Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

September 2007

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

BIG BRANCH MARSH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

September 2007 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1

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

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

Purpose of and Need for the Plan ................................................................................................ 1

Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................. 2

Mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................................... 2

Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................... 2

Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 3

Relationship to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ............................................ 3

Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem ................................................................................... 5

II. THE REFUGE .................................................................................................................................... 7

Introduction and History ................................................................................................................ 7

Purposes of the Refuge ................................................................................................................ 9

Purposes of the Refuge .............................................................................................................. 10

Resource and Management Descriptions .................................................................................. 10

Refuge Administration and Management .......................................................................... 10

Physical Environment ........................................................................................................ 10

Biological Environment ...................................................................................................... 13

Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................. 13

Cultural Environment ......................................................................................................... 15

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................................17

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 17

Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 18

Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................................. 18

Habitat Conservation ......................................................................................................... 19

Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 19

Land Protection ................................................................................................................. 19

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ..................................................................................................... 21

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 21
ii Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 21

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 22

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 41

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 41

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 41

Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 41

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 43

Resource Protection and Refuge Administration .............................................................. 45

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 50

Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 50

Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 50

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 50

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 54

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 55

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ....................................................... 65

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ................................. 69

APPENDIX D. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................... 81

Overview .................................................................................................................................... 81

Core Planning Team Members .................................................................................................. 84

APPENDIX E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................ 85

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 85

Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses .......................................................................... 87

APPENDIX F. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................. 97

APPENDIX G. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 107

APPENDIX H. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 123

APPENDIX I. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................. 127
Table of Contents iii

APPENDIX J. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 129

APPENDIX K. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 131

APPENDIX L. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 133

APPENDIX M. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 137
iv Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge in Relation to Regional 

Conservation Areas ............................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. The Location of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge on the North Shore of Lake 

Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana ..................................................................... 8

Figure 3. 2006 Current and Acquisition Boundaries of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge .... 9

Figure 4. The impacts from Hurricane Katrina on the Fritchie Marsh Unit of Big Branch Marsh 

National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................................................... 12

Figure 5. General habitat types on Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge ................................ 14

Figure 6. Public use areas and facilities on Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. .................. 31

Figure 7. Current staffing chart for Big Branch Marsh NWR and Southeast Louisiana Refuge 

Complex .............................................................................................................................. 51

Figure 8. Proposed staffing chart for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 52

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 53

Table 2. Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the 

goals and objectives of the CCP ........................................................................................... 54
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Executive Summary 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the 

management of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The 

plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat 

management program, a visitor services’ review of the refuge’s public use program, and conducted a 

public scoping meeting and workshops to solicit public opinion on the issues the plan should address. 

The biological review team was composed of biologists from Federal and State agencies and 

nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge staff held a public 

scoping meeting and two workshops to solicit public reaction to issues facing the refuge and to 

develop the proposed alternatives. Also, a 30-day public review and comment period of the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment was provided. 

The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A would maintain the status quo. 

Under this alternative, no new actions would be taken to improve or enhance the refuge’s current 

habitat, wildlife, and public use management programs. All natural resource management and public 

use programs would continue at present levels and with current facilities and staff. 

Alternative B would emphasize management of the natural resources of the refuge based on 

maintaining and improving wetland habitats, monitoring targeted flora and fauna representative of the 

Pontchartrain Basin, and providing quality public use programs and wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. Current forestry and fire programs would adapt to changing conditions and as 

management practices are assessed. Public use programs would be improved by offering more 

facilities and hiking trails, wildlife observation areas, and an auto-tour route. Overall public use would 

be monitored to determine if any negative impacts are occurring to refuge resources from overuse. 

Land acquisitions within the approved acquisition boundary would be based on importance of the 

habitat for target management species. The headquarters area would be developed as an urban 

public use area with trails; buildings presently not being used and landscaping would be refurbished 

for visitor and community outreach. 

Alternative C would emphasize managing the natural resources of the refuge for maximized public 

use activities, including wildlife-dependent recreational activities. The majority of staff time and efforts 

would support the public use activities of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation. Federal trust species and archaeological resources 

would be monitored as mandated, but other species targeted for management would depend on 

which ones the public is interested in utilizing. Emphasis would be placed more on interpreting and 

demonstrating conservation programs than on actual implementation. Providing access via roads, 

trails, parking areas, and by dredging for boat access would be maximized, as well as providing 

public use facilities throughout the refuge. Land acquisition within the approved acquisition boundary 

would be based on importance of the habitat for public use. The refuge headquarters area would 

provide administrative offices, a visitor center with surrounding historical gardens, and be developed 

for hiking, fishing, birding, photography, and canoeing. 
Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

The Service selected Alternative B as its preferred alternative and is reflected in this comprehensive 

conservation plan. Alternative B directs the development of programs to best achieve the refuge 

purpose and goals; emphasizes maintaining and improving wetland habitats; collects habitat and 

wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the same time, 

these management actions provide balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities consistent 

with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological principles. Alternative B provides the best 

mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge was 

prepared to guide management actions and to provide direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife 

conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be 

allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of 

the refuge or the purposes for which it was established. 

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

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft of this plan was 

made available to State and Federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general 

public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the development 

of this CCP, describing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s preferred plan (Appendix E). 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Under the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Service is 

required to develop comprehensive conservation plans for all lands and waters of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. These plans will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving the 

purposes of each refuge unit. The National Environmental Policy Act ensures that the Service will assess 

the environmental impacts of any actions taken as a result of implementing this CCP. 

The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role the refuge will play in supporting the mission of the 

Refuge System and the Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem (LMRE). The CCP outlines 

issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed to the Service during a public scoping meeting, a 

series of workshops, and on comment sheets. It also provides a description of desired future 

conditions and proposes long-range guidance to accomplish the purposes, mission, and vision of the 

refuge. This guidance is presented in a listing of refuge goals, objectives, and strategies resulting 

from an analysis of possible management alternatives. 

The CCP will serve as an operational guide for management of the refuge over the next fifteen years. 

This plan will: 

• Provide a clear statement of the desired future conditions when refuge purposes and goals 

are accomplished; 

• Provide refuge neighbors and visitors with a clear understanding of the reasons for 

management actions on the refuge; 

• Ensure management of the refuge reflects policies and goals of the Refuge System; 

• Ensure refuge management is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans; 

• Provide long-term continuity in refuge management; and 

• Provide a basis for operation, maintenance, and capital improvement budget requests. 
2 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Perhaps the greatest need of the Service involves communication with the public and the public’s 

participation in carrying out the mission of the Refuge System. Many agencies, organizations, 

institutions, and businesses have developed relationships with the Service to advance the mission of 

national wildlife refuges. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

The Service is a Federal bureau operated under the Department of the Interior, the Nation’s principal 

conservation agency. The Department of the Interior is the principal landowner of most of the 

nation’s public lands and cultural resources. Management responsibilities include fostering wise use 

of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and 

cultural values of our national parks and historical places, managing the Refuge System, and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. 

The Service is the principal agency responsible for protecting threatened and endangered species, 

migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, 

the Service administers a national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of 

these resources. 

MISSION OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service manages the Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands set aside specifically 

for the protection of fish and wildlife populations and habitats. More than 540 national wildlife 

refuges, covering more than 96 million acres, provide important habitat for native plants and many 

species of insects, amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals. These refuges also play a vital 

role in conserving the habitats of threatened and endangered species, as well as offering a wide 

variety of recreational opportunities. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, and 

environmental education programs. Nationwide, more than 30 million visitors annually hunt, fish, 

observe, and photograph wildlife, or participate in interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges. 

MISSION OF THE 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 for wildlife conservation of the Refuge System. Actions were initiated in 1997 to 

comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete comprehensive 

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

help guide management of refuges. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as the 

guidelines for refuge management over the next 15 years. The Act provides 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; 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

• 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. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System, 

congressional legislation, 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. Refer to 

Appendix C for a listing of relevant legal mandates. 

Since refuges must be managed for wildlife first, lands and waters within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System are closed to public uses unless specifically and legally opened under specified conditions 

allowing compatibility with the refuges’ purposes. All programs and uses of a refuge must be 

evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

including those that: 

• Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to 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 which benefit the conservation of 

fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation); and 

• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

RELATIONSHIP TO THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency 

policy, states that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other 

State fish and game agencies and Federal agencies during the course of acquiring and managing 

refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and sustainability of 

fish and wildlife throughout the United States. Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge is located in a 

region which includes several other State and Federal conservation areas (Figure 1). 

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

(http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov) is vested with 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 
4 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge in relation to regional 

conservation areas 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

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 biological and public use reviews, and 

workshops as part of the planning process, 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. 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY ECOSYSTEM 

Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge lies within a physiographic region designated by the 

Service as the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE). The LMRE serves as the primary 

wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and migration habitat 

for migratory songbirds returning from Central and South America. Geographically, the refuge lies on 

the extreme southeastern boundary of the LMRE. Big Branch Marsh Refuge has opportunities to 

contribute to many of the goals and objectives of the LMRE. The following goals of the LMRE are 

applicable to the refuge: 

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

LMRE; 

• Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the LMRE; 

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

and candidate species and species of concern in the LMRE; 

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

with the wetlands and waters of the LMRE; 

• Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries; 

• Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management; 

• Enforce natural resource laws; and 

• Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE. 

National wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as part of the last safety net to support 

biological diversity – the greatest challenge facing the Service. According to the LMRE Team, the 

greatest threats to biological diversity within the Lower Mississippi Valley include: 

• The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland 

hardwood forest; 

• The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest 

fragmentation); 

• The effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices; 

• The simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools; 

• The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects; and 

• The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities. 

Priorities identified by the LMRE to which the refuge can contribute include: 

• Continue to work with the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Task Force, private landowners, and 

other entities to protect and restore coastal wetlands, consistent with the Coast 2050 Plan and 

associated project planning, evaluation, and implementation activities; 
6 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

• Consider all grant opportunities available to the LMRE Team and partners and work to 

improve internal coordination of these programs to assure that the contributions to these 

programs are of maximum benefit to the resource; 

• Support environmental education efforts underway by Service offices to enhance and expand 

knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of trust resources; and 

• Control invasive/exotic species. 

Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on 

threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern. Biological 

objectives in the LMRE for species groups targeted in this CCP reflect the Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast Joint VentureMississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, United 

States Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Bird Conservation Initiative. The refuge 

is also contributing to the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker; Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act; Coast 2050: Towards a 

Sustainable Coastal Louisiana Plan; Louisiana Coastal Area-Ecosystem Restoration Plan; Lake 

Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; New Directions 2025-St. Tammany Parish Conservation Plan; and 

the Lake Pontchartrain Estuary Conservation Planning Project. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

II. The Refuge 

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY 

Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge is located along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain 

between the communities of Mandeville and Slidell, in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana (Figure 2). 

Boundaries of the approved acquisition are Cane Bayou on the west, Lake Pontchartrain to the south, 

Louisiana Highway 90 on the east, and an irregular boundary south of and generally paralleling 

Louisiana Highway 190. 

Established in 1994, Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge is the 504th refuge under the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Big Branch Marsh Refuge is one of eight refuges managed as part of the 

Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Prior to establishing the refuge, area 

wetlands were threatened by urban expansion from the city of New Orleans. Several local 

organizations, including Northshore Coastal Watch, St. Tammany Sportsman’s League, Coalition to 

Restore Coastal Louisiana, and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, supported and initiated the 

establishment of the refuge (USFWS 2000). These organizations lobbied local senators and 

congressmen to save the wetland areas, which resulted in the establishment of the refuge. 

Public interest in the project and governmental support lead to the Service authorizing the 

establishment of Big Branch Marsh Refuge on September 29, 1994, under the Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986. The original acquisition boundary of the refuge included 12,000 acres of 

marshlands and forested wetlands between Cane Bayou on the west, Lake Pontchartrain on the 

south, and the Southern Railroad trestle on the east. The initial acquisition occurred on October 13, 

1994, when The Conservation Fund, with funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, donated 

3,660 acres of wetlands. Subsequently, the refuge acquisition boundary went through two expansion 

phases. The first expansion proposal, approved in December 1996, consisted of 10,000 acres, which 

included 3 expansion sites: Oak Harbor, a 2,931-acre tract; Fritchie Marsh, covering 6,500 acres; and 

a 500-acre tract along the east side of Lacombe Bayou. The second expansion proposal was 

approved in April 1998, and included 1,770 acres of wetlands, hardwood ridges, and pine flatwoods 

adjacent to existing refuge lands. These small tracts of land also included the current 110-acre site 

for the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex headquarters. Additional acquisitions were made 

possible by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Land and Water Conservation Act funds, 

and donations from The Conservation Fund. Currently, Big Branch Marsh Refuge is approximately 

18,000 acres of fee title lands within the 24,000-acre acquisition boundary of marshlands and 

forested wetlands (Figure 3). 

Additionally, the refuge manages, through a cooperative agreement with the LDWF, St. Tammany 

Wildlife Refuge, which is 1,300 acres of marsh adjacent to Big Branch Marsh Refuge. 
8 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 2. The Location of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge on the north shore of 

Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Figure 3. 2006 Current and acquisition boundaries of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge 
10 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

PURPOSES OF THE REFUGE 

The purposes of the refuge were defined by the following authorities: 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. § 3901 (b): 

• For the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties 

and conventions. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 4401 2(b): 

• To protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland 

ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in North America; 

• To maintain current or improved distributions of migratory bird populations; and 

• To sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds consistent with the goals of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the international obligations contained 

in the migratory bird treaties and conventions and other agreements with Canada, Mexico, 

and other countries. 

The refuge purposes were further defined in the 1994 Final Land Protection Plan and two subsequent 

Supplemental Environmental Assessments (1996, 1998) for expansion of Big Branch Marsh Refuge 

as the following management objectives: 

• To provide habitat for natural diversity of wildlife associated with Big Branch Marsh; 

• To provide wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl; 

• To provide nesting habitat for wood ducks; 

• To provide habitat for non-game migratory birds; and 

• To provide opportunities for public outdoor recreation, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, bird 

watching, and environmental education and interpretation, whenever they are compatible with 

the purposes of the refuge. 

RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTIONS 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities, 

including construction. Refuge personnel are not assigned solely to Big Branch Marsh Refuge, but 

support the eight refuges in the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex. Six positions share 

responsibility for Big Branch Marsh, Atchafalaya, and Bogue Chitto Refuges. The Complex staff 

consists of 27 permanent full-time employees (see staffing chart, Chapter V). The refuge also 

benefits from the help of interns and volunteers. 

The major management activities on the refuge include forestry, fire, wetland restoration projects, law 

enforcement, wildlife monitoring, and red-cockaded woodpecker recovery. Other important programs 

are environmental education and providing public uses when they are compatible with refuge purposes. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

The climate in the area is humid and subtropical. The weather is dominated by the area’s proximity to 

the Gulf of Mexico and daily weather patterns are influenced by Lake Pontchartrain. Average annual 

rainfall is approximately 63 inches. Summer months are characterized by afternoon thunderstorms, 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

tropical storms, and the potential for hurricanes. Winters are mild with occasional nights in which the 

temperature drops below freezing. 

Big Branch Marsh Refuge is located within the Pontchartrain Basin in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. 

Sediments forming the basin were deposited during the Pleistocene geologic epoch, approximately 

1.5 million to 25 thousand years ago. At the end of the glacial period, a depositional land form, 

known as the Pleistocene prairie terrace, was formed. The sediments found in the prairie terrace are 

more consolidated and formed the forested longleaf, loblolly, and slash pine and mixed pinehardwood areas. Sediments forming the basin consist of fine sands, silts, and silty clays in 

landforms, and largely sand in marine environments. One common component is that all sediments 

have high organic and water components. 

About 18,000 years ago, the sea level rose and flooded the area. Approximately 6,000 years ago, 

sea level rise slowed and a barrier beach system was created on the south shore forming the 

Pontchartrain embayment. Sediments deposited by the Mississippi River enclosed the embayment. 

Natural processes associated with deltaic development and abandonment eventually led to the 

development of Lakes Maurepas, Borgne, and Pontchartrain. Land subsidence, faulting, storm 

events, saltwater intrusions, erosion, and sea level rise have been natural occurrences throughout 

the history of the Pontchartrain Basin. 

Beginning about 300 years ago, European settlers began to exert an ever-increasing influence on the 

area. Development, river stabilization, levees, canals, roads, etc., have had an impact on the 

habitats and resources found in and around the refuge. These changes have been especially rapid 

within the last 100 years. 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. 

Urban development significantly changes hydrology. Natural landscapes allow water to slowly and 

gradually filter into the ground. However, surfaces associated with urban development are 

nonporous, causing water to accumulate above the surface and run off in large volumes. Areas that 

have not been susceptible to flooding are now experiencing increased volumes of faster moving 

water, which causes erosion. 

Water quality is reduced as a result of urban development. A variety of pollutants are contained in 

urban runoff. Pollutants include toxic chemicals from automobiles; sediments from new construction; 

oil, grease, nutrients, and pesticides from garden, lawn, and road maintenance; bacteria from 

improperly managed sewage; and household debris. 

In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina directly hit the area with the eye passing over the eastern sections of 

the refuge. The environment was drastically changed and will take years to recover; some areas were 

changed permanently. All forested areas were heavily damaged. Many trees were uprooted or broken. 

In some areas, tornadoes spawned by the hurricane left few trees standing where dense woods had 

existed. The storm surge and winds introduced salt water that was detrimental to freshwater 

vegetation. All refuge marshlands experienced some sediment and vegetation movement, resulting in 

increased shallow ponding. The Fritchie Marsh experienced the most marsh loss (Figure 4). 
12 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 4. The impacts from Hurricane Katrina on the Fritchie Marsh Unit of Big Branch Marsh 

National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

The refuge contains diverse habitat types, such as open waters of Lake Pontchartrain, marshes, 

ponds, bayous, submerged aquatic vegetation beds, prairie terrace, forested wetlands, and pine 

ridges within a relatively small area (Figure 5). 

The refuge is comprised of approximately 18,600 acres of coastal marsh and pine forested wetlands. 

The coastal marsh consists of approximately 7,000 acres of vegetated marsh and 6,000 acres of 

open water. Marsh types vary from brackish to fresh depending on proximity to Lake Pontchartrain 

and are tidally influenced through numerous natural bayous and drainages and man-made canals. 

Dominant marsh vegetation includes wiregrass (Spartina patens), smooth cordgrass (Spartina 

alterniflora), and various rushes (Juncaceae sp.). Interior marsh ponds and bayous compose open 

water habitat within the marsh system. 

The transition from marsh to forested wetlands is distinct within the refuge. Pinelands along much of 

the marsh edge are prone to shallow flooding and support an understory of wiregrass. 

Typically, vegetation above the 5-foot contour line is characteristic of pine flatwoods and savannahs 

found in the northern portions of the refuge. The predominate pine species are slash (Pinus elliottii) 

and loblolly (Pinus taeda), with few pockets of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). Within the 

approximately 5,000 acres of forested lands, habitats are predominately pine forest with hardwood 

hummocks and sumps scattered throughout. Hardwood forests and swamps are present along the 

major and minor drainages, which bisect the refuge. Hardwood areas are dominated by oaks 

(Quercus sp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and green ash 

(Fraxinus pennsylvanica). 

Diverse habitat types within Big Branch Marsh Refuge provide valuable habitat for numerous wildlife 

species. Refuge habitats attract 15 species of migratory waterfowl, 2 species of resident waterfowl, 

geese, shorebirds, wading birds, neotropical migratory birds, alligators, federally listed red-cockaded 

woodpeckers and bald eagles, mammals, and other wildlife. The refuge ponds, bayous, and the 

vegetated shoreline of Lake Pontchartrain provide spawning and nursery habitat for commercially 

important species of fish, crab, and shrimp. Recreationally important fishes, such as largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), 

catfish (Ictaluridae), and sunfish (Centrarchidae), are also abundant within the waters of the refuge. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

In St. Tammany Parish, wetlands and forested lands are being converted to subdivisions, shopping 

centers, and business complexes at a rapid rate. St. Tammany is the fifth largest parish in Louisiana 

in population, with the 2005 population estimated at 220,295, and has been the fastest growing 

parish since the 1970s. The influx of people looking for higher ground after Hurricane Katrina 

increased this fast-paced trend. The economy is primarily retail trade, health care, and professional, 

scientific, and technical services. Residents of the parish are employed in jobs ranging from 

agriculture to space technology. The median household income in 1999 was $55,346. The 

population growth can be attributed to the parish’s proximity to New Orleans, low business costs, 

good school system, labor availability, and a strong medical community. 

The refuge, with an estimated 49,300 visitors in 2005, provides an important source of recreation in 

the parish. Most visitors are interested in wildlife observation, fishing, and hunting. Many people are 

also interested in environmental education and interpretive programs, and wildlife photography. 
14 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5. General habitat types on Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Indigenous Native Americans were present in the area dating back to 1800 B.C. The original 

inhabitants were nomadic hunters, which later gave way to more sedentary mound building cultures. 

Muskegon peoples were firmly established in the area, including the Bayougoula Tribe, which resided 

along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain and survived on seafood harvested from the lakes; the 

Acolapissa Tribe, which lived along the Pearl Rive; the Houma Tribe, which was the most dominant 

tribe; and the Chitimacha Tribe. Tribes that migrated to or through St. Tammany Parish were the 

Biloxi, Kiasata, and Choctaw. No organized cultural resource surveys have taken place on the 

refuge. There are no known mounds, but several middens are located along waterways. 

As European exploration occurred, the French were the first to claim the area, and the native tribes 

began to migrate west away from the intrusion. The French concluded that the land of St. Tammany 

Parish was too low, the water too brackish to drink, and mosquitoes were too bad to accommodate 

further settlement. By the 1700s, the forested north shore of Lake Pontchartrain was used to supply 

the emerging city of New Orleans with meat and naval stores of tar, pitch, turpentine, and resin. The 

first significant European settlement on the north shore occurred during the British occupation 

through land grants. Britain’s claim to the area was transferred to Spain after its loss in the American 

Revolution, and Spain continued to offer land grants. American control was exerted in the early 

1800s. St. Tammany Parish’s history was greatly influenced by the abundant sources of water and 

the navigable waterways. After the Civil War, the economy flourished as New Orleanians traveled to 

the north shore for fresh air. A resort community built up as people flocked across Lake Pontchartrain 

to escape epidemics, such as yellow fever, and to sample the artisian water with legendary healing 

powers. Timber, bricks, porcelain, and glass became important trade items with the advent of the rail 

system. The north and south shores of Lake Pontchartrain were linked by bridges, causing 

thousands of New Orleanians to relocate to St. Tammany Parish and commute into the city. 

A former Catholic seminary and high school in Lacombe now serve as the administrative 

headquarters of the Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The headquarters site, 

referred to as Bayou Lacombe Centre, includes historic buildings and gardens and poses a unique 

opportunity for restoration. 
16 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

III. Plan Development 

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 Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. 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 the refuge. 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 refuge. 

In October 2002, the planning process began with a biological review to assess the status of current 

biological information and programs on the refuge, to identify information gaps and needs, and to 

gather input on potential management goals and objectives. A diverse team, consisting of Service, 

State, university, and non-governmental personnel, was invited to attend and provide input. Issues 

discussed were marsh and forest management; aquatic systems; migratory birds; threatened and 

endangered species, including the red-cockaded woodpecker; non-game birds; mammals; reptiles 

and amphibians; insects; water quality; contaminants; urbanization; and land acquisition. 

A visitor services review was conducted in February 2003 to provide guidance for managing the 

education and visitor services’ program and resulted in the development of short- to long-term 

recommendations for improving the quality of visitor experiences and understanding of the refuge. 

The review team was composed of staff and other professionals from the Service’s Regional Office, 

other refuges, the State, and the local community. General recommendations were to develop a 

visitor services plan, strengthen the volunteer program, address the litter problem, and provide 

sufficient law enforcement. 

Formal public involvement began with an open house held in November 2003 for the general public 

to give suggestions and comments regarding the future of the refuge. Announcements giving the 

location, date, and time for the scoping meeting appeared in local newspapers and were furnished to 

local residents. Approximately 57 people attended the open discussion of the comprehensive 

conservation planning process and future refuge management. After orienting attendees concerning 

the process, they could move freely among the following discussion areas: 1) public programs and 

visitor facilities; 2) wildlife and habitat management; and 3) refuge administration. Each area offered 

information and a chance to make written and oral statements. Also, comment cards were made 

available. Approximately 80 comments and questions were recorded (Appendix E). Input obtained 

from the scoping meeting was used in the development of the CCP. No major conflicts were declared 

in the comments received from the public. 

 

Initial planning began in November 2003, with a meeting of planning team members. Early in the 

process of developing this CCP, the planning team identified issues and concerns that were likely to 

be associated with the conservation and management of Big Branch Marsh Refuge. These issues 

and concerns were based on the reviews and public scoping. A mailing list was initiated, which 

contained names of the public, landowners, State and Tribal agencies, non-profit organizations, local 

governments, and other interested stakeholders. 
18 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Dr. Onnie Byers, representing the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group of the Species Survival 

Commission of the World Conservation Union, was contracted to facilitate Planning Workshop I. The 

purpose of the workshop was to develop a vision for the refuge and goals for achieving the vision 

based on the purpose of the refuge. Thirty-one participants from various state, parish, city, and 

private agencies, volunteers, and neighboring landowners met December 9-11, 2003, and drafted a 

vision statement and goals. 

The entire refuge complex staff met on January 14, 2004, for an abbreviated version of Planning 

Workshop I. The outcome was an improved vision statement. A second meeting, held February 5, 

2004, was attended by the planning team and any interested staff, to edit and improve the goals for 

achieving the vision. 

Dr. Onnie Byers returned July 19-21, 2004, to facilitate Planning Workshop II, during which changes 

in the vision statement and goals were given, and alternatives for future management of the refuge 

and objectives for achieving the goals were identified. Many of the same participants for Planning 

Workshop I attended Workshop II. 

In August 2004, the Service held a meeting with Shaw Environmental, Inc., to contract for assistance 

with the CCP preparation. 

In November 2004, the planning team met to join similar aspects among the six identified 

alternatives, creating a more workable three-alternative document. The decision was made to have a 

separate section in each alternative about the Bayou Lacombe Centre, which is the administrative 

headquarters of the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex. 

In early 2005, team leaders Souheaver and Boyle transferred and were replaced with project leader 

Litzenberger and deputy project leader Dixson. Also, team member Kris Bly transferred out of state. The 

remaining team worked on strategies for the alternatives, maps and pictures, writing and editing current 

management objectives and goals, and gathering pertinent information for the CCP. 

The planning team met with the new members on May 12, 2005, to discuss previous progress and 

alternatives. The alternatives development for the environmental assessment was interrupted with 

the arrival of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in fall 2005. The planning team was back on task in 2006, 

and formed the basis for development and comparison of management alternatives, selecting the 

proposed alternative and completing the CCP. The draft plan was made available for public 

comments in April 2007 (Appendix E). 

ISSUES 

A result of these reviews and scoping meetings was the development of a list of significant issues that 

needed to be addressed in the CCP. Alternatives for addressing these issues were developed, and 

the proposed alternative formed the basis for the objectives and strategies to achieve the goals 

developed by the planning team. This process ensures that the most significant issues are resolved or 

given priority over the life of the CCP. Below is a summary of these significant issues. 

 

Wildlife Habitat 

• Management of threatened and endangered species is a priority. 

• Monitor species of concern, targeted species, and species of Federal responsibility. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Habitat Conservation

• Maintain and, where feasible, restore the diverse habitats native to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. 

Education and Visitor Services

• Provide programs and improve existing programs for refuge visitors that are compatible with 

refuge purposes. 

• Increase public outreach to emphasize resource stewardship. 

• Provide formal environmental education programs. 

Land Protection

• Protect archaeological and historical sites on the refuge. 

• Purchase remaining land inholdings within acquisition boundary. 
20 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all 

resources in decision-making. 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 

above-mentioned Act identified hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation as priority wildlife-dependent public uses of the Refuge 

System. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation are therefore emphasized in this plan. 

Described below is the comprehensive conservation plan for managing the refuge over the next 15 

years. This management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to 

achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered in the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan and environmental assessment: 

A – No-Action (Current Management) 

B – Resource-Focused Management 

C – User-Focused Management 

Each of the alternatives was described in the Alternatives section of the Environmental Assessment 

(which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge). The Service selected Alternative B (Resource-Focused Management) as the 

preferred management action. 

Implementing the preferred alternative will result in a diversity of habitats for a variety of fish and 

wildlife species, enhance resident wildlife populations, restore wetlands, and provide opportunities for 

a variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, education, and interpretive activities. 

VISION 

The Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, located along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, 

embraces significantly diverse species and habitats of local to international importance. The refuge 

conserves a significant remnant of the diversity of natural habitats within the rapidly urbanizing Lake 

Pontchartrain Basin. It encompasses open waters of Lake Pontchartrain, nearshore grass beds and 

estuarine marshes, bottomland hardwoods, pine flatwoods interspersed with hardwood hummocks, 

bayous, and cypress sloughs and swamps. These habitats provide for a wide array of wildlife species 

within an environmentally aware urban community. 

Viable, healthy populations of plants, fish and wildlife are maintained through habitat management 

activities that adapt to and mitigate the effects of external threats. The refuge serves as a model of 

land stewardship and restoration practices and promotes sound habitat management activities within 
22 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

and beyond refuge boundaries. It serves as a center for the development and application of 

progressive and innovative techniques and practices in wildlife and habitat management, biology, fire 

management, and habitat restoration. The refuge provides and supports opportunities for appropriate 

studies and research by universities and other agencies. 

The refuge maintains, nurtures, and promotes the tradition of community involvement and ownership 

that led to its formation, and benefits from an expanding advocacy by refuge supporters and partners. 

The refuge is recognized as a focal point for environmental education and wildlife-dependent 

recreation, which fosters and creates a strong conservation ethic within the community. Cultural 

resources are protected and, where appropriate, interpreted for the public. 

As one of the last remaining undeveloped, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat in the region, the 

refuge provides broad opportunities for public use. From waterfowl hunting in the refuge’s marshes 

to birding and wildlife photography in the restored pine forests, experiencing the refuge’s intense 

natural beauty replenishes the spirit. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns 

and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff, partners, and the public. Chapter 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 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The 

Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

GOAL 1. Identify, conserve, manage, and restore populations of native fish and wildlife species 

representative of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, with emphasis on migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species. 

Background: The diversity and quality of habitats on Big Branch Marsh Refuge provide areas for 

feeding, roosting, nesting, and staging for numerous species. The refuge attracts 15 species of 

migratory waterfowl, 2 species of resident waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, neotropical migratory 

song birds, raptors, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and numerous fisheries species. Threatened 

and endangered species using the refuge habitats consist of the following: red-cockaded 

woodpecker, bald eagle, eastern brown pelican, and occasionally the West Indian manatee and Gulf 

sturgeon. Both freshwater and saltwater species are supported with the fishery varying with the 

seasons and accompanying shifts in salinity. The refuge wetlands are important spawning, nursery, 

and feeding grounds for many aquatic species, including crabs, shrimp, and fish. 

Objective 1.1: Manage and protect threatened and endangered species through implementation of 

recovery plans. 

Discussion: The Service administers the Endangered Species Act, passed by Congress in 1973, to 

protect and recover species at risk and the ecosystems on which they depend. Once species are 

listed as threatened or endangered, the ultimate goal is to recover the population to a level so it does 

not need special protection. Recovery teams made up of experts on the species and their needs are 

designated. The teams develop and implement recovery plans that describe the steps needed to 

restore a species to ecological health. Occasionally, critical habitat is designated as part of the plan. 

Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

that may require special management considerations or protection. Big Branch Marsh Refuge is 

within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) 

Recovery Plan, second revision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). The small refuge population is 

the only one existing in this ecoregion and is not considered a recovery unit, but is designated as a 

significant support population for the recovery of the species. The refuge’s role is to maintain the 

RCW’s intrinsic value, conserve genetic resources, represent variations in habitats occupied by the 

species, and serve as immigrants for core, recoverable populations. 

The Gulf sturgeon was listed as a threatened species in September 1991. The species decline was 

brought about by excessive harvest over 100 years ago. Populations could not recover because the 

commercial harvest continued into the 1980s, and also due to reduction in overall habitat. Waters of 

the refuge are within Unit 8 of the designated critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon, which lists Lake 

Pontchartrain east of the Causeway Bridge. Research has shown that juveniles and subadults use 

Lake Pontchartrain as wintering habitat. Records in Lake Pontchartrain show concentrations near 

Bayou Lacombe and Goose Point (Federal Register Part II 50 CFR Part 17). 

No other refuge lands or waters are listed specifically in other recovery plans, but bald eagles use the 

refuge for nesting and wintering, brown pelicans are commonly seen feeding and perching in the 

area, and West Indian manatees are occasionally sighted during summer months. 

Strategies: 

• Follow guidelines of the RCW Recovery Plan.

Substrategies: 

o Annually conduct spring roost surveys to determine number of family groups. 

o Annually conduct nest surveys to determine success or failure. 

o Annually survey 10 percent of refuge lands for unknown cavity trees. 

o Annually add cavity inserts within clusters if needed to provide at least 4 usable cavities 

per cluster. 

o When 20 active clusters are attained on the refuge, provide banded young for 

translocation to other populations. 

o If possible, band adult population. 

o Monitor bald eagle nests and conduct winter survey; coordinate information with LDWF. 

o Monitor sightings of manatees and coordinate with Ecological Services Office. 

o Conduct fish surveys to determine any use by Gulf sturgeon. 

Objective 1.2: Monitor species of concern, targeted species, and species of Federal responsibility in 

order to assess management goals. 

Discussion: Although national wildlife refuges are established to provide for the habitat needs of 

species of Federal responsibility, such as migratory birds or threatened or endangered species, they 

are also responsible for all native species occurring on refuge lands. It is difficult to manage for every 

species without negatively affecting some, so it is necessary to determine which species are most 

representative of the habitat and monitor and manage or target those to determine the overall health 

of the ecosystem for other species. 
24 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

• Within 5 years of plan approval, compile lists of species present on the refuge based on 

refuge lists, surveys, regional and national plans, etc. 

• Within 7 years of plan approval, make available to the public lists of species of birds, fish, 

mammals, reptiles, and butterflies that occur on the refuge. 

• Within 10 years of plan approval, prioritize species of concern and target species for refuge 

monitoring and management. 

• Conduct annual aerial waterfowl surveys from October through February. 

• Maintain wood duck box program. 

• Conduct annual marsh bird surveys according to national protocol. 

Objective 1.3: Management of fish and wildlife species at Bayou Lacombe Centre - Southeast 

Louisiana Refuge Complex Headquarters. 

Discussion: The 110-acre headquarters site, Bayou Lacombe Centre, is a detached administrative unit 

of Big Branch Marsh Refuge. It was decided to include the headquarters site in the comprehensive 

conservation planning for Big Branch Marsh Refuge. The distinctive site has historical prominence in 

the community, having been the home of a Federal judge, a former Governor of Louisiana, the 

horticultural attraction “Bayou Gardens,” and later the home of the Holy Redeemer Seminary before 

being acquired by the Service. No at-risk species of plants or wildlife are found on the site. 

Strategy: 

• No active management of fish or wildlife populations is planned for this area except small 

demonstration or environmental education projects.

GOAL 2. Restore, improve, and maintain a mosaic of forested and wetland habitats native to the 

Lake Pontchartrain Basin in order to ensure healthy and viable plant and animal communities, with an 

emphasis on threatened and endangered species.

Background: One of the most striking characteristics of the refuge is the diversity of habitats that occur 

in a relatively small area. The diverse plant communities provide a wide variety of habitats for many 

species of wildlife and fish. The key purpose of the refuge is to provide habitat for a natural diversity of 

wildlife associated with Big Branch marsh, with emphasis on wintering and nesting habitat for migratory 

and resident waterfowl, non-game migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

Objective 2.1: Manage and maintain fresh, intermediate, and brackish marsh, slough, cypress 

brake, and other aquatic habitats for refuge resources. 

Discussion: The shoreline of Lake Pontchartain consists of sandy, narrow beaches with near-shore 

grass beds. The marshes of the refuge, most of which are tidally influenced, range from brackish to 

fresh, with salinities varying with season, wind direction, and rainfall. Across much of the refuge, the 

transition from marsh to forested wetlands is distinct and abrupt. The marshes are cut by bayous and 

other small drainages with open ponds scattered throughout. Maintaining the wetlands of Big Branch 

Marsh Refuge involves protection and management (restricted primarily to the use of prescribed fire) 

of existing wetland habitat. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Strategies: 

 

• Maintain GIS database of available historic and current maps and satellite images. 

• Within 3 years of plan approval, determine current refuge aquatic acreage by vegetation types. 

• In conjunction with fire monitoring, sample vegetation by habitat to determine species and 

changes in species over time. 

• Coordinate and provide study areas for research by partners and other agencies when the 

research is relevant to wetland management and assessment. 

• Within one year of plan approval, establish salinity monitoring points. 

• Within 15 years, evaluate marsh habitat types to determine changes in coverage, type, and 

vegetation. 

• By 2017, in cooperation with fisheries biologists and aquatic systems specialists, establish a 

monitoring program to obtain baseline information and provide long-term tracking of aquatic 

habitats and faunal groups. 

• Implement a prescribed fire and wildfire program. 

 Substrategies: 

o Implement the 1997 and 2006 revised draft fire management plan with annual inhouse reviews and updates. 

o Annually burn >1,000 acres of unsubsiding (high) marsh using a combination of 

dormant and growing season burning. 

o Continue a fire monitoring plan measuring impacts of season of burning on marshes; 

by 2017, determine the effects of burning on marsh health and rate of subsidence. 

o By 2017, develop burn rotation for desired results. 

o Use fire to increase the availability and distribution of wildlife food plants, such as 2-

square. 

o Provide for wildfire protection through hazard fuel reduction and fighting wildfires. 

Objective 2.2: Improve and restore aquatic habitats, with emphasis on marsh habitat. 

Discussion: The prevalent wetland habitat on Big Branch Marsh Refuge is marsh. Marsh land in the 

refuge has been degraded by man’s activities in combination with natural processes, such as 

subsidence, hurricanes, droughts, and floods. Restoration and enhancement of lost or degraded 

habitat is necessary if the marshes are to continue being productive, providing essential environment 

for the species dependent upon it. In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was 

established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment 

Programme to assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant for the 

understanding of climate change. Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” According to the IPCC, future 

impacts to coasts are increases in coastal erosion due to sea level rise that will be exacerbated by 

increasing human-induced pressures. The potential for rapid and lasting climate warming poses a 

significant challenge for fish and wildlife conservation. The following strategies and substrategies 

could lessen or slow the predicted negative impacts. 

 

Strategies: 

• Within 5 years of plan approval, determine hydrologic system and fire history existing 100 

years ago. 
26 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

• Within 10 years of plan approval, decide best management practices under the current 

situation based on historic regimes and soil types given by USDA in 1990 soil surveys of St. 

Tammany Parish. 

 

 Substrategies: 

o Investigate burning effects on vegetative communities, wildlife, subsidence/accretion 

rates, and determine optimal frequency and seasonality of burning. 

o Throughout the life of the CCP, strive for mixture of shallow ponds with submerged 

aquatic vegetation and emergent marsh by increasing vegetated areas through grants, 

partners, Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, and any other 

available funding. 

o Throughout the life of the CCP, research various marsh restoration techniques and 

materials, including terracing, supplemental plantings, dedicated dredge material, and 

addition of hard and/or soft structures. 

o Monitor the success of all restoration projects in order to determine the most 

economical and efficient techniques for specific sites and problems. 

o Throughout the life of the CCP, fortify the lake rim with sediments, plantings, and other 

feasible techniques to reduce shoreline erosion and damage/loss of interior marshes 

using grants, partners, Restoration Act, and other available funding. 

o Determine effects of pipeline canals on hydrology and salinity regime; consider 

plugging openings leading to Lake Pontchartrain. 

Objective 2.3: Manage and maintain pine flatwood, savannah, and hardwood hummock habitats for 

refuge resources. 

Discussion: The pinelands below the 5-foot contour are prone to shallow flooding and support an 

understory of wiregrass (Spartina patens). Vegetation above this contour is more characteristic of 

pine flatwood/savannah. Pine species present are predominantly slash and loblolly, with a few 

pockets of longleaf. Hardwood hammocks, sumps, and swamps are interspersed within the pineland. 

Scattered throughout the forests are ponds, drains, and bayous. Hurricanes, the most recent being 

Katrina, and other storms, floods, and droughts have frequently impacted the land with storm surges, 

salinity, and wind damage. 

Strategies: 

• Throughout the life of the CCP, implement an active forest management program to maintain 

healthy and diverse forest communities and ensure a healthy forest ecosystem by providing a 

natural diversity of plant species.

Substrategies: 

o In conjunction with the fire monitoring program, determine vegetation present and 

changes over time.

o Within 5 years of plan approval, develop a forest management plan as part of Habitat 

Management Plan.

• Refine and implement a prescribed fire and wildfire prevention program to maintain healthy, 

natural fire-dependent communities, while protecting refuge resources and neighboring urban 

interface from wildland fires.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Substrategies: 

o Implement the 1997, revised 2006, Fire Management Plan, with annual in-house 

reviews and updates. Respond to wildfires within the fire management response zone 

with properly trained staff and equipment readiness. Monitor fire severity and 

condition class and respond according to approved step-down plans and procedures. 

o Provide for wildland fire protection through hazard fuel reduction on the refuge while 

protecting the pine overstory, and assist in reducing hazard fuel risks on neighboring 

lands. Continue on an annual basis to use prescribed fire on at least 2,000 acres, 

using a combination of dormant season and growing season burns 

o By 2007, initiate a fire monitoring plan measuring impacts of burning frequency and 

seasonality. 

o By 2019, determine optimal burn rotation. 

o Maintain historical fire-dependent plant communities in the pine forest by reducing the 

height and abundance of midstory species. 

o Maintain and promote broomsedge, bluestem grasses, and the availability and 

distribution of wildlife food plants, such as legumes and forbes, by prescribed fire. 

Objective 2.4: Improve and restore pine flatwood and savannah habitats for refuge resources. 

Discussion: Pine flatwoods and savannah, with some pockets of longleaf, historically existed on the 

refuge. The north shore was logged heavily to provide timber and other wood products to the New 

Orleans area. Regrowth after logging became dense with a heavy midstory because of fire 

suppression to protect urban development. Invasive species, such as Chinese tallow and cogon 

grass, were introduced by man’s activities. A limited amount of acreage at higher elevations has 

been identified for conversion to pine savannah with longleaf reestablishment. 

Strategies: 

• Within 5 years of plan approval, determine hydrologic system and fire history existing 100 

years ago. 

• Within 10 years of plan approval, decide best management practices under the current 

situation based on historic regimes and soil types given by USDA in 1990 soil surveys of St. 

Tammany Parish. 

 

 Substrategies: 

o Create open stand conditions with basal areas of 60-80, and native groundcover 

species by reducing woody understory and midstory vegetation following guidelines of 

the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan and using the red-cockaded 

woodpecker as an indicator species of a healthy southern pine ecosystem.

o Within 2 years of plan approval, identify longleaf pine and savannah restoration sites. 

o Establish a 100-year timber rotation, moving current stands to an older-aged class. 

o Restore uneven-aged forest management through use of prescribed fire and 

mechanical manipulation. 

o Implement an aggressive control program to reduce invasive, exotic vegetation. 
28 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 2.5: Develop a Habitat Management Plan that includes evaluating the effects of 

management actions on refuge habitats. 

Discussion: The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 states that the Secretary of the Interior shall monitor 

the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge as part of administering the Refuge 

System. A Habitat Management Plan is the instrument to plan biological monitoring. Another stepdown plan for this purpose is the annual habitat work plan. Step-down plans provide more specific 

details than the CCP. The Habitat Management Plan should provide the foundation to conserve and 

protect functional communities and be linked to international, national, regional, state and ecosystem 

goals and be consistent with other conservation plans, such as threatened and endangered species 

recovery plans and State conservation plans. Available biological information and ecological principles 

should be used to develop habitat goals, objectives, and strategies at the individual refuge level. 

Wildlife and habitat inventory and monitoring can provide a good evaluation of the effectiveness of 

management manipulations. Effectiveness of outcomes provides a basis for modification of actions or 

adaptive management. The annual habitat work plan reviews the previous year’s habitat management 

activities, analyzes results, and provides recommendations for the next year. 

Strategies: 

• Annually evaluate all management practices for previous year and plan for next year. 

• Determine survival of long leaf seedlings in planting sites within 2 years of planting; replant if 

necessary. 

• Annually monitor effects of fuel moisture and associated fire intensity on vegetation. 

• Annually monitor fire effects on vegetation by photo documentation. 

• Annually determine if exotic species control is effective. 

• By 2017 determine effects of equipment used in forest management on hydrology, and 

vegetation composition and arrangement. 

• Throughout the life of the plan, monitor the effectiveness of new management actions. 

Objective 2.6: Support partnerships to protect natural habitats of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. 

Discussion: During all of the planning phases of the CCP, the importance of partnerships kept coming up 

in discussions. At one time, cultivating partnerships was considered as one of the major goals, but it was 

decided by the planning team that we should treat creating partnerships as a tool. Using partnerships as 

a tool enabled us to use them under each goal as objectives and/or strategies. Because the health of the 

environment is important to all, using partnerships is a logical method to increase funding, to increase the 

number of people involved, and to increase the amount of work accomplished. Refuges are affected by 

the influences of land uses surrounding them; therefore, working with other organizations and individuals 

is necessary to protect resources from external impacts. 

Strategies: 

• Coordinate and participate with other government and private organizations to conserve lands 

outside of refuge boundaries by offering technical assistance. 

• Partner with others to identify and support mitigation of external impacts to refuge trust resources.

Substrategy: 

o Attend meetings of partners and other agencies to identify, suggest, and support 

alternatives for managing off-refuge influences.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Objective 2.7: Review public use programs, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, to determine impacts on refuge resources 

Discussion: Big Branch Marsh Refuge was established because of interest from local and regional 

conservation organizations and individuals, and began with donated land. During planning 

workshops, no controversial issues emerged; people are pleased that the refuge exists and want the 

refuge land base to increase. In fact, local people were more concerned with overuse or how to 

balance public use with protection of natural resources. As population numbers continue to increase 

rapidly in the area, increases in public use on the refuge can be expected to rise also. Diligence in 

assuring that wildlife needs come first and that all public use is compatible with refuge purposes and 

is not negatively impacting the resources is required. 

Strategies: 

• Use special use permit program to authorize requested uses of the refuge other than those 

offered to the general public. 

• On an annual basis, review hunting and fishing regulations. 

• Within 8 years of plan approval, develop monitoring program to ascertain amount of public 

use; review every 5 years to ensure refuge resources are not being negatively impacted by 

overuse by the public. 

Objective 2.8: Manage habitat of Bayou Lacombe Centre - Southeast Louisiana Administrative 

Headquarters 

Discussion: The 110-acre Complex headquarters site, Bayou Lacombe Centre, is a detached 

administrative unit of Big Branch Marsh Refuge located on the banks of Bayou Lacombe. The 

grounds are landscaped with native and non-native plants, many planted when a commercial 

attraction, “Bayou Gardens,” existed on the grounds. Many varieties of camellias are still present. 

The overstory is predominantly mixed pine-hardwood that was exposed to the wrath of Hurricane 

Katrina, causing considerable loss of trees. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain grounds and landscaping for administrative buildings, with no large-scale, active 

habitat management. 

• Create backyard habitat/wetland demonstration areas. 

• Manage grounds as an urban public use area, including hiking trails, historical gardens, and 

buildings. 

Goal 3. Provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife-dependent 

recreation in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Background: Big Branch Marsh is in one of the most rapidly urbanizing areas of Louisiana and the 

Gulf coast. Demand for wildlife-based education and recreation, already high, is increasing with 

population gains and with the loss of other available and accessible natural areas. The provision of 

opportunities for outdoor recreation was recognized as a management purpose upon the 

establishment of the refuge. Facility and program development to date has provided a solid 

foundation for continuing these opportunities (Figure 6). 
30 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

In the resource-based context of the preferred alternative, expanding the public use program is 

considered. The established visitor services requirements of the Refuge System provide a reference 

point and framework for the development of objectives for Goal 3. 

Objective 3.1: Develop and implement a visitor services’ management plan. 

Discussion: A visitor services’ management plan is critical to the future of the refuge’s visitor services 

program. This plan will communicate the goals, objectives, and strategies for the visitor services program 

and will outline resource needs. The plan will also demonstrate how the visitor services program is 

integrated with the natural and cultural resource management program, and how it will support visitor 

understanding and appreciation of the natural and cultural resource management program. 

Strategies: 

 

• Within one year of plan approval, complete recommended improvements to parking lots, 

kiosks, trailheads, boat launches, and piers as noted in Visitor Services Review. 

• Designate visitor services staff to develop a completed visitor services plan by 2008 

Objective 3.2: Provide opportunities for hunting and fishing on the refuge in a manner which 

minimizes conflicts between consumptive and non-consumptive user groups. 

Discussion: Hunting and fishing have been identified as priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Where appropriate and compatible, the best hunting and fishing opportunities 

possible will be made available to the public. Big Branch Marsh Refuge offers attractive, easily 

accessible current and potential opportunities for these two priority public use activities within the 

suburban landscape of St. Tammany Parish. 

Strategies: 

• Upon implementation of the plan, and, where appropriate, continue and/or improve current 

programs for quality hunting and fishing, seeking opportunities to increase capacity for these 

activities without adversely affecting wildlife populations. 

 Substrategies: 

o Improve distribution (scatter) of hunter access and determine hunter spatial 

distribution. 

o Consider additional fishing access facilities, such as trails and piers. 

o Consider opportunities to increase the diversity of hunts where there are no negative 

resource impacts. 

o Manage the number of hunts where appropriate as a means to achieve wildlife 

population goals. 

o Review hunting and fishing programs annually to determine impacts to refuge 

resources. 

o Provide adequate law enforcement to prevent negative resource impacts from hunt 

program. 

o Improve facilities to provide accessibility for persons of all abilities as opportunities and 

resources are available 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Figure 6. Public use areas and facilities on Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. 
32 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

• Consider zoning for time and usage in areas such as Boy Scout Road to minimize user-group 

conflicts. 

• On an annual basis, conduct a maintenance and safety review for all public use facilities 

relating to hunting and fishing. 

Objective 3.3: Provide opportunities for wildlife observation and photography on the refuge. 

Discussion: Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are two closely related priority wildlifedependent recreational uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Programs and facilities, which 

enable visitors to view and photograph wildlife and their habitats, are essential parts of most national 

wildlife refuges. The diversity of habitats on Big Branch Marsh Refuge offers very good birding 

possibilities, including observing red-cockaded woodpeckers and bald eagles, along with waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds that frequent the wetland areas of the refuge. 

Strategies: 

• Maintain existing wildlife observation and photography program on the refuge. 

Substrategies: 

o Continue offering occasional birding tours led by refuge staff and/or community 

volunteers and bird clubs. 

o Continue to offer tours through Great Northshore Bird Festival each April. 

o Continue to issue occasional special use permits for special-access photography on a 

case-by-case basis. 

o Maintain existing facilities at Boy Scout Road, Lemieux Road, and Bayou Lacombe 

Centre for wildlife observation and photography. 

• Improve facilities to provide accessibility for persons of all abilities as opportunities and 

resources are available. 

• Review wildlife observation and photography programs annually. 

Substrategies: 

o Determine impacts to refuge resources and wildlife population goals. 

o Identify opportunities to increase capacity without adversely affecting wildlife 

populations. 

o Conduct a maintenance and safety review for all public use facilities relating to wildlife 

observation and photography. 

o Partner with area birding groups to lead refuge birding trips. 

o Consider establishment of viewing/photography blinds for self-guided birders where no 

negative resource impact would result. 

o Review suitability of existing roadways for possible implementation of a self-guiding 

auto tour route with printed brochure. 

o Explore partnerships with area and national conservation and/or wildlife organizations 

to help provide/increase wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Objective 3.4: Increase public outreach to emphasize resource management practices. 

Discussion: Big Branch Marsh Refuge has the potential to be a “living lab” where students and the 

general public can observe and learn about a variety of management practices, including fire 

management, marsh restoration, reforestation, and others. The benefits to the Service include 

increased support for these practices, especially where they might be perceived as affecting the 

public in negative ways, such as from smoke related to fire management. Successful strategies will 

involve communicating management messages to the public and structuring ways in which 

management practices can be observed first-hand. 

Strategies: 

 

• Print and distribute a quarterly Fish and Wildlife Service/Friends Group newsletter. Supply 

refuge brochures, maps, and quarterly events calendar to St. Tammany Parish Tourist and 

Convention Commission and State welcome centers. 

• List guided activities schedules in local newspapers. 

• Issue press releases to announce special events and changes to hunt seasons. 

• Maintain and update refuge complex Internet website, as needed. 

• Supply to the public a tear sheet, maps, bird list, and refuge complex brochure. 

• Plan and offer seasonal public programs that highlight on-going habitat and wildlife work and 

studies on the refuge. 

• Outreach to area schools and universities, inviting them to experience aspects of refuge 

management practices. 

• Implement a speakers program for refuge staff to visit civic groups (e.g., Kiwanis) to 

communicate refuge management practices. 

• Explore implementation of remote camera and Internet links that allow public to monitor refuge 

conditions and wildlife activities. 

Objective 3.5: Provide formal environmental education programs that promote understanding, 

appreciation, and stewardship of refuge resources. 

Discussion: An established array of environmental education activities offers students from St. 

Tammany and surrounding parishes first-hand experiences of the refuge through formal, curriculumbased programs delivered at Big Branch Marsh Refuge’s Lemieux Road educational site. Certain 

refuge management practices, especially the fire management program, are highlighted, but many 

others have the potential to become the focus of exciting hands-on learning for area students. 

Classroom visits that currently focus on endangered species and on animal adaptations also offer 

room for expansion and reemphasis so as to complement refuge management. 

Strategies: 

 

• Maintain the existing slate of curriculum-based environmental education programming. 

• Within 1-2 years of plan implementation and in consultation with biology and forestry/fire staff, 

assess and revise all environmental education opportunities to ensure that they complement 

and emphasize current refuge management practices and landscape-level ecological issues 

that affect the refuge. 
34 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Substrategies: 

 

o Develop and implement evaluation instrument to assess effectiveness of 

environmental programs in delivering desired messages about refuge management. 

o As significant new management practices are implemented, explore their possibilities 

for complementary environmental education programming. 

o Ensure that all educational programming complements state curriculum standards and 

Grade Learning Expectations. 

• Annually review programming and curriculum developments at state and parish levels. 

• Explore partnerships with local and national conservation organizations to provide 

environmental educational programs with a larger, landscape-level focus (i.e., Lake 

Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, National Audubon Society). 

Objective 3.6: Provide interpretation that promotes understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of 

refuge resources. 

 

Discussion: Successful interpretation of refuge resources involves making a connection with the 

visitor in a way that relates to the visitor’s personal experience and that makes the resource “come 

alive.” The traditional forms of interpretation, most of which have been implemented on Big Branch 

Marsh Refuge, include guided tours and walks, talks and presentations, and non-personal interpretive 

media, such as signs and visitor center exhibits. Retooling of these to more strongly emphasize 

refuge resource management practices and techniques is an achievable goal that would promote 

greater support and stewardship among visitors and the general public. 

 

Strategies: 

• Review non-personal interpretive media and modify, as needed, to ensure that they 

complement and accurately interpret resource issues and management actions. 

• Explore development of an additional trail on the refuge to interpret refuge management, such 

as from Sapsucker launch (e.g., marsh management), or Sammy Slough area (e.g., fire 

ecology). 

• Review personal interpretive programs and modify, as needed, to ensure that they 

complement and accurately interpret resource issues and management actions, and 

strengthen the resource management relevance where possible. 

Substrategies: 

 

o Consult with resource specialists on- and off-staff to revise programs as indicated by 

review process. 

o Partner with other conservation organizations to enhance resource messages 

delivered in interpretive programs. 

o Seek opportunities to develop the existing chapel building at Bayou Lacombe Centre 

as a full-fledged visitor center for the refuge complex, as identified in existing 

conceptual studies of refuge facilities. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Objective 3.7: Promote the Fish and Wildlife Service and career opportunities with an emphasis on 

the Refuge System. 

Discussion: Career outreach is a part of the overall outreach program at Big Branch Marsh Refuge, 

with regular staff visits to school career fairs and similar events throughout the area. Students are 

given an overview of Service and Refuge System occupations, educational requirements, and 

possible career paths. Student Career Employment Program (SCEP) and Student Temporary 

Employment Program (STEP) opportunities are also highlighted. 

Strategies: 

 

• Participate in the Youth Conservation Corps summer employment program. 

• Look for opportunities to employ STEP students during the school year. 

• Participate in Career Day fairs at area schools and universities to acquaint students with 

Service career possibilities. 

• Participate in the SCEP program for part-time employment and eventual placement of college 

students into Service careers. 

• Recruit full-time volunteer interns through the Student Conservation Association and other 

sources as a means of supplementing the refuge staff and developing the potential of 

students who may consider Service careers. 

Objective 3.8: Manage the volunteer program to enhance all aspects of refuge management. 

Discussion: The use of volunteers to supplement the work of paid staff is essential to completing the 

mission of the Refuge System and the Big Branch Marsh Refuge. Resident volunteers, such as 

student interns or retired recreational vehicle campers, have been invaluable in many arenas of 

refuge activity, from education to maintenance to clerical duties. Local volunteers also work in these 

areas. Expansion and improvement of the volunteer program needs especially to be emphasized in 

times of tight budgets and hiring constraints. 

Strategies: 

• Support a constructive partnership with The Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Inc. 

• Develop corps of volunteers on a project-specific basis. 

• Host resident volunteers at recreational vehicle site and interns at refuge housing. 

• Establish a volunteer coordinator position. 

• Recruit volunteers based on wildlife, habitat-related, and public use-related project needs, 

including on-going monitoring. 

• Develop and update, as needed, volunteer position descriptions that can be publicized 

through Federal and local volunteer recruitment avenues (web sites, area offices). 

Objective 3.9: Expand learning opportunities at Bayou Lacombe Centre that emphasize resource 

management practices while maintaining incidental recreational use of the site. 

Discussion: The Bayou Lacombe Centre parcel of Big Branch Marsh Refuge, which serves as the 

site of Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex headquarters, has distinctive historical and natural 

qualities and attributes that make it a very non-typical part of this or any national wildlife refuge. 

Former owners include prominent political figures and a Catholic religious order, and about one-fourth 

of the grounds have been managed in the past as a commercial garden attraction. Significant 
36 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

landscape and building resources offer unique opportunities for creative programming that can 

highlight and complement many aspects of refuge and wildlife management. 

Strategies: 

• Continue to produce Wild Things event for National Wildlife Refuge Week. 

• Continue to offer occasional public programs, such as garden tours, Junior Refuge Manager 

Program, and educational programs, on a non-recurring basis. 

Substrategies: 

 

o Provide Junior Refuge Manager Program on a walk-up basis from headquarters. 

o Provide educational exhibits and interpretive presentations as part of Wild Things and 

other special events onsite. 

o Conduct occasional special tours of the grounds on request that focus on cultural 

and/or natural history topics. 

o Continue to hold public meetings as needed for CCP preparation or other special 

needs. 

o Maintain pattern of incidental recreational use of the Centre. 

o Maintain current status of hunting and fishing programs at Bayou Lacombe Centre: no 

hunting permitted, fishing not promoted, and no facilities developed. 

o Conduct occasional canoeing tours for special events and groups. 

o Offer wildlife observation opportunities on the Bayou Gardens nature trail and at 

hummingbird garden. 

o Continue to allow access to the grounds during normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, for general visitation; maintain locked entrance gate at 

other times. 

o If staffing levels permit, open temporary visitor center in chapel building; meanwhile, 

continue to provide public information (e.g., maps, brochures, and responses to visitor 

inquiries) through reception area at refuge complex headquarters. 

o Display interpretive exhibits at headquarters building. 

o Maintain Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges bookstore operation in Complex 

headquarters, administered by both refuge staff and friends. 

o With professional input from landscape architects or other specialists, develop a 

holistic, strategic plan for optimum use of grounds and buildings at Centre as 

resources for public use and resource interpretation. 

o In partnership with Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, sponsor evening lecture 

series to emphasize resource management topics and issues. 

o Develop demonstration plots within Bayou Lacombe Centre that allow interpretation of 

important practices and issues. 

o Add environmental education program(s) that interpret the above. 

o Seek opportunities to develop the existing chapel building at Bayou Lacombe Centre 

as a full-fledged visitor center for the refuge complex, as identified in existing 

conceptual studies of refuge facilities. 

GOAL 4. Protect the natural and cultural resources of the refuge to ensure their integrity and to fulfill 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Background: Inherent in ensuring that future generations can enjoy the refuge is protection of its 

resources. Cultural resources include archaeological resources, historic and architectural properties, 

and areas or sites of tradition or religious significance to Native Americans (614 FW 1, Policy, 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Responsibilities and Definitions). No comprehensive survey of refuge cultural resources has been 

completed, but local archaeologists and refuge staff have knowledge of several Native American 

middens located along drainages. Enforcement of laws pertaining to wildlife and other natural 

resources is fundamental and necessary, especially in areas of high public use. Safety and 

protection of the people using the refuge is a priority. Also considered in this goal is protection of the 

resources by acquisition of land included in the acquisition boundary recognized in the initiating 

process of refuge establishment. 

Objective 4.1: Protect known archaeological and historical sites on the refuge from illegal take or 

damage in compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protections Act, the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Discussion: Although no thorough survey of the entire refuge has been accomplished, middens are 

known to exist on banks of bayous within the refuge. These are obviously places where nomadic 

groups camped as evidenced by mounds of clam shells left in the refuse piles. The slightly higher 

elevation of the middens often create habitat for live oak trees. 

Strategies: 

• Within 8 years of plan approval, inventory and map the refuge’s known archaeological sites. 

• Conduct law enforcement patrols at all known archaeological and historical sites on a regular 

basis to inspect for disturbance and illegal digging and/or looting. 

• Within 10 years of plan approval, compile a comprehensive literature review of past 

archaeological, anthropological, and historical investigations within and near the refuge. 

• Within 12 years of plan approval, develop and implement a plan to protect identified 

archaeological sites in consultation with the Service’s Archaeologist, the State Historic 

Preservation Office, Native American tribes, and the professional archaeological community. 

Objective 4.2: Maintain marked refuge boundary and other identifying/directional signs. 

Discussion: Big Branch Marsh Refuge is a relatively new refuge within the Refuge System, and is still 

being surveyed to determine refuge boundaries. In addition, active acquisition within the approved 

acquisition boundary is ongoing. Therefore, refuge boundary signing is of high priority. Because of 

frequent storm damage and vandalism, sign replacement is necessary. Direction and informational 

signs should be written in clear, concise language and placed in appropriate locations. 

Strategies: 

• Annually evaluate a minimum of 20 percent of refuge boundary. Delineate refuge boundaries 

with signs and paint, as needed. 

• Within 7 years of plan approval, evaluate all refuge signage and replace/add signs, as 

needed. 

Objective 4.3: Provide for visitor safety, protect resources, and ensure the public’s compliance with 

refuge regulations. 

Discussion: Big Branch Marsh Refuge is located in a quickly developing urban area and has many 

visitors. Public uses are limited to those that are compatible with refuge purposes, realizing that 

wildlife needs and requirements come first. Therefore, protection of wildlife resources and laws 

pertaining to wildlife are a priority of refuge law enforcement. Because of high visitor use, law 
38 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

enforcement personnel also deal with issues such as hunter safety, illegal drugs, vandalism, thefts, 

littering, and safety of visitors. Visitors should be able to enjoy a pleasurable experience with 

adequate and safe access. See Goal 3 pertaining to more specific visitor services. 

Strategies: 

• Within 2 years of plan approval, conduct a review of the refuge law enforcement program, 

including reviewing and improving the 2001 refuge law enforcement plan. 

• Use the National Wildlife Refuge System Law Enforcement Deployment Model to evaluate 

and identify law enforcement staffing needs for present and future law enforcement positions. 

• Identify and provide additional training and/or equipment to law enforcement officers that will 

enhance their abilities to recognize, apprehend, and prosecute violators and the various types 

of violations occurring on the refuge 

• Begin a community policing program to liaison with refuge friends, partners, and staff. This 

effort will educate and inform different groups of the community as to what their role is 

regarding refuge law enforcement and how they can have an impact on protecting the natural 

resources of the refuge, as well as its visitors. 

• Work cooperatively with local, State, and other Federal law enforcement agencies to enhance 

resource protection. 

• Throughout the life of the plan, maintain and improve present primary road system; improve 

road surfaces. 

• Consider improvements to secondary roads/trails for better access in protecting and 

managing activities. 

Objective 4.4: Acquire those lands identified in the approved acquisition boundary. 

Discussion: The 1994 establishing documents of Big Branch Marsh Refuge contain an approved 

acquisition boundary, which was extended in two subsequent expansions. The current acquisition 

boundary includes approximately 24,000 acres. Currently, fee title lands are approximately 17,366 acres. 

Strategy: 

• As land within the acquisition boundary becomes available from willing sellers, prioritize by the 

land’s ability to support trust resources, and seek funding to acquire land. 

Objective 4.5: Determine if any of the refuge land should be nominated for inclusion as a 

Wilderness Area. 

Discussion: The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs the Secretary of the Interior to review refuges and 

other natural areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, if certain criteria are 

met. Big Branch Marsh Refuge has not yet had a formal review for Wilderness designation. 

Strategy: 

• As part of this planning process, conduct a wilderness review (Section B, Appendix H). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Objective 4.6: Maintain more than $3,000,000 worth of capitalized equipment 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. 

Discussion: Since Big Branch Marsh Refuge is one of a complex of eight refuges, equipment is 

shared among the refuges instead of being assigned solely to one refuge. The equipment referred to 

here is not separate from the other refuges in the Complex. Project efficiency depends largely on 

age, condition, and maintenance of the equipment needed to 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 work planned. 
40 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

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 Big Branch Marsh 

National Wildlife Refuge, this section identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, 

partnership opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management 

plan, and plan review and revision on over 18,000 acres of pine flatlands, savannahs, hardwood 

hummocks, and marshes. 

This CCP focuses on the importance of funding the operations and maintenance needs of the refuge 

to ensure the refuge staff can achieve the goals and objectives identified and are crucial to fulfill the 

purpose for which the refuge was established. The refuge’s role in protecting and providing habitat 

for endangered species, such as the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, is important. 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 the refuge’s objectives and strategies. The primary linkages 

of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

The refuge attracts 17 species of waterfowl, of which the mottled duck and wood duck nest on the 

refuge. Shorebirds; wading birds; neotropical migratory songbirds; raptors, including osprey; 

mammals; reptiles and amphibians; and numerous fisheries exist on the refuge. The threatened or 

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, eastern brown pelican, Gulf sturgeon, and, 

occasionally, West Indian manatee, inhabit the refuge. The refuge marsh wetlands are spawning, 

nursery, and feeding grounds for many aquatic species. 
42 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 1 – Manage and protect threatened and endangered species through recovery plans.

The areas on the refuge are the only government-owned habitats for the red-cockaded woodpecker 

(RCW) within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion. The refuge population is designated 

as a significant support population for the eventual recovery of the species. The refuge will play a 

role to maintain the RCW’s intrinsic value and conserve genetic diversity for eventual immigration into 

core recoverable populations. Refuge staff will: 

• Conduct annual spring roost surveys and nest surveys. 

• Annually survey 10 percent of refuge pine lands to look for new RCW nests. 

• Annually maintain at least 4 available cavities per active cluster and install inserts, if needed. 

• Participate in the translocation program when refuge meets population goal of 20 active clusters. 

• Protect cavity trees annually by raking a 10’ circle of fuels to mineral soil. 

• Monitor bald eagle nests identified by annual bald eagle surveys. Maintain proper distance of 

equipment and other disturbance of 750-1,500 feet from active nests. 

• Monitor sightings of manatees and coordinate sightings with Ecological Services Office. 

• Coordinate with LADWF fish surveys on occurrence of Gulf sturgeon on near refuge waters. 

Project 2 – Monitor species of concern, targeted species, and species of Federal responsibility.

National wildlife refuges are mandated to manage for threatened and endangered species if they 

occur on the refuge. However, refuges are also responsible for management of all native species if 

the action does not negatively impact the threatened or endangered species. Refuge management is 

geared toward managing the ecosystem as a whole. 

• An overall faunal species list will be compiled from surveys conducted by 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. 

• Annual waterfowl surveys will be conducted from October to February. 

• Secretive marsh birds will be surveyed and monitored as species of concern. Adaptive refuge 

management actions will reflect data collected. 

Project 3 – Provide brood habitat and nest sites for wood ducks to support 250 hatching wood ducks 

each year. 

The wood duck population increase is a success story resulting from protection from hunting and 

subsequent harvest regulations. Louisiana was the first state to close the season for 5 years beginning in 

1904. A national closed season on wood ducks lasted until 1941, when it was determined that the 

population had recovered to the point that the season could be reopened. The season was closed again 

in 1954 and 1956 and by several states in the late 1950s. By 1962, the population status had improved to 

the point that the limit was increased to 2 per day, which is where we are today. 

Wood ducks are a common resident in freshwater wooded ponds today. Wood ducks seek tree cavities 

within one mile of water. However, brood success is significantly higher when nests are next to water. 

Forested wetlands, scrub/shrub areas, tree-lined bayous, and hardwood hummocks are the preferred 

habitats of nesting wood ducks. By the early 1980s, artificial nest boxes had a positive influence on 

production. Wood duck boxes contribute significantly to maintenance of wood duck populations. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

• The refuge will install and annually maintain 50 wood duck boxes in hardwood hummocks, as well 

as fingers of the bayous and drainages throughout the refuge. 

Wood duck habitat on the refuge is minimally confined to these areas and success has been a 

challenge in the past. Success rate has been 9-24 nests in 64 available boxes. Those 64 available 

boxes have been realistically unavailable due to being placed in the wrong location, in disrepair, or 

have not been checked and cleaned regularly. If maintained and checked, the wood duck may use 

the same boxes three or four times throughout the year. Maintenance costs of $5,000 are needed 

annually to maintain this program. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

The refuge provides a diversity of habitats for resident and migratory faunal species, including 

wetland, aquatic, forestland, and scrub/shrub habitats. The purposes for which the refuge was 

established include providing natural habitat for wintering and nesting waterfowl, non-game birds, and 

threatened and endangered species. 

Project 1 – Manage and maintain fire in dense marsh habitats to ensure healthy and viable plant and 

animal communities. 

In order to provide adequate habitats with favorable conditions for waterfowl and other migratory birds 

and native terrestrial and aquatic species, marsh management capabilities shall include the use of 

fire management to encourage growth and development of plants used by wintering and nesting 

waterfowl and secretive marsh birds. 

• Annually prescribe burn at least 1,000 acres of dense marsh near and contiguous to forested 

areas to manipulate timing of desirable plant growth and development. 

 

Through the use of fire, these areas will have increased diversity of vegetation and decreased 

vegetation density, improving wildlife habitat. This will increase mottled duck habitat and possibly 

improve grassland-dependent and secretive marsh bird species. The refuge 2007 Fire Management 

Step-down Plan will utilize research and monitoring to reduce the impact of burning on marsh 

subsidence. A fire monitoring plan is already in place in marsh areas adjacent to forest lands and two 

current research projects are in place to monitor marsh subsidence in non-prescribed fire areas. The 

refuge fire management plan only prescribes burning marshes contiguous with forested lands being 

burned until at least 2016. The fire management plan will be re-evaluated at that time based on 

monitoring and subsidence research. 

Project 2 – Restore marsh in open pond areas over 5 acres in size, fortify the shoreline of the refuge to 

ensure healthy and viable plant and animal communities, and protect the integrity of the refuge habitats. 

The reduction or attempted halt of marsh subsidence and marsh loss is considered critical through 

marsh creation projects and plantings for marsh stabilization. 

• Develop grants through CWPPRA, and partnerships with the Lake Pontchartrain Basin 

Foundation, Nature Conservancy, and other organizations to restore marsh habitats in open water 

ponds to encourage less than 5-acre pond sizes and resulting increased emergent marsh. 

• Develop terracing, Christmas tree structures, dedicated dredging projects, etc., to accomplish 

this objective. 

• Once new lands are formed, plant desired marsh grass. 
44 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 3 – Manage and maintain pine flatwood areas and savannahs for ecosystems, which support the 

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker on over 8,000 acres of mature and developing immature forest. 

Pine savannahs and flatwoods provide a diverse habitat community, which in itself is underrepresented based on historical presence. 

• Develop a Habitat Management Plan to provide open (Basal area 60-80 sq.ft./acre), mature 

(100-year-old), and healthy pine stands with minimal midstory or hardwoods (10 sq.ft/acre), 

while maintaining pockets of hardwoods in natural hammocks, sumps, or drainages. 

• Develop a fire management plan to use prescribed fire to help maintain open pine flatwoods 

and savannahs with groundstory development of broom sedges, bluestems, toothache grass, 

etc., by treating over 2,000 acres annually. Within the fire management plan, a wildfire 

response plan will allow staff to immediately respond to wildfires within the one-mile response 

area to reduce the threat to refuge resources. 

Project 4 – Restore over 300 acres of pine savannah to support the endangered red-cockaded 

woodpecker. 

Pine savannahs existed in pockets throughout the refuge with occasional longleaf pine trees 

scattered throughout. Heavy logging in the early 20th century removed longleaf and landowners 

planted loblolly pine as a replacement. Areas along Boy Scout Road contain remnant old slash pine 

cat-facing created from the turpentine industry. 

• Treat midstory species and overstory north of Paquet Road through mechanical control or 

intensive prescribed burning to maintain or create an open savannah pine area with up to 13 

trees per acre of slash and longleaf. When new lands are acquired in the Fritchie marsh area, 

at least 240 acres will also be managed as a savannah. 

• Savannah areas will be planted with longleaf pine on a 12-foot spacing to encourage historical 

species presence and will be monitored for survival. Determine survival of planted vegetation 

within one year of planting. The planting will be considered a success if 80 percent or more 

survival exists after one year. Otherwise determine if the planted species needs to be 

adjusted or abandoned. 

• If savannah ground plants do not naturally develop within a few years of active savannah 

management, selected native plants will be planted. 

Project 5 – Implement an aggressive invasive species reduction program to remove exotic plant and 

animal species from the refuge. 

Chinese tallow trees and cogon grass are heavy invaders of the forest, reducing native vegetation. 

Other exotic species are beginning to establish on the refuge. Some of these have caused damage 

to important wildlife habitats or species. When cogon grass burns, it burns intensively even when 

green, causing native plants to receive more intense fires, which results in changes in vegetation 

composition. Chinese tallow trees crowd out ground vegetation native to pine savannahs and 

flatwoods and provide undesirable midstory in RCW nesting areas, forcing the birds to abandon their 

nests. When present in large numbers, Chinese tallow trees also reduce the ability of fire to maintain 

an open forest with grassy understory by preventing fire. 

Feral hogs destroy habitat by uprooting young trees and other native vegetation. Hogs continue to 

root out other areas on the refuge, including roads used by staff and the public. Nutria destroy 

habitat by uprooting native vegetation in the marsh, causing more marsh loss. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

• Management efforts will emphasize the eradication or at least the management control of invasive 

non-native species. Costs associated with this project include funding for herbicides, spray 

equipment, trapping equipment, use of special use permits, and personnel to develop plans, 

perform the work, monitor the results, and develop contracts. Start-up costs and staffing needs 

are estimated at $250,000-$300,000 with recurring annual costs of $20,000-$25,000. 

• Prescribed fire will be used to maintain invasive plants once under control with herbicides. 

• Nuisance animal control programs will be utilized for nutria and hogs. 

Project 6 – Develop monitoring programs for fire, forest management, marsh restoration, shoreline 

fortification, submerged aquatic plants, and the impact of public use activities on the refuge to ensure 

healthy and viable plant and animal communities and to protect the integrity of refuge habitats.

 

• Develop historic GIS maps of soils, habitats, and fire history. 

• Establish salinity monitoring points and monitor monthly by taking readings, developing a 

spreadsheet database, and evaluating changes. Coordinate with marsh survivability plots and 

vegetation composition changes. 

• Map vegetation types with the use of GPS and GIS to inventory special and unique areas of 

the refuge requiring special management or protection. 

• Implement a fire, forest management, and marsh subsidence monitoring plan to monitor the 

effects of refuge habitat manipulations and the encouragement of wildlife plants, such as 

three-square in the marsh and grasses in the forest. These plans will encourage adaptive 

management, using the best possible information to make changes in management actions. 

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. Monitoring protocols and procedures will be 

established with results that are recognizable and achievable. 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, and GIS technology for documentation. Fuel 

moistures will be monitored to match prescribed burning timing and intensity with desired results. 

After one year of herbicide treatment, staff will evaluate treatment procedures, timing, and materials 

and methods of treatment with success or failure. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION AND REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Project 1 – Provide adequate law enforcement protection for refuge resources, Federal trust species, 

personnel, and the visiting public. 

The refuge hosts approximately 49,000 visitors annually for hunting, fishing, and wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Visitation is expected to increase as public use activities are added or expanded. 

Visitation has increased dramatically as Hurricane Katrina has brought more residents into the parish. 

The refuge will conduct a refuge Law Enforcement Program Review and revise the Law Enforcement 

Plan. A full-time law enforcement position is needed to cooperate with State wildlife officers and the 

local sheriff and city officers to: 

• Protect hunters and other visitors from vandalism, burglary, assault, and otherwise provide a 

safe experience while on the refuge. 

• Enforce refuge regulations. 

• Reduce drug trafficking. 

• Reduce littering. 
46 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

• Rescue lost hunters and aid visitors in need. 

• Protect refuge infrastructure, equipment, and cultural and natural resources. 

• Conduct patrols at all known archaeological and historical sites, looking for illegal digging or 

looting. 

Project 2 – Conduct an archaeological survey. 

 

• The staff will prevent management disturbance to known Native American middens on the 

refuge. 

• Refuge staff will inventory and map archaeological sites and utilize an Unanticipated 

Discovery Site Mitigation Plan when new sites are accidentally discovered. 

• Develop an archaeological survey in coordination with the regional archaeologist and the 

professional archaeological community.

Project 3 – Maintain marked refuge boundary and other identifying and regulating signs. 

• Conduct refuge boundary surveys on all new lands when acquired and post accordingly. 

• All existing refuge boundaries will be inspected and reposted by annually inspecting and 

reposting 20 percent of the refuge boundary. 

• Signs will be placed at all refuge entrance points along trails, water courses, and roads. 

Project 4 – Acquire lands identified within the approved acquisition boundary

• Acquire lands from willing sellers with the assistance of the Service’s Realty Office. 

• Prioritize land acquisitions by tract numbers or names to areas under the most threat to the 

natural resources. 

• Determine if any acquired lands deserve inclusion in the Wilderness System through a 

wilderness review. 

Project 5 – Meet current and expanded ability to maintain infrastructure for public use and 

management capabilities of the refuge.

Since Big Branch Marsh Refuge is one of eight refuges in the Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, equipment and maintenance responsibilities are shared. 

• Staff, equipment, office space, roads and trails, observation platforms, boat launches, parking 

areas, boardwalks, refuge facilities, equipment, and vehicles must be maintained regularly 

through a maintenance management system. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The refuge is near a rapidly growing community. St. Tammany has consistently been one of the 

quickest growing parishes in the State of Louisiana. The need for providing opportunities for outdoor 

recreation was identified within the purposes for which the refuge was established and expressed by 

the landowner of the first donation to the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Project 1 – Maintain habitat on Bayou Lacombe Centre (Complex Headquarters) for public 

interpretation/demonstration and cultural history. 

The 112-acre site used for the refuge headquarters has 100 years of history. The site is the 

administrative headquarters for a complex of eight refuges. Historically, the site began as a dairy 

farm, then gardens and home for Governor Leche, and lastly, a Catholic high school and seminary 

before becoming headquarters to the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex. The buildings on the 

grounds have been and continue to be renovated for administrative use by the Service. When 

possible, the architectural design will be maintained for its historical significance and beauty. 

• Develop a landscape plan to identify areas with native and non-native vegetation for 

aesthetics and maintenance of the historical use of the area. Create demonstration 

management areas as backyard habitat or examples of refuge management. Use these 

areas and indoor classrooms for environmental education and Friends Group-sponsored 

lectures on refuge management and refuge resources. Restore a portion of the former 

gardens to retain historical beauty. Maintain hiking trails through the historical garden areas 

and through habitat demonstration areas. No active management for the purposes of wildlife 

population control or management will be performed unless threatened or endangered 

species are found. The site will be used for disaster response and will be shared among other 

Service resources as needed and when fiscally feasible. The site is also used as the fire 

center when detailed severity wildfire crews are dispatched, during sponsored events 

promoting wildlife and refuges (e.g., Wild Things event), and other public events to promote 

refuge management. Resident housing will be available for interns, volunteers, and detailers. 

• A new grounds keeper/facilities manager position is needed to maintain facilities, trails, and 

demonstration areas. 

Project 2 – Improve visitor services and interpretation. 

Established in 1994, the refuge is relatively new and is still developing 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: 

• Develop and implement a Visitor Services Plan. 

• Obtain accurate visitor counts through car counters. 

• Post visitor hours and maintain a staff contact throughout those hours for dealing with the 

visiting public. 

• Staff will maintain and improve interpretive exhibits and provide interpretive talks. 

• The Lemieux Road site will be used as the refuge outdoor classroom contact point with an 

interpretive trail, a shelter, and bathrooms. 

• Volunteers and interns will be used to supplement the education programs and visitor contact 

centers. 

• A new video will be made with the assistance of the Service’s National Conservation Training 

Center, highlighting the refuge management programs, wildlife resources, and public use 

opportunities. 

• Develop an auto wildlife trail through Lucille, Mildred, and Lake Road to highlight RCW’s, 

marsh, and other refuge resources. The drive will have pull-offs and parking areas. 

• Improve visitor contact stations, kiosks, trailheads, boat launches, parking areas, and maintain 

refuge entrance sign quality and appearance. 
48 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 3 – 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 along Lake Road 

have been minimal and only opportunistic. The refuge staff will provide: 

• Fishing piers and maintenance of the road/canal/bayou edge and the removal of debris along 

the bayou shore will facilitate more access opportunities, especially for handicapped anglers. 

• The pipeline canal has been a popular bass fishing spot. Maintain and improve pedestrian 

and non-motorized boat access at the pipeline canal. 

• The pond at the headquarters office will be managed and stocked for kids’ fishing events. 

• Hunting improvements will be designed to accommodate increased demands and access, 

provide for a better spatial distribution of hunters, and offer opportunities for physically 

challenged hunters. 

• The refuge will maintain kiosks and boat ramps to facilitate hunting and fishing opportunities. 

• Acquire lands to provide boat launch opportunities in the Fritchie Marsh when available. 

• Inspect public use facilities annually for compliance with safety concerns and repair 

maintenance needs. 

Project 4 – Provide opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. 

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the refuge are provided with diverse habitats 

for viewing red-cockaded woodpeckers, bald eagles, waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and a 

variety of other flora and fauna. 

• Consider zoning special areas for non-consumptive wildlife public use. 

• Offer occasional birding tours led by refuge staff or volunteers. 

• Provide photo blinds along Boy Scout Road and in Little Marsh. 

• Maintain viewing platforms on the refuge and provide strategic locations for viewing platforms 

without disturbing wildlife. 

• Maintain looping boardwalk and trail along Boy Scout Road with interpretive panels and 

benches. 

• Develop a self-guided auto tour with audio and/or printed brochure along Lucille Road, Bertha 

Road, and Lake Road, providing pull-off parking areas with interpretive panels and kiosks 

depicting refuge resources and management. 

Project 5 – Increase public outreach and environmental education to emphasize resource 

management practices. 

Fire management, marsh restoration, forest management, and other refuge 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. 

• Revise and maintain an array of formal, curriculum-based environmental education programs 

for students in St. Tammany and surrounding parishes that, through first-hand experiences, 

promote understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of refuge resources and support for 

refuge management practices. Utilize Lemieux Road environmental education site as a hub 

of educational opportunities from the refuge, with regular use of the canoe launch, interpretive 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

trail, observation platform, and pavilion for educational programs. Proper parking, electrical, 

and shelter facilities will be maintained for school group use. 

• 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. 

• Distribute a quarterly Southeast Louisiana Refuges/Friends Group newsletter electronically or 

on paper, informing the public about refuge management plans, accomplishments, and 

issues. 

• 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 for guiding along Boy Scout, Cane Bayou, Lacombe 

Bayou, and other identified refuge trails. 

• Provide guided tours and walks, talks, presentations, and non-personal interpretive media, 

such as signs and exhibits, to emphasize refuge resources and management practices and 

techniques. Utilize birding clubs, interns, and refuge staff to provide guided programs in areas 

such as Boy Scout Road, Cane Bayou, Lacombe Bayou, and other identified refuge trails. 

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. 

• Support refuge volunteers of all types by providing refuge housing and recreational vehicle 

spaces at the headquarters site. 

• Issue press releases on important events on the refuge, including public events, refuge fire 

program activities, and changes to public use programs (e.g., hunting). 

• 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, and signup for 

programs. 

• 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 existing chapel into a visitor center for the refuge complex, as well as for Big Branch 

Marsh Refuge, featuring information on visitor service opportunities on the refuges, audiovisual 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. 
50 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

The current refuge complex staffing chart includes staff identified for Big Branch Marsh Refuge 

(Figure 7). The proposed staffing chart (Figure 8) will utilize identified staff to accomplish the 

proposed projects (Table 1). 

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 refuge, opportunities exist to establish and maintain 

partnerships with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in managing St. Tammany Refuge 

as a part of Big Branch Marsh Refuge; The Nature Conservancy to share resources in prescribed 

burning the refuge and neighboring similar habitats with similar goals for savannah and pine flatwood 

management; the Pontchartrain Basin Foundation to identify and minimize threats to native habitats 

within the Pontchartrain Basin; with St. Tammany Fire District No. 3 to coordinate fighting of wildfires 

and emergency rescue operations; and with St. Tammany Parish to implement the 2025 plan and to 

identify corridors and green space areas to manage with similar goals, as well as to coordinate the 

refuge public use with the Tammany Trace. 

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. Continuing 

partnerships with The Conservation Fund and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for assistance or 

grants will identify lands to protect and conserve within the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of a refuge. A step-down management plan 

provides more specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services management. 

Step-down plans (Table 2) 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. 

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 

refuge. 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 refuge’s CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be 

described in the step-down management plans. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Figure 7. Current staffing chart for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and Southeast 

Louisiana Refuge Complex 
52 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 8. Proposed staffing chart for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Table 1. Summary of projects 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL COST

Populations 1 Survey and monitor endangered species 75,000 75,000

Populations 2 & 3 Monitor and manage other trust resource 

populations 

50,000 50,000

Habitat 1 Marsh prescribe fire 75,000 75,000

Habitat 2 Marsh restoration and protection 4 mill 75,000

Habitat 3 & 4 Manage pine flatwoods and savannah 75,000 75,000

Habitat 5 Invasive and nuisance species control 150,000 50,000

Habitat 6 Habitat mapping and monitoring through 

GIS 

125,000 25,000

Protection 1 Provide adequate law enforcement 100,000 100,000

Protection 2 Archaeological survey 150,000 0

Protection 3 Boundary maintenance 10,000 10,000

Protection 4 Land acquisition Unknown Unknown

Protection 5 Maintain facilities and infrastructure 100,000 100,000

Visitor Services 1 Bayou Lacombe Centre (Headquarters) 1 mill 50,000

Visitor Services 2 Develop visitor services plan to include 

interpretation, recreation, and education 

500,000 50,000

Visitor Services 3 Consumptive recreation opportunities 500,000 50,000

Visitor Services 4 Wildlife observation and photography 500,000 50,000

Visitor Services 5 Community outreach and education 200,000 200,000
54 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 2. Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to 

the goals and objectives of the CCP 

Step-down Plans Completion Date Revision Date 

Fire Management Plan 1996 2007 

Hunting Plan 1996 2007 

Sport Fishing Plan 1996 2015 

Law Enforcement Plan 2001 2008 

Aircraft Pre-Accident Plan 2003 2011 

Aviation Plan 2004 2011 

Safety Plan 2004 2017 

Hurricane/Incident Plan 2006 Annual 

Habitat Management Plan 2007 2022 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Management Plan 2010 2020 

Aerial Hazard Plan 2011 2021 

Visitor Services Plan 2012 2022 

Integrated Pest Management 

Plan 2012 2022 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The CCP will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s 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 the refuge’s goals and objectives. 

Revisions to the CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject to public review and 

NEPA compliance. 
Appendices 55

SECTION B. 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 plans. Analysis of results helps 

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. 

Approved Acquisition 

Boundary 

A project boundary which the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

approves upon completion of a detailed planning and environmental 

compliance process. 

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. 

Brackish Marsh An area of soft, wet, low-lying land characterized by grassy vegetation 

and water containing some salt, but less than seawater; is located in a 

salinity zone between intermediate and salt marsh 

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). 
56 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 

Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection 

and Restoration Act 

(CWPPRA) 

Passed in 1990 by Congress, this act funds wetland enhancement 

projects to conserve and restore Louisiana’s coastal landscape. The act 

is also called the “Breaux Act.” 

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). 

Compatible Use A use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge 

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

of the mission or the purposes of the refuge. 

Concern See Issue. 

Cover Type The present vegetation of an area. 

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, its 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 office’s 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. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area

An area designated by Congress to be managed as part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 
Appendices 57

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. 

Ecotourism Visits to an area that maintains and conserves natural resources as a 

basis for promoting its economic growth and development. 

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. 

Federal Trust Species All species where the Federal Government has primary jurisdiction, 

including federally threatened or endangered species migratory birds, 

anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 
58 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

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). 

Fire Regime The characteristic frequency, seasonality, intensity, and spatial 

distribution of fires within a given ecoregion or habitat. 

Flatwoods A wooded plant community characterized by poorly drained and 

seasonally saturated soils occurring on broad, flat terrain with irregular 

depressions and very slight rises and low ridges. 

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. 

Indicator Species A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be sensitive to habitat 

changes and represents the needs of a larger group or suite of species. 

Informed Consent The grudging willingness of opponents to “go along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 

Intermediate Marsh Marshes of low salinity with typical vegetation, consisting of wiregrass, 

deer pea, bulltongue, wild millet, bullwhip and sawgrass; is located in a 

salinlity zone between fresh and brackish marsh. 

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. 
Appendices 59

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). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57) 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the 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 Refuge System (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 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 Refuge System. 

Native Species Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 
60 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

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. They are 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. 

Plant Community An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; is 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 under certain conditions and within set parameters 

such as wind speed and direction, fuel moisture, and relative humidity to 

achieve identified land use objectives. 

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. 
Appendices 61

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). 

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 is medium to small, perching birds. Most are 

territorial singers and migratory. 
62 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

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/EA, 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. 

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). 
Appendices 63

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; and 

 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 land-based fire 

other than prescribed fire (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

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 

EA - Environmental Assessment 

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 

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP - National Register of Historic Places 

NWR - National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS - National Wildlife Refuge System 

RM - Refuge Manual 

ROD - Record of Decision 

RONS - Refuge Operating Needs System 

USC - United States Code 
64 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 65

Appendix B. References and Literature 

Citations 

Bahr. L.M., Jr. 1983. Ecological Characterization of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region: A Narrative 

with Management Recommendations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 189 pp. 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 

1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 460 pp. 

EcoStat, Inc. 2005. Risk Characterization: Application of Naled to the Big Branch Marsh. 

Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American 

Foresters, Washington, DC. 148 pp. 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, 

New York. 250 pp. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Website: www.ipcc.ch/. 

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. 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2001. The 2000 Evaluation 

Report to the US Congress on the effectiveness of Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration 

Projects. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 85 pp. 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Louisiana Coast Lines Publication. 

http://www.dnr.state.la.us/crm/coastmgt/coastlines/1996-12.htm. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 1988. Louisiana Coastal Marsh Vegetative Type 

Maps. Prepared by Robert H. Chabreck and Greg Linscombe 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2003. Nutria. http://www.nutria.com/site.php. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and FIsheries. 2004. Strategic Plan 2006-2010. 38 pp. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2005. Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan). 455 pp. 

Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. 1971. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory 

and Study, Louisiana. 175 pp. 

McCarty, P.V. 2001. The genesis of the big branch coastal wetlands: the geologic and geomorphic 

evolution of the Bayou Lacombe area, late Pleistocene to the present. M.S. Thesis. University 

of New Orleans, Louisiana. 194 pp. 
66 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Meretsky, V.J., et al. 2006. New Directions in Conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Bio Science Vol. 56 No. 2. pp135-143 

New Employee Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Nyman, J.A and R.H. Chabreck. 1995. Fire in coastal marshes: history and recent concerns. Pages 

134-141 in Fires in wetlands: a management perspective, eds. S.I. Cerulean and R.T. 

Engstrom. Proceedings of the Tall Timber Fire Ecology Conference, No. 19. Tall Timbers 

Research Station, Tallahassee, Fl. 

Rosen, D.J., S.D. Jones, and V.E. Rettig. 2003. A Floristic Survey of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Sida Contributions to Botany 20(3) 1187-1214.

St. Tammany Economic Development Foundation. 2003. Foundation website: http://stedf.org/. 

St. Tammany Parish. 2006. Parish website: http//www.stpgov.org/. 

Saucier, Robert. T. 1963. Recent Geomorphic History of the Pontchartrain Basin. Louisiana State 

University Studies, Coastal Studies Series Number Nine. 114 pp. 

Stone. J.H., ed. 1980. Environmental Analysis of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, Its Surrounding 

Wetlands and Selected Land Uses. CEL, CWR, LSU, BR, LA 70803. Prepared for U.S. Army 

Engineer District, New Orleans. Contract No. DACW29-77-C-0253. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2004. Conservation Area Plan for the Lake Pontchartrain Estuary. 127 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Water Resources Development in Louisiana. 177 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Enginerrs. 1977. Land’s End, A History of the New Orleans District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and Its Lifelong Battle with the Lower Mississippi and Other Rivers 

Winding Their Way to the Sea. 118 pp. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and County Quick Facts. U.S. Census Bureau website 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22103.html.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. Departmental Manual, Wildland Fire Management 620 DM 1. 

U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. 2001. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery 

Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Southeast Louisiana Refuges, Annual Narrative Report 

Calendar Year 2000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, Biological Review, 

October 21-25, 2002. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, Wildlife and 

Habitat, Biological Review 2002-2003. 
Appendices 67

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides

borealis) Second Revision, January 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Goose Point/Point Platte Marsh Creation Project, Candidate 

Project for the Thirteenth Priority Project List of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and 

Restoration Act. Project Information Sheet for Wetland Value Assessment. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003c. Public Use Review Report, Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge, March 2003. 

U.S. Government. 1999. Executive Order 13112. Federal Register Vol. 64. No. 25. 
68 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 69

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. 

Strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with Federal funds, or leased by a Federal agency, 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 Native Americans. 
70 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 “air quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish and 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. 

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. 
Appendices 71

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 threatened and endangered 

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. 

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 relating to Federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the 

Secretary is required to establish conditions to ensure the 

permanent protection of estuaries. 
72 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

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 conserve 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 landmanaging 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. 
Appendices 73

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

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 it celebrated 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 Refuge 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 long-term plan to meet the priority operations; 

maintenance and construction needs for the Refuge 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. 
74 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 15c of the Act prohibits issuing 

geothermal leases on virtually all Service-administrative lands. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

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 plants 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. 
Appendices 75

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

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 Native American 

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 decision-making 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. 
76 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

Refuge System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as 

responsible for managing and protecting the Refuge System, and 

requires the development of a comprehensive conservation plan 

for all refuges. 

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. The 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council was 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). 

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 
Appendices 77

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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-dependent recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public 

uses. 

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 Departments of 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 resources under his jurisdiction, 

and requires that 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. 

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. 
78 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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) 

program within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
Appendices 79

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 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 low-income populations. 

EO 12906, Coordinating 

Geographical Data Acquisition 

and Access (1994), Amended 

by EO 13286 (2003). 

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 comprehensive 

conservation planning is the National Vegetation Classification 

System (NVCS), which is the 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. 
80 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

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 12996, Management and 

General Public Use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996) 

The mission of the National Wildlife System is stated with 

guiding principles to help ensure the long-term enjoyment of the 

Refuge System for present and future generations. The order 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to recognize compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities, involving hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, as priority general 

public uses of the Refuge System. 

EO 13007, Native American 

Religious Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian sacred 

sites on Federal lands 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. 

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 excutive 

order 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 81

Appendix D. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

This appendix summarizes the consultation and coordination that occurred in the processes of 

identifying the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative, which were presented in the Draft CCP; 

during the period of time while the Draft CCP was being prepared and distributed; and during the 

period of public review and comment on the Draft CCP. Several teams and advisory groups were 

involved in the planning process with representation from the Service, Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries, The Nature Conservancy, and others as listed below. 

Biological Review - October 21-25, 2002 

A team of 25 biologists, ecologists, managers, and foresters from the Service (including key refuge 

staff), Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, The Nature Conservancy, and universities 

conducted a review of the wildlife and habitat management programs on the refuge from 

October 21-25, 2002. The primary focus of this effort was to examine the refuge’s biological program 

to identify needs and to provide guidance to the refuge for the preparation of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Attendees included: 

Barbara Boyle, former Deputy Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Danny Breaux, Refuge Manager, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Randy Browning, Invasive Species Coordinator, Ecological Services, USFWS, Jackson, MS 

Dave Brownlie, Regional Fire Ecologist, USFWS, Tallahassee, FL 

Jeff Boundy, Herpetologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Dr. Robert Chabreck, Professor, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 

Scott Durham, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Buddy Goatcher, Oil Spill Coordinator, Ecological Services, USFWS, Lafayette, LA 

Sammy Gray, former Fire Control Officer, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

James Harris, Supervisory Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Dr. Craig Hood, Professor, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA 

Greg Linscombe, Fur and Refuge Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 

New Iberia, LA 

Phil McCarty, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 

Ken McLaughlin, Regional Fire Ecologist, USFWS, Tallahassee, FL 

Randy Myers, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Kelby Ouchley, Refuge Manager, North Louisiana Refuge Complex, Farmerville, LA 

Charlotte Parker, Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Howard Rogillio, Fisheries Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lacombe, LA 

Latimore Smith, Plant Ecologist, Nature Conservancy, Covington, LA 

Elizabeth Souheaver, former Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Pat Stinson, former Wildlife Management Biologist, USFWS, Jackson, MS 

Bob Strader, Supervisory Wildlife Management Biologist, USFWS, Jackson, MS 

Bill Vermillion, Biologist, Ecological Service, USFWS, Lafayette, LA 

Nancy Walters, former Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Dr. Dawn Wesson, Professor, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA 
82 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

A public use review advisory team met in February 2003, to provide guidance for managing the 

education and visitor services program. Attendees included: 

Diane Barth, Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Liz Bellantoni, former CCP Coordinator, USFWS, Washington, D.C. 

Kris Bly, former Law Enforcement Officer, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Mike Boley, former Assistant Director, Audubon Nature Center, New Orleans, LA 

Diane Borden-Billiot, Park Ranger, Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex, Hackberry, LA 

Barbara Boyle, former Deputy Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Charlie Case, Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Cheryl Fisher, Educator, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lacombe, LA 

Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Kevin Godsea, Lead Park Ranger, J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel, FL 

James Harris, Supervisory Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Michele Hubert, Friends of Southeast Louisiana Refuges, Lacombe, LA 

Doug Hunt, Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Deborah Jerome, Public Use Specialist, Southeast Regional Office, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

Tanya Leader, Visitor Services Manager, St. Tammany Parish Tourist and Convention Commission, 

Covington, LA 

Joe Madere, Friends of Southeast Louisiana Refuges, Lacombe, LA 

Elizabeth Souheaver, former Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Garry Tucker, Chief of Visitor Services and Outreach, Southeast Regional Office, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

A workshop was held December 9-11, 2003, to develop a draft vision statement and goals for the 

refuge to be included in the Draft CCP/EA. The workshop was facilitated by Dr. Onnie Byers and 

Moriya Rufer of Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, a part of The World Conservation Union. 

Interested stakeholders were invited to participate. Attendees included: 

Byron Almquist, Canoe and Trail Adventures, Metairie, LA 

Jimmy Anthony, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Joe Benard, Retired Teacher, Lacombe, LA 

Lyndon Bijou, former Refuge Operations Specialist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Kris Bly, former Law Enforcement Officer, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Denise Bonck, former Planner, City of Slidell Planning Department, Slidell, LA 

Roger Boykin, Regional Fire Management Coordinator, Southeast Regional Office, USFWS, Atlanta, GA 

Barbara Boyle, former Deputy Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Danny Breaux, Refuge Manager, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Larry Burch, Geologist, Mandeville, LA 

Curt Burnette, former Managing Director, Audubon Nature Center, New Orleans, LA 

Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Cliff and Connie Glockner, Lacombe, LA 

RIchard Hale, Northshore Bird Club, Slidell, LA 

Michele Hubert, Friends of Southeast Louisiana Refuges, Lacombe, LA 

Amy LeGaux, former Education Curator, Audubon Nature Center, New Orleans, LA 

Jill Mastrototaro, Environmental Coordinator, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Metairie, LA 

Nelwyn McInnis, Northshore Program Manager, Nature Conservancy, Covington, LA 

Paul Orr, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Baton Rouge, LA 

Chuck Palmisano, Director of St. Tammany Parish Mosquito Abatement District, Slidell, LA 

Charlotte Parker, Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Howard Poitevint, former Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Conrad Porbes, Pirates Harbor Civic Association, Slidell, LA 
Appendices 83

Kenny Ribbeck, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Elizabeth Souheaver, former Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Shelley Stiaes, Refuge Operations Specialist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Dennis Tauzin, Volunteer, Lacombe, LA 

Bill Vermillion, Biologist, Ecological Services, USFWS, Lafayette, LA 

On January 14, 2004, the entire staff of Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex met in a mini-workshop to 

discuss the vision statement and refine it from the previous workshop. Any interested staff was invited to 

attend a second planning meeting on February 10, 2004, to discuss and review the draft goals. 

A second workshop was held July 19-21, 2004, to build on the previous workshop and identify 

alternatives for future management of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, 

objectives were developed for reaching the goals. Some of the participants had attended the first 

workshop. Dr. Onnie Byers and Moriya Rufer of Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, part of The 

World Conservation Union, again served as facilitators. Attendees included: 

Bob Baker, Lacombe, LA 

Todd Baker, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, LaPlace, LA 

Kris Bly, former Law Enforcement Officer, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Barbara Boyle, former Deputy Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Danny Breaux, Refuge Manager, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Larry Burch, Geologist, Mandeville, LA 

J.C. Ciolino, Bayou Lacombe Chamber of Commerce, Lacombe, LA 

Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Amy LeGaux, former Education Curator, Audubon Nature Center, New Orleans, LA 

Judy McClendon, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS, Central Arkansas Refuge Complex, Augusta, AR 

Nelwyn McInnis, Northshore Program Manager, Nature Conservancy, Covington, LA 

Randy Myers, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Chuck Palmisano , Director of St. Tammany Parish Mosquito Abatement District, Slidell, LA 

Christy Paulsell, St. Tammany Parish School Board, Slidell, LA 

Charlotte Parker, Biologist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Mike Perot, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Martha Segura, former Biologist, Ecological Services, USFWS, Lafayette, LA 

Elizabeth Souheaver, former Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, Lacombe, LA 

Bob Strader, Supervisory Wildlife Management Biologist, USFWS, Jackson, MS 

Troy Turner, Forester, Louisiana Office of Forestry, Baton Rouge, LA 

Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., Baton Rouge, LA, was contracted in August 2004, to 

assist with Draft CCP/EA development. 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan Team (a.k.a. Planning Team) was comprised of the following 

staff and former staff: 

Ken Litzenberger, Project Leader 

Pon Dixson, Deputy Project Leader 

Charlotte Parker, Team Leader and Natural Resource Planner/Biologist 

Danny Breaux, Refuge Manager 

Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger 

Elizabeth Souheaver, former Project Leader 

Barbara Boyle, former Deputy Project Leader and former Team Leader 

Kris Bly, former Law Enforcement Officer 
84 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

CORE PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The core planning team consisted 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 a 

realistic plan for the future. The entire staff of the complex was invited to provide input several times 

during the process. The core team members included: 

• Ken Litzenberger, Project Leader, South Louisiana Refuge Complex 

• Pon Dixson, Deputy Project Leader, South Louisiana Refuge Complex 

• Charlotte Parker, Natural Resource Planner, South Louisiana Refuge Complex 

• Daniel Breaux, Manager of Big Branch Marsh, Bogue Chitto, and Atchafalaya Refuges, South 

Louisiana Refuge Complex 

• Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex 
Appendices 85

Appendix E. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

Public scoping was initiated in November 2003, with an open-house meeting at refuge headquarters 

in Lacombe, Louisiana, where participants were able to register their concerns to ensure that they 

would be considered in developing the Draft CCP/EA. The meeting was well attended with 

approximately 57 people present. A notice of intent was also published in the Federal Register 

announcing the planning process, giving contact information, and soliciting comments. The following 

comments were made during the public scoping phase of this plan: 

Public Programs and Visitor Facilities Section

1) Perform education/outreach to public about trash dumping and parking in proper areas. 

2) Provide email contacts for law enforcement personnel; perhaps on web page (similar to 

#15 – Refuge Administration). 

3) Provide photo blinds on refuge. 

4) Provide a means for mobility-impaired to access areas such as Boy Scout Road. 

5) Get our new phone number out to other agencies, such as LDWF. 

6) Problem with illegal motorized access at parking areas (Paquet Road, etc.) 

- improve public parking areas. 

7) Empower citizens/refuge neighbors to aid in law enforcement 

- provide radios? 

8) Improve gate at Lemeiux Road environmental education site; apparently people have pulled 

post up and driven in illegally. 

9) Complete boat launch at Lake Road; look into possible partnerships to complete 

(State, Parish, DU, etc.) 

10) There is problem with illegal dumping at Lemieux Road - provide law enforcement contact 

numbers to residents. 

11) What to do about remote trash piles (far into the woods), such as cars, appliances, etc.? Is 

there a plan? 

12) Provide more bank-fishing opportunities for those without boats. 

13) Why do we have so few law enforcement officers? 

14) Provide more overlooks for wildlife viewing. 

15) Dog laws are inconsistent. Why can hunters have dogs off leash but dog walkers can’t? 

16) Establish designated areas for dogs off leash. 

17) Can we remove fallen oak at end of Boy Scout Road at Bayou Lacombe? 

18) More restroom facilities needed: Boy Scout Road, canoe launch, and Lemieux Road. 

19) Establish self-clearing check stations for deer hunters. 

20) Create trail along lake shore west of Lake Road (would have to bridge canal somehow). 

21) Improve and mark existing rough trail to brick kiln (Boy Scout Road). 

22) Provide trail access to gum pond off Boy Scout Road. 

23) What can we do about burnt house at end of Lake Road? 

24) Provide platform for resting/wildlife viewing in marsh accessible from non-motorized launch. 

25) Maintain hunting on Big Branch (don’t eliminate as public use). 

26) Develop visitor resources at headquarters site (gardens, etc.) 

27) We aren’t responsive enough to public inquiries (law enforcement). 

28) There is a problem with nighttime illegal use and access (kids partying etc., 

at Boy Scout Road). 
86 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

29) Provide better boundary marking on a permanent basis. 

30) Increase staff to address needs (litter, maintenance, etc). 

31) Require international bow-hunting course for refuge users. 

33) Label unique habitat areas with interpretive signs. 

34) Need self-clearing check stations for deer hunting. 

35) Special hunts for invasive species (e.g., hogs) to reduce competition with native wildlife. 

36) Extend Boy Scout Road boardwalk to bayou for a canoe launch. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management

1) How/when to do prescribed fire burning (dormant vs. growing season). 

2) Concern regarding burning during nesting season. 

3) Concern regarding construction of fire breaks – what is their relevance? Are they necessary? 

4) What is the burning schedule/cycle – 2- to 3-year cycles. 

5) Threats to grassland bird habitat from mowing activities. 

6) What is the forest management plan of the oaks off Boy Scout Road? 

7) Perform management for Bachman’s sparrow and other species of concern. 

8) Study the effects of feral hogs on the different habitats. 

9) Mosquito control treatment – how far into interior of refuge is treated with Nalad? 

10) Study the effects of mosquito spraying on bees. 

11) Increase budget for research opportunities. 

12) Perform invasive species eradication – Chinese tallow and cogan grass. 

13) Continue wetland restoration projects, such as Christmas trees, Coir logs, marsh plantings. 

14) Conduct fisheries surveys. 

15) Perform fish stocking and partnering with fish hatchery. 

16) What is the status of Wildlife Urban Interface education programs (EX SCAFEC)? 

17) Conduct surveys for wildlife inventory (deer, hogs, etc). 

18) Assess water quality of bayous. 

19) Provide good quality water when population around refuge expands. 

20) Accomplish habitat improvements with intensive methods, such as food plots and water level 

manipulation. 

21) Make information available where certain species occur. 

22) Consider location and concentration of endangered species in prioritizing land acquisition. 

23) Create a balance between public use and wildlife protection. 

24) Keep trails “rustic.” 

25) Recommend alligator trapping. 

26) Improve marsh management by incorporating burning of the marsh. Suggest burn window of 

September 15 – November 15 to get best water and wind (early fronts) conditions. 

27) Nutria trapping is not necessary because population is not large. 

Refuge Administration

1) Interest in the land acquisition process and future development plans. 

- Is there a budget? Where does it come from? Is it recurring? Donations? Can you 

ask potential buyers or is there an agent involved? 

2) Maintenance issues. 

- How to maintain refuge without sufficient budget. 

- What is the status of Lake Road boat launch – need to improve. 

3) How to improve litter abatement? Interest in beautification and access for families to enjoy 

these areas. 

4) End of Lake Road – beautification and develop a pier. 
Appendices 87

5) Want to increase local involvement. Improve advertisement/solicitation of volunteers 

6) Develop a program to train people how to go back to their community and teach land 

stewardship or wetland conservation or habitats or.... 

7) Develop partnerships with St. Tammany Tourist Commission, Nature Conservancy, Lacombe 

Chamber of Commerce, etc., to improve visibility and community awareness. 

8) Develop regular clean-up days on the refuge or develop litter abatement program. 

9) Improve notification of volunteer opportunities. 

10) Develop a strategy to prioritize land acquisition opportunities. 

11) Establish a goal – Example: Set an acquisition goal of 100 percent during the planning 

process. 

12) Coordinate/partner with other conservation agencies adjacent to the refuge. 

13) Add display in visitor center of historical/archaeological components of the refuge. 

14) Perform contaminant studies/testing of Bayou Lacombe spoil dredging. 

15) Enhance web site to include refuge specific contacts to facilitate greater flow of information 

(staff directory). 

16) Develop partnership with educational institutions and conservation organizations to reach rural 

visitors. 

17) Hire more biologists/ecologists. 

18) Acquire adjacent lands off Carr Drive. 

In addition, two workshops were held during the planning process to develop a vision statement, 

goals, and alternatives. Interested people, such as adjacent landowners, representatives from 

groups interested in the refuge, civic groups, local government, educators, and other conservation 

agencies, were invited. These stakeholders were instrumental in discussing issues and developing 

many of the ideas in this plan; their names are listed in Appendix K as contributors. 

DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

Public comments on the draft document were accepted from April 30 through May 30, 2007, as published 

in the Federal Register. Postcards were mailed to everyone participating in the planning process, 

workshops, and making comments during the public scoping phase of the planning process. Recipients 

of the postcard were given notice of the release of the draft plan and the option of receiving a hard copy or 

CD. Two local newspapers ran articles or notices of the release of the draft, the comment period, and 

contacts for any comments. In addition, local and state political leaders and conservation organizations 

were provided copies of the draft. Draft copies were supplied to all local libraries. 

A total of 9 individuals submitted comments on the draft plan and environmental assessment, either 

in writing, by fax or by email. Several of the individuals submitted numerous comments. 
88 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

AFFILIATIONS OF RESPONDENTS 

 

The table below identifies the names and affiliations of respondents who commented on the draft plan 

and environmental assessment 

Name of Respondent Affiliation 

Doug Singer unknown 

Joseph L. Riche, Jr. Member of The National Rifle Association 

Ponchatoula, LA 

Johnnie Donald Vidalia, LA 

Francis Elliott Pineville, LA 

Dan Voelkel Mandeville, LA 

Tom Aicklen Lacombe Heritage Center 

Lacombe, LA 

Wesley Andrews Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Clewiston, FL 

Brett Henry St. Tammany Parish 

Department of Environmental Services 

Covington, LA 

Andrew Page and Dr. Lauren Nolfo-Clements The Humane Society of the United States 

Washington, DC 

The number of affiliations represented in the above table can be summarized as follows: federal 

agencies, 0; state agencies, 0; local (city and parish) agencies, 2; nongovernmental organizations, 3; 

and public citizens (general public), 4. 

COMMENT MEDIA 

The types of media used to deliver the comments received by the refuge and planning staff are 

categorized as follows: written letter, 3; fax, 1; and e-mail, 5. 

GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF RESPONDENTS 

The geographic origins of the individual respondents who submitted comments are Louisiana 7; 

Florida 1; and Washington, DC, 1. 
Appendices 89

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

The public comments received address the following concerns. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

responses to each concern are also summarized. 

SUPPORT WITH THE PROPOSED PLAN 

Comment: We find the CCP compelling and challenging and look forward to providing continued 

initiative and assistance in implementing its strategies.

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: Overall the CCP/EA is an excellent guidepost for your objectives and goals that will 

continue to expand and evolve over the next 15 years. I believe Alternative B (Resource-Focused 

Management) is the best choice of the three alternatives. 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: We commend the refuge for planning increased opportunities for non-consumptive user 

recreation. We are also pleased that the refuge plans to review its public use programs, including 

hunting, annually to evaluate their impact on refuge resources and visitors. 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: I agree with the selection of Alternative B. 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: Thanks for all you and your team does to protect our natural resources. 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

CONCERNS 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Comment: Besides red-cockaded woodpecker and the Gulf sturgeon, there is no discussion of 

management plans for other animals of conservation concern (i.e. West Indian manatee, 

diamondback terrapin, osprey, bald eagle, pine woods snake, and the eastern glass lizard). 

Service Response: As listed in the plan, the refuge attracts 17 species of waterfowl, of which the 

mottled duck and wood duck nest on the refuge. Shorebirds; wading birds; neotropical migratory 

songbirds; raptors, including osprey; mammals; reptiles; amphibians; and numerous fisheries exist on 

the refuge. The threatened or endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, eastern brown 

pelican, Gulf sturgeon, and occasionally the West Indian manatee inhabit the refuge. The refuge 

marsh wetlands are spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for many aquatic species. Project 2 is 

to “Monitor species of concern, targeted species, and species of federal responsibility.” National 

wildlife refuges are mandated to manage for threatened and endangered species if they occur on the 

refuge. However, refuges are also responsible for management of all native species if the action 

does not negatively impact the threatened or endangered species. Refuge management is geared 
90 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

toward managing the ecosystem as a whole. In this project, an overall faunal species list will be 

compiled from surveys conducted by the Service and other researchers within 5 years. This list will 

be made available to the public through the refuge website within 7 years. 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, and develop a wildlife inventory plan based on 

species selected as priority species within 10 years. Secretive marsh birds will also be surveyed and 

monitored as species of concern. Adaptive refuge management actions will reflect data collected. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Comment: You do not mention rare/threatened plant species (i.e., clasping-leaf pondweed and saw 

palmetto). 

Service Response: The step-down “Habitat Management Plan” will include rare and special plants 

of concern found on the refuge and address habitat management needs and protection of these 

plants when found. 

Comment: What are your strategies for the riparian corridors of the more upland bayous and smaller 

streams in the refuge? 

Service Response: The step-down management plan will utilize the state’s voluntary streamside 

management guidelines which will include buffer strips near streams. 

Comment: A more comprehensive and holistic description of techniques for invasive species 

management is needed. Besides Chinese tallow and cogon grass, what other invasive species are 

problematic and what strategies will be employed for their control? 

Service Response: The refuge contains many other exotic species. Some are invasive which 

includes mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), common privet (Ligustrum sp.), purple loosestrife (Lythrum 

salicaria), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum), 

giant reed (Arundo donax), and dodder vine (Cuscuta sp.). These are present on the refuge in small 

numbers and are treated through an integrated pest management approach through the step-down 

Habitat Management Plan with fire, mechanical, and herbicide control methods when feasible. 

Comment: You should add “The Headquarters could serve as an assessable area for small scale 

habitat restoration projects, representative native Louisiana habitats that are rapidly vanishing, and 

interpretive trails/boardwalks with education signage. The pitcher plant bog area on site is of special 

interest.” to the strategy on p. 24 under Objective 1.3: Management of fish and wildlife species at 

Bayou Lacombe Centre - Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex Headquarters. 

Service Response: Comment noted. The CCP describes and the current staff and Friends group 

are actively pursuing headquarter trails to highlight demonstration areas, including the pitcher plant 

bog area. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION AND REFUGE ADMINISTRATION

Comment: St. Tammany Parish is a willing partner in your efforts to purchase and conserve additional 

land adjacent to the current refuge boundaries. Currently, as part of New Directions 2025, we are 

identifying critical and sensitive areas to purchase for conservation. The Parish is teaming with The Trust 

for Public Land in the “Greenprint” program. One of the major conservation priorities with the St. 
Appendices 91

Tammany Parish Greenprint is to establish a parks network by providing corridors that connect preexisting preserves to each other and further extend buffer zones in areas threatened by development. 

Service Response: Comment noted. The projects proposed by refuge staff include working 

cooperatively with local, State, and other Federal agencies to enhance resource protection. A key 

element of this plan 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 refuge, opportunities exist to 

establish and maintain partnerships with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in managing 

St. Tammany Refuge as a part of Big Branch Marsh Refuge; The Nature Conservancy to share 

resources in prescribed burning the refuge and neighboring similar habitats with similar goals for 

savannah and pine flatwood management; the Pontchartrain Basin Foundation to identify and 

minimize threats to natural native habitats within the Pontchartrain Basin; with St. Tammany Fire 

District #3 to coordinate fighting of wildfires and emergency rescue operations; and finally with St. 

Tammany Parish to implement the 2025 plan and to identify corridors and greenspace areas to 

manage with similar goals, as well as to coordinate the refuge public use with the Tammany Trace. 

The refuge would like greatly to coordinate with St. Tammany Parish and be a part of the Greenprint 

program to purchase lands identified within the 2025 plan, which are adjacent to the refuge and within 

congressionally approved acquisition. 

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. 

Continuing partnerships with The Conservation Fund, St. Tammany Parish, and the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation for assistance or grants will identify lands to protect and conserve within the Lake 

Pontchartrain Basin. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Comment: Disappointment was expressed that the CCP does not provide boat launch access to 

Fritchie Marsh. 

Service Response: During the development of this CCP, the Service did not own lands within the 

Fritchie marsh which gave direct access, allowing the development of a boat launch. Since this plan 

was drafted, the Service acquired the Fitzgerald tract, which provided ownership of lands in the 

marsh to Highway 90 at Salt Bayou. The Service is now considering providing a boat launch at this 

site once the deed to this tract confirms status boundaries. 

Comment: Concern stated about providing sufficient funding for adequate law enforcement with the 

amount of citizen and commercial abuse of the land. 

Service Response: Comment noted. Funding for refuge law enforcement is provided ultimately 

from Washington.

Comment: Three comments addressed the concern of not having the right to bear firearms on public 

lands. 

Service Response: Comment noted. Because access to the refuge is a privilege and not a right, 

refuge regulations only allow firearms in coordination and regulation with hunting wildlife in season.
92 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment: Two comments expressed concerns that hunting opportunities on the refuge would be 

lessened or impacted negatively in the future. 

Service Response: Comment noted.

Comment: On page 33, under substrategies of Objective 3.3, Great Northshore Bird Festival should 

be Great Louisiana Birdfest. 

Service Response: The change was made in the CCP.

Comment: One comment, by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), opposes the draft 

plan and requests the refuge not be opened to hunting. Comments by the HSUS are summarized 

and responded to below. 

Service Response: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognizes, 

among several priorities written into the law, six wildlife-dependent recreational activities: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Comment: The HSUS stated that the action proposed represents a continuing violation of Federal 

law, namely the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), given the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(FWS) ongoing failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on its national wildlife 

refuge sport-hunting program or, more broadly, its overall refuge recreation program. 

Service Response: On August 31, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina agreed with 

the Fund for Animals in its lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He found that we had 

not adequately considered the cumulative effects of opening or expanding hunting programs on 37 

national wildlife refuges cited in the lawsuit, originally filed March 2003. The judge asked both sides 

to suggest remedies. We did, and we supplied the judge documentation of our efforts. 

We sought to fulfill NEPA requirements, which the lawsuit said we had violated, by requiring all 37 

refuges cited to complete Environmental Assessments on their hunting proposals. We informed the 

court that by May 31, we also would complete Environmental Assessments for 30 refuges not cited in 

the original suit, but opened to hunting since the suit was filed, and for seven other refuges where the 

opening of hunting was proposed for the 2006-2007 season. In total, we completed Environmental 

Assessments on 74 refuge hunting programs by the May 31 deadline that we set. Now, we have filed 

our report and the Environmental Assessments with the District Court, and we are awaiting a final 

ruling from Judge Urbina. 

Comment: The HSUS stated that while the FWS believes the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act provides carte blanche approval to allow sport hunting on refuges, the Act retains and 

reemphasizes the compatibility requirement and imposes other standards. The HSUS does not believe 

that sport hunting is compatible with the purposes for which many refuges were created, and there is no 

indication that the FWS ensured the availability of sufficient funds when initially approving sport hunting on 

the refuge. It must do so now if it intends to continue to authorize and/or expand hunting under the CCP. 

Service Response: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified hunting as 

one of the priority public uses on national wildlife refuges where compatible with refuge purposes. This 

use is legitimate, appropriate, and dependent on healthy wildlife populations. Offering recreational 

hunting is in compliance with refuge goals, is a management objective for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, and furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Appendices 93

Comment: The HSUS stated that the proposed CCP must take into account not only the effects of 

hunting on other wildlife species in the refuge, but also the cumulative impacts of hunting on wildlife, 

migratory birds, and non-hunting visitors to refuges throughout the Refuge System before permitting 

hunting to continue via CCPs. 

Service Response: On August 31, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina agreed with 

the Fund for Animals in its lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He found that we had 

not adequately considered the cumulative effects of opening or expanding hunting programs on 37 

national wildlife refuges cited in the lawsuit, originally filed March 2003, not including Big Branch 

Marsh NWR. The Service sought to fulfill NEPA requirements of including cumulative effects by 

completing Environmental Assessments for 30 refuges not cited in the original suit, but opened to 

hunting since the suit was filed, including Big Branch Marsh Refuge. 

Comment: The HSUS stated that the FWS cannot finalize the proposed CCP until and unless an 

EIS is prepared to properly, objectively, and comprehensively evaluate the full range of environmental 

impacts associated with adverse impacts of refuge uses, including hunting activities. The FWS ‘s 

NEPA compliance on refuge hunting and all refuge recreational use activities is lacking given its 

failure to complete its Refuges 2003 Plan and Draft EIS, published January 15, 1993. The FWS 

cannot initiate an EIS process and then halt the process and continue to open refuges to hunting with 

no substantive analysis of the refuge-specific or program-wide impact of the activity on wildlife or the 

Refuge System. 

Service Response: Comment noted.

Comment: The HSUS stated that the alternatives proposed in the Draft CCP fail to constitute a 

reasonable range of alternatives and among the reasonable alternatives that must be considered are 

alternatives focused on non-consumptive uses of the refuge, and their economic and other benefits. 

Service Response: On July 19-21, 2004, the second planning workshop was held. Participants 

were refuge staff, local residents, nearby professionals in wildlife management, public education and 

interpretation, and forestry. In this workshop, six alternatives were described, including Current 

Management, Focused Adaptive Management for Priority Wildlife Species, Passive/Defensive 

Management, Total Restoration, Integrated Management 50:50, and Public Dimension. Because of 

refuge management mandates from policy and congressional acts, Passive/Defensive Management 

was eliminated as a total option by the refuge planning team. The remaining alternatives were further 

combined into three alternatives as seen in the CCP. 

Comment: The HSUS stated that a Section 7 is required to ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered species. 

Service Response: An internal review Section 7 evaluation was prepared for the Implementation of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and is found in 

Appendix H. 
94 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment: The HSUS stated that surveys and studies reveal that the number of hunters has steadily 

declined over the last few decades, while non-consumptive wildlife uses continue to increase. The 

FWS has ignored these data and failed to capitalize on the potential economic gain that would come 

from non-consumptive users. Instead of alleviating conflicts between consumptive and nonconsumptive users by separating them in different zones (CCP page 8), the refuge should consider 

removing the dangers and disturbances inherent in hunting areas and allowing for a more complete 

exploration of these areas for non-hunters. 

Service Response: Comment noted. The Service has provided opportunities for non-consumptive 

wildlife use by providing a no-hunt environmental education zone and replaced and extended its 

boardwalk on Boy Scout Road. 

Comment: The HSUS stated that the following sentence “While hunting is the biggest public use on 

the refuge, hunting pressure is not heavy at this time” (Draft CCP, page 159) is both paradoxical and 

of questionable veracity given the refuge has approximately 49,000 visitors annually. 

Service Response: The Service agrees that the statement in the CCP is conflicting, and a check of 

our records indicates that it was erroneous. The CCP has been reworded to reflect the fact that of 

the nearly 50,000 visitors in 2005, the number of hunters was just under 5,500. The most popular 

public use activity on the refuge is wildlife observation, which was enjoyed by 28,250 visitors in 2005. 

A decline in hunting pressure in recent years is evidenced by the fact that the hunt permit lottery once 

employed on Big Branch Marsh was dropped as hunter demand decreased. 

 

Comment: The HSUS stated that while the CCP does state that some activities can be more 

disturbing than others and all public use activities on the refuge are planned to avoid “unacceptable 

levels of impact,” the CCP does not explain what the threshold is for a disturbance to be deemed 

unacceptable. 

Service Response: Comment noted.

Comment: The HSUS stated because all organisms develop behaviors to avoid predation, 

disturbance and predator avoidance behaviors caused by hunting reduces the wildlife viewing 

opportunities for non-consumptive participants in wildlife-related recreation. 

Service Response: Comment noted.

Comment: The HSUS stated that the lack of check-in stations and lax, voluntary reporting 

requirements for hunters is completely unacceptable. Since the refuge is obviously unable to 

adequately monitor its legal hunting, there is no possible way to prevent poaching and/or exploitation 

of both target and non-target wildlife species. 

Service Response: Three of the station's four refuge law enforcement officers work on Big Branch 

Marsh during hunting season. They enforce refuge and State hunting regulations and monitor 

harvest. They also receive assistance from State wildlife officers, and can request temporary 

assistance from other refuge officers from nearby refuges on an as needed basis. 
Appendices 95

Comment: The HSUS stated that the CCP claims that there are nearly 50,000 visitors to the refuge 

annually and that hunting is the “biggest” activity, implying that tens of thousands of hunters are on 

the refuge with minimal oversight and no bag limit enforcement. The HSUS further states that this is 

completely negligent. 

Service Response: The Service agrees that the statement in the CCP is conflicting, and a check of 

our records indicates that it was erroneous. The CCP has been reworded to reflect the fact that of 

the nearly 50,000 visitors in 2005, the number of hunters was just under 5,500. The most popular 

public use activity on the refuge is wildlife observation, which was enjoyed by 28,250 visitors in 2005. 

Three station law enforcement officers monitor hunting on the refuge, working cooperatively to 

prevent poaching/exploitation of wildlife and to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and 

bag limits. In addition, State wildlife enforcement officials work independently and cooperatively with 

FWS law enforcement officers on the refuge.

Comment: The HSUS stated that Big Branch Refuge allows for the hunting of woodcock while the 

Service lists the woodcock as a Game Bird below Desired Condition. 

Service Response: The refuge allows for the hunting of waterfowl and other water-dependent game 

birds while several species, such as American black ducks, greater and lesser scaups, northern 

pintails, and king rails, have undergone significant population declines and are listed as Game Bird 

below Desired Condition. The effects of hunter harvest on these species are unknown and numerous 

studies have been conducted with varying findings. The Service relies on the Migratory Bird Sport 

Hunting Frameworks to set hunting regulations of migratory birds annually. 
96 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 97

Appendix F. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 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, wildlife 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 wildlife-dependent 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 “in administering the 

System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: . . . issue regulations to carry out this 

Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Administration Act by providing enhanced 

consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability 

to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
98 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

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 is 

considered an appropriate use. 

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, wildlife photography, and 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. 

• Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 
Appendices 99

• 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: A use of a refuge, defined in the Improvement Act, involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

The following pages address Findings of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use for camping, off-road 

vehicles, bicycling, horseback riding, forest management, trapping (nutria), and mosquito control. 

Camping, off-road vehicles, and horseback riding were found not to be appropriate uses on Big 

Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and were not analyzed for compatibility; bicycling on 

designated trails, forest management, trapping (nutria), and mosquito control were found to be 

appropriate on the refuge. 
100 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Name: Big Branch Marsh 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_____ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 101

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Name: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Off-Road Vehicles 

 

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_____ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
102 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Name: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Horseback riding 

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_____ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 103

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Name: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Bicycling 

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 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
104 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Name: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Forest Management 

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 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 105

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Name: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Trapping (nutria) 

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 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
106 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Name: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Mosquito control 

 

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 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 107

Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations 

Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination: 

1) Wildlife observation/photography 

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, upland game, and feral hogs in 

accordance with State of Louisiana regulations 

4) Environmental education and interpretation activities, such as canoe trips, nature camps, 

boardwalks, nature trails, etc. 

5) Forest management 

6) Trapping 

7) Bicycling 

8) Mosquito management 

A description and the anticipated biological impacts for each use are addressed separately in this 

Compatibility Determination. 

Refuge Name: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Date Established: September 29, 1994 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 

§3901 (b); North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §4401 2(b) 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of the refuge as defined by the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

of 1986, 16 U.S.C. §3901 (b) is “For the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to 

maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in 

various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

The purpose of the refuge as defined by the North American Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §4401 2(b) 

is “To protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland 

ecosystems and other habitats for migratory bird and other fish and wildlife in North America; to 

maintain current or improved distributions of migratory bird populations; and, to sustain an abundance 

of waterfowl and other migratory birds consistent with the goals of the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan and the international obligations contained in the migratory bird treaties and 

conventions and other agreements with Canada, Mexico, and other countries.” 

The refuge purposes were further defined in the 1994 Final Land Protection Plan and two subsequent 

Supplemental Environmental Assessments (1996, 1998) for expansion of Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge as the following: to provide habitat for natural diversity of wildlife associated with Big 

Branch marsh; to provide wintering habitat for migratory birds; to provide nesting habitat for wood 

ducks; to provide habitat for non-game migratory birds; and, to provide opportunities for public 

outdoor recreation, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching, and environmental education and 

interpretation, whenever they are compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 
108 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

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) 

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 CCP, they are part of each descriptive use and become part 

of that compatibility determination if considered outside of the CCP. 
Appendices 109

(1) Description of Use: Wildlife observation/photography 

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife photography, including other image-capturing activities, such as videography, has occurred 

on the refuge. There are no blinds or platforms on the refuge specifically for photography and none 

are proposed at this time. However, opportunities exist for photography on the refuge. Commercial 

photography or videography, if allowed, would require a special use permit by the refuge and would 

include specific restrictions. Often, the public offers copies of exceptional pictures for refuge use in 

publications and reports. 

The general public could participate in wildlife observation and photography year-round from sunrise 

to sunset on the refuge. Wildlife observation and photography could be accomplished while driving or 

walking on refuge roads open to public vehicular traffic. Also, these public uses could be 

accomplished by walking trails or by boating. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge would normally incur no expense except administrative costs 

for issuance of a Special Use Permit in the case of commercial photography or videography, and staff 

time to conduct compliance checks. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Activities associated with wildlife observation and both commercial and 

personal photography have shown no measurable environmental impacts to the refuge, its habitats, or 

wildlife species. The use can cause temporary minor disturbance to wildlife. However, use is expected to 

remain at levels causing only random, limited, and temporary disturbance. Any malicious or 

unreasonable harassment of wildlife would be grounds for the manager to restrict the uses. 

Photography can increase visitors’ knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife and their habitats 

on the refuge, and lead to greater understanding of the refuge system’s public stewardship mission. 

Quality photographs taken on refuge lands and provided to refuge staff can enhance the refuge’s 

outreach and public use programs. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases published in area newspapers. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21284) and 

made available for public comment for 30 days until May 30, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Public 

comments are summarized in Appendix E. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
110 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• All wildlife observation and photography activities would be conducted with the refuge’s 

primary objectives, habitat management requirements, and goals as the guiding principles. 

• Modes and times of uses would be limited to legal means and times according to refuge 

regulations on access available to the general public. 

• All commercial photographers must have a special use permit (SUP) that specifies access 

stipulations to prevent excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to habitat, or conflicts with 

other public uses or management activities. The SUP would stipulate that imagery produced 

on refuge lands be made available to the refuge for use in outreach, interpretation, internal 

documents, or other suitable uses. 

• The commercial photography use must demonstrate a means to extend public appreciation 

and understanding of wildlife, natural habitats, enhance education, appreciation and/or 

understating of the Refuge System, or further outreach and education goals of the refuge. 

• Commercial products must include appropriate credits to the refuge and to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on National Wildlife 

Refuge System lands as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. By facilitating these uses 

on the refuge, we will increase visitors’ knowledge and appreciation of fish, wildlife, and their habitats 

which will lead to increased public stewardship. Increased stewardship supports and complements 

the refuge’s purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date ___ 8/27/2022 ___ 

(2) Description of Use: Recreational Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of the land and waters prior to their inclusion in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and continues to be a popular recreational pursuit. Fishing is a wildlifedependent recreational pursuit and 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. This use was emphasized in the 1994 Final Land Protection Plan and 

two subsequent Supplemental Environmental Assessments (1996, 1998) by being stated as a 

management objective of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. 

Fishing is permitted year-round in all refuge waters subject to regulations established by the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the general regulations governing fishing on national wildlife 

refuges set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations and the refuge fishing permit. Fishing is permitted to 

provide fishable waters to the public and to utilize a sustainable natural resource. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the fishing program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds. Costs include permit printing, administration, maintenance of boat ramps and 

docks, and monitoring the activity. 
Appendices 111

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Minor, short-term impacts to the environment from recreational 

fishing include litter and the possible contamination of refuge waters from oil and gas leaking from 

boat motors. Because the fish population is a sustainable natural resource and local fish habitat is 

vast, no long-term impacts are expected. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases published in area newspapers. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21284) and 

made available for public comment for 30 days until May 30, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Public 

comments are summarized in Appendix E. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• All sport fishing activities, including permitted methods of take, limits, species and open/closed 

seasons, would be consistent with applicable State and refuge regulations. Enforcement 

efforts would be conducted by Fish and Wildlife Service refuge law enforcement officers and 

agents from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 

• Commercial fishing, limb lines, trotlines, slat traps, nets, gar sets and jug fishing are 

prohibited. 

• Sport fishing, crawfishing, and crabbing are permitted only during daylight hours except on 

Lake Road where use is permitted 24 hours a day. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 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 recreational fishing 

is in compliance with refuge goals, is a management objective for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge, and furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ___ 8/27/2022 ___ 
112 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

(3) Description 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. This use was emphasized in the 1994 Final Land Protection 

Plan and two subsequent Supplemental Environmental Assessments (1996, 1998) by being stated as 

a management objective of Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. 

Recreational hunting of white-tailed deer with bow and arrow, migratory game birds, small game, and 

upland game is allowed on the refuge. Hunters are also allowed to take feral hogs with bow and 

arrow during archery deer season. Approximately 5,500 hunter visits were made in 2005. A lottery 

waterfowl hunt in force for several years was discontinued because it was no longer needed to 

regulate the number of hunters. 

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 “No Hunting Zone” signs or so designated in the 

hunting permit. Currently, the Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex headquarters (Lacombe Centre) 

and the Lemieux Road environmental education site are closed to hunting. 

Waterfowl (ducks and geese) and coots may be hunted during the State season on Wednesday, 

Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday until noon. Squirrels and 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. Woodcock, snipe, and quail may be hunted during the State season using 

non-toxic shot and recognized breeds of setters or retrievers. Gallinules and rails may be hunted 

during the State season with non-toxic shot. White-tailed deer harvest is limited to an archery season 

following the State season and regulations. No commercial hunting activities, including guiding or 

participating in a guided hunt, are permitted. Harvest information is gathered by a voluntary selfcheck 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, monitoring the activity, and 

maintaining access points with safe parking areas. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: While managed hunting opportunities result in both short- and 

long-term impacts to individual animals, effects 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. 
Appendices 113

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases published in area newspapers. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21284) and 

made available for public comment for 30 days until May 30, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Public 

comments are summarized in Appendix E. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Non-toxic shot must be used. 

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified hunting 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 recreational 

hunting is in compliance with refuge goals, is a management objective for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, and furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ___ 8/27/2022 ___ 

(4) Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public uses, provided they are compatible with the 

purpose for which the refuge was established. Environmental education and interpretation consist of 

public outreach and onsite activities conducted by refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, Friends Group 

members, conservation partners, university professors, and others. Most activities occur during 

daylight hours with exceptions for night events such as owl and bat viewing, and tours using light 

from a full moon. Activities include educational programs and teacher workshops carried out on 

nature trails, canoe trips, and at refuge observation towers, refuge areas of interest, and other areas 

suitable for teaching environmental science. Interpretation occurs when information is explained for 

the public by refuge staff or others using exhibits, displays, signs, kiosks, facilities, and brochures. 

Refuge facilities and lands may be used as outdoor classrooms by groups of students with a teacher 
114 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

and a formalized plan of environmental study, by members of organizations, or by other members of 

the public with approval of the refuge manager. 

Environmental education and interpretation activities can occur throughout the year and are 

conducted with the refuge’s primary goals, objectives, and habitat management requirements as the 

guiding principles. Activities conducted under these restrictions allow the refuge to accomplish its 

management goals and also provide for the safety of visitors. 

Environmental education and interpretation are utilized to encourage understanding in citizens of all 

ages to develop land ethics, foster public support, increase visibility of the Refuge System, and 

improve the public’s knowledge of the Service. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for these activities is with annual operation and maintenance 

funds. Existing facilities exist at Lemieux Road, Boy Scout Road, and the Lacombe Centre. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Minimal impacts are expected, such as temporary disturbance to 

wildlife species and possibly some trampling of vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the activity. 

Most activities would take place on existing roads, trails, and facilities with no additional disturbance. 

Environmental education and interpretation activities are not expected to indirectly or cumulatively 

negatively impact refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases published in area newspapers. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21284) and 

made available for public comment for 30 days until May 30, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Public 

comments are summarized in Appendix E. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Adequate precautions would be taken to ensure that permanent facilities are sited an 

adequate distance from sensitive wildlife areas. 

• Evaluations of sites and programs would be conducted periodically to assess if objectives are 

being met and that natural resources are not being degraded. 
Appendices 115

Justification: The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified environmental 

education and interpretation as priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, where compatible with 

refuge purposes. Offering environmental education and interpretation is in compliance with refuge 

goals, is a management objective for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, and furthers the 

goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Environmental education and 

interpretation encourage understanding of ecological and biological principles and refuge-specific 

issues, and develop support for refuges. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ___ 8/27/2022 ___ 

(5) Description of Use: Forest Management 

According to the Draft Habitat Management Plan, the forest management objectives for the refuge 

are to: (1) use forest management actions to reduce the tree stocking and competition within the pine 

stands and promote increased stand diversity and structure; (2) create a mosaic of forest structure 

through the use of appropriate silvicultural methods of thinning, shelterwood, and/or group selection 

harvesting; (3) provide quality habitat and forage for native wildlife species in the pine stands by 

reducing tree densities to allow more sunlight onto the forest floor and stimulate the rejuvenation of 

annual plants and grasses; (4) prepare pine stands for a shift to controlled burning during the growing 

season by opening the forest canopy; (5) plant longleaf pine on sites that have historically supported 

the longleaf pine; (6) compile information on the refuge hardwood forests, such as species, age, size, 

condition, and soil moisture; and (7) promote a refuge landscape more reminiscent of the historic 

forest complex by facilitating the regeneration of mixed pine/hardwood forests on the higher 

elevations and cypress/hardwood forests on the lower elevations. 

Silvicultural decisions designed to meet wildlife habitat objectives would be accomplished. The refuge 

would promote a diverse, vigorous stand of timber to benefit trust species, such as threatened and 

endangered species and migratory birds. Forest management activities may occur on all forested 

acreage on the refuge. This use is being proposed by the refuge as a management tool, designed to 

improve habitat conditions on the refuge for trust species. Activities would be conducted under proper 

climatic conditions, using refuge personnel, permitted individuals, or local contractors who would bid on 

the timber products to be harvested when commercial and merchantable products are involved. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for these activities would be through annual operation and 

maintenance funds and would consists predominantly of administration, monitoring, and understory 

clearing. Equipment and maintenance costs associated with commercial activities would be carried 

out by the contractor. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Forest management operations can cause adverse impacts on 

habitat values and water quality if not carefully controlled and supervised. Restrictions and 

conditions, such as only operating in dry conditions, creating buffers along waterways, and 

minimizing damage to residual trees, must be placed on operations to minimize adverse effects from 

equipment. Minor, short-term impacts from using equipment, such as disturbance to wildlife and 

trampling of understory vegetation, are expected to occur. In the long-term, forest conditions after 

management treatments would be more beneficial to wildlife by restoring the functions and values 

necessary to meet their needs. 
116 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases published in area newspapers. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21284) and 

made available for public comment for 30 days until May 30, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Public 

comments are summarized in Appendix E. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Forest management operations may be 

conducted throughout the year, but only according to the guidelines detailed in a Habitat 

Management Plan or the special conditions section of the special use permit. 

Justification: The forest management actions, proposed in the comprehensive conservation plan, are in 

accordance with Service guidelines for the protection, management, and enhancement of habitats for 

wildlife populations on refuges. The Habitat Management Plan, a step-down plan, details how forest 

management actions promote the enhancement of habitats for threatened or endangered species, 

migratory birds, and resident wildlife species; promote habitat restoration; protect cultural resources; and 

provide opportunities for public recreation and environmental education. This use furthers the goals and 

missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ___ 8/27/2017 ___ 

 (6) Description of Use: Trapping 

Trapping is employed to prevent or reduce habitat damage and targets nutria, an exotic species 

native to South America, which was imported for fur farms in the early 1900s. When the fur farming 

industry collapsed after World War II, many were released or were not recaptured after escaping. 

The descendents established themselves in the marshes and have adapted well to the semi-aquatic 

environment. Since nutria are almost exclusively vegetarians, and can eat 2.5 to 3.5 pounds of food 

daily, they can be very detrimental to marsh vegetation. Their burrows can also damage levees and 

banks. They are in direct competition with the native muskrat for habitat and resources. Trapping 

nutria would be allowed under special use permits that designate locations and methods for their 

removal. Trappers are encouraged to participate in the Coastwide Nutria Control Program, which is 

administered by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 
Appendices 117

Availability of Resources: Funding for these activities would be with annual operation and 

maintenance funds and consists of administration. Equipment and maintenance costs associated 

with trapping activities would be carried out by the trapper. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The special use permit system allows the refuge manager to 

specifically regulate locations and methods for nutria removal. Areas would be well marked and traps 

would not be set in areas with high use by visitors. Disturbance to non-target wildlife would be 

occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas. Positive impacts would be the control 

of an exotic species and less damage to refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases published in area newspapers. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21284) and 

made available for public comment for 30 days until May 30, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Public 

comments are summarized in Appendix E. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Trapping would be conducted in compliance with a special use permit. 

• Trapping would not be allowed in high-use public areas. 

• Take of non-target animals would be minimized by trap set and locations. 

• A trapping report would be required of the individual named in the special use permit. 

• All traps must be well marked and checked daily. 

Justification: Trapping is a valuable management tool that is used to prevent and reduce damage to 

refuge habitat by nutria. With the above stipulations, little to no adverse effects to other refuge programs 

or wildlife species would occur. This use is in compliance with the comprehensive conservation plan and 

furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the refuge. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ___ 8/27/2017 ___ 
118 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

7) Description of Use: Bicycling 

Bicycling is not a priority public use designated by the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997; however, it 

can occur on the refuge provided it is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was 

established. Requests to ride bicycles on refuge roads not open to public vehicular traffic have been 

made. These requests have been made associated with wildlife-dependent recreational uses, such 

as hunting, photography, and bird observation. The only areas available for bike riding are Boy Scout 

Road and the unimproved road on the pipeline canal to the east of Boy Scout Road. Firebreaks are 

not considered unimproved roads or trails for bike riding. Any public desiring longer biking trails can 

be referred to the nearby Tammany Trace. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for this program would be from annual operation and 

maintenance funds, but little to no cost is associated with this activity. No special equipment, 

facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the use.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Since only non-motorized bicycles would be allowed on two dirt 

and gravel refuge trails, little disturbance to wildlife and habitat would occur. As long as bike riders 

are courteous, no conflict should occur between hikers, who can also access these trails. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases published in area newspapers. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21284) and 

made available for public comment for 30 days until May 30, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Public 

comments are summarized in Appendix E. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 x Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulation Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

• Bicycling is only allowed on Boy Scout Road and the pipeline canal trail east of Boy 

Scout Road during daylight hours. 

Justification: At the present level, few bicyclists use Boy Scout Road and the pipeline trail east of 

Boy Scout Road for hunting, photography, and wildlife observation. Bicycling is not detrimental to the 

environment if only allowed on these two dirt and gravel trails that are closed to motorized vehicles, 

and requires no added expenses to regulate. This use is in compliance with the comprehensive 

conservation plan and furthers the goals and missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and Big 

Branch National Wildlife Refuge. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ___ 8/27/2017 ___ 
Appendices 119

(8) Description of Use: Mosquito Monitoring and Control Operations 

St. Tammany Parish Mosquito Abatement District No. 2 (District), Slidell, Louisiana, proposes the use of 

biological larvicides and chemical adulticides for the abatement and/or control of mosquito populations 

with Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. 

The refuge encompasses a variety of habitats along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, which contain 

potential mosquito breeding sites. The marsh and forested wetland areas of the refuge are considered by 

the District to be significant in both the potential production of mosquitoes and control of mosquito 

populations before they spread to adjacent urban areas. The species of mosquitoes found within the 

refuge include several species known or suspected to be important biological vectors of arthropod borne 

diseases, specifically St. Louis encephalitis (SLE), eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), West Nile virus 

(West Nile), and LaCrosse encephalitis (LE). Dengue fever, another mosquito transmitted disease, also 

poses a potential health threat. SLE, EEE, West Nile, and LE have been documented in St. Tammany 

Parish. In 2002, a major human outbreak of West Nile occurred in Louisiana with 329 cases and 29 

deaths; St. Tammany Parish experienced 40 reported cases and four resulted in death. West Nile cases 

and some deaths have occurred each subsequent year, but at lower numbers. 

The location, habitats, and climate of the refuge all contribute to the potential need for control of 

mosquito populations. Factors contributing to this need include the sub-tropical location in southeast 

Louisiana, large amounts of rainfall throughout the year (an average of 63 inches), susceptibility to 

major rain events associated with hurricanes and other tropical storm systems, a long warm/hot 

growing season, abundant vegetation, and wetland habitats. Adding to this are the large number of 

mosquito species present, including known disease vector species. 

In 1995, the refuge approved the application of selected larvicides for use within the refuge marshes. 

This approval and the use of these larvicides remain in effect and have been important tools for the 

control of pre-emergent mosquitoes. The District has been approved under emergency conditions to 

use the chemical insecticide Dibrom (active ingredient Naled) for controlling mosquitoes postemergent on the refuge. Prior to the acquisition of the forested areas into the Refuge System, Naled 

had been used as a mosquito adulticide on the area. 

The District proposes the ultra-low volume application of Dibrom, when warranted, for the control of 

adult mosquitoes on the refuge and the continuation of such activities in other areas within the District, 

which may be added to the refuge in the future. Spraying of Naled occurs usually from April to October. 

Spray operations are conducted at night from fixed-wing aircraft using ultra-low volume spray 

technology. Spraying at night maximizes potential for exposure to mosquitoes by the insecticide since 

they are most active aerially at night. This also minimizes exposure by diurnal insects and wildlife. The 

use of ultra-low volume spray technology provides for the application of the insecticide at rates 

determined to minimize potential risk to non-target insect species. The District tests new equipment 

and techniques to further reduce the rates at which insecticide would be applied. 

Availability of Resources: Costs to the refuge for this use would include administrative overhead to 

issue and monitor pesticide use proposals, special use permits, and other requirements supported by 

annual operation and maintenance funds. This use would result in a need for refuge staff to 

periodically inspect spray operations, review and maintain records of treatment history, and conduct 

wildlife assessments and monitoring. The refuge would not supply equipment or facilities for these 

operations, but would expend funds for salaries dealing with administrative overhead. Unanticipated 

costs associated with the administration of this use could require a re-evaluation. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements: none 
120 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The District has conducted mosquito control activities, including 

the use of Naled, in these locations prior to acquisition by the refuge and for emergency control of 

mosquito populations after acquisition. According to EPA’s risk assessment, the use of Naled for 

mosquito control does not exceed the Agency’s level of concern for human health, mammals, and 

plants. If new labeling restrictions or additional risk assessment information becomes available, they 

would be incorporated into the re-evaluation of this use. 

A Risk Characterization: Application of Naled to The Big Branch Marsh, (EcoStat, Inc., 2005, 

unpublished), assessed the risk of Naled as applied in mosquito control to aquatic and terrestrial 

biota, specifically the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, non-target prey insects of the redcockaded woodpecker, and insects of social interest (zebra long-wing butterfly), ground-browsing 

mammals (white-tailed deer), and freshwater fish and aquatic invertebrates. Potential risks of toxicity 

for the red-cockaded woodpecker and its prey species, white-tailed deer, and freshwater fish are 

insignificant. However, risk to freshwater invertebrates is present. Because of a short half-life (<1 

day) and quick rate of degradation, the long-term risks of Naled to aquatic invertebrates are minimal. 

These findings are consistent to those of EPA. It is anticipated that mosquito populations would be 

reduced within the treated area. 

Additional information on impacts to both target and non-target organisms can be found in the document, 

Environmental Assessment for Proposed Application of Aerially Applied Ultra-Low Volume Naled for the 

Control of Adult Mosquitoes within the Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge in Lacombe, Louisiana. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comments included 

mailing post cards to people showing interest during the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) 

process; copies of the draft CCP were distributed to local, state, and federal agencies, to government 

officials representing the area, and to the public on request; made available in local libraries, and 

news releases published in area newspapers. This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21284) and 

made available for public comment for 30 days until May 30, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Public 

comments are summarized in Appendix E. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Use of Naled must be approved by the Division of Environmental Contaminants in the 

Washington Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and any special conditions will be made 

a part of a Special Use Permit and Pesticide Use Permit. 

In accordance with Integrated Pest Management, the District will continue in its use of biological 

larvicides as a first line treatment, methoprene as a second line defense; and adulticiding, where 

appropriate and applicable, as a third line defense. 
Appendices 121

• The District would continue to explore new spray technologies aimed at reducing rates 

or numbers of applications and implement such technologies when proven to be 

effective and reliable. 

• The District would continue its monitoring efforts and provide such information to the refuge. 

• The District would provide monthly reports of all treatments and monitoring records. 

• The District would continue the use of GPS technology to target spray sites and reduce 

impacts to non-target marsh and other sites 

• The District would work cooperatively with the refuge to educate the public on mosquito 

control efforts on refuge lands, and provide information to refuge neighbors on the role they 

can play in reducing mosquito populations around their homes and communities 

Justification: Given the refuge’s proximity to an urban area, the human health threat demonstrated 

in the District’s area of operation, and the dense mosquito populations of southeast Louisiana, the 

Service recognizes the need of mosquito population control on Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife 

Refuge. The treatment is permitted in order to reduce the previously demonstrated occurrences of 

mosquito borne diseases in proximity to the refuge. Ultra-low volume aerially applied Naled is found 

to be the most effective mosquitocide currently available. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ___ 8/27/2017 ___
122 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 123

Appendix H. Intra-Service Section 7 

Biological Evaluation 

Originating Person: Ken Litzenberger, Project Leader 

Telephone Number: 985-882-2000 

Date: _______________________

Project Name: Big Branch Marsh 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: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): Implementation 

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge by 

adopting the preferred alternative, which will provide guidance, management direction, and 

operation plans for the next 15 years. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. 

A small red-cockaded woodpecker population resides within the forested area of the refuge. At 

present, fourteen to nineteen clusters are active with most of them supporting a potential breeding 

pair with helpers. Hurricane Katrina eliminated a few birds, but the population should rebound with 

the increase in insects in response to the dead and downed trees. In the Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Recovery Plan, this population is the sole group occurring in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes 

Ecoregion, and is considered a significant support population for recoverable populations. 

Bald eagles occur on the refuge from fall until early summer, and usually nest within the refuge and 

adjacent lands. The nest is constructed in tall pines along the tree line, which abruptly changes to 

marsh surrounding Lake Pontchartrain, a feeding ground for the eagles. 

Waters of the refuge are within the designated critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. Research has 

shown that juveniles and sub-adults use Lake Pontchartrain as wintering habitat. Records on Lake 

Pontchartrain show concentrations near Bayou Lacombe and Goose Point. 
124 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Although neither species breeds in the area, brown pelicans are commonly seen feeding in refuge 

waters and an occasional West Indian manatee is sighted during the summer. 

Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Red-cockaded woodpecker E 

Bald eagle T 

Gulf sturgeon T 

Brown pelican E 

West Indian manatee E 

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: No. 27, Lower Mississippi River 

B. County and State: St. Tammany Parish, LA 

Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): many sections in Townships 8, 9, and 

10 south, Ranges 12, 13, 14 and 15 east 

Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 1 mile south of Lacombe 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers are year-round residents of the refuge’s forested habitat. 

Bald eagles occur on the refuge during winter months and nest in the tree line bordering the marshes 

of Lake Pontchartrain. 

Gulf sturgeon winter in Lake Pontchartrain, brown pelicans use the refuge waters year-round as a 

feeding area, and West Indian manatees are occasionally sighted in Lake Pontchartrain and canals in 

the summer. 
Appendices 125

VII. Determination of Effects:

Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

 Red-cockaded woodpecker No negative impacts; provide support to other populations 

 Bald eagle No negative impacts; provide habitat protection 

 Gulf sturgeon No negative impacts; provide habitat protection 

 Brown pelican No negative impacts; provide habitat protection 

 West Indian manatee No negative impacts; provide habitat protection 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Red-cockaded woodpecker Monitor refuge population, provide protection and more suitable 

habitat in growing urban environment 

Bald eagle Monitor nesting, provide protection and more suitable habitat in 

growing urban environment 

Gulf sturgeon Continue to monitor for occurrence and any problems 

Brown pelican Continue to monitor 

West Indian manatee Monitor and report any problems 
126 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

REQUESTED

NE NA AA

Red-cockaded woodpecker x Concurrence 

Bald eagle x Concurrence 

Gulf sturgeon x Concurrence 

Brown pelican x Concurrence 

West Indian manatee 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”. 
Appendices 127

Appendix I. 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 Big Branch Marsh 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. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation 

is not further analyzed in this CCP. 
128 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 129

Appendix J. Refuge Biota 

Species of concern and/or significance for management purposes occurring on Big Branch Marsh 

National Wildlife Refuge are listed below. For a complete list of birds found on the refuge, contact 

refuge headquarters for a bird list. 

Common Name Scientific Name

Birds 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Gadwall Anas strepera

American Widgeon Anas americana

Mallard Anas platyrhynvchos

Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata

Northern Pintail Anas acuta

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Canvasback Aytha valisineria

Redhead Aythya americana

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Greater Scaup Aythya marila

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

American Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus

Mammals

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Nutria Myocastor coypus 

Feral Hogs Sus scrofa 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

American Alligator Alligator missisippiensis 

Fish 

Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi 

Plant Communities 

Pine Flatwoods Intermediate Marsh 

Pine Savannah Submergent Vascular Vegetation 

Fresh Marsh Bayhead Swamp (hardwood dominated drainage) 

Brackish Marsh 
130 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 131

Appendix K. Budget Requests 

RONS NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR 

COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL COST 

STAFF 

(FTE’S) 

99017 REFUGE MANAGER $139,000 $139,000 1 

00060 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE $22,000 $22,000 1 

99018 RESOURCE SPECIALIST 

(FORESTER) 

$128,000 $128,000 1 

99010 ANNUAL BOUNDRY SURVEY $22,000 $22,000 

00028 ANNUAL HABITAT 

RESTORATION 

$81,000 $81,000 

00021 DIGITAL AERIAL 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

$54,000 0 

00061 ANNUAL BOUNDARY 

MAINTENANCE 

$50,000 $50,000 

99021 ACQUIRE COMMUNICATIONS 

SYSTEM 

$144,000 0 

TOTAL $640,000 $442,000 3 

The Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) is a system that has been used to track the needs for 

new projects and positions on national wildlife refuges. For this situation and the Southeast 

Louisiana Refuge Complex, RONS does not reflect all the present needs of the refuge, but does 

identify the need for a refuge manager position, a grounds keeper maintenance position, and a 

resource specialist/ forester position. Since the last entries into RONS in 2000, the refuge complex 

staff and organization have changed. The refuge manager of Big Branch Marsh Refuge is also 

responsible for Bogue Chitto and Atchafalaya Refuges. In addition to the staffing needs identified in 

RONS, a forestry technician and wildlife refuge operations specialist are needed for the combined 

three refuges. 
132 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 133

Appendix L. 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 

Daniel Breaux, 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 

Byron Fortier, Supervisory Park Ranger, Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex - 

Writer and Editor 

Elizabeth Souheaver, former Project Leader and Team Member, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Barbara Boyle, former Deputy Project Leader and Planning Team Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Kristen Bly, former Refuge Law Enforcement Officer and Team Member, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

CONTRIBUTORS 

Pre-planning for this Draft CCP/EA began in 2002, when biological and public use reviews were held, 

followed by several workshops attended by stakeholders in the management of Big Branch Marsh 

National Wildlife Refuge. Recommendations from these meetings were used during the development 

of this Draft CCP/EA. Contributors include: 

Byron Almquist, Canoe and Trail Adventures, Metairie, LA 

Jimmy Anthony, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Bob Baker, Lacombe, LA 

Todd Baker, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, LaPlace, LA 

Liz Bellantoni, former CCP Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Joe Bernard, Retired Teacher, Lacombe, LA 

Lyndon Bijou, former Refuge Operations Specialist, Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex, 

Lacombe, LA 
134 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Mike Boley, former Assistant Director, Audubon Louisiana Nature Center, New Orleans, LA 

Denise Bonck, former City of Slidell Planning, Slidell, LA 

Diane Borden-Billoit, Park Ranger, Southwest Louisiana Refuge Complex, Hackberry, LA 

Roger Boykin, Regional Fire Management Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 

Jeff Boundy, Herpetologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Randy Browning, Invasive Species Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services, 

Jackson, MS 

Dave Brownlie, Southeast Regional Fire Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Management 

Office, Tallahassee, FL 

Larry Burch, retired Geologist, Northlake Nature Center, Mandeville, LA 

Curt Burnette, former Managing Director, Audubon Louisiana Nature Center, New Orleans, LA 

Dr. Robert Chabreck, former Professor, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 

J.C. Ciolino, Lacombe Chamber of Commerce, Lacombe, LA 

Scott Durham, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Cheryl Fisher, Educator, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lacombe, LA 

Cliff and Connie Glockner, Lacombe, LA 

Buddy Goatcher, Contaminants Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services, 

Lafayette, LA 

Kevin Godsea, Lead Park Ranger, Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel, FL 

Robert Greco, Cartographer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services, Lafayette, LA 

Richard Hale, Northshore Bird Club, Slidell, LA 

James Harris, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Lacombe, LA 

Dr. Craig Hood, Professor, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA 

Michele Hubert, former President, Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Lacombe, LA 

Deborah Jerome, Public Use Specialist, Visitor Services and Outreach, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta, GA 

Tanya Leader, Visitor Services Manager, St. Tammany Parish Tourist and Convention Commission, 

Covington, LA 
Appendices 135

Amy LeGaux, former Education Curator, Audubon Louisiana Nature Center, New Orleans, LA 

Greg Linscombe, Fur and Refuges Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 

New Iberia, LA 

Joe Madere, Board Member of Friends of Louisiana Refuges, Lacombe, LA 

Jill Mastrototaro, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, New Orleans, LA 

Judy McClendon, Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bell City, LA 

Nelwyn McInnis, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Covington, LA 

Randy Myers, Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Paul Orr, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

Kelby Ouchley, Manager, North Louisiana Refuge Complex, Farmerville, LA 

Chuck Palmisana, Director, St. Tammany Parish Mosquito Abatement District, Slidell, LA 

Christy Paulsell, St. Tammany Parish School Board, Slidell, LA 

Mike Perot, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Howard Poitevint, retired, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bainbridge, GA 

Conrad Porbes, Pirates Harbor Homeowners Association, Slidell, LA 

Kenny Ribbeck, Biologist, Louisiana Depart of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA 

Howard Rogillio, Fisheries Biologist, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lacombe, LA 

Martha Segura, former Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services, Lafayette, LA 

Latimore Smith, Botanist, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Covington, LA 

Pat Stinson, former Migratory Bird Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS 

Bob Strader, Migratory Bird Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS 

Dennis Tauzin, Retired/Volunteer, Lacombe, LA 

Garry Tucker, Chief, Visitor Services and Outreach, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 

Troy Turner, Forester, Louisiana Office of Forestry, Abita Springs, LA 

Bill Vermillion, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services, Lafayette, LA 

Dr. Dawn Wesson, Professor, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA 
136 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 137

Appendix M. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, through the Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. An 

Environmental Assessment has been prepared to inform the public of the possible environmental 

consequences of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Big Branch Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge. A description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, 

the environmental effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse effects of the action, and 

a declaration concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting information can be 

found in the Environmental Assessment, Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Alternatives 

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated three alternatives: 

The Service adopted Alternative B, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the comprehensive conservation 

plan for guiding the direction of the refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in 

this plan is that wildlife conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent 

recreation uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation) will be emphasized and encouraged. 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative 

Alternative A represents no change from current management of the refuge. Under this alternative, 

no new actions would be taken to improve or enhance the refuge’s current habitat, wildlife, and public 

use management programs; existing programs would be continued with no changes. Species of 

federal responsibility, such as threatened and endangered species and migratory birds, would 

continue to be monitored at present levels. Additional species monitoring would occur as 

opportunistic events when contacts outside the refuge staff offer support. Current programs of 

wildland fire and forest management would be maintained with no improvements or adaptations. No 

progressive wetland restoration projects would be implemented. All public use programs of fishing, 

hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation 

would continue at present levels and with current facilities, but no programs or facilities would be 

updated or expanded. The refuge headquarters would serve only as administrative offices with no 

enhancement of the grounds for public use and interpretation. In general, under Alternative A, 

management and administrative decisions and actions would occur when triggered by demands and 

sources outside the refuge with little deliberation and planning being accomplished ahead of time. 

Alternative B. 

The preferred alternative, Alternative B, is considered to be the most effective management action for 

meeting the purposes of the refuge by emphasizing management of the natural resources of Big Branch 

Marsh based on maintaining and improving wetland habitats, monitoring targeted flora and fauna 

representative of the Pontchartrain Basin, and providing quality public use programs and wildlifedependent recreational activities. All species occurring on the refuge will be considered and certain 

targeted species will be managed and monitored in addition to species of federal responsibility. These 

species will be chosen based on being indicators of the health of important habitat or species of concern. 

Information gaps in knowledge of refuge aquatic species will be addressed. 
138 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge headquarters will not only house administrative offices, but offer interpretation of refuge 

wildlife, habitats, and demonstrate habitat improvements for private landowners. The headquarters 

area will be developed as an urban public use area with trails; buildings presently not being used and 

landscaping will be refurbished for visitor and community outreach. In general, under Alternative B, 

management decisions and actions will support wildlife species and habitat occurring on the refuge 

based on well-planned strategies and sound judgment. Quality wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

and environmental education and interpretation programs will be offered to support and explain the 

natural resources of the refuge. 

Alternative C. 

The primary focus under Alternative C would be managing the natural resources of Big Branch Marsh 

for maximized public use activities including wildlife-dependent recreational activities. The majority of 

staff time and efforts would support public use activities of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Federal trust species and 

archaeological resources would be monitored as mandated, but other species targeted for 

management would depend on which ones the public is interested in utilizing. All refuge 

management programs for conservation of wildlife and habitat, such as monitoring, surveying, 

forestry, and wildland fire, would support species and resources of importance for public use. 

Emphasis would be placed more on interpreting and demonstrating these programs than actual 

implementation. Providing access with roads, trails, parking areas, and by dredging for boat access 

will be maximized, as well as providing public use facilities throughout the refuge. In general, under 

Alternative C the focus of refuge management would be on expanding public use activities to the 

fullest extent possible while conducting only mandated resource protection, such as conservation of 

threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and archaeological resources. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes maintaining and improving wetlands habitats; 

collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service 

objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of compatible 

public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological 

principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 
Appendices 139

Environmental Effects

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, 

population management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on Big Branch 

Marsh National Wildlife Refuge will result in protection of threatened and endangered species and 

other targeted species, adaptive habitat management and wetland restoration, and enhanced 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. These effects are 

detailed as follows: 

1. Management of threatened and endangered species will increase in scope to include Gulf 

sturgeon and management of other targeted species will be prioritized for monitoring and determining 

effects of management actions. 

2. Habitats will continue to be maintained and managed for refuge resources with active wetland 

restoration and protection, an adaptive forest management program, an improved prescribed and 

wildfire program, and reduction of invasive species. 

4. Protection of the natural habitats of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin will be gained by seeking refuge 

expansion opportunities with a focus on habitat quality and its ability to support trust resources, 

supporting partnerships, and working with others to conserve lands outside of the refuge boundaries, 

as well as identifying and mitigating external impacts to refuge trust resources. 

5. Wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, interpretation, and facility development will focus on 

expanding visitor experiences and knowledge of the environment. While public use will result in 

some minimal, short-term adverse effects on wildlife and user conflicts may occur as visitors 

increase, these effects can be minimized by controlling time, season, and areas used. Anticipated 

long-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats from implementing the management actions are 

positive. Also, in the long-term, wildlife habitat and increased opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities could result in an increase in economic benefits to the local communities. 

6. Implementing the comprehensive conservation plan is not expected to have any significant 

adverse effects on wetlands and floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, as 

actions will not result in development within floodplain areas, nor will they result in irrevocable, longterm adverse impacts. In fact, a major thrust of the management action is to implement wetland 

restoration and protection. Implementing the management action will result in substantial 

enhancement of forest and wetland communities and net increases to the Nation’s wetland acreage 

and quality. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures

Air and Water Quality, Soil Erosion, and Use of Chemicals 
140 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Soil disturbance and siltation due to water management activities, road maintenance, and the 

construction of additional facilities are expected to be minor and of short duration. Foot traffic on new 

and extended foot trails is expected to have a negligible impact on soil erosion. The refuge will use 

best management practices to minimize the erosion and disturbance of soils. Potential adverse 

effects of smoke from wildland fires will be managed so as not to adversely affect adjacent 

landowners and surrounding communities if possible. If necessary, notification of deteriorating 

conditions will be made. Effects from smoke are expected to be of short duration. Long-term 

herbicide use for exotic plant control could result in a slight decrease in water quality in areas prone 

to exotic plant infestation. Through the proper application of herbicides, however, this is expected to 

have a minor impact on the environment, with the benefit of reducing or eliminating exotic plant 

infestations. Use of insecticides for mosquito control will follow strict guidelines to lessen effects on 

non-target species. 

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. The public use program uses techniques such as limiting time, areas of use, and 

monitoring to control disturbance. Public use programs will be adjusted as needed to limit 

disturbance. All hunting activities will be conducted within the constraints of sound biological 

principles and refuge-specific regulations established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. 

Monitoring activities through wildlife inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities 

will be utilized, and public use programs will be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts

As public use levels increase, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs will be 

adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, such as 

establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are effective 

tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action will not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property will be allowed through issuance of special use permits. Future 

land acquisition will occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within the approved 

acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases and/or 

donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, cooperative agreements) 

from willing sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition boundary will 

likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The 

management action contains no provisions or proposals to pursue off-refuge conservation 

management other than on a volunteer/partnership basis or offering technical assistance. 
Appendices 141

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service will result in changes in land and recreational use 

patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land 

ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. 

Potential development of wetland restoration and protection projects and facilities for the public, such 

as access roads and visitor parking areas, could lead to minor short-term negative impacts on water 

quality, plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site development activities are proposed, each 

activity will be given the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act consideration during preconstruction planning. At that time, any required mitigation activities will be incorporated into the 

specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the human environment and to protect fish and 

wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

Affected landowners 

Federal and State Congressional Representatives 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Louisiana Native American Tribes 

St. Tammany Parish Tourist and Convention Commission 

St. Tammany Parish School Board 

St. Tammany Parish Mosquito Abatement District 

City of Slidell Planning Department 

Bayou Lacombe Chamber of Commerce 

The Nature Conservancy 

Audubon Society 

Northshore Bird Club 

Northshore Nature Center 

Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation 

Louisiana State University 

Loyola University 

University of New Orleans 

Tulane University 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 
142 Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

Findings

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 95-110) 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, page 95) 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 96) 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 95-110) 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 95-110) 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, 

pages 95-110) 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and 

in foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, page 109) 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, 

or historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, page 106) 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 99) 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of Federal, State, or local laws imposed for the protection 

of the environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 96) 

Supporting References

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 
Appendices 143

Document Availability

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Big 

Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in May 2007. Additional copies are 

available by writing: Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, 61389 Highway 434, Lacombe, 

Louisiana 70445.