Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
K
W R
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Shell Keys
National Wildlife Refuge
USFWS Photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SHELL KEYS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
June 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 7
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Shell Keys Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................... 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 11
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 11
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 11
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) ..................................................................... 13
Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem Priorities ............................................................................. 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 13
Gulf Coast Joint Venture (Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative) ......................... 14
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan .................................................................. 14
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ...................................................................... 14
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act ............................................ 14
Coast 2050 - Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana .................................................. 15
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan ....................................................... 15
Fisheries Vision for the Future .......................................................................................... 15
Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan) .................. 16
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 16
Erosion and Contamination ............................................................................................... 17
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise ................................................................................ 17
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 18
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 18
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 18
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 19
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 19
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 19
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 19
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 20
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 20
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 20
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 21
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 21
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 21
Personnel, Operations and Maintenance .......................................................................... 22
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 23
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 23
ii Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 23
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 23
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 24
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 24
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 24
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 25
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25
Alternatives For Managing Shell Keys NWR .............................................................................. 25
Vision for Shell Keys NWR ......................................................................................................... 25
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies for Shell Keys NWR ............................................................. 25
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 26
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 27
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 28
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 28
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 29
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 31
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 31
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 31
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 31
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 32
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 32
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 32
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 33
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 33
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 33
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 34
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 34
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 35
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 35
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 35
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 36
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 36
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 36
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 36
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 37
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 39
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 41
Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 41
Features Common to all Shell Keys NWR Alternatives .............................................................. 41
Description of Alternatives - Shell Keys NWR ............................................................................ 41
Alternative A: No Action (Current Management) .............................................................. 42
Alternative B: Custodial Cooperative Management ......................................................... 42
Table of Contents iii
Alternative C: Large-Scale Habitat Restoration And Cooperative Management
(Proposed Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 42
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 47
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 47
Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................................ 47
Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 47
Climate Change ................................................................................................................ 47
Other Management ........................................................................................................... 48
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 48
Refuge Revenue-Sharing .................................................................................................. 48
Other Effects ..................................................................................................................... 49
Summary of Effects by Alternative ............................................................................................. 49
Alternative A: (Current Management) .............................................................................. 49
Alternative B: (Custodial Cooperative Management) ....................................................... 49
Alternative C: (Large-Scale Habitat Restoration And Cooperative Management)
(Proposed Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 50
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 50
Wildlife Disturbance .......................................................................................................... 50
Water quality ..................................................................................................................... 50
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 51
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ......................................................................................... 51
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 51
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 57
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 59
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ........................................................ 69
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ................................. 73
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................ 87
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX E. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................ 89
APPENDIX F. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS .................................... 95
APPENDIX G. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................. 99
APPENDIX H. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 101
APPENDIX I. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 103
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 ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge .................... 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Population and industry statistics of Iberia Parish ................................................................ 21
Table 2. Summary of Projects ............................................................................................................ 33
Table 3. Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge Step-down Management Plans ................................... 34
Table 4. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Shell Keys NWR ............................ 43
Table 5. Summary of environmental effects by alternative ................................................................. 52
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) was
prepared to guide the management actions and direction of Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
(Shell Keys NWR). 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. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and
their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state and federal
government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment.
Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System mission; 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
2 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
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.
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.
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 National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the refuge system;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. 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
(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).
4 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 National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by
the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and management of the 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 National Wildlife 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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
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 Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA 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.
6 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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
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 Refuge, which is managed by the LDWF.
The state��s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of Louisiana. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
8 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
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 the
State of 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 National Wildlife 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.
10 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge and the Southwest Louisiana
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
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
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, south of LDWF, Marsh Island 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
There are no special designations on Shell Keys NWR.
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.
12 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
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 Draft CCP/EA will consider and promote when establishing
refuge goals and objectives 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 PRIORITIES
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 nongovernmental 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 Draft CCP/EA 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
14 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 migration 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
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
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.
16 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
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 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 adjacent Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including soil erosion
caused by wave action and contamination resulting from barge accidents.
􀁹􇤠 Problems associated with sea level rise and climate change.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
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.
18 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
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).
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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
The northern Gulf of Mexico extends from Alabama 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
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
20 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
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.
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
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
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.
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 each
refuge in the Complex. Law enforcement issues involve oil and gas concerns, commercial fishing,
and oyster shell dredging.
22 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
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 four 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 nongovernmental organizations and private
citizens to accomplish goals and objectives specific to those efforts.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
III. Plan Development
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered
species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through 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 this planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing
opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best
professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A summary of the significant issues for
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 Service (USGS), LDWF, and
others to determine restoration options and the sustainability of restoration efforts.
24 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.
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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
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 Draft CCP/EA.
Described below is the proposed comprehensive conservation plan for managing the refuge over the
next 15 years. This proposed 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 proposed alternative. Each alternative is described in Section B.
A - No Action (Current Management)
B - Custodial Cooperative Management
C - Large-scale Habitat Restoration and Cooperative Management (Proposed)
Implementing the proposed alternative would 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 would open the refuge to
the public uses of fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Public outreach would
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 would 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 would emphasize fishing,
wildlife observation, and wildlife photography; outreach would 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.
26 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 National Wildlife 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 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 Refuge, developing a Memorandum
of Understanding with LDWF would assist Shell Keys NWR in biological monitoring, 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 would benefit both agencies and the resource.
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.
Objective A-2. Working with academia, LDWF, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
initiate study to determine value of refuge to oyster resource and provide recommendations.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Strategies:
􀁹􇤠 Utilize grants and other funding sources to initiate oyster resource survey in partnership with
others.
􀁹􇤠 Determine feasibility of restoring island with oyster resource.
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:
􀁹􇤠 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 with seeking 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.
􀁹􇤠 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.
􀁹􇤠 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
increase fish utilization. Designs should include access routes and containment dikes that
avoid or minimize disturbances or impacts to the large oyster reef.
􀁹􇤠 Participate in landscape level coastal initiatives such as CWPPRA, LCA, CIAP, and Coast
2050 as appropriate.
28 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Goal C. Through the use of partnerships manage natural 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.
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, would 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.
Objective D-1: Open 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 would
allow the public to appreciate the value of the refuge as long as nesting areas are protected, should
this activity 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 approval.
􀁹􇤠 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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
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 including 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.
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:
􀁹􇤠 Update Law Enforcement Plan by 2012.
􀁹􇤠 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.
30 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
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 Draft CCP/EA for Shell
Keys NWR, this section identifies specific projects, funding and personnel needs, partnership
opportunities, and required step-down management plans.
This Draft CCP/EA 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. Working with LDWF, 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.
32 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 of $5,000.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Project 2. Conduct and coordinate a feasibility study to determine if island restoration is possible.
Refuge staff will:
􀁹􇤠 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.
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.
􀁹􇤠 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.
VISITOR SERVICES
Project 4. Provide opportunities for recreational fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife
photography.
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.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
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 Draft CCP/EA 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.
34 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge Step-down Management Plans
Step-down Plans Completion Date
Visitor Use 2010
Law Enforcement 2010
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.
Environmental Assessment 35
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for Shell Keys
NWR in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. This EA is part of the comprehensive conservation planning process
for Shell Keys NWR. The Improvement Act requires the development of comprehensive conservation
plans for all refuges. Following a public review and comment period on the Draft CCP/EA, a final decision
will be made by the Fish and Wildlife Service that will guide Shell Keys NWR management actions and
decisions over the next 15 years, provide understanding about the refuge and its management activities,
and incorporate information and suggestions from the public and refuge partners.
The Draft CCP/EA proposes a management direction for the refuge, which is described in detail through a
set of goals, objectives, and strategies. The Draft CCP/EA addresses current management issues, provides
long-term management direction and guidance for the refuge, and satisfies the legislative mandates of the
Improvement Act. While the Draft CCP/EA provides general management direction, subsequent step-down
plans will provide more detailed management direction and actions.
The EA determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management alternatives. The intent is to
support informed decision-making regarding future management of the refuge. Each alternative
presented in this EA was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a Final CCP. The
predicted biological, physical, social, and economical impacts of implementing each alternative are
analyzed in this EA. This analysis assists the Service in determining if the alternatives represent no
significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact, or if the
alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed analysis through an Environmental
Impact Statement and a Record of Decision. Following public review and comment, the Service will
select alternatives to be fully developed for Shell Keys NWR.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The purpose of the CCP and EA is to establish and implement management directions for Shell Keys
NWR for the next 15 years.
The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the
refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for the refuge.
The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency
managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified a range
of alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected Alternative C,
Large-scale Habitat Restoration and Cooperative Management Approach, as the proposed management
action on Shell Keys NWR. In the opinion of the Service and the planning team, Alternative C is the best
approach to guide the refuge’s direction.
There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management of
the refuge, thus necessitating the need for the CCP. The Improvement Act requires that all national
wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years.
36 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
DECISION FRAMEWORK
Based on the assessment described in this document, the Service will select an alternative to
implement the CCP for Shell Keys NWR. The Final CCP will include a Finding of No Significant
Impact, which is a statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. This determination is based on an evaluation of the Service
and Refuge System mission, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established, and other legal
mandates. Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of the CCP will begin and will be
monitored annually and revised when necessary.
PLANNING STUDY AREA
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 consists of an island
near the Louisiana Gulf coast, in Iberia Parish, Louisiana (Figure1).
AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY
The Service developed this Draft CCP/EA in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, and Part 602 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The actions
described within this Draft CCP/EA also meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). The refuge staff achieved compliance with NEPA through the involvement of
the public and the development of this EA, with a description of the alternatives considered and an
analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives. When fully implemented, the CCP
will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Shell Keys NWR.
The CCP’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established.
The laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state the purposes. Fish
and wildlife resources are the first priorities in refuge management, and the Service allows and
encourages public use (i.e., wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or does
not detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes.
COMPATIBILITY
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from
incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands
and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be
found to be appropriate and compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or
detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In
addition, “wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are
compatible and not inconsistent with public safety.”
An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity
during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term
management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim
compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the Refuge System, as listed in
the Improvement Act. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
Environmental Assessment 37
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a
crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft CCP/EA for Shell Keys NWR. This Draft
CCP/EA has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation
organizations, and employees of local and state agencies. The participation of these stakeholders
and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management direction for Shell Keys NWR.
The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has
contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the
passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge.
The planning process for Shell Keys NWR began with the publication of the notice of intent in the Federal
Register on June 27, 2007 (72 FR 32255). The public was notified via local newspapers and other media
of an open house meeting held on July 11, 2007, at the Central School in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Approximately 11 members of the public attended the open house and scoping meeting. In addition,
information packets, including a letter of notice and invitation to attend, a public input questionnaire, and a
mailing list request form were mailed to approximately 90 different federal, state, non-governmental
agencies, state and federal congressional offices, and private individuals. Seven individuals provided
comments at the scoping meeting; no other comments were received.
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the planning process. Many
issues that are very important to the public often fall outside the scope of the decisions to be made in
this planning process. In some instances, the Service cannot resolve issues some people have
communicated to us. We have considered all issues throughout our planning process, and have
developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues.
A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in Appendix D.
38 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Environmental Assessment 39
II. Affected Environment
For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview.
40 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Environmental Assessment 41
III. Description of Alternatives
FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies
designed to achieve the refuge's purpose and vision and the goals identified in the Draft CCP/EA; the
priorities and goals of the Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystem Team; the goals of the Refuge System;
and the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the significant
issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the public during public scoping.
The three alternatives identified and evaluated for the refuge represent different approaches to
provide permanent protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants,
habitats, and other resources, as well as compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge staff
assessed the biological conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting the refuge. This
information contributed to the development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the
alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents different sets of objectives for reaching refuge
goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on how much progress it would make and how it would
address the identified issues related to fish and wildlife populations, habitat management, resource
protection, visitor services, and refuge administration. A summary of the alternatives for Shell Keys
NWR is located in Table 4.
FEATURES COMMON TO ALL SHELL KEYS NWR ALTERNATIVES
Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These
common features are summarized to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative
descriptions. Shell Keys NWR has existed for more than 100 years and has well-established
programs that will remain in effect under each alternative. The same Service policies will remain in
effect regarding oil and gas activities under each alternative. Certain federally mandated
responsibilities, such as protection of colonial nesting birds, threatened and endangered species,
migratory birds, archaeological and historical resources, and the payment of revenue sharing in lieu
of taxes, will be accomplished under each alternative.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES - SHELL KEYS NWR
Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to
help achieve the refuge’s purposes and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired
conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into three
alternatives for Shell Keys NWR. These alternatives represent different management approaches for
managing the refuge over a 15-year time frame while still meeting the refuge’s purposes and goals.
The three alternatives are summarized below. A comparison of the alternatives in table form follows
the general description (Table 3).
Alternative A - No Action (Current Management)
Alternative B - Custodial Cooperative Management
Alternative C - Large-Scale Habitat Restoration and Cooperative Management
42 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT)
This is the “status quo” alternative in which current habitat, wildlife, and public use management
would continue with no changes. 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 LDWF.
ALTERNATIVE B: CUSTODIAL COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
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 continue to erode and fail to rebuild, areas
available to birds may diminish. With the land area diminishing, the island would continue to support
a declining number of colonial nesting birds. Working with LDWF, routine and additional patrols in
coordination with refuge law enforcement officers would be provided. Through the Southwest
Louisiana NWR Complex, interpretation would concentrate on the history of the formation and
subsequent changes and erosion of the shell key shoal/island and reef complex habitat. Alternative
B would open the refuge for public use by offering limited fishing and wildlife observation and
photography.
ALTERNATIVE C: LARGE-SCALE HABITAT RESTORATION AND COOPERATIVE
MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE)
Alternative C, the Service’s proposed alternative for Shell Keys NWR, would explore implementing
large-scale 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 would be open to
recreational fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Because the refuge is remote and
few guests actually visit the islands, outreach would center around providing information in combination
with the Refuge Complex and on Internet web pages.
Environmental Assessment 43
Table 4. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Shell Keys NWR
Alternative A
(Current Management –
No Action)
Alternative B (Custodial
Cooperative Management)
Alternative C
(Large-scale Restoration and
Cooperative Management)
(Proposed)
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.
Colonial Nesting
Seabirds
Record sightings and
nesting activity
opportunistically. Annual
site visit followed by a trip
report and opportunistic
over-flights in the winter.
Same as Alternative A.
Develop cooperative natural
resource agreement with LDWF to
monitor colonial nesting seabirds.
Stop-over Migratory
Birds
Record sightings
opportunistically. Annual
site visit followed by a trip
report and opportunistic
over-flights in the winter.
Same as Alternative A.
Develop cooperative natural
resource agreement with LDWF to
monitor stop-over migratory birds.
Threatened and
Endangered Species:
Piping Plover and
Brown Pelican
Record sightings
opportunistically. Annual
site visit followed by a trip
report and opportunistic
over-flights in the winter.
Same as Alternative A.
Develop cooperative natural
resource agreement with LDWF to
monitor federally listed threatened
and endangered species that
utilize Shell Keys NWR.
Oysters No surveys or studies being
conducted. Same as Alternative A.
Working with academia, LDWF,
and NMFS, initiate study to
determine value of refuge to
oyster resource and provide
recommendations.
44 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A
(Current Management –
No Action)
Alternative B (Custodial
Cooperative Management)
Alternative C
(Large-scale Restoration and
Cooperative Management)
(Proposed)
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.
Shell Island
Monitor existing habitat and
changes over time; perform
no active restoration on the
islands.
Same as Alternative A.
In partnership with LDWF, COE,
and others, conduct feasibility
study to restore the entire island to
provide increased nesting habitat
for colonial nesting birds as based
on historic information.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Goal C. Through the use of partnerships, manage natural resources and petroleum infrastructure and activities to protect
habitat and migratory and nesting birds.
Oil and Gas Activity
Mineral Leases
Work with the LDWF and other
partners to monitor oil and gas
activity in the area.
Same as Alternative A.
Same as Alternative A.
Cultural Resources Maintain current information
on historic use of islands.
Work with State Historic
Preservation Office to
determine if any cultural or
historic resources exist on the
island.
Same as Alternative B.
Environmental Assessment 45
Alternative A
(Current Management –
No Action)
Alternative B (Custodial
Cooperative Management)
Alternative C
(Large-scale Restoration and
Cooperative Management)
(Proposed)
VISITOR SERVICES
Goal D. Provide as appropriate, limited public wildlife-dependent recreational activities, such as fishing, wildlife
observation, and wildlife photography.
Fishing, Wildlife
Observation, and
Wildlife Photography
Refuge is currently closed
to all public use.
Open refuge to limited fishing,
wildlife observation, and wildlife
photography.
Open limited visitor services and
programs of fishing, wildlife
observation, and photography
except in certain portions identified
with “Area Closed” signs to protect
bird nesting areas as appropriate.
Environmental
Education and
Interpretation
Maintain limited information
on the Refuge web site and
Southwest LA NWRC
Headquarters Office.
Improve the quality and quantity of
information about Shell Keys NWR
offered to the public.
Improve the quality and quantity of
information about Shell Keys NWR
offered to the public.
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.
Complex Support
Employees with complex-wide
responsibilities
support the refuge.
Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.
Management
Partnership
Maintain cooperative law
enforcement agreement
with LDWF.
Same as Alternative A.
Same as Alternative A, plus
develop Memorandum of
Understanding with the LDWF to
protect natural resources.
46 Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Environmental Assessment 47
IV. Environmental Consequences
OVERVIEW
This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can be
reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the six alternatives described in Chapter III of
this EA. For each alternative, the expected outcomes would be portrayed throughout the 15-year life
of the CCP.
EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
A few potential effects would be the same under each alternative and are summarized under six
categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, cultural resources, refuge
revenue-sharing, and other effects.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus
federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income
populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The order
directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and
addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The order was also
intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and
the environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public
information and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment.
None of the management alternatives described in this EA would disproportionately place any
adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority and low-income populations.
Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and environmental education is
anticipated to provide a benefit to the resid