Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2008
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
SHELL KEYS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2008
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 3
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 7
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 9
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11
Shell Keys Refuge History and Purpose .................................................................................... 11
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 13
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 13
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) ..................................................................... 15
Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem (TGCE) .............................................................................. 15
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 15
Gulf Coast Joint Venture (Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative) ......................... 16
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan .................................................................. 16
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ...................................................................... 16
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act ............................................ 16
Coast 2050 - Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana .................................................. 17
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan ....................................................... 17
Fisheries Vision for the Future .......................................................................................... 17
Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan) .................. 18
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 18
Erosion and Contamination ............................................................................................... 19
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise ................................................................................ 19
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 20
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 20
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 20
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 21
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 21
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 21
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 22
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 22
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 22
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 23
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 23
Oil and Gas Activity ........................................................................................................... 24
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 26
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 26
ii Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 27
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 27
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 27
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 27
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 28
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 28
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 28
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 29
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 29
Alternatives For Managing Shell Keys NWR .............................................................................. 29
Vision for Shell Keys NWR ......................................................................................................... 29
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies for Shell Keys NWR ............................................................. 29
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 30
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 31
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 32
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 32
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 33
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 35
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 35
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 35
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 35
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 36
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 36
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 36
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 37
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 37
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 37
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 38
Plan Review and Revision .......................................................................................................... 38
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 39
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ........................................................ 49
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ................................. 55
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................ 69
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 69
Summary Of Public Draft CCP Comments ................................................................................. 70
Draft CCP/EA Comments and Service Response ............................................................ 70
APPENDIX E. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................ 73
APPENDIX F. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS .................................... 79
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX G. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................. 83
APPENDIX H. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 85
APPENDIX I. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX J. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT..................................................................... 88
iv Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge and the Southwest Louisiana
National Wildlife Refuge Complex ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 2. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge .................... 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Population and industry statistics of Iberia Parish ................................................................ 23
Table 2. Summary of Projects ............................................................................................................. 37
Table 3. Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge Step-down Management Plans ................................... 38
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Executive Summary
The Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the
management of Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge (Shell Keys NWR) in Iberia 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.
Public involvement in the development of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environment
Assessment for Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge was sought throughout the planning process.
The planning team held one public scoping meeting to solicit public reaction. 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 represents the “status quo”
alternative in which current habitat, wildlife, and public use management would continue with no
changes. On an annual basis, monitoring and trip report status is conducted. Periodically during
winter migratory bird surveys, fly-over surveys are conducted to determine if the island is emergent.
A cooperative law enforcement agreement will remain in effect with the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF).
Under Alternative B, nature would be allowed to take its course regarding the future of the islands
with no restoration activities accomplished. If the islands fail to rebuild and continue to erode, areas
available to birds may diminish. With the land area diminishing, the island will continue to not support
colonial nesting birds. Working with LDWF, provide routine and additional patrols in coordination with
Refuge law enforcement officers. Interpretation will concentrate on the history of the formation and
subsequent changes and erosion of the shell key shoal/island and reef complex habitat through the
Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex (SW LA NWR Complex). Alternative B
would open the refuge for public use by offering limited fishing and wildlife observation and
photography.
Alternative C, the Service’s proposed alternative for Shell Keys NWR, assesses the feasibility of
implementing large-scale habitat restoration efforts in cooperation with partners. The Service would
enter into a new cooperative agreement with LDWF Fur and Refuge Division focusing on natural
resource monitoring and restoration as appropriate. Partners are necessary to supply expertise and
funding for the daunting task of restoration. Feasibility studies would be performed to determine the
costs associated with rebuilding and re-establishing the Shell Islands, or portions of the Islands.
Restoration efforts would adapt to changing conditions as practices and techniques are assessed. The
Refuge will be open to recreational fishing and wildlife observation and photography. Because the
Refuge is remote and few guests actually visit the islands, outreach would center around providing
information in combination with SW LA NWR Complex and on web pages.
The Service selected Alternative C as its preferred alternative for implementation because 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,
managed, maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, regional, 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.
2 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) was prepared to guide the management actions and
direction of Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge (Shell Keys NWR), Iberia Parish, Louisiana. 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 Shell
Keys NWR 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. Comments from each entity were considered in the
development of this final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that Shells Keys NWR will play in support of the
National Wildlife Refuge System mission. It addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates,
and is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission
of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the
Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy within the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and
animals to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was
changed to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
4 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through federal programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and
marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over
95 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77
million acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and
several United States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small
wetlands, national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field
stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and
restores wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also
oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes
on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System). Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation,
including an effort to complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which
are completed with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by
establishing natural resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement
Act, approved CCPs will serve as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The
Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of 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.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
NWR, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting birds in Florida,
such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for American bison
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
(1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after over-hunting,
competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought conditions
of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges
established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of
prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to
120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana) the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief that
communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation
grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each dollar spent on the
Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42
in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state,
and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an
opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service
compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
6 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for management options of
refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by
policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Select legal summaries of
treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System and management of the Shell Keys
NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between Shell Keys NWR and other partners, such as the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries (LDWF), Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), and private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, and knowledge of the refuge
role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with
others both inside and outside the Service.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA) identifies undeveloped coastal barrier lands
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and includes them in a coastal barrier resource system. Objectives
of the CBRA are to restrict most federal expenditures that encourage development within the system
to minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful federal expenditures, and minimize damage to natural
resources. Shell Keys NWR is located in Unit LA-05P under the CBRA and is classified as an
“otherwise protected area.”
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) was signed into law by President Bush on
August 8, 2005. Section 384 of the Energy Policy Act establishes the Coastal Impact Assistance
Program (CIAP), which authorizes funds to be distributed to Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
producing states to mitigate the impacts of outer continental shelf oil and gas activities. States to
share these funds are Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. (See further
discussion below under conservation plans and initiatives.)
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this CCP.
This CCP supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations,
academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working
to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated
approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The international and national bird
initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight Plan, Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is
an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to
return waterfowl populations to their 1970s’ levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada
and the United States signed the plan in 1986, in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico
joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state
and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many
individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other
wetland-associated species, and people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at
regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the
North American landscape.
8 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
Coastal Prairies physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning
effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game
land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts,
and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses
on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than
the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). A federal law, signed in 2005, authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to distribute $250 million for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2010 to oil
and gas producing states (Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and
coastal political subdivisions to be used for one or more of the following purposes:
􀁹􇤠 Projects and activities for the conservation, protection, or restoration of coastal areas,
including wetlands.
􀁹􇤠 Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources.
􀁹􇤠 Planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying with this section.
􀁹􇤠 Implementation of a federally approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation plan.
􀁹􇤠 Mitigation of the impact of Outer Continental Shelf activities through funding or onshore
infrastructure projects and public service needs
In a Continuing Resolution dated February 16, 2007, Congress approved a 3 percent appropriation of
the CIAP funds to be used by Minerals Management Service (MMS) to administer the CIAP program.
MMS will lead the CIAP by establishing an environment that will enhance partner communications
and an effective business relationship. Each eligible state will be allocated its share based on the
state’s qualified Outer Continental Shelf revenue generated off of its coast in proportion to total
revenue generated off the coasts of all eligible states. MMS will respond to recipients’ needs and
provide advice through guidance, direction, training, and by ensuring that monitoring and evaluation
are incorporated into a system of accountability designed to accomplish the results intended by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife populations in the State of Louisiana.
In Louisiana, LDWF http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov) is vested with responsibility for conservation and
management of wildlife in the state, including aquatic life, and is authorized to execute the laws
enacted for the control and supervision of programs relating to the management, protection,
conservation, and replenishment of wildlife, fish, and aquatic life, and the regulation of the shipping of
wildlife fish, furs, and skins. The mission of the LDWF is to manage, conserve, and promote wise
utilization of Louisiana’s renewable fish and wildlife resources and their supporting habitats through
replenishment, protection, enhancement, research, development, and education for the social and
economic benefit of current and future generations; to provide opportunities for knowledge of and use
and enjoyment of these resources; and to promote a safe and healthy environment for the users of
the resources. LDWF is divided into seven divisions for management of the state’s resources:
Enforcement, Fur and Refuge, Inland Fisheries, Management and Finance, Marine Fisheries, Public
Information, and Wildlife.
The participation of the LDWF throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process has been
valuable. LDWF personnel participated on the core planning team and 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 the LDWF. Shell Keys NWR is located in
close proximity to Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge, which is managed by the LDWF.
10 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Shell Keys NWR is part of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which also
includes Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, and Sabine NWRs. Shell Keys NWR consists of an island off
the Louisiana Gulf coast in southeast Louisiana (Iberia Parish) (Figure 1). Access is limited to boats
that are able to venture offshore.
SHELL KEYS REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Shell Keys was established by Executive Order (EO) on July 9, 1855, as a lighthouse reservation and
subsequently as Shell Keys Reservation, and a breeding ground for native birds as established by
EO 682 on August 17, 1907. On July 27, 1940, Presidential Proclamation Number 2416 changed the
name from Shell Keys Reservation to Shell Keys NWR. It is noted that upon becoming a state,
Louisiana was granted title to all lands lying below mean high tide. The United States retained title to
the islands that form the Shell Keys.
By the turn of the 20th century, the nation had witnessed the increasing devastation of wading bird
populations by plume hunters in Florida, and severe reductions in the populations of other once
abundant forms of wildlife, such as the passenger pigeon. Public support increased for more
vigorous actions on the part of the Federal Government to reverse this downward slide.
Such public concern, combined with the conservation-minded President Theodore Roosevelt,
resulted in the initial federal land specifically set aside for a non-marketable form of wildlife (the brown
pelican) when Pelican Island was proclaimed a Federal Bird Reservation in 1903 (USFWS 2007).
Following the acquisition of Pelican Island, many other islands and parcels of land and water were
quickly dedicated for the protection of various species of colonial nesting birds that were being
destroyed for their plumes and other feathers. Such refuge areas included Breton, Louisiana (1904);
Passage Key, Florida (1905); and Shell Keys, Louisiana (1907) (USFWS 2007).
Congress established Shell Keys NWR on August 17, 1907, by EO 682, for the purpose “….as a
reserve and breeding ground for native birds.”
Shell Keys NWR is one of the oldest refuges in the Refuge System. Its boundary was and still is
rather loosely described as "... a small group of unsurveyed islets located in the Gulf of Mexico about
three and one-half miles south of Marsh Island, Louisiana, and approximately in latitude 29 degrees
26 minutes north, longitude 91 degrees 51 minutes west from Greenwich...." The boundary of the
refuge has been interpreted to be those areas in this vicinity that are above mean high tide.
Reference is given to 77 acres, but in a memorandum dated July 24, 1956, the total acreage of lands
lying above mean high water is stated at approximately 8.0 acres.
It is noted that Shell Keys NWR is a small group of islands that are subject to shell deposits and
erosion so the actual acreage above mean high water may, of course, be different at this time. How
these islands change and move may affect ownership of that area lying above mean high water.
Under certain circumstances, accreted areas above mean high water may belong to the State of
12 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge and the Southwest Louisiana
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Louisiana. Shell Keys NWR is located within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem in the Gulf of
Mexico. The refuge’s eight acres are located in the offshore waters to the west of the Atchafalaya
River Delta and south of LDWF, Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge, Iberia Parish, Louisiana.
For a number of years, there has been only one islet at this location. This islet is composed almost
entirely of shell fragments. It is extremely dynamic and builds or recedes with passing storms.
Vegetation is almost entirely lacking.
Species known to nest here include royal terns, sandwich terns, black skimmers, and laughing gulls.
In addition, the islet is used at various times as a loafing area by white pelicans, brown pelicans, and
various other species of terns and gulls. Recent hurricanes and storms have eroded the island to
such an extent that no known nesting has occurred since 1992.
Public access to the refuge is restricted due to its remoteness and sole accessibility by boat.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
The oyster reefs and shell water bottoms in the vicinity of Shell Keys NWR have been designated as
essential fish habitat under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) for various life stages of red drum, brown shrimp, white
shrimp, and Gulf stone crab. Any adverse impacts will be addressed in full detail if the study to
determine what habitat restoration can be done is completed and the decision is made to implement
any changes to the refuge.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
The Service is increasing its efforts to adopt collaborative resource partnerships with private
landowners and local communities, as well as state and federal governments within ecosystems, to
reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity; establish
conservation priorities; clarify goals; and solve common threats and problems associated with fish
and wildlife resources. The synergy of all federal, state, tribal, and private organizations, working
together, will ensure that the Service not only protects the more important areas, but also reduces
redundancy and overlap.
Shell Keys NWR is a member and participant of the Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
(LMRE) Team. This ecosystem (Figure 2) serves as the primary wintering habitat for mid-continental
waterfowl populations, as well as breeding and migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning
from Central and South America, and numerous resident wildlife species.
Geographically, the refuge lies on the outer boundary of the ecosystem and has few opportunities to
contribute to many of the goals and objectives of the LMRE. There are some common targets that
are applicable to the refuge and to which they contribute. The refuge also could contribute to the
objectives of the Service’s Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem (TGCE). The TGCE is considered by many
to be part of a larger ecological Gulf coast system that also includes portions of coastal Louisiana and
Mexico. The TGCE Team has requested the participation of the Shell Keys NWR and other nearby
southwest Louisiana refuges in its ecosystem team meetings.
14 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECOSYSTEM (LMRE)
The LMRE includes the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with the
Ohio River and the delta plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of
the Mississippi River and its tributaries (FWS 2002). Louisiana has twelve water quality management
basins delineated on the basis of natural drainage patterns of the state’s major river basins (Lester et
al., 2005). Shell Keys NWR is located in or just outside the Teche/Vermillion Basin.
The LMRE guides Service efforts to enhance, restore, and conserve the natural functional processes
and habitat types of the LMRE, while maintaining the economic productivity and recreational
opportunities. The ecosystem serves as primary wintering habitat for mid-continent waterfowl
populations, as well as breeding and migrating habitat for migratory songbirds. The expansive flood
plain forests of the past are now fragmented bottomland hardwood patches due to conversion from
agriculture and flood control projects.
The LMRE developed eight goals that this CCP will promote to ensure Shell Keys NWR continues its
contribution to ecosystem conservation and integrity.
􀁹􇤠 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.
􀁹􇤠 Increase public awareness and support for LMRE resources and their management.
􀁹􇤠 Enforce natural resource laws.
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and enhance water and air quality throughout the LMRE.
TEXAS GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM (TGCE)
The priorities identified by the TGCE Team, to which the refuge can contribute, include:
􀁹􇤠 Encourage the Service’s Region 4 field stations with similar coastal resource objectives to
participate in ecosystem team meetings.
􀁹􇤠 Develop partnerships with other Service regions, Mexico, natural resource agencies,
universities, and non-governmental organizations to plan and implement outreach programs.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on
threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of local concern. The goals and
objectives in this CCP are stepped down from the following plans:
􀁹􇤠 Gulf Coast Joint Venture
􀁹􇤠 North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
􀁹􇤠 United States Shorebird Conservation Plan
􀁹􇤠 Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
􀁹􇤠 Coast 2050 – Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana
􀁹􇤠 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan
16 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
􀁹􇤠 Fisheries Vision for the Future
􀁹􇤠 Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan)
GULF COAST JOINT VENTURE (MISSISSIPPI RIVER COASTAL WETLANDS INITIATIVE)
Regional partnerships or joint ventures composed of individuals; sportsmen’s groups; conservation
organizations; and local, state, provincial, and federal governments were formed under the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan. One such partnership—the Gulf Coast Joint Venture
(GCJV)—was established to conserve priority waterfowl habitats along the western United States
Gulf coast, one of the most important waterfowl areas in North America. The Gulf coast is the
terminus of the Central and Mississippi Flyways and provides both wintering and migrating habitat for
significant numbers of continental goose and duck populations. The GCJV’s greatest contribution to
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is to provide wintering grounds for waterfowl. A
great diversity of birds, mammals, fish, shellfish, reptiles, and amphibians also rely on the wetlands of
the Gulf coast for part of their life cycles.
The GCJV is divided geographically into six initiative areas, one of which is the Mississippi River
Coastal Wetland Initiative area. This area includes all or part of seventeen Louisiana parishes and is
bounded on the east by the Louisiana state line and extends westward to Vermilion Bay. The
northern boundary of the initiative area occurs at roughly the marsh-swamp interface. The area
includes two major river deltas--the Mississippi and Atchafalaya. The goal of the initiative is to
provide wintering and migrating habitat for significant numbers of dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and
snow geese, as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks. The Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands
Initiative focuses on coastal marshes, forested wetlands, and sea grass beds of the Chandeleur
Sound. Shell Keys NWR may contribute to some of the objectives of the Mississippi River Coastal
Plain Initiative.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan was developed under a partnership called the
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, which is a group of individuals and organizations having
interest and responsibility for the conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas. Shell
Keys NWR is located in the Southeast U.S. Regional Waterbird Conservation Planning Area. The
refuge can contribute to a key objective of this region, which is to standardize data collection efforts
and analysis procedures to allow better tracking of regional movements and the association of these
movements with environmental or land use changes.
UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving organizations throughout
the United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. Shell Keys NWR is located within the
Lower Mississippi, Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region. On a regional scale, the refuge
can help ensure that adequate quantity and quality of habitat is identified and maintained to support
the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate through the area.
COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ACT
In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
(CWPPRA) that generates $50 to $60 million annually for Louisiana coastal wetland restoration
projects via an 85/15 federal/state cost-share, and which provided for the development of the 1993
comprehensive Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan. Funding of proposed projects is
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
determined by the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, which is
composed of five federal agencies and the State of Louisiana. As mandated by CWPPRA, the task
force developed a detailed Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan in 1993 that describes the restoration
actions and projects that should be implemented to address Louisiana’s coastal land loss crisis. A
priority project list is developed and approved by the task force each year, outlining which projects will
receive CWPPRA funding.
COAST 2050 - TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE COASTAL LOUISIANA
Coast 2050, funded by CWPPRA, is a comprehensive, ecosystem-based plan developed by private
citizens; local, state, and federal agencies; and the scientific community to address coastal wetland
loss throughout southern Louisiana. This plan, which is recognized by the State of Louisiana, five
federal agencies, and local coastal parish governments, serves as the joint coastal restoration plan
for CWPPRA. Its overarching goal is to sustain a coastal ecosystem that supports and protects the
environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana and that contributes greatly to the economy
and well-being of the nation. The strategic objectives of Coast 2050 are to (1) sustain a coastal
ecosystem with the essential functions and values of the natural ecosystem; (2) restore the
ecosystem to the highest practicable acreage of productive and diverse wetlands; and (3) accomplish
this restoration through an integrated program that has multiple use benefits (Louisiana Coastal
Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration
Authority 1998). Shell Keys NWR is included in Region 3 - Terrebonne, Atchafalaya, and
Teche/Vermilion of this plan.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN
The Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan evolved from the Coast 2050 Plan, with the
overarching goal of reversing the current trend of degradation of the coastal ecosystem. This plan formed
the basis for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study, which was designed to identify
critical ecological needs, restoration efforts, scientific uncertainties to present a strategy for addressing the
long-term needs of coastal Louisiana restoration, and to establish restoration priorities.
Shell Keys NWR is located within Sub-province 3 for the Louisiana Coastal Area. The restoration plans
identified in the Louisiana Coastal Area relate directly and indirectly to the refuge through long-term efforts
to explore large-scale restoration projects that will influence the entire coastal zone of Louisiana.
FISHERIES VISION FOR THE FUTURE
In 2001, the Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries Program and to develop a vision.
This vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program “is working with partners to restore and maintain
fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to support Federal mitigation programs
for the benefit of the American public.” To achieve the vision, the Fisheries program works with its
partners to:
􀁹􇤠 protect the health of aquatic habitats,
􀁹􇤠 restore fish and other aquatic resources, and
􀁹􇤠 provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
Together, the group developed a series of goals, objectives, and strategies to focus on key
needs. Shell Keys NWR can contribute to the program’s recreational fishing goal to provide
quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other related recreational enjoyment of aquatic
resources on Service lands.
18 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
LOUISIANA COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY (WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN)
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (CWCS) was defined in 2005 (Lester et al., 2005). Their mission statement follows:
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ mission is to manage,
conserve, and promote wise utilization of Louisiana’s renewable fish and
wildlife resources and their supporting habitats through replenishment,
protection, enhancement, research, development, and education for the social
and economic benefit of current and future generations; to provide
opportunities for knowledge of and use and enjoyment of these resources; and
to promote a safe and healthy environment for the users of the resources.
The primary focus of the CWCS is species of conservation concern and the habitats they depend
upon. Information relative to these species and those habitats found on Refuge System lands will be
evaluated for opportunities to foster conservation efforts.
In the Louisiana CWCS, Shell Keys NWR is located in the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes
ecoregion. Shell Keys NWR is in the marine habitat outside the Vermillion/Cote
Blanche/Atchafalaya Bay Complex Coastal Study Area, constituting one of seven coastal study
areas seaward of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Shell Keys NWR is one of numerous oyster
reefs buffering Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge. Although no specific strategies for partnering with
the Service are listed for the habitats on Shell Keys NWR, more general strategies on which the
Service can partner with LDWF are:
􀁹􇤠 partner to promote protection and support efforts for shoreline stabilization and habitat
restoration of barrier islands; and
􀁹􇤠 work with interested groups to promote appropriate use of dredge material and to develop
improved management techniques for vegetated pioneer emerging delta habitat
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) 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 MAV include:
􀁹􇤠 The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests.
􀁹􇤠 The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., forest
fragmentation).
􀁹􇤠 The effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices.
􀁹􇤠 The simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within the ecosystem and gene pools.
􀁹􇤠 The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects.
􀁹􇤠 The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
Specific threats applicable to Shell Keys NWR include:
􀁹􇤠 Problems associated with the Gulf of Mexico shipping operations, including soil erosion
caused by wave action and contamination resulting from barge accidents.
􀁹􇤠 Problems associated with sea level rise and climate change.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
EROSION AND CONTAMINATION
Several major ecological threats that cause land loss and damage to Shell Keys NWR are tropical
storms, subsidence and sea level rise, and oil and gas development. Shell Keys NWR is located in an
area frequently in the path of tropical storms and hurricanes. Out of the 92 major hurricanes (category
3 or higher) recorded making landfall between Texas and Maine from 1851 through 2004, 85 entered
the Gulf of Mexico. Even storms coming onshore in states other than Louisiana can affect Shell Keys
NWR, which is located off the mainland in the Gulf of Mexico. The shell/shell hash bottom habitat
absorbs frequent storm surges. Although even tropical storms can cause impacts such as nest loss of
ground nesting birds, much land loss has been caused by such notable hurricanes as the unnamed
storm of 1947, Camille in 1969, Georges in 1998, Ivan in 2004, and Katrina and Rita in 2005.
Active oil and gas development and exploration occur in areas adjacent to Shell Keys NWR. While
impacts on the marine ecosystem are minimized and mitigated when possible, accidents near Shell
Keys NWR occur that cause biological and ecological damage. Waterfowl and other water birds are
susceptible to oiling and are especially vulnerable during nesting. Soils soak up oil and, depending
on type, severity, and amount of oiling, have to be removed from the site.
In the past there have been applications made for oil, gas, and mineral development and drilling but
file documentation revealed that the islands were unsuitable for drilling and that it would destroy the
area for the purpose for which it was established. A memorandum dated October 22, 1956, to the
Service’s Regional Director stated "Although Shell Keys is listed in Appendix B of the revised leasing
regulations, we believe that all operations should be denied on the basis that they would totally
destroy the area for which it was established...." In a response to an application made in 1956, the
Service’s Regional Director denied lease application citing that a "...so-called freeze order applicable
to oil and gas leases on refuge lands still in effect...."
GLOBAL WARMING AND SEA LEVEL RISE
The Service is mandated to address climate change in its management planning by the U.S.
Department of Interior’s Secretarial Order 3226, issued on January 19, 2001. This order states that
each bureau and office of the Department will consider and analyze potential climate change impacts
when undertaking long-range planning exercises, when setting priorities for scientific research and
investigations, when developing multi-year management plans, and/or when making major decisions
regarding the potential utilization of resources under the Department’s purview.
There is scientific consensus that suggests the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this
warming is human-caused increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Since the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution, average global temperatures have risen by one degree Fahrenheit, with the
most accelerated warming occurring in the past two decades (Schlyer 2006). The complexity of
effects that global warming will have on habitat and wildlife on national wildlife refuges is not known.
Hand-in-hand with global warming is sea level rise.
Coastal Louisiana has lost more than 1.2 million acres of land along its coast in the last 100 years and
15,300 acres between 1990 and 2000, mostly due to the conversion of coastal wetlands to open water.
Sea level is predicted to increase by 30 cm to 100 cm by 2100 based on the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (Meehl et al. 2007). Rising sea
level may result in tidal marsh submergence (Moorhead and Brinson 1995).
20 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
In an effort to address the potential effects of sea level rise on United States national wildlife refuges,
the Fish and Wildlife Service contracted the application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model
(SLAMM) for most Region 4 refuges. The SLAMM analysis for Shell Keys NWR assessed four
different scenarios of sea level rise. Every scenario utilized predicted that by 2025 the southern
portion of the refuge is predicted to disappear and a continued process of submergence is predicted
for this site with complete loss by 2050 (Clough 2008).
The SLAMM analysis further stated that “It is possible that Shell Keys NWR may reappear due to
consolidation of submerged sediments and storm activities. The SLAMM model does not estimate
such potential consolidation and reemergence of submerged lands. However, the results from this
modeling indicate that permanent reemergence is unlikely due to the significant pressures of rising
sea levels” (Clough 2008).
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate in southwest Louisiana is relatively mild due to the subtropical influence of the Gulf of
Mexico and cooler, drier air from the central plains. Summers tend to be hot and humid, and winters
are mild. Average yearly precipitation is 66 inches. Louisiana is impacted by tropical weather
disturbances with an average frequency of one tropical storm every 1.6 years, one hurricane every
3.3 years, and a major hurricane every 14 years (Roth 1998).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently concluded that warming of the climate is
undeniable and could cause changes in our stewardship of land. Examples of potential changes are
altered fire regimes, rain and snowfall patterns, access to water resources, hydrology in rivers and
wetlands, frequency of extreme weather events, and rising sea levels at coastal refuges.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Gulf of Mexico is a Mediterranean-type sea located at the southeastern corner of North America.
The Gulf is bordered by the United States to the north (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Texas); five Mexican states to the west (Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatan); and
the island of Cuba to the southeast. The Gulf measures approximately 1,600 kilometers from east to
west, 900 kilometers from north to south, and has a surface area of 1.5 million square kilometers.
The Gulf of Mexico basin is a relatively simple, roughly circular structural basin approximately 1,500
km in diameter, filled in its deeper part with 10 to 15 km of sedimentary rocks that range in age from
Late Triassic to Holocene (approximately 230 m.y. to present). The present Gulf of Mexico basin is
believed to have had its origin in Late Triassic time as the result of rifting within the North American
Plate at the time it began to crack and drift away from the African and South American plates. Rifting
probably continued through Early and Middle Jurassic time with the formation of "stretched" or
"transitional" continental crust throughout the central part of the basin. Intermittent advance of the
sea into the continental area from the west during late Middle Jurassic time resulted in the formation
of the extensive salt deposits known today in the Gulf of Mexico basin. It appears that the main
drifting episode, during which the Yucatan block moved southward and separated from the North
American Plate and true oceanic crust formed in the central part of the basin, took place during the
early Late Jurassic, after the formation of the salt deposits (Gore 1992; Donnelly 1975; Martin 1975;
Uchupi 1975; and Salvador 1991).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Since Late Jurassic time, the basin has been a stable geologic province characterized by the
persistent subsidence of its central part, probably due at first to thermal cooling and later to sediment
loading as the basin filled with thick prograding clastic wedges along its northwestern and northern
margins, particularly during the Cenozoic. To the east, the stable Florida platform was not covered by
the sea until the latest Jurassic or the beginning of Cretaceous time. The Yucatan platform was
emergent until the mid-Cretaceous. After both platforms were submerged, the formation of
carbonates and evaporites has characterized the geologic history of these two stable areas. Most of
the basin was rimmed during the Early Cretaceous by carbonate platforms, and its western flank was
involved during the latest Cretaceous and early Tertiary in a compressive deformation episode, the
Laramide Orogeny, which created the Sierra Madre Oriental of eastern Mexico.
The northern Gulf of Mexico extends from Florida to the United States/Mexico border. North to south,
the province extends from 200 miles inland of the present day shoreline to the Sigsbee escarpment.
Sediments in the region are generally thick with the greatest sediment load provided by the
Mississippi River.
Shell Keys NWR is just outside the Teche/Vermillion Basin, in the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the basin
is occupied by three large bays: East Cote Blanche, West Cote Blanche, and Vermilion. Marsh Island
Wildlife Refuge is between the Gulf of Mexico and Vermillion Bay. Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge is an
important hydrologic feature because it separates these bays from saltier water in the Gulf of Mexico.
Shell Keys NWR and other live and relic oyster reefs southeast of Marsh Island buffer water
exchange between the big bays and the Gulf of Mexico and contribute to stability of the coastlines.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Shell Keys NWR is surrounded by shallow sea water. Pollutants in the water are a major problem in
the Gulf coast region. The highest concentration of petrochemical companies in the nation is in the
Gulf coast (Ning et. al, 1998). In addition to the chemicals released by the petrochemical companies,
the Mississippi River carries the chemical pollutants of the central United States to the Gulf coast
region (Ning et. al, 1998). Extraction, refining, and transport of oil and petro-chemicals all carry risks
for the health of humans, wildlife, and ecosystems (Ning et. al, 1998). Extreme rains and flooding
can enhance run-off of nutrients, pollutants, and micro-organics. Heavy rains and high nutrient levels
can increase algal blooms and add to the "hypoxic zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, currently the size of
New Jersey (Ning et. al, 1998). Salinity of water is also a problem in the Gulf coast region because it
contributes to the loss of oysters (Ning et. al, 1998). Oysters have a positive effect on water quality
by filtering water and removing pollutants.
AIR QUALITY
The growth of major cities and the effects of this growth on air quality is a major health concern in the
Gulf coast region (Ning et. al, 1998). Large cities, such as Houston, Atlanta, and New Orleans, have
major problems with air pollution, particularly tropospheric ozone (O3) (Ning et. al, 1998). Pollution
stagnation, such as occurred in Baton Rouge in 1990 and 1995, is dangerous and may be
exacerbated by increased temperatures (Ning et. al, 1998).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Shell/Shell Hash Bottoms are estuarine water bottoms with significant coverage of mollusk shells.
These bottoms may have potential for settlement of oysters, barnacles, or other invertebrate larvae
22 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
that require hard substrates, and also serve as shelter for fish living in cryptic environments. These
relatively hard substrates may reduce shoreline erosion along shallow, sloped shorelines, providing
physical protection for adjacent marshlands. They also may cause changes in currents, creating
environments that are beneficial for many species of fish and invertebrates. In the very low-salinity
environments, relatively few species other that some small invertebrates are able to utilize the shell
as a settlement substrate, but the other values of the habitat remain.
Oysters provide the majority of the shell substrate in Louisiana, and are also a major fishery resource.
Mussels, barnacles, worms, fishes, and a variety of other animals are either found in increasing
abundance around oyster reefs, or are dependent upon these types of bottoms to survive. Other
shell bottoms include Rangia clam and mixed shell hash. A number of bivalve mollusk species can
co-exist in a single area, providing a variety of food sources and substrates to the animal
communities. Shell and shell hash bottoms tend to be more resistant to erosion than mud bottoms,
and relief to the bottom and modifying tidal currents, especially near passes.
WILDLIFE
In the past, Shell Keys NWR has supported large colonies of colonial nesting seabirds, although very
limited. For a number of years, there has been only one islet at this location. This islet is composed
almost entirely of shell fragments. It is extremely dynamic and builds or recedes with passing storms.
Birds known to nest here include royal terns, sandwich terns, black skimmers, and laughing gulls. In
addition, the islet is used at various times as a loafing area by white pelicans, brown pelicans, and various
other species of terns and gulls. Recent hurricanes and storms have eroded the island to such an extent
that no known nesting has occurred since 1992. On a recent survey of the island (May 2007), staff
observed brown pelicans (30), Caspian terns (4), gull-billed tern (1), royal terns (6), ruddy turnstone (1),
sandwich terns (12), sanderlings (6), and semi-plamated sandpipers (4). At the time, the tide was 2’ 7”
above normal, exposing about 100 yards by 10 feet from 3-4 feet above the water.
Gulf fisheries are some of the most productive in the world. In 2000, the commercial fish and shellfish
harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.7 billion pounds (approximately 772
million kg), which represents almost 1/5 (19.4 percent) of the total domestic landings in the United
States. In the same year, commercial catches in the Gulf represented approximately 25 percent of
the total U.S. domestic commercial fishing revenue and were valued at over $900 million. The Gulf
also supports a productive recreational fishery. Excluding Texas, U.S. Gulf states accounted for over
40 percent (>104,000 lbs or >47,000 kg) of the U.S. recreational finfish harvest in 2000 (O'Bannon
2001). As the refuge is located just south of the coastline, fishing is the only activity that can reliably
occur on the refuge. Redfish, spotted seatrout, flounder, and other species feed on the baitfish
sheltering in the shallow waters of the key.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no known cultural resources on Shell Keys NWR. Geologically, Shell Keys NWR is
relatively young and since formation, little-to-no human habitation has occurred. Infrastructure
adjacent to the keys has been associated with the oil and gas industry.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Shell Keys NWR is a remote island off the Louisiana coast and is considered part of Iberia Parish,
Louisiana. Many of the land-based communities have rich historical backgrounds which began as
large sugar cane plantations. Five percent of Iberia Parish residents report German ancestry and
three percent report Irish.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
The parish seat is in the New Iberia metro area. The estimated population in 2004 was 74,449. This
was an increase of 1.61 percent from the 2000 census. In 2002, the per capita personal income in
Iberia Parish was $22,107. This was an increase of 17.6 percent from 1997. The 2002 figure was 72
percent of the national per capita income, which was $30,906.
Iberia Parish is one of about 3,141 counties and county equivalents in the United States. It has 575.1
square miles in land area and a population density of 131.3 per-square-miles. In the last three
decades of the 1900s, its population grew by 27.6 percent. On the 2000 census form, 98.8 percent of
the population reported only one race, with 30.8 percent of these reporting African-American. The
population of this parish is 1.5 percent Hispanic (of any race). The average household size is 2.82
persons compared to an average family size of 3.28 persons.
In 2006, manufacturing was the largest of 20 major sectors. It had an average wage per job of $46,858
(Table 1). Per capita income grew by 26.5 percent between 1995 and 2005 (adjusted for inflation).
Table 1. Population and industry statistics of Iberia Parish
People and Income Overview
(By Place of Residence) Value Industry Overview (2006)
(By Place of Work) Value
Population (2006) 75,509 Covered Employment 34,050
Growth (%) since 1990 10.6% Average wage per job $39,154
Households (2000) 25,381 Manufacturing - % all jobs in County 12.7%
Labor Force (persons) (2006) 34,099 Average wage per job $46,858
Unemployment Rate (2006) 3.3 Transportation and Warehousing - % all
jobs in County 4.7%
Per Capita Personal Income
(2005) $26,378 Average wage per job $51,362
Median Household Income (2004) $33,358 Health Care, Social Assistance - % all
jobs in County 9.6%
Poverty Rate (2004) 21.1 Average wage per job $26,821
H.S. Diploma or More - % of
Adults 25+ (2000) 66.9 Finance and Insurance - % all jobs in
County 2.0%
Bachelor's Degree or More - % of
Adults 25+ (2000) 11.2 Average wage per job $36,884
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
At present, no physical land protection measures other than refuge designation and law enforcement
activities exist.
24 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY
Shell Keys NWR does not hold the mineral rights for any of the acreage in its trust. Historically, no wells
have been drilled on the refuge and currently no transmission or flow lines are present. However, as
global and domestic demand increases for oil and gas, the refuge could potentially find itself with
additional oil and gas related activities mainly in the form of a being in a proposed pipeline corridor or
offshore drilling lease.
As stated in previous comprehensive conservation plans (Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, and Sabine
NWRs) recently completed, all refuges within the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge
Complex will manage future oil and gas development in accordance with the following: current Fish
and Wildlife Service policy, which is derived from a July 17, 1986, Department of Interior Solicitor’s
opinion and Louisiana State mineral rights law, which states that owners of sub-surface oil and gas
mineral rights must be granted a reasonable and necessary means of extraction and production.
In more explicit terms the Solicitor’s opinion states:
The United States has a number of rights as a surface owner of refuge lands in Louisiana:
1. It may request the mineral owner to alter its proposed operation to accommodate existing and
planned uses of the refuge, provided that the burden on the mineral owner is not unreasonable.
2. It may insist that the mineral owner use only the minimum amount of land that is required to carry
out the operations.
3. The necessary operations that are performed on the refuge must be carried out in a manner
which is least injurious to refuge resources.
4. Upon conclusion of each separable phase of operation the mineral owner must restore the
surface to its original condition, insofar as is practicable. This will include filling pits no longer
required, leveling land, cleaning up spilled oil and salt water, reseeding, and repair or replacement
of damaged improvements.
5. Access roads damaged by the mineral operator must be put in a condition for use by the United
States, although they need not be completely regraded if damage is recurring and unavoidable.
The United States may not:
1. Charge a mineral operator for excavation of dirt on the lease where the dirt is required in order to
carry out the operation.
2. Charge for destruction of timber unless such right was reserved by the United States “grantor.”
3. Interfere with the reasonable and necessary operations of the mineral owner.
Federally owned oil and gas rights on Refuge System lands embraced in the withdrawal of public
domain and acquired lands of the United States are not available for leasing (43 CFR 3101.5-1)
except where drainage occurs (43 CFR 3100.2). Shell Keys NWR falls under this closure. However,
in the event circumstances ever change and some form of oil and gas development was to occur, a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
mutually agreed upon special use permit would be issued for all oil and gas operations to
communicate Service expectations and environmental concerns to all operating companies.
Transmission Pipeline Rights-of-Way
Rights-of-way were inherited for transmission lines that traverse the refuge for the purpose of
transporting oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined petroleum based
product. Transmission lines are usually large in diameter and transport product to or from large
processing plants. These pipelines do not service mineral production from sub-surface minerals, but
require a corridor of refuge land for transportation. In contrast, flow lines are usually the smallest in
diameter and transport raw product from individual wells, from sub-surface mineral production,
through the production separation process. Gathering lines, similar to flow lines, usually “gather” the
production from multiple wells and transport it to production facilities. Permits for rights-of-way are
not issued for flow lines and gathering lines.
Existing oil and gas transmission lines and their associated rights-of-way on refuges in the Southwest
Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex that have been in place for decades have become
manageable over the years. Their long-term effects on the environment, which have been identified
as creating pathways for saltwater intrusion into freshwater marshes, are being indirectly addressed
through numerous wetland management programs and laws such as the Louisiana Coastal Act, the
Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act, the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act, and many local government and private watershed initiatives such as the Cameron
Creole Watershed Management Plan. These laws and initiatives have led to the development of
significant wetland restoration projects which have mitigated the effects of some negative impacts
associated with oil and gas transmission lines and associated rights-of-way.
Future Management
Existing oil and gas transmission lines on approved Fish and Wildlife Service rights-of-way currently within
a national wildlife refuge will be managed as per Fish and Wildlife Service Policy 603 FW 2 in general,
and explicitly under section 2.11D which states:
Existing rights-of-way: We will not make a compatibility determination and will deny any request for
maintenance of an existing right-of-way that will affect a unit of the Refuge System unless (1) the design
adopts appropriate measures to avoid resource impacts and includes provisions to ensure no net loss of
habitat quantity and quality; (2) restored or replacement areas identified in the design are afforded
permanent protection as part of the national wildlife refuge or wetland management district affected by the
maintenance; and (3) all restoration work is completed by the applicant prior to any title transfer or
recording of the easement, if applicable. Maintenance of an existing right-of way includes minor
expansion or minor realignment to meet safety standards. Examples of minor expansion or minor
realignment include: expand the width of a road shoulder to reduce the angle of the slope; expand the
area for viewing on-coming traffic at an intersection; and realigning a road to reduce the amount of curve.
New construction for oil and gas transmission line rights-of-way will not be permitted because they can
significantly contribute to further land loss on coastal Louisiana national wildlife refuges. Canals built for
the construction and repair of oil and gas transmission lines allow saltwater to penetrate further inland,
particularly during droughts and storms and can have severe effects on wetlands (Wang 1987). This is
evident for the oil and gas transmission line rights-of-way which were established in accordance with
federal and state transportation regulations already established on Sabine NWR. Oil and gas
transmission lines constructed since the 1940s are still readily apparent. Compaction and displacement
of hydric soils during oil and gas transmission lines repair or construction reduces water exchange and
can result in increased waterlogging and plant mortality (Swenson and Turner 1987). Excavation
26 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
necessary for oil and gas transmission line construction causes significant hydrological changes.
Exposing hydric soil to oxygen changes the natural ecological processes, including chemical
transformations, sediment transport, vegetation health, and migration of organisms. Furthermore, by
altering salinity gradients and patterns of water flow, the natural process by which coastal marshes are
replenished and protected cannot occur (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004).
Restoration of coastal marsh is a priority on national wildlife refuges in the Louisiana coastal zone.
Approximately $24 million from CWPPRA has been dedicated to construct eight coastal restoration
projects, and another $12 million is approved to construct two more projects within the Southwest
Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Extensive changes and alterations due to new pipeline
rights-of-way could negatively affect restoration project predictability and life span. The stability
created through these restoration projects could be jeopardized when major hydrologic changes
occurred due to new pipeline construction. Therefore, managing existing pipelines and rights-of-way
in accordance with current Service policy, and state and federal law is permissible under current
conditions. Any expansion beyond the current conditions will be an inappropriate use considering the
current status of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and the Service’s role in managing and protecting this
state’s coastal resources.
VISITOR SERVICES
Shell Keys NWR is accessible by boat only. The refuge is currently closed to all public use; however,
occasional recreational fishing and wildlife observation is known to occur.
Currently, no law enforcement position exists for Shell Keys NWR. The law enforcement staff from
the Complex is available to patrol the refuge and partners with LDWF agents for coverage of each
refuge in the Complex. Law enforcement issues involve oil and gas concerns, commercial fishing,
and oyster shell dredging.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Shell Keys NWR is part of the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which also
includes the Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, and Sabine NWRs. Shell Keys NWR shares staff with
Sabine NWR, which consists of three permanent employees, with occasional interns, volunteer
workers, and term appointments supervised by the refuge manager. Positions include one refuge
manager, one maintenance worker, and one refuge officer. A project leader stationed at the Complex
headquarters at Cameron Prairie NWR supervises the refuge manager for Shell Keys/Sabine NWRs.
Coordination/Cooperative Programs
The refuge staff coordinates and cooperates extensively with state agencies, tribes, landowners, the
public, conservation groups, oil and gas companies, and local agencies and organizations. Shell
Keys NWR is a component of several important regional or ecosystem planning and management
efforts, and works with all levels of government and non-governmental organizations and private
citizens to accomplish goals and objectives specific to those efforts.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
III. Plan Development
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered
species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through a public scoping meeting and personal comments. All public and advisory team
comments were considered; however, some issues important to the public fall outside the scope of
the decisions to be made within this planning process. The team has considered all issues that arose
through the planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing
opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best
professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A summary of the significant issues for
Shell Keys NWR follows.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Historically, Shell Keys NWR has supported colonial nesting birds. Small nesting colonies of brown
pelicans; laughing gulls; and royal, Caspian, and sandwich terns used the islands. It is possible that
black skimmers and sooty, common, least, Forster’s, and gull-billed terns also used the island.
Hurricanes and tropical storms have significantly eroded and submerged the island, leaving very little
habitat above the waterline. It is doubtful the island will ever regain enough land above the waterline to
provide safe nesting sites for significant numbers of birds.
The eastern and Caribbean subspecies of the brown pelican remain endangered in California,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Texas, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Central
and South America. The brown pelican was extirpated from Louisiana during the 1960s and
later reintroduced at three sites, one of which was the north island of the Chandeleurs. The
Louisiana population grew exponentially after the reintroductions.
Small shorebirds have utilized the refuge as stop-over habitat. The federally listed piping plover is
considered threatened throughout its wintering range along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and
Caribbean beaches and barrier islands. Other shorebirds of interest observed on Shell Keys NWR are
semi-palmated sandpipers, ruddy turnstones, dowitchers, sanderlings, and other shorebird species.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Shell Keys NWR has the potential for being an important area for black skimmers, piping plovers,
brown pelicans, and other bird species; however, it would have to be enhanced by adding more shell
to a much higher level.
Given the current circumstances, future habitat management depends on the amount and sources of
sediment and funding available, and any new technologies which can be developed. A feasibility study
would need to be conducted through partnerships with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), LDWF, and
others to determine restoration options and the sustainability of restoration efforts.
28 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Law enforcement is involved with every release or spill event involving oil and gas on the refuge.
Officers work cooperatively with the state and other federal agencies to investigate each event to
determine if charges should be filed. Other violations involve illegal fishing, oyster dredging, and
oyster spreading.
VISITOR SERVICES
Due to the remoteness of the island, opportunities for public use are extremely limited. The refuge is
currently closed to all public use; however, recreational fishing, bird watching, and photography have
been observed. Since it is possible this use can occur on the refuge, given its compatibility, opening
the refuge to these uses would be in the best interest of the Service.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Presently, support from other staff of the Complex cover the administration of Shell Keys NWR.
Funding is administered through the Complex as part of the headquarters.
Wilderness Review
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The results of the wilderness review are included in Appendix H.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The 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 Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity,
and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife
and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent public uses.
Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation are therefore emphasized in this CCP.
Described below is the CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This management direction
contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the vision of Shell Keys NWR.
ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGING SHELL KEYS NWR
The following three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered, with Alternative C chosen
as the preferred alternative. Each alternative was described in section B of the Draft CCP.
A - No Action (Current Management)
B - Custodial Cooperative Management
C - Large-scale Habitat Restoration and Cooperative Management (Preferred)
Implementing the preferred alternative will result in partnering with the LDWF, other conservation
agencies, and large corporations to conduct a feasibility study based on dedicated dredging and
exploring landscape scale efforts to restore the shell islands. Management will open the refuge to the
public uses of fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Public outreach will improve
through the use of kiosks and a wayside exhibit, with updated brochures and maps, at the Complex
headquarters.
VISION FOR SHELL KEYS NWR
Shell Keys NWR will provide dynamic shell island and reef complex habitat for the conservation and
protection of colonial nesting seabirds and other wildlife in partnership with LDWF, other agencies,
organizations, and individuals. Through the Complex visitor center, public use will emphasize fishing,
wildlife observation, and wildlife photography; outreach will focus on interpretation and environmental
education programs based on Shell Keys NWR’s unique natural resources.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES FOR SHELL KEYS NWR
The goals, objectives, and strategies presented for Shell Keys NWR are the Service’s response
to the issues, concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and
partners, and the public, and are presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V identifies the
projects associated with the various strategies.
30 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of
the Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Shell Keys
NWR. With resources, as outlined in Chapter V, the Service intends to accomplish these goals,
objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Goal A. Through the use of partnerships, protect coastal fish and wildlife species, placing
special emphasis on migratory birds, colonial nesting waterbirds, and threatened and
endangered species.
Discussion: Because of its location, Shell Keys NWR has historically served as habitat for many
migratory bird species either for an entire season or for only a matter of hours or days. The island
can give refuge to migratory birds on a regular basis or may serve as a haven to birds blown off
course and not following normal migration patterns.
Species that may use the refuge include brown pelicans; laughing gulls; black skimmers; and royal,
Caspian, sandwich, sooty, common, least Forster’s, and gull-billed terns. It is unknown if the island
will rebuild or be restored to the extent that nesting colonies can return.
Threatened and endangered species that may utilize the refuge include the eastern brown
pelican and the piping plover (wintering).
Objective A-1. Develop a cooperative natural resource agreement with LDWF to monitor if colonial
nesting seabirds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, and other species of federal
responsibility are using the refuge.
Discussion: Situated within close proximity to the Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge, developing a
memorandum of understanding with LDWF would assist Shell Keys NWR in monitoring biological
resources, managing natural resources, and addressing enforcement issues related to commercial
and recreational fishing, and issues related to oil and gas. The most recent hurricanes, Lilli and Rita,
severely impacted this area. The establishment of a cooperative agreement with LDWF relative to
habitat restoration, biological monitoring, and natural resource management will benefit both
agencies and the resources.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 If any nesting occurs in response to habitat recovery and restoration, close island to public
use.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct annual bird surveys on the island in conjunction with LDWF, paying particular
attention to brown pelican and piping plover use.
􀁹􇤠 Monitor shorebird and other migratory bird populations during peak migration periods.
􀁹􇤠 Develop and maintain a data base of survey information.
􀁹􇤠 Determine the value of the essential fish habitat within the Shell Keys NWR boundary to
species such as red drum, brown shrimp, white shrimp, and Gulf stone crab.
Objective A-2. Working with academia, LDWF, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
initiate study to determine the value of Shell Keys NWR to oyster resource and provide
recommendations.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Utilize grants and other funding sources to initiate oyster resource survey in partnership with
others.
􀁹􇤠 Determine feasibility of restoring island with oyster resource.
􀁹􇤠 In the process of the feasibility study, consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service under
provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other entities to ensure adverse impacts are
avoided or mitigated.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Goal B. Through the use of partnerships, protect, conserve, and, if feasible, restore the physical
and ecological functions of shell island and reef complex habitats for fish and wildlife resources.
Discussion: The refuge is highly dynamic and constantly evolving. The most influential effect on
the refuge is erosion, which results from strong storms and overwash. Over the years, hurricanes
and severe storms have changed the face of the refuge in both dramatic and subtle ways.
Severe storms in recent history have resulted in either moderate build-up or significant loss of the
land existing above water. Usually, there is post-storm recovery to some extent. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently concluded that warming of the climate is
undeniable and could cause changes in our stewardship of land. Examples of potential changes
are frequency of extreme weather events and rising sea levels at coastal refuges. At this point, it
is difficult to set specific wildlife habitat goals. Refuge staff has learned from the past that small-scale
restoration projects can no longer achieve lasting benefits. It will take working in
partnership with others to achieve large-scale and costly restoration of the refuge. Information to
be provided by USGS on sediment loss and the availability of suitable dredge material will be
used to determine the feasibility of restoration options.
Objective B-1. Shell Island Habitat: In partnership with LDWF, COE, USGS, and others, conduct a
feasibility study to restore and/or enlarge the entire island to provide increased nesting habitat for
colonial nesting birds based on historic information.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Appropriately survey and mark the boundary with anchored ocean buoys.
􀁹􇤠 Work with the state to establish a well-defined buffer zone approximately one-half mile
around the island.
􀁹􇤠 Enter into a contract with USGS or other appropriate contractor to determine the feasibility
of protecting the shoreline and base substrate of the Shell Keys NWR. If it is determined
that the project is feasible, move forward to seek funding for a beach nourishment and
substrate replacement project to include anchoring buoy markers along the boundary of
the island to aid in preventing oyster dredging ships from impacting the island.
􀁹􇤠 Work with LDWF to determine if oyster seed ground areas within the boundary of Shell
Keys NWR can be dissolved and that oyster leases not be renewed.
􀁹􇤠 Develop and maintain partners such as LDWF, COE, USGS, TNC, Gulf of Mexico
Foundation, Conoco Phillips, Shell Oil, and others to determine potential and value of
restoration.
􀁹􇤠 Seek funding and partners for dedicated dredge disposal projects to create three to five
acres of restored shell habitat if the project is deemed feasible.
32 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
􀁹􇤠 If restoration is feasible, and implementation is successful, proactively search for funding
and partners for maintaining shell habitat.
􀁹���� If restoration is feasible, design restoration features that minimize impacts to the large
oyster reef complex. Oysters tend to be more resistant to erosion and create relief which
increases fish utilization. Designs should include access routes and containment dikes
that avoid or minimize disturbances or impacts to the large oyster reef.
􀁹􇤠 If restoration is feasible, consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service under
provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other entities to ensure adverse impacts are
avoided or mitigated.
􀁹􇤠 Participate in landscape-level coastal initiatives such as CWPPRA, LCA, CIAP, and Coast
2050 as appropriate.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Goal C. Through the use of partnerships, manage natural, cultural, and historical resources,
and petroleum infrastructure and activities to protect habitat, and migratory and nesting birds.
Objective C-1. Work with the LDWF and other partners to monitor oil and gas activity in the area.
Discussion: Shell Keys NWR does not hold the mineral rights for any of the acreage in its trust.
Historically, no wells have been drilled on the refuge and currently no transmission or flow lines are
present. However, as global and domestic demand increases for oil and gas, the refuge could
potentially find itself with additional oil and gas activities.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 All transmission and oil and gas activities will be managed in accordance with the policy
described in Chapter II under the Refuge Administration and Management section.
􀁹􇤠 Convey the Shell Keys NWR spill response protection strategy to the appropriate United
States Coast Guard (USCG) Area Contingency Plan coordinators annually.
􀁹􇤠 Coordinate with the One Gulf Plan for spill response priorities and refuge emergency spill
response actions.
Objective C-2. Work with State Historic Preservation Office to determine if any cultural or historic
resources existed on the island.
VISITOR SERVICES
Goal D. Provide, as appropriate, limited public wildlife-dependent recreational activities, such
as fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography.
Discussion: Recreational activities on Shell Keys NWR revolve around fishing, principally wade
fishing in the shallow waters. Access is by boat. Disturbance to nesting colonies, if nesting were to
resume, will be discouraged by posting the area as closed to prevent anglers and other visitors from
walking among the nesting birds. Wildlife observation and photography are allowed but are not
common because of the harshness of the environment, remoteness, insects, and rapidly changing
weather patterns. The refuge does not offer transportation to the islands for any of the uses open to
the public; visitors must rely on privately owned boats and charter fishing businesses.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Objective D-1: Offer limited visitor services and programs of fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife
photography except in certain portions identified with “Area Closed” signs to protect bird nesting areas.
Discussion: Opening opportunities for fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography will allow
the public to appreciate the value of the refuge as long as nesting areas are protected, should nesting
resume.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Open limited fishing program; partner with LDWF for enforcement of regulations.
􀁹􇤠 Explore possibilities of providing a tour of the islands for wildlife observation and interpretation
as part of a Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex special event.
􀁹􇤠 Develop a Visitor Services’ Plan as part of Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex Visitor Service
Plan within six years of CCP implementation.
􀁹􇤠 Evaluate access as appropriate.
Objective D-2: Improve the quality and quantity of information about Shell Keys NWR offered
to the public.
Discussion: Shell Keys NWR is part of a unique and declining chain of barrier islands along the
Louisiana coast. As stated in the Final CCP for Lacassine NWR, Cameron Prairie NWR’s Visitor
Center will also serve as the Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex Visitor Center,
highlighting all refuges within the Complex. Through the use of this Visitor Center, Shell Keys NWR’s
unique wildlife habitat and coastal protection stature will be portrayed.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Include information about Shell Keys NWR at wayside panels and kiosk at Southwest
Louisiana NWR Complex Headquarters.
􀁹􇤠 Improve and maintain current information on the web page and make it interactive so that
information is two-way; include interpretive information.
􀁹􇤠 Update the Shell Keys general refuge brochure as needed.
􀁹􇤠 Include maps on kiosks; place fishing information and maps at local marinas; place small
kiosk or panel at marina to include fish identification.
􀁹􇤠 Include information on kiosks about the Refuge System, colonial nesting birds, and wading
birds.
􀁹􇤠 Communicate key issues and special events in news releases in local papers, partner with
Iberia Parish on special events and festivals, and with the Southwest Louisiana NWR
Complex headquarters’ special events.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Goal E. Develop and maintain the Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex Headquarters to support,
direct, and manage the needs, resources, and staff of Cameron Prairie, Lacassine, Sabine, and
Shell Keys NWRs; Rockefeller State Refuge (administrative oversight); and the Cameron-Creole
Watershed Project. Work with LDWF and other partners to protect Shell Keys NWR.
34 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Discussion: Shell Keys NWR is administered as one of four refuges under the Southwest Louisiana
NWR Complex. Presently, two staff members share direct responsibility for Shell Keys NWR, with
assistance from approximately 20 other staff members working on the Complex of refuges. Most
personnel work out of the Complex headquarters. Law enforcement is an important tool for
protection of the natural resources of the refuge.
Objective E-1: Ensure employees with complex-wide responsibilities support the refuge.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Increase refuge officers’ presence at Shell Keys NWR.
􀁹􇤠 Update Law Enforcement Plan by 2014.
􀁹􇤠 Partner with LDWF to provide protection to resources and visitors.
Objective E-2: Develop Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the LDWF to protect natural
resources.
Discussion: Given the close proximity to the LDWF Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge, and difficulty
reaching Shell Keys NWR, co-management of the natural resources and law enforcement issues is
most practical.
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Develop a MOU to manage natural resources of Shell Keys NWR in coordination and
collaboration with LDWF.
􀁹􇤠 Review Law Enforcement MOU and update as necessary.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
V. Plan Implementation
INTRODUCTION
Refuge lands are managed as defined under the Improvement Act. Congress has distinguished a
clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national wildlife refuges. National wildlife
refuges, unlike other public lands, are 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 wildlife-dependent recreation and
environmental education.
To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this CCP for Shell Keys NWR,
this section identifies specific projects, funding and personnel needs, partnership opportunities, and
required step-down management plans.
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 migratory waterfowl, birds, and endangered species is critical. Proposed priority public use
programs will establish opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation.
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 for the next 15 years. This proposed project list (Table 2.) reflects the priority needs
identified by the public, planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information. These
projects were generated for the purpose of achieving refuge-specific objectives and strategies. The
primary linkages of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Project 1. Work with LDWF 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 other wildlife species
if the action does not negatively impact the threatened or endangered species. Refuge management
is geared toward managing the ecosystem as a whole.
􀁹􇤠 Develop a wildlife inventory plan based on species selected as priority species.
􀁹􇤠 Partner with local colleges or universities to conduct research concerning remaining available
nesting habitat since Hurricane Rita.
􀁹􇤠 Threatened and endangered species will be surveyed and monitored. Adaptive refuge
management actions will reflect data collected.
36 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
The initial cost for researchers and planning documents will be approximately $75,000. The annual
survey cost for one biologist’s time is $5,000. (Linkages: Goal A, Objectives A-1-2; Goal E,
Objectives E-1-2)
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Project 2. Conduct and coordinate a feasibility study to determine if island restoration is possible.
Refuge staff will:
􀁹􇤠 Determine a reasonable and feasible way to identify the boundary of the refuge with a
triangulation of anchored navigational buoys placed in such a manner as to prevent the raking
of the refuge by oyster boats.
􀁹􇤠 Appropriately survey and mark the refuge boundary with ocean buoys.
􀁹􇤠 Work with the Louisiana Governor’s office and LDWF to establish a well-defined buffer zone
approximately one-half mile around island.
􀁹􇤠 Develop a scope of work and contract with USGS and the University of New Orleans to
determine current status of the island and the ability to rebuild with restoration.
􀁹􇤠 Develop cost estimate of feasibility study in partnership with others.
􀁹􇤠 Determine sources of dredge material.
􀁹􇤠 If restoration is economically and environmentally feasible, determine cost estimates, timeline
for completion, and implementation of each construction phase.
􀁹􇤠 Consult with all necessary state and federal agencies regarding things such as threatened
and endangered species, essential fish habitat, and mitigation measures.
The initial and annual cost for evaluating the feasibility of large scale habitat restoration of the island
is unknown due to project complexities. This cost will be assessed once the project is initiated.
(Linkages: Goal B, Objectives B-1-2; Goal C, E):
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Project 3. Administer oil and gas program with efforts guided to protect surface habitat and wildlife
on the refuge. All activities relating to oil and gas near the refuge should be monitored.
(Linkages: Goal C, Objective C-1, Goal E)
.
􀁹􇤠 Issue special use permits and assess mitigation for impacts to the surface of the refuge if they
cannot be avoided.
􀁹􇤠 Response to all spill event and releases are conducted immediately after located; however,
before work is performed the response/clean-up company must consult with the refuge
manager to ensure methods are approved.
􀁹􇤠 Provide guidance for wildlife-oriented protection methods, such as bird cannons, mylar
steamers, and predator eyes, during spill events.
􀁹􇤠 All transmission lines and oil and gas activities will be managed in accordance with the policy
described in Chapter II.
VISITOR SERVICES
Project 4. Provide opportunities for recreational fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography
(Linkages: Goal D, Objectives D-1-2, Goal E).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography opportunities on the refuge will be offered. Shell
Keys NWR offers limited emergent shell habitat for fishing off of and for viewing sea birds. Access to the
refuge is by boat only. Construct and place kiosks or other outreach materials at local marinas.
FUNDING AND PERSONNEL
Table 2. Summary of projects
PROJECT
NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR
COST *
RECURRING
ANNUAL COST
1 Monitor and manage other trust
resource populations
$75,000 $5,000
2 Conduct and coordinate a feasibility
study to determine if island
restoration is possible
Unknown Unknown
3 Administer oil and gas program $70,000 $70,000
4 Provide opportunities for recreational
fishing, wildlife observation, and
wildlife photography
$15,000 $10,000
* Cost estimates are rough and undocumented; funding sources would be various and not all FWS funding.
PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES
A key element of this CCP is to establish a cooperative agreement with LDWF, and partnerships
with private organizations and other 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 LDWF, Iberia Parish organizations, U.S. Customs,
and the U.S. Coast Guard.
STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS
A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the direction of the refuge. A step-down management plan
provides more specific guidance on activities, such as habitat and visitor services’ management.
Step-down plans (Table 3) are developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), which requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and
involvement prior to their implementation.
38 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Shell Keys NWR step-down management plans
Step-down Plans Completion Date
Visitor Use 2010
Law Enforcement 2014
Wildlife Inventory 2010
Habitat Management 2015
Sign 2020
Fisheries Management 2020
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 CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the
step-down management plans.
PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION
The CCP will be reviewed annually in development of refuge annual work plans and budget. It will
also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when conditions
change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a
major refuge expansion. The CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down management plans to
address the completion of specific strategies in support of goals and objectives. Revisions to the
CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance.
Appendices 39
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Glossary
Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a
framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and
assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results help
managers determine whether current management should continue as
is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions.
Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing
water.
Alternative: (1) A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated
need (40 CFR 1500.2). (2) Alternatives are different sets of objectives
and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals,
helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service
Manual 602 FW 1.6B).
Anadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to
fresh water to breed.
Beneficial Dredging Using the spoil for restoring and building elevation from dredging that
would take place regardless of the use of the spoil (see dedicated
dredging).
Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living
organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities
and ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1. 12B).
Focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological
processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity.
Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat
or area.
Categorical Exclusion
(CE,CX, CATEX,
CATX):
A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment and have been found to
have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4).
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations.
40 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other
use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional
judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment
of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the
national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 25.12 (a)). A compatibility
determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies
stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility.
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
(CCP):
A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or
planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management
direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission
of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the
ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps
achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and
meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E).
Concern: See Issue.
Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area.
Crevasse Relatively small opening or breach in levee or embankment.
Cultural Resource
Inventory:
A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate
evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic
area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background
literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all
exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample
inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area.
Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the
National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4
(Service Manual 614 FW 1.7).
Cultural Resource
Overview:
A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses,
among other things, 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.
Dedicated Dredging Dredging for the purpose of restoring and building elevation (see
Beneficial Dredging).
Appendices 41
Designated Wilderness
Area:
An area designated by the United States Congress to be managed as
part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service
Manual 610 FW 1.5).
Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be
natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight).
Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities
and their associated non-living environment.
Ecosystem
Management:
Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to
ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at
viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are
perpetuated indefinitely.
Emergent Marsh Wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants.
Endangered Species
(Federal):
A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Endangered Species
(State):
A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in
the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline
continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or
their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree.
Environmental
Assessment (EA):
A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need
for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient
evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an
environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact
(40 CFR 1508.9).
Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS):
A detailed written statement required by Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA,
analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed action, adverse
effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of
action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).
Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area
where the tide meets a river current.
Finding of No
Significant Impact
(FONSI):
A document prepared in compliance with NEPA, 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).
42 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future
conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units
(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J).
Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for
survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives.
Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired
conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems.
Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type.
Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “go along” with a course of
action that they actually oppose (Bleiker).
Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, such as an
initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the
resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence
of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K).
Management
Alternative:
See Alternative.
Management Concern: See Issue.
Management
Opportunity:
See Issue.
Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back.
Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being.
Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected
parameters over time.
National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA):
Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the
environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental
information, and use public participation in the planning and
implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA
with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA
documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making
(40 CFR 1500).
Appendices 43
National Wildlife
Refuge System
Improvement Act of
1997 (Public Law 105-
57):
Under the Improvement Act, the Service is required to develop 15-
year comprehensive conservation plans for all national wildlife
refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the six public uses
given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, 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: