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to participate 

in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration 

program, participate in the development and oversight of a coastal 

wetlands conservation program, and lead in the implementation and 

administration of a National coastal wetlands grant program. 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Commerce to encourage coastal States to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any Federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a State’s coastal zone management plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Reserve 

Research System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the States to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established entrance 

fees at National Wildlife Refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for the 

determination and listing of endangered and threatened species and 

the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires refuge 

managers to perform internal consultation before initiating projects 

that affect or may affect endangered species. 
116 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 Includes a section that establishes the Coastal Impact Assistance 

Program (CIAP), a program authorizing funds to outer continental 

shelf oil and gas producing states to mitigate the impact of oil and 

gas activities 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

This act established the Office of Environmental Education within 

the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a 

Federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

Federal natural resource management agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

Federal agencies and the States, to study and inventory estuaries of 

the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, and 

to determine whether such areas should be acquired for protection. 

The Secretary is also required to encourage State and local 

governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities relates to Federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the Secretary 

was required to establish conditions to ensure the permanent 

protection of estuaries. 

Estuaries and Clean Waters 

Act of 2000 

This law creates a Federal interagency council that includes the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Council is 

charged with developing a national estuary habitat restoration 

strategy and providing grants to entities to restore and protect 

estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

The Act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who 

convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the 

law are ineligible for most farmer program subsidies. It also 

established the Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect 

wetlands through easements and restoration of the functions and 

values of wetlands on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

The purpose of this law is to minimize the extent to which Federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction projects 

and the management of federal lands. 
Appendices 117

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (1972), as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the federal government. Advisory committees may 

be established only if they will serve a necessary, nonduplicative 

function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise 

specified and meetings must be open to the public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 

1968 

Established requirements for approval of Federal highways through 

wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the natural 

beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed to 

consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agencies 

before approving any program or project requiring the use of land 

under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other Federal, State 

and local agencies, farmers associations, and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such 

weeds. The Act requires each Federal land-managing agency 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate an office or 

person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the 

agency’s land and implement cooperative agreements with the 

States including integrated management systems to control 

undesirable plants. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry 

but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and resident to 

fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and 

increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to take such steps as may be required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources including, but not limited to, research, 

development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or 

exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 
118 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under Federal permit or license. 

Improvement Act of 1978 This act was passed to improve the administration of fish and 

wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, including the 

Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration 

Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 

Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property 

on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use of 

volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Programs 

Improvement and National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Centennial Act of 2000 

Recognizes the vital importance of the Refuge System and the fact 

that the System will celebrate its centennial anniversary in the year 

2003. Established the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial 

Commission to prepare a plan to commemorate the 100th

anniversary of the System, coordinate activities to celebrate that 

event, and host a conference on the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The commission is also responsible for developing a longterm plan to meet the priority operations; maintenance and 

construction needs for the System, and improve public use 

programs and facilities. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of 

Federal and State officials including the Fish and Wildlife Service. It 

provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel fishing permits. 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all Federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions, official, published and unpublished policy statements, 

final orders deciding case adjudication, and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related 

resources on public lands. Section 15 c of the Act prohibits issuing 

geothermal leases on virtually all Service-administrative lands. 
Appendices 119

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals 

and to safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful foreign species. 

This Act prohibits interstate and international transport and 

commerce of fish, wildlife or plant taken in violation of domestic or 

foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America of foreign 

species into new locations. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

This act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus 

federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for 

matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for 

land acquisition by various federal agencies including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended 

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a Federal 

responsibility to conserve marine mammals with management 

vested in the Department of Interior for sea otter, walrus, polar bear, 

dugong, and manatee. The Department of Commerce is responsible 

for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other than the walrus. With certain 

specified exceptions, the Act establishes a moratorium on the taking 

and importation of marine mammals as well as products taken from 

them. 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the Commission 

was expanded by the North American Wetland Conservation Act to 

include approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement proposals recommended by the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the Duck Stamp Act”, requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the 

U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for 

the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special 

regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, 

possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export or import any migratory 

bird, part, nest, egg or product. 
120 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, 

phosphate, potassium and sodium. Section 185 of this title contains 

provisions relating to granting rights-of-ways over Federal lands for 

pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (such as gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for environmental 

impacts of Federal actions. It stipulates the factors to be considered 

in environmental impact statements, and requires that Federal 

agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related decisionmaking and develop means to ensure that unqualified environmental 

values are given appropriate consideration, along with economic 

and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program 

of matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic and historic values of some important trails. National 

Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior 

or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with 

the consent of the involved State(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National Scenic and National Historic Trails may 

only be designated by an Act of Congress. Several National Trails 

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Appendices 121

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single Federal Law that governed the 

administration of the various wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) for 

which the area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

This Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966. This Act defines the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

six priority ‘wildlife-dependent’ public uses, establishes a formal 

process for determining ‘compatible uses’ of System lands, identifies 

the Secretary of the Interior as responsible for managing and 

protecting the System, and requires the development of a 

comprehensive conservation plan for all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of Neotropical migratory birds in the 

united States, Latin America and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. North 

American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend 

projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. Available funds may be expended for up 

to 50 percent of the United States share cost of wetlands 

conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 

100 percent of the cost of projects on Federal lands). 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational 

use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary 

purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish 

and wildlife oriented recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging fees for public 

uses. 
122 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund, to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the State 

fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for 

conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no more 

that 1/3 Federal funds, at least 1/3 Foundation funds, and at least 

1/3 State funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are required 

to pass payments along to other units of local government within the 

county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the establishment 

of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of Federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires all 

federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be available 

to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the 

United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides 

authority for the Service to review and comment on the effects on 

fish and wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by 

the Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated 

sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable 

waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Department of the Interior and 

Defense with State agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the U.S. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals to 

manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his jurisdiction, and 

requires Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies be given 

priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military 

reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed 

by a Federal agency can be transferred, without reimbursement, to 

the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for 

migratory birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes. 
Appendices 123

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies 

Act (1970), as amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell 

their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires 

that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs. The act also 

established a grant program to assist States in participating in the 

development of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

This act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar values; preserves them in a free-flowing condition; and 

protects their local environments. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

review every roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every 

roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and to recommend suitability of each such area. The Act 

permits certain activities within designated Wilderness Areas that do 

not alter natural processes. Wilderness values are preserved 

through a “minimum tool” management approach, which requires 

refuge managers to use the least intrusive methods, equipment and 

facilities necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

programs within the Department of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
124 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with Federal and State 

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the 

use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

Federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification of 

floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their 

respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, 

and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by floodplains. 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted by 

off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977) Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and take action to minimize the destruction, loss of 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance 

the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring Federal agencies to use the State process to 

determine and address concerns of State and local 

elected officials with proposed Federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 
Appendices 125

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EO’s & other actions in 

connection w/ transfer of certain functions 

to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with State, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to CCP planning is the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS), which is adopted, 

standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCT 

facilitates the compilation of regional and national 

summaries, which in turn, can provide an ecosystem 

context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Federal agencies are directed to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities in cooperation with States and 

Tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Act directs Federal agencies 

to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their 

associated resources important to our history, culture, 

and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that have 

tribal implications. 
126 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Federal agencies are directed to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a 

cost effective and environmentally sound manner, 

accurately monitor invasive species, provide for 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions, 

conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public education 

on invasive species and the means to address them. 

This EO replaces and rescinds EO 11987, Exotic 

Organisms (1977). 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
Appendices 127

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

Public scoping was initiated in May 2006 with a statement published in the Federal Register giving 

notice of the start of the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process, listing contact information, 

and asking for comments; a meeting was held at the public library in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. A 

second scoping meeting was held in Metairie in June 2006. A total of 12 people attended the 

meetings. The turnout was low probably because so many communities were devastated by the 

hurricanes in 2005 and people were busy rebuilding or still evacuated from the area. In addition to 

the meetings, fliers were placed throughout St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish, and news releases 

were sent to several newspapers in both Louisiana and Mississippi. The following comments were 

made during the public scoping phase of this plan: 

Public Programs and Visitor Services

Delta NWR: 

1. Maintain a public boat launch with 2 ramps at the Venice facility with 24-hr accessibility. 

2. Place refuge signage at ramps and directional signage on main road regarding boat ramps. 

3. Have an accurate map of the Refuge available (other than the one in the permit); possibly an 

 aerial map or navigational map with details and boundaries. 

4. Locate a map station at the Venice facility. 

5. Offer a webpage feature that lets hunters communicate directly with game wardens. 

6. Locate, GPS, and mark all navigational hazards (partner with Conservation Force quarter boat 

 barge, C-Force Station). 

7. Monitor Delta National Wildlife Refuge for navigational hazards, identify responsible party and 

 have them remove objects. 

8. Monitor, identify the responsible party, and have removed derelict and abandoned storm 

 debris from land. 

9. Offer hunting and fishing as priority uses with no additional licensing or permitting other than 

 that required by the State - the Refuge should be managed by and in cooperation with the 

 State. 

10. Continue public hunting access-consider opening the closed area even if on a limited basis. 

11. Prohibit gill netting. 

12. All crab traps should be collected for destruction if not labeled and regularly attended. 

13. Authorize recreational and commercial trapping for fur bearing animals. 

14. Increase funding for environmental education and interpretation to be able to communicate to 

 the public the critical role of the Refuges in mitigating hurricane damage. 

15. Work to build stakeholders for these Refuges and the Refuge System through education. 

16. Allow public access, but manage activities so that resources are sustainable and educate 

 people that multiple-use access requires seasonal or occasional restrictions. 

17. Planning should take into account impact of future category 1-5 hurricanes. 

18. This area needs to be here in the future for our children and grandchildren. 

19. Hunting should not be allowed because it takes too much staff time to regulate and does not 

 protect wildlife. 

19. Ban prescribed burning, trapping, new roads, logging, and all terrain vehicles. 

20. Encourage wildlife observation. 

21. Improve marking of camping area. 
128 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Breton NWR: 

1. If we don’t do something to restore the islands, the excellent wade fishing will be gone forever. 

2. The islands need to be here for our children and grandchildren. 

3. Ban hunting, prescribed burning, trapping, new roads, logging, all terrain vehicles. 

4. Encourage wildlife observation. 

5. Increase funding for environmental education and interpretation to be able to communicate to 

 the public the critical role of the Refuges in mitigating hurricane damage. 

6. Work to build stakeholders for these Refuges and the Refuge System through education. 

7. Allow public access, but manage activities so that resources are sustainable and educate 

 people that multiple-use access requires seasonal or occasional restrictions. 

8. Planning should take into account the impact of future category 1-5 hurricanes. 

9. Offer hunting and fishing as priority uses with no additional licensing or permitting other than 

 that required by the State - the Refuge should be managed by and in cooperation with the 

 State. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management

Delta NWR: 

1. Research and monitor/survey cattail (Typha) and marsh reed (Phragmites), particularly in 

 interior ponds of Delta NWR to study the potential for colonization and spread of native and 

 newer, more aggressive non-native genotypes. 

2. Restore the wetlands of Delta NWR o mitigate the effect of future hurricanes. 

3. Restore interior marshes. 

4. Any dredged materials should be used beneficially for restoration. 

5. A coastal line of defense is very important. 

6. Acquisition should be the main thrust, especially north of Delta NW, since the southern part is 

 eroding. 

7. Several comments were made regarding concern with marsh turning to open water 

 (subsidence) where oil is extracted. 

8. Several questions were asked about the negative impacts of oil and gas exploration, if current 

 regulations are strong enough to lessen impacts, and if new pipelines are being put in. 

Breton NWR: 

1. Restore the barrier islands to protect inland marshes and homes from future hurricanes (5 

 statements), to provide nesting habitat for pelicans (3 statements), and for future generations. 

2. Rebuild the islands to preserve the second oldest Refuge in the country, continue to provide 

 finfish habitat, to retain the important salinity regimes of Breton & Chandeleur sounds for 

 finfish, oyster, and marsh viability of Biloxi marsh. 

3. Please make Teddy Roosevelt proud and do something to save this Refuge from washing 

 away-plantings and sand fences are great work, but we need much more-conserve the island 

 chain and much more than wildlife will be preserved. 

4. Explore the potential to restore the islands such as what type of sediment will be effective and 

 where it will be derived. 

5. Need to use heavier sediments and not just what is on site. 

6. A coastal line of defense is very important. 

7. Close MRGO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet) before we try to build up the islands - the closing 

 process will be very slow. 

9. Use dredged materials beneficially for restoration. 
Appendices 129

10. Several people attending expressed disappointment with COE’s lack of support for 

 building/restoring the barrier islands. 

11. Need to find funding for projects. 

12. The refuge staff should be active in larger plans and organizations regarding restoration. 

 
130 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 131

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use 

is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process, by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, 

we will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

• Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still 

determine if these uses are compatible. 

• Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider take of wildlife under such 

regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Administration Act). 

This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, 

including the authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Administration Act does not authorize 

any particular use, but rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are 

compatible and “under such regulations as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain 

public uses that, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. 

The law states “. . . it is the policy of the United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System . . .compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive 

priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and . . . when the Secretary determines 

that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity 

should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . ensure that priority general public uses of the System 

receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning and management within 

the System . . . .” The law also states “[i]n administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to 

take the following actions: . . . [i]ssue regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the 

standards set in the Administration Act by providing enhanced consideration of priority general public 
132 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability to provide quality, wildlifedependent recreational uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Recreation Act). This law authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of the System] or parts thereof for public 

recreation when in his judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use.” 

While the Recreation Act authorizes us to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when 

the use is an “appropriate incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act provides the Refuge 

System mission and includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge 

System. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. We must comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we: designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among 

the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or 

rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, E.O. 

11989 requires us to close areas to off highway vehicles when we determine that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic 

resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over Executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions. 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. 

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

• Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

• Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

• Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 
Appendices 133

• Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

• Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

• Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

• Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

• Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Findings of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use for camping were found not to be an appropriate use on 

Delta and Breton NWRs and were not analyzed for compatibility. Boating was found to be 

appropriate on Delta NWR. 
134 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Delta National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Boating 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No _X__

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate _____ Appropriate __X__

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 135

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Delta National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Camping 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No _X_

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __X___ Appropriate_____ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
136 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Breton National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Camping 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

 X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No _X_

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __X__ Appropriate ____

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 137

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

Delta National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination: 

1) Boating in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard and the State of Louisiana regulations 

2) Recreational fishing of freshwater and saltwater fish in accordance with State of Louisiana 

 regulations 

3) Recreational hunting of migratory birds, big-game, small game, and feral hogs in accordance 

 with the State of Louisiana regulations 

4) Wildlife observation/photography 

A description and the anticipated biological impacts for each are addressed separately in this 

Compatibility Determination. 

Refuge Name: Delta National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: November 19, 1935 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive Order 7229 on November 19, 1935; 

Executive Order 7383 on June 5, 1936; Executive Order 7538 on January 10, 1937 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of the refuge is to provide breeding ground for migratory birds and 

other wildlife. As a migratory waterfowl refuge is subject to use for quarantine purposes. For 

waterfowl refuge purposes is subject to use with the improvement of navigation in the Mississippi 

River and the uses thereof, and the administration of the area for wildlife conservation purposes shall 

be without interference with any existing or future uses or regulations of the War Department (Army 

Corps of Engineers).” For use in a inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose for 

migratory birds. Protect and preserve 49,000 acres of estuarine habitats for a variety of wildlife 

species, and provide opportunities to the public for wildlife oriented interpretation, education, and 

recreation. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, is: 

... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 
138 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by 

Executive Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year 

(50 CFR Subchapter C; 43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public law 105-57, October 9, 1997) 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed are considered separately. Although, for 

brevity, the preceding sections from “Uses” through “Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and 

Policies” are only written once within the plan, they are part of each descriptive use and become part 

of that compatibility determination if considered outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Description of Use: Boating (motorized and non-motorized) 

Recreational boating that is connected with other public use activities, such as hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography over and adjacent to refuge-owned water bottoms. No air 

boats, mud boats, or air-cooled propulsion engines are allowed on refuge waters. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for boating is supported by annual operation and maintenance 

funds. Costs include permit printing, administration, and monitoring the activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Boating use whether it is motorized or non-motorized over refuge 

waters for regulated public use activities in accordance with permit regulations should not have any 

significant adverse biological impacts. As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of 

disturbance of allowing boating fishing is considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of 

known fish and wildlife species and populations present on the refuge. Implementation of an effective 

law enforcement program and development of site specific refuge regulations that are reviewed 

annually should minimize most problems. 
Appendices 139

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is provided for public review and 

comment during the review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

a. Air boats, mud boats, and air cooled propulsion engines are prohibited on the refuge 

waters. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act identified hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography as priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, where compatible 

with refuge purposes. Boat access is the only access available to the refuge due to the remote 

location. This use is legitimate and appropriate. Offering recreational boating is in compliance with 

refuge goals, is a management objective for Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and furthers the goals 

and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

(2) Description of Use: Recreational Fishing 

Recreational fishing, a wildlife-dependent activity, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose 

for which the refuge was established. 

Recreational fishing of freshwater and saltwater species is allowed year-round on the refuge. 

Fisherman are allowed to take crabs with traps. While fishing is a popular public use on the refuge, 

fishing pressure is not heavy at this time and heavily dependant on tidal movement and river 

elevation. 

All fishing falls within the framework of Louisiana’s open seasons and follow state regulations. 

Refuge-specific regulations are reviewed annually and incorporated into the refuge hunting and 

fishing permit. Fisherman are not required to possess refuge permits while fishing on the refuge. 

The entire refuge is open to fishing during hours of daylight with the exception of areas posted with 

“Area Closed” signs or so designated in the hunting and fishing permit during State waterfowl 

seasons. The areas between Main Pass and Raphael Pass are closed during the State waterfowl 

hunting seasons to all access. The waterfowl areas open to hunting are open to fishing during the 

State waterfowl season during the hours of daylight after 12:00 p.m.. 

Limb lines, trotlines, slat traps, nets, and jug fishing are prohibited. No commercial fishing activities, 

including guiding or participating in a charter fishing trip are permitted. Harvest information is 

gathered by a voluntary self-check form. 
140 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the fishing program is supported by annual operation and 

maintenance funds. Costs include administration and monitoring the activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: While managed fishing opportunities result in both short and long 

term impacts to individual fish, effects at the population level are usually negligible. The fish 

populations are capable of sustaining harvest because of the availability of habitat and location to the 

Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico. Fishing regulations for both saltwater and freshwater species 

are based on specific state-wide harvest objectives. State biologists set limits and harvest guidelines 

based on population survey and habitat condition data. Refuge fishing programs are always within 

these regulations. As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance by 

allowing fishing is considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known fish species and 

populations present on the refuge. All fishing activities would be conducted with the constraints of 

sound biological principles and refuge-specific regulations established to restrict illegal or 

questionable activities. Monitoring activities through fish inventories in partnerships with the State 

and assessments of public use levels and activities and public use programs would be adjusted as 

needed to limit disturbance. Implementation of an effective law enforcement program and 

development of site specific refuge regulations that are reviewed annually should minimize most 

problems. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is provided for public review and 

comment during the review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 a. Fishing is allowed in accordance with State established annual regulations and limits 

 as set by Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 

b. Sport fishing and crabbing are permitted only during daylight hours and only after 

 12:00 p.m. in the waterfowl hunting areas during State waterfowl hunting season. 

c. Limb lines, trotlines, slat traps, nets, and jug fishing are prohibited. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act identified fishing as one of the 

priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, where compatible with refuge purposes. This use is 

legitimate and appropriate and is dependent upon healthy fish populations. Offering fishing is in 

compliance with refuge goals, is a management objective for Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and 

furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 
Appendices 141

(3) Desription of Use: Recreational Hunting 

Recreational hunting, a wildlife-dependent activity, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose 

for which the refuge was established and Executive Order 13443 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and 

Wildlife Conservation on August 17, 2007. The order directs Federal agencies that have programs 

and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and 

wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to 

facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game 

species and their habitat. 

Recreational hunting of white-tailed deer with bow and arrow, migratory game birds, and rabbits is 

allowed on the refuge. Hunters are also allowed to take feral hogs with bow and arrow during archery 

deer season. While hunting is the most popular public use on the refuge, hunting pressure is not 

heavy at this time. 

All hunts fall within the framework of Louisiana’s open seasons and follow State regulations. Refugespecific regulations are reviewed annually and incorporated into the refuge hunting permit. Hunters 

are required to possess refuge permits while hunting on the refuge. The entire refuge is open to 

hunting with the exception of areas posted with “Area Closed” signs or so designated in the hunting 

permit. The areas between Main Pass and Raphael Pass are closed during the hunting seasons to 

all access. 

Waterfowl (ducks and geese), coots, rails and gallinules may be hunted during the State season on 

Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday until noon using non-toxic shot. Retrievers are 

allowed. Rabbits may be hunted during the State season using only shotguns with non-toxic shot 

and dogs may be used only after the close of the State gun deer season. White-tailed deer harvest is 

limited to archery from October 1-31 and from the day after the close of the State waterfowl season 

until January 31 following the State limits and regulations. No commercial hunting activities, including 

guiding or participating in a guided hunt, are permitted. Harvest information is gathered by a 

voluntary self-check form contained in the hunting permit. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the hunt program is supported by annual operation and 

maintenance funds. Costs include permit printing, administration, and monitoring the activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: While managed hunting opportunities result in take of some 

individual animals, short term impacts to individual animals at the population level are usually 

negligible. Small game animal populations are capable of sustaining harvest because of their short 

reproduction cycles. Hunting regulations for both endemic and migratory game species are based on 

specific state-wide and nation-wide harvest objectives. Migratory bird regulations are established at 

the federal level each year following a series of meetings involving both state and federal biologists. 

Harvest guidelines are based on population survey and habitat condition data. Refuge hunting 

programs are always within these regulations. As currently proposed, the known and anticipated 

levels of disturbance of allowing hunting are considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of 

known wildlife species and populations present on the refuge. All hunting activities would be 

conducted with the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific regulations 

established to restrict illegal or questionable activities. Monitoring activities through wildlife 

inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities would be utilized, and public use 

programs would be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. Implementation of an effective law 

enforcement program and development of site specific refuge regulations that are reviewed annually 

should minimize most incidental take problems. 
142 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is provided for public review and 

comment during the review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 a. Hunting seasons and bag limits are established annually as agreed upon during the annual 

hunt coordination meeting with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries personnel. 

 b. All hunters are required to possess a signed refuge hunting permit while participating in 

refuge hunts. State hunting regulations apply unless otherwise listed in the permit. 

 c. Non-toxic shot must be used. 

 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act identified hunting as one of the 

priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, where compatible with refuge purposes. Executive 

order 13443 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation on August 17, 2007 directs 

Federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land 

management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior 

and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting 

opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. 

This use is legitimate and appropriate and is dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Offering 

hunting is in compliance with refuge goals, is a management objective for Delta National Wildlife 

Refuge, and furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

(4) Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependant recreation uses provided they are compatible 

with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Though photography and observation has occurred on the refuge, there are no blinds or platforms 

designated for these activities. None are proposed or planned at this time. However opportunity 

exists for visitors traveling to the refuge for these activities. Commercial photography or videography 

is allowed under a special use permit with special conditions specific to those activities. Often copies 

are given to the refuge for use with refuge programs or publications. 
Appendices 143

The general public may participate in wildlife observation and photography year around from one half 

hour before sunrise to one half hour after sunset in the open areas of the refuge. Boating is the only 

available access available for these activities due to location and area. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for wildlife observation and photography use is supported by 

annual operation and maintenance funds. Costs include administration and monitoring the activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography should not have any 

significant adverse biological impacts. As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of 

disturbance of allowing these activities is considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of 

known fish and wildlife species and populations present on the refuge. Implementation of an effective 

law enforcement program and development of site specific refuge regulations that are reviewed 

annually should minimize most problems. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is provided for public review and 

comment during the review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

a. Access to areas of the refuge identified as “Closed” during the State waterfowl season 

must be prohibited. 

 b. The refuge is open 30 minutes before legal sunrise to 30 minutes after legal 

 sunset for all public use on the refuge. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act identified wildlife observation and 

photograph as two of the priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, where compatible with 

refuge purposes. This use is legitimate and appropriate and is dependent upon healthy wildlife 

populations. Offering wildlife observation and photography is in compliance with refuge goals, is a 

management objective for Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and furthers the goals and missions of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 
144 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Delta National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for 

compatibility outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature becomes part 

of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: _________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: _________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: _________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 
Appendices 145

Breton National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination: 

1) Recreational fishing of saltwater fish in accordance with the State of Louisiana regulations 

2) Wildlife observation/photography 

A description and the anticipated biological impacts for each use are addressed separately in this 

Compatibility Determination. 

Refuge Name: Breton National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: October 4, 1904 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Originally designated by an unnumbered Executive 

Order on October 4, 1904. Established as the Breton Island Reservation by Executive Order 369-A 

on November 11, 1905. Established as the Breton Bird Refuge by Executive Order 7983 on October 

4, 1938. All of the Federally owned lands of the refuge were entered into the National Wilderness 

Preservation System on January 3, 1975 (Public Law 93-632) 

Refuge Purpose: The refuge was established to provide sanctuary for nesting wading birds and 

waterfowl, to protect and preserve the wilderness character of the islands, and to provide sandy 

beach habitat for a variety of wildlife species. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, is: 

... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 
146 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by 

Executive Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year 

(50 CFR Subchapter C; 43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed are considered separately. Although, for 

brevity, the preceding sections from “Uses” through “Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and 

Policies” are only written once within the plan, they are part of each descriptive use and become part 

of that compatibility determination if considered outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

(1) Description of Use: Recreational Fishing 

Recreational fishing, a wildlife-dependent activity, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose 

for which the refuge was established. 

Recreational fishing of saltwater species is allowed year-round on the refuge. Fisherman usually 

wade the shallow areas adjacent to the refuge but occasionally fish from the beach. Crabbing is 

allowed on the refuge. While fishing is a popular public use on the refuge, fishing and crabbing 

pressure is not heavy at this time. Tidal movements within the Breton Sound greatly impact fishing 

success. 

All fishing falls within the framework of the State of Louisiana open seasons and follow state 

regulations. Refuge-specific regulations are reviewed annually and incorporated into the refuge 

brochure. Fisherman are not required to possess refuge permits while fishing on the refuge. The 

entire refuge is open to fishing during hours of daylight with the exception of areas posted with “Area 

Closed” signs so designated in the refuge brochure 

Limb lines, trotlines, slat traps, nets, and jug fishing are prohibited. No commercial fishing activities, 

including guiding or participating in a charter fishing trip are permitted. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for recreational fishing is supported by annual operation and 

maintenance funds. Costs include permit printing, administration, and monitoring the activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: While managed fishing opportunities result in impacts to individual 

fish, effects at the population level are usually negligible. The fish populations are capable of 

sustaining harvest because of the availability of abundant habitat in coastal Louisiana and large 

marsh areas surrounding the Mississippi River and proximity of the Gulf of Mexico. Regulations for 
Appendices 147

saltwater fishing are based on specific state-wide harvest objectives. State biologists set limits and 

harvest guidelines based on population survey and habitat condition data. Refuge fishing programs 

are always within these regulations. As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of 

disturbance of allowing fishing is considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known fish 

species and populations present on the refuge. All fishing activities would be conducted with the 

constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific regulations established to restrict illegal 

or questionable activities. Monitoring activities through fish wildlife inventories in partnerships with 

the State and assessments of public use levels and activities would be utilized, and public use 

programs would be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. Implementation of an effective law 

enforcement program and development of site specific refuge regulations that are reviewed annually 

should minimize most problems. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is provided for public review and 

comment during the review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

b. Access to areas of the refuge identified as “Area Closed” during nesting season for sea 

and shore birds must be continued. 

 b. Refuge hours must continue to remain open 30 minutes before legal sunrise to 

 30 minutes after sunset for all public use on the refuge. 

 

 c. Limb lines, trotlines, slat traps, nets, and jug fishing are prohibited. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act identified recreational fishing as 

one of the priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, where compatible with refuge purposes. 

This use is legitimate and appropriate and is dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Offering 

wildlife observation and photography is in compliance with refuge goals, is a management objective 

for Breton National Wildlife Refuge, and furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 

(2) Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependant recreation uses provided they are compatible 

with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 
148 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Though photography and observation have occurred on the refuge, there are no blinds or platforms 

designated for these activities. None are proposed or planned at this time. However opportunity 

exists for visitors traveling to the refuge for these activities. Commercial photography or videography 

is allowed under a special use permit with special conditions specific to those activities. Often copies 

are given to the refuge for use with refuge programs or publications. 

The general public may participate in wildlife observation and photography year around from one half 

hour before sunrise to one half hour after sunset in the open areas of the refuge. Boating is the only 

available access available for these activities due to location and area. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for wildlife observation and photography is supported by annual 

operation and maintenance funds. Costs include permit printing, administration, and monitoring the 

activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife observation and photography should not have any 

significant adverse biological impacts. As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of 

disturbance of allowing these activities is considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of 

known fish and wildlife species and populations present on the refuge. Implementation of an effective 

law enforcement program and development of site specific refuge regulations that are reviewed 

annually should minimize most problems. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination is provided for public review and 

comment during the review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

c. Access to areas of the refuge identified as “Area Closed” during nesting season for sea 

and shore birds must be continued. 

 b. Refuge hours must continue to remain open 30 minutes before legal sunrise to 

 30 minutes after sunset for all public use on the refuge. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act identified wildlife observation and 

photography as two of the priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, where compatible with 

refuge purposes. This use is legitimate and appropriate and is dependent upon healthy wildlife 

populations. Offering wildlife observation and photography is in compliance with refuge goals, is a 

management objective for Breton National Wildlife Refuge, and furthers the goals and missions of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________ 
Appendices 149

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Breton National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for 

compatibility outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature becomes part 

of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: _________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: _________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: _________________________________________________ 

Signature 

 
150 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 151

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluations

Originating Person: Jack Bohannan 

Telephone Number: (985) 882-2000 

E-Mail: jack_bohannan@fws.gov 

Date: August 28, 2007 

PROJECT NAME: Delta National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: Louisiana, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

III. Station Name: Delta National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action 

The proposed action would result in the implementation of the preferred alternative developed 

during the preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Delta National 

Wildlife Refuge, a 49,000 acre refuge in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Upon approval of the 

CCP the following uses on the refuge will be implemented for a period of fifteen years; 

recreational hunting, recreational fishing, boating, wildlife observation and photography. 

The preferred alternative identified in the CCP is to continue providing sanctuary and habitat 

for wintering waterfowl. This alternative supports the purpose for which the refuge was 

established “for use in an inviolate sanctuary or for any other management purpose for 

migratory birds” [16 U.S.C. 715d] (Migratory Bird Conservation Act). Protect and preserve 

49,000 acres of estuarine habitats for a variety of wildlife species, and provide opportunities to 

the public for wildlife oriented interpretation, education, and recreation. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

The refuge is adjacent to the Mississippi River and is an active part of the Delta Bird’s Foot 

 which was created by sediment carried by the river that is stacked to a level which emerges 

 from underwater to become vegetated and capture additional sediment and continue building 

 new marsh. It is classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetlands. Two basic marsh zones occur 
152 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

 within the marsh habitat: fresh marsh nearest the main tributary and brackish marsh near the 

 Gulf of Mexico waters. These tidally influenced marsh’s fluctuate from a few inches to two 

 feet. The fertile soils, vegetative composition and shallow water environment create a highly 

 productive habitat for fish and wildlife. Endangered species occurring on the refuge are 

 Brown Pelicans “Pelecanus occidentalis” and Interior Least Terns “Sterna antillarum 

athalassos. Threatened species occurring on the refuge are Gulf Sturgeon “Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi” and Piping Plovers “Chararadius melodus”. 

 

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Brown Pelican “Pelecanus occidenallis” Endangered 

Interior Least Terns “Sterna antillarum” Endangered 

Gulf Sturgeon “Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi” Threatened 

Piping Plover “Charadrius melodus” Threatened 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species, S/A=Similar Appearance 

VI. Location (attach map): 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: 27, Lower Mississippi River 

B. County and State: Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude: N 29.280 W89.243

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Venice , LA (70091); North 8 miles 

west side or Mississippi River 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Brown Pelicans use the refuge for loafing, resting and feeding along edges of the Gulf of 

Mexico. 
Appendices 153

Least terns infrequently use small areas of beach along the Gulf of Mexico at low tide. 

The Gulf Sturgeon uses the Mississippi River and tributaries entering the refuge throughout 

the year. 

Piping Plover infrequently use small areas of beach along the Gulf of Mexico and low tide. 

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Brown Pelican None 

Interior Least Tern None 

Gulf Sturgeon None 

Piping Plover None 

 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

N/A N/A 

 
154 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

REQUESTED

NE NA AA

Brown Pelican X Concurrence

Interior Least Tern X Concurrence

Gulf Sturgeon X Concurrence

Piping Plover X Concurrence

Concurrence

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively 

impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. 

Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to 

these resources. Response Requested is a” Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely impact any 

listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for listed species is 

“Formal Consultation”. Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference”. 

____________________________ ________________________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

____________________________

Title

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_____________________________ __________________________

Signature Date

_____________________________ __________________________ 

 Title Office 
Appendices 155

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Jack Bohannan 

Telephone Number: (985) 882-2026 

E-Mail: jack_bohannan@fws.gov 

Date: August 28, 2007 

PROJECT NAME: Breton National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: Louisiana, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

III. Station Name: Breton National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action 

The proposed action would result in the implementation of the preferred alternative developed 

during the preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Breton National 

Wildlife Refuge, a 3,000-acre refuge in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. 

Upon approval of the CCP the following uses on the refuge will be implemented for a period of 

fifteen years; recreational fishing, wildlife observation and photography. 

The preferred alternative identified in the CCP is to continue providing sanctuary for nesting 

wading birds and seas birds as well as wintering shore birds and waterfowl, to protect and 

preserve the wilderness character of the islands, and to provide sandy beach habitat for a 

variety of wildlife species. This alternative supports the purpose for which the refuge was 

established. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

The refuge is composed of barrier islands formed from the remnants of the former Mississippi 

 River’s St. Bernard delta. As the course of the river shifted westward two thousand years ago, 

 It left behind sediment that formed the islands. The islands have been reshaped and 

 continually decreasing in size due to impacts from tidal action, winds, and tropical storms. 

 The refuge provides sandy beach habitat with vegetation comprised of black mangrove and 

 groundsel bush. The shallow areas around the islands support beds of manatee, shoal, turtle, 

 and widgeon grass. This habitat offers significant importance for nesting sea, shore and 
156 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

 wading birds. Endangered species occurring on the refuge are Brown 

 Pelicans “Pelecanus occidentalis” and Interior Least Terns “Sterna antillarum 

 athalassos”. Threatened species occurring on the refuge are Piping Plovers “Chararadius 

 melodus”. 

 

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

C. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Brown Pelican “Pelecanus occidenallis” Endangered 

Interior Least Terns “Sterna antillarum” Endangered 

Piping Plover “Charadrius melodus” Threatened 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species, S/A=Similar Appearance 

VI. Location (attach map): 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: 27, Lower Mississippi River 

B. County and State: Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana

D. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude: N 29.464 W 89.199

F. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Venice, LA (70091), sixteen miles 

west of the refuge 

G. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Brown Pelicans use the refuge for loafing, resting, nesting and feeding around the islands 

throughout the year. 

Least terns frequently use the sandy beach habitat during the winter. 

Piping Plover frequently use the sandy beach habitat during the winter. 

 
Appendices 157

VII. Determination of Effects:

B. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Brown Pelican None 

Interior Least Tern None 

Piping Plover None 

 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

N/A N/A 

 

 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

REQUESTED NE NA AA

Brown Pelican X Concurrence 

Interior Least Tern X Concurrence 

Piping Plover X Concurrence 

 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a” Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is “Formal Consultation”. Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference”. 
158 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

____________________________ ________________________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

____________________________

Title

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_____________________________ __________________________

Signature Date

_____________________________ __________________________ 

 Title Office 
Appendices 159

Appendix H. Wilderness Review

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Delta National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the 

criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the Refuge were found 

to meet these criteria primarily because of the highly visible and extensive oil and gas development. 

Therefore, the suitability of Delta National Wildlife Refuge lands for wilderness designation is not 

further analyzed in this plan. 

Lands within Breton National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed previously for eligibility and suitable 

lands were declared a wilderness in 1975. At that time an oil and gas facility including housing was 

located on North Breton Island; the remainder of the Refuge was declared a wilderness area. 

Hurricanes battered the facility over time. After Hurricane Georges, the decision was made not to 

rebuild and maintain the buildings although the site is still active as an oil and gas terminal. 
160 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 
Appendices 161

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

Species of concern and/or significance for management purposes occurring on Delta National Wildlife 

Refuge are listed below. 

Common Name Scientific Name

BIRDS 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Northern Shoveler Anas clyeata 

Redhead Aythya americana

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Scaup Aythya marila; A. affinis. 

Southern Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus 

Osprey Pandion heliaetus 

King Rail Rallus elegans 

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris 

Purple Gallinule Porphyrio porphyrio 

Common Gallinule Porphyrio martinica 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Eastern Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

Louisiana or Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Roseate Spoonbill Platalea ajaja 

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana 

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

MAMMALS

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Nutria Myocastor coypus 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochelys temminckii 

Alligator Alligator mississippiensis 

FISH 

Gulf Sturgeon Acipinser oxyrinchus 

Alligator Gar Atractosteus spatula 
162 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

PLANT COMMUNITIES 

Delta splay dominated by Scirpus spp. and/or Sagittaria spp. 

Scrub Shrub/Spoil Bank 

Phragmites marsh 

Species of concern and/or significance for management purposes occurring on Breton National 

Wildlife Refuge are listed below. 

Common Name Scientific Name

BIRDS 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

Eastern Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis

Redhead Aythya americana 

Scaup Aythya marila; A. affinis. 

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla 

Royal Tern Sterna maxima 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis 

Black Skimmer Rynchops niger

Sooty Tern Onychoprion fuscata 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 

Least Tern Sternula antillarum 

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri

Gullbilled Tern Gelochelidon nilotica

Magnificent Frigate Bird Fregata magnificens 

Common Egret Casmerodius albus 

Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus 

Louisiana or Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor

Black-Crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 

Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus 

MAMMALS

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin

PLANT COMMUNITIES 

Seagrass Beds 

Beachfront/Dune 

Backbarrier Tidal Marsh 
Appendices 163

Appendix J. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) 

RONS PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER AMOUNT 

Monitor wildlife and habitat on Delta NWR 99011 $ 140,000 

Support restoration and management projects on 

Delta NWR 

99098 129,000 

Coordinate activities on Delta and Breton NWRs 00054 45,000 

Manage budget and other office needs for Delta 

NWR 

99099 118,000 

Monitor snow geese and other biological programs 

on Delta NWR 

00007 64,500 

Acquisition and digitization of aerial photography for 

Delta NWR 

00018 54,000 

Improve mapping and data management capabilities 

for Delta NWR 

00031 25,000 

Monitor and improve management for mottled ducks 

on Delta NWR 

00016 65,000 

Monitor and improve management for marsh birds 

on Delta NWR 

02007 80,000 

Monitor and improve management capabilities for 

migratory birds on Delta NWR 

00011 128,000 

Determine potential contaminant levels in sediment 

and fish tissues on Delta NWR 

03001 150,000 

Determine potential contaminant levels in 

blood/tissues of higher vertebrates on Delta NWR 

03002 150,000 

Conduct aerial wildlife surveys on Breton NWR 99004 154,000 

Band juvenile brown pelicans on Breton NWR 00030 27,000 

Monitor wildlife and habitat on Breton NWR 99009 140,000 

Seabird study on Breton NWR 97030 23,000 

Acquisition and digitization of aerial photography for 

Breton NWR 

00022 50,000 

Air quality study on impacts from air pollutants on 

wildlife and vegetation on Breton NWR 

01002 135,000 

Wilderness Management Plan for Breton NWR 01001 37,000 

Satellite transmitter tracking study on brown 

pelicans on Breton NWR 

03001 110,000 

Partnership with Cooperative Extension for nursery 

that grows plants to be used in dune and marsh 

restoration on Breton NWR 

03002 300,000 

TOTAL $2,122,500 
164 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NEEDS 

MMS PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER AMOUNT 

Replace 17’ Boston Whaler, 

radar, Evinrude motor, and 

boat trailer 

05138483 $13,000 

TOTAL $13,000 

 
Appendices 165

Appendix K. List of Preparers 

PLANNING TEAM 

Kenneth Litzenberger, Refuge Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex - Editor, Provided overall guidance and oversight 

Pondexter Dixson, Deputy Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex - Editor, Provided guidance 

Jack Bohannan, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Louisiana National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex - Writer and Editor 

Charlotte Parker, Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex - Planning Team Leader, Writer and Editor 

James Harris, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Louisiana 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex - Writer and Editor 

Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex - 

Writer and Editor 

Diane Barth, Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex - Editor 

CONTRIBUTORS 

Pre-planning for this Draft CCP/EA began in 2004 with a review of the biological and visitor services 

programs for Breton NWR by several state and federal biologists, university researchers, and 

personnel from other refuges. It was decided in 2006 to combine Breton’s and Delta’s 

comprehensive conservation planning. During June and July of 2006, Delta NWR’s biological and 

visitor services programs were reviewed by professionals including biologists and educators. 

Recommendations from these meetings were used during the development of this Draft CCP/EA. 

Contributors include: 

Todd Baker, Area Manager Pass a Loutre, LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA 

George Bodie, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA 

Rosa Boudreaux, Buras High School, Buras, Louisiana 

Barbara Boyle, former deputy Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Gay Brantly, Park Ranger, Black Bayou Lake NWR, Farmerville, LA 

Wayne Burgess, 4-H Program, Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Belle Chasse, Louisiana 

Donna Bush, Photographer and volunteer, Pearl River, LA 

Donna Dittman, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 
166 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges 

Cedric Doolittle, Fisheries Biologist, USFWS, Baton Rouge, LA 

Barrett Fortier, Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Houma, LA 

Debbie Fuller, USFWS, Ecological Services, Lafayette, LA 

David Gegenheimer, Fisherman, Gretna, LA 

Richard Hale, Birdwatcher and volunteer, Slidell, LA 

Tom Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Rockefeller Refuge, Cameron Parish, LA 

Doug Hunt, Park Ranger, Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Chuck Hunter, Chief of Planning and Resource Management, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

Van Janssen, Islander Lodge, Venice, LA 

Tommy Michot, U.S. Geological Service, Lafayette, LA 

Randy Myers, Waterfowl Biologist, LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA 

Michael Poirrier, Ponchartrain Institute for Environmental Sciences, Univ. of New Orleans, New 

 Orleans, LA 

Denise Reed, Laboratory for Coastal Restoration Science, Univ. of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 

Nancy Roeper, USFWS, Arlington, VA 

Elizabeth Souheaver, former Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Shelley Stiaes, Refuge Operations Specialist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Bob Strader, Supervisory Wildlife Management Biologist, USFWS, Jackson, MS 

Gary Tucker, Visitor Services Specialist, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

Nancy Walters, former Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Barry Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture Coordinator, USFWS, Lafayette, LA 

Christian Winslow, LDWF, Baton Rouge, LA 

Paul Yakupsack, Refuge Manager, Southeast Louisiana Complex, Houma, LA