U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DELTA AND BRETON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana

Southeast Region

Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat Management Plan

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region

August 2013

Table Of Contents

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN

I. Introduction ...... 1 Scope and Rationale ...... 3 Legal Mandates ...... 5 Relationship To Other Plans ...... 5 International, National, and Regional Plans...... 6 Local and State Plans ...... 8 II. Environmental Setting and Background ...... 11 Location ...... 11 Habitat Types and Descriptions ...... 11 Delta NWR ...... 11 Breton NWR ...... 11 Physical and Geographic Setting ...... 25 Climate ...... 25 Air Quality ...... 27 Geomorphology and Topography ...... 27 Hydrology...... 28 Soils ...... 28 Subsidence and Sea Level Rise ...... 30 Flyways ...... 31 History of Refuge Lands ...... 33 Historic Habitat Conditions ...... 33 Prehistoric Habitat Conditions ...... 34 Current Habitat Conditions ...... 34 Changes in Habitat Conditions ...... 34 III. Resources of Concern ...... 36 Identification of Resources of Concern ...... 36 Descriptions of Resources of Concern...... 37 Waterfowl ...... 37 Shorebirds ...... 39 Secretive marsh birds ...... 41 Colonial breeding wading birds ...... 43

Table of Contents i

Brown pelicans ...... 44 Gulls and terns ...... 46 Habitat Requirements of Resources of Concern ...... 49 Waterfowl ...... 49 Shorebirds ...... 51 Secretive marsh birds ...... 52 Colonial breeding wading birds ...... 56 Brown Pelican ...... 56 Gulls and Terns...... 57 Refuge Contribution to Habitat Needs of Resources of Concern ...... 58 IV. Habitat Management Goals and Objectives ...... 60 A. Delta NWR Habitat Management: Emergent Marsh ...... 61 Objective A-1: Emergent Marsh Protection ...... 61 Objective A-2: Emergent Marsh Restoration ...... 62 Objective A-3: Emergent Marsh Management ...... 62 B. Breton NWR Habitat Restoration: Barrier Island Habitat ...... 63 Objective B-1: Island Restoration ...... 63 Objective B-2: Dune Restoration ...... 64 C. Breton NWR Wilderness ...... 65 Objective C-1: Wilderness Protection ...... 66 V. Habitat Management Strategies ...... 68 Emergent Marsh Protection Strategies for Delta NWR ...... 68 Potential Strategies ...... 68 Strategy Prescription ...... 68 Emergent Marsh Restoration Strategies for Delta NWR ...... 68 Potential Strategies ...... 68 Strategy Prescription ...... 69 Research Strategies ...... 69 Potential Strategies ...... 69 Strategy Prescription ...... 69 Island Restoration (Breton NWR) ...... 69 Potential Strategies ...... 69 Strategy Prescription ...... 70 Dune Restoration Strategy (Breton NWR) ...... 70

ii Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Potential Strategies ...... 70 Strategy Prescription ...... 71 Wilderness Protection Strategy (Breton NWR) ...... 71 Potential Strategies ...... 71 Strategy Prescription ...... 73 Partnership Strategies ...... 73 Potential Strategies ...... 73 Strategy Prescription ...... 73 Monitoring Strategies ...... 74 Potential Strategies ...... 74 Management Strategy Prescription ...... 74 Undesirable Species Management Strategies ...... 74 Potential Strategies ...... 75 Management Strategy Prescription ...... 75 Inviolate Sanctuary Strategies ...... 76 Potential Strategies ...... 76 Strategy Prescription ...... 76

Appendices

Appendix A: Literature Cited ...... 77 Appendix B: Authors and Contributors ...... 86 Appendix C: Refuge Biota ...... 87 Appendix D: Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 90 Appendix E: Climate Change Impacts ...... 91 Appendix F: Oil and Gas Activities ...... 93 Appendix G: Soil Mapping Units ...... 95 Appendix H: Environmental Action Statement ...... 99

Table of Contents iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Delta and Breton NWRs ...... 2 Figure 2. Management units, Delta NWR ...... 12 Figure 3. Management Units, Breton NWR ...... 13 Figure 4. Mean temperature, degrees Fahrenheit, with average daily minima and maxima, by month at Boothville, LA, 1971-2000 ...... 26 Figure 5. Monthly average precipitation, inches, 1971-2000, at Boothville, LA ...... 26 Figure 6. Mississippi Flyway ...... 32 Figure 7. Historical location and extent of barrier islands which compose Breton NWR (Lee et al. 2006) ...... 35 Figure 8. Nest counts for brown pelicans on Breton NWR from 1992 to 2012 ...... 46 Figure 9. Nest counts for Sandwich terns on Breton NWR from 1992 to 2012 ...... 48 Figure 10. Nest counts for royal terns on Breton NWR from 1992 to 2012 ...... 48 Figure 11. Nest counts for black skimmers on Breton NWR from 1992 to 2012 ...... 49 Figure 12. Sand berm constructed during 2010-11 on the Chandeleur Islands. (Photo: USFWS) ...... 70 Figure F-1. Oil and gas facilities on Delta NWR ...... 94 Figure G-1. Soil mapping units on Delta NWR ...... 95 Figure G-2. Soil mapping units on southern Breton NWR ...... 96 Figure G-3. Soil mapping units on central Breton NWR ...... 97 Figure G-4. Soil mapping units on northern Breton NWR ...... 98

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Habitat types, condition, and treatment history for Delta NWR ...... 14 Table 2. Habitat types, condition, and community descriptions for Breton NWR ...... 20 Table 3. Classification and characteristics of soil series found on Delta and Breton NWRs ...... 28 Table 4. Resources of concern for Delta and Breton NWRs ...... 36 Table 5. Seasonal occurrence and abundance of shorebird species in the Gulf Coastal Prairies Planning Region (taken from Elliott and McKnight 2000) ...... 39 Table 6. Secretive marsh birds of concern on Delta NWR ...... 41 Table 7. Colonial waterbird species known to utilize habitats on Delta and Breton NWRs, and their conservation status ...... 43 Table 8. Gulls, terns, and allies which use habitats on Breton or Delta NWRs, and their conservation status ...... 46 Table 9. Maritime habitat use by shorebirds in the Gulf Coast Prairie planning region (taken from Elliott and McKnight 2000) ...... 51 Table 10. Specific habitat requirements of eight secretive marsh bird species which breed or winter on Delta NWR ...... 53 Table 11. Potential refuge contributions to the habitat needs identified for refuge resources of concern on Delta and Breton NWRs ...... 59

RECOMMENDED CITATION

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 116 pp.

iv Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

I. Introduction

For more than 100 years, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has practiced land stewardship with the aim of protecting habitat and its associated wildlife for the benefit of the American people. Since the establishment of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in 1903, refuge employees have developed and refined the latest tools for wildlife conservation. Refuges have earned a reputation for being premier sites for the refinement of habitat management techniques.

Generally, wildlife and habitats are actively managed for particular objectives. This management has a sound scientific basis and is the practical application of the science of ecology. As the discipline of wildlife management evolved, largely through the efforts of Aldo Leopold with his publication of Game Management in 1933, it was recognized that a greater emphasis needed to be placed on making decisions that are based on the best science of the day, while retaining some of the artful intuition that comes from years of field experience. Sound wildlife management will always involve the skillful integration of science and art in disciplines as diverse as biology and sociology.

Habitat includes all of the natural components of an ecosystem that are essential for survival, including food, cover, and water. The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is to guide the refuge staff in their efforts to manage habitats to best meet the needs of the refuge’s biota.

Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges are managed as part of the Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which also includes Bogue Chitto, Big Branch Marsh, Bayou Sauvage, Atchafalaya, Mandalay, and Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuges. Delta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located on the east bank of the Mississippi River about 70 miles southeast of New Orleans in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (Figure 1). Breton National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) consists of a group of islands lying to the north of Delta NWR and southeast to east of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana (Figure 1). Together, these two refuges encompass a variety of habitats from freshwater marsh to sandy beach and marine environments. They lie at the southern terminus of the Mississippi Flyway and provide important breeding, stopover, wintering, and year-round habitat for a variety of birds and other species of conservation concern.

This HMP is a step-down management plan of the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 2008). The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) describes the desired future conditions of the refuges and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the refuge purposes. The CCP ensures that each refuge contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). The mission of the Refuge System is to provide a network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Global climate change is being addressed at all levels within the Service, including through the implementation of HMPs. Management actions included in this HMP will address predicted effects from climate change while retaining the flexibility necessary to respond to unanticipated

Habitat Management Plan 1

Figure 1. Location of Delta and Breton NWRs

2 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

changes. Climate-related variables, including frequency and severity of tropical storms, air and sea temperature, amount and annual distribution of precipitation, and timing and severity of freezes, can be expected to significantly impact habitats, and therefore habitat management, over time. Sea-level rise will pose existential threats to coastal refuges; projected increases in sea level of 1 to 2 meters within the next 90 years will inundate most of Delta and Breton NWRs. Natural resource managers must be prepared to respond to these changes and to fulfill the purposes for which the refuges within the Refuge System have been established.

There is some evidence that hurricane intensity and perhaps frequency have increased over the past 30 years, and that this trend may be due to observed increases in sea surface temperatures (Webster et al. 2005). Certainly the rate of erosion loss on Delta and Breton NWRs has been greatly accelerated by recent storms, most notably Katrina in 2005. On Delta NWR, large areas in the eastern portion of the refuge were converted overnight from marsh to open water, while Breton NWR lost more than 70 percent of its land area to the storm (USFWS 2008).

SCOPE AND RATIONALE

HMPs are dynamic working documents that provide refuge managers with a decision- making tool; guidance for the management of refuge habitat; and long-term vision, continuity, and consistency for habitat management on refuge lands. Each HMP incorporates the role of refuge habitat in international, national, regional, tribal, state, ecosystem, and refuge goals and objectives; guides analysis and selection of specific habitat management strategies to achieve those habitat goals and objectives; and utilizes key data, scientific literature, expert opinion, and staff expertise.

The purposes for which Delta NWR was established in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt are set forth in the CCP (USFWS 2008) are:

Executive Order 7229, dated November 19, 1935 – “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Executive Order 7383, dated June 5, 1936 – “as a migratory waterfowl refuge, is subject to the use…for quarantine purposes;”

Executive Order 7538, dated January 19, 1937 – “for waterfowl refuge purposes, is subject to use…with the improvement of navigation in the Mississippi River and the uses thereof, and the administration of the area for wildlife conservation purposes by the Department of Agriculture (now Interior) shall be without interference with any existing or future uses or regulations of the War Department (now Army Corps of Engineers).”

Migratory Bird Conservation Act – “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” 16 U.S.C.

Breton NWR was established in 1904 as a bird reservation by President Theodore Roosevelt, and exists for the following purposes (USFWS 2008):

Executive Order 7983, dated October 4, 1938 – “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds, and other wildlife; Provided, that nothing herein shall affect the recovery of the oil and gas deposits from any of the island areas under the mineral leasing act….or the necessary operations pertaining to such recovery.”

Habitat Management Plan 3

Public Law 93-632, dated January 3, 1975 [which designated all of the federally owned lands in Breton NWR, with the exception of North Breton Island, as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System called “Breton Wilderness”] “to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness… wilderness areas ... shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness” 16 U.S.C. 1131 (Wilderness Act of 1964).

In addition to the specific purposes that were established for each refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) provides clear guidance for the mission of the Refuge System and priority wildlife-dependent public uses. The Improvement Act states that each refuge will:

• 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.

The CCP (USFWS 2008) also lists vision statements for each refuge:

“Delta NWR will continue to serve as a haven of prime habitat managed for the conservation of migratory birds and other wildlife. The refuge will serve as a showcase of land management stewardship and coastal habitat restoration, demonstrating a balance between intensive wildlife management strategies and safeguarding the refuge’s ecological integrity. Visitors to the refuge will enjoy a quality outdoor experience centered on the traditional uses of hunting and fishing, while cultivating a conservation ethic that promotes stewardship of this and other important wildlife habitat.”

“Breton NWR was the second national wildlife refuge established by President Roosevelt and the only refuge that he actually visited. It will continue to serve the purpose for which it was established, which is to provide habitat for the conservation of colonial nesting seabirds and other wildlife. The wilderness character of the refuge will be maintained. The refuge will partner with other agencies, organizations, and individuals to protect and restore the fragile and dynamic coastal barrier island habitat. Public use activities will emphasize fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography; outreach will focus on environmental education and interpretation; environmental education programs will be based on the refuge’s natural resources. Visitors to the refuge will enjoy a quality outdoor experience resulting in an enhanced appreciation for wildlife and their habitats and for the Refuge System.”

4 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

LEGAL MANDATES

Legal mandates for establishment and operation of national wildlife refuges are discussed in detail in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 2008). A synopsis is included here for the convenience of the reader. The statutory authority for habitat management planning on refuges is derived from the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), 16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee. Section 4(a)(3) of the Improvement Act states: "With respect to the System, it is the policy of the United States that each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established" and Section 4(a)(4) states: "In administering the System, the Secretary shall monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge." The Improvement Act provides the Service the authority to establish policies, regulations, and guidelines governing habitat management planning within the Refuge System.

A number of other federal laws regulate the establishment and management of Delta and Breton NWRs. Some of the most relevant are: Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982; Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990; Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929; Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended; Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989; and Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended. These and others are discussed in Appendix C of the CCP.

Habitat management plans comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing the management of the Refuge System. The Service’s authority for refuge planning and management is laid out in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, specifically 601 3(D2G), which states: “The Service, through the comprehensive conservation planning process, interim management planning, or compatibility reviews, determines the appropriate management direction to maintain and, where appropriate, restore, biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, while achieving refuge purpose(s).” The lifespan of an HMP is 15 years and parallels that of refuge CCPs. HMPs are reviewed every 5 years, utilizing peer review recommendations, as appropriate, in the HMP revision process or when initiating refuge CCPs.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS

In addition to the legal and policy mandates, management on Delta and Breton NWRs is influenced by a number of plans, including recovery plans, refuge plans, and state, regional, national, and international conservation plans. Most of these plans are consistent with refuge purposes and mandates, but, since different agencies have varying missions, occasionally conflicts will arise. When this occurs, the refuge will recognize the differences and take measures to address the other agency’s concerns, where possible. However, the refuge will continue to manage with the mission, goals, objectives, and purposes of the refuge taking precedence.

Habitat Management Plan 5

INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, AND REGIONAL PLANS

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) aims to ensure that populations and habitats of North America's birds are protected, restored, and enhanced through coordinated efforts at international, national, regional, and local levels guided by sound science and effective management. It is designed to increase the effectiveness of existing and new initiatives through effective coordination, building on existing regional partnerships, and fostering greater cooperation among the nations and the peoples of the continent.

The NABCI Committee is a forum of government agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives helping partners across the continent meet their common bird conservation objectives. The committee's strategy is to foster coordination and collaboration on key issues of concern, including coordinated bird monitoring, conservation design, private land conservation, international conservation, and institutional support in state and federal agencies for integrated bird conservation. Four taxonomically delineated bird conservation planning initiatives fall under the auspices of NABCI: the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan, the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas - the North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan. Each of these initiatives, in turn, has regional planning efforts which focus in more detail on individual Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs; NABCI no date) or groups of BCRs. Delta and Breton NWRs contribute to the goals of each of the relevant regional plans and of the NABCI by participating in the Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) and by contributing directly to bird conservation through the actions detailed in this HMP.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP 2004) was signed by the United States and Canadian governments in 1986 and undertook an intensive effort to protect and restore North America’s waterfowl populations and their habitats. With its update in 1994, Mexico became a signatory to the plan. The plan’s main focus is restoration of wetlands and associated ecosystems in order to restore waterfowl populations to levels observed in the 1970s.

Regional partnerships called Joint Ventures composed of individuals, sportsmen’s groups, conservation organizations, and local, state, provincial, and federal governments were formed under the NAWMP. One such partnership, the GCJV, formed to conserve priority waterfowl habitat range along the western Gulf Coast of the United States, one of the most important waterfowl areas in North America. The Gulf Coast is the terminus of the Central and Mississippi Flyways, which provides both wintering and migrating habitat for significant numbers of the continental goose and duck populations. The GCJV’s greatest contribution to the NAWMP is to provide wintering grounds for waterfowl. A great diversity of birds, mammals, fish, shellfish, reptiles, and amphibians also relies on the wetlands of the Gulf Coast for part or all of its life cycles. Joint ventures have agreed to work in an integrated fashion to implement all of the relevant taxonomic bird conservation plans within their geographic areas (NABCI no date).

The GCJV is divided geographically into six initiative areas, one of which is the Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative Area (MRCWIA) of southeastern Louisiana. The goal of the MRCWI (Wilson et al. 2002) 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 the mottled duck.”

6 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Delta NWR will contribute to the goals of the NAWMP, GCJV, and MRCWIA by providing freshwater marsh (about 60 percent of the refuge’s 48,799 acres) and brackish marsh (most of the balance) to sustain wintering geese, notably snow geese (Chen caerulescens), and ducks, the most numerous species of which is northern pintail (Anas acuta). About 65 percent of Delta NWR is inviolate sanctuary, which provides waterfowl with important escape and resting habitat during the winter. Mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) are also a focus of the GCJV (Wilson 2007). Delta NWR is an important year-round stronghold for this species. Critical needs identified in the MRCWIA implementation plan are to protect and restore coastal marshes. Most active management of Delta NWR is focused on this goal, and projects proposed for Breton NWR will result in protection and restoration of marsh habitat. Breton NWR will also contribute to the goals of NAWMP, by providing protection for sea grass beds on the western side of the islands, used by several species of ducks, but most notably redheads (Aythia americana). Redheads in southeastern Louisiana are almost completely dependent on beds of shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii) in Chandeleur Sound for winter food (Wilson et al. 2002). Protecting and restoring the islands will ensure the continued existence of this valuable habitat resource.

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) was developed by Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, a group of individuals and organizations having interest and responsibility for conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas. Delta and Breton NWRs are located in the Southeast U.S. Regional Waterbird Conservation Planning Area. A regional plan has been developed for the southeastern United States (Hunter et al. 2006). Management at both refuges is focused on a major goal of the continental plan, which is to “protect, restore, and manage sufficient high-quality habitat and key sites for waterbirds throughout the year to meet species and population goals.” In addition, specific recommendations in the regional plan (Hunter et al. 2006) include monitoring of waterbird populations, restoring of marsh habitat using dredge material, and protecting and restoring beach habitat. All of these actions are included as strategies for one or both refuges in this HMP.

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001) is the product of a partnership involving organizations throughout the United States committed to the conservation of shorebirds. Delta and Breton NWRs are located within the Lower Mississippi, Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region, for which a regional plan has been developed (Elliott and McKnight 2000). This plan divides the Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region into subregions. Delta and Breton NWRs fall within the Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands subregion, and are listed in the plan as important shorebird habitat. The Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast plan calls for restoration and protection of barrier islands which serve as habitat for shorebirds. Strategies described in this HMP for Breton NWR include restoring and protecting barrier island habitat on Breton and the Chandeleur Islands. Additionally, maintaining and restoring mud flat habitat on Delta NWR will also contribute to the goals of the Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast shorebird conservation plan by providing undisturbed foraging and roosting, non-beach habitat.

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation led efforts in the 1990s to form the Partners in Flight program, to combine resources and knowledge of many people to coordinate and plan landbird conservation in North America. Out of this effort came the Partners in Flight North American

Habitat Management Plan 7

Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004), and a series of regional plans focused on BCRs, including the Gulf Coastal Prairie region (Vermillion et al. 2008), which includes Delta and Breton NWRs. Due to their geographic position, Delta and Breton NWRs serve as stopover habitat for trans-Gulf migrating neotropical songbirds. Additionally, Delta NWR provides foraging habitat for several raptor species, including osprey, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, vultures, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and peregrine falcon .

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)

In 1990, Congress passed the CWPPRA that generates $50 to $60 million annually for Louisiana coastal wetland projects via a 85/15 federal-state cost-share, and which provided for the development of the comprehensive 1993 Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan. Funding of proposed restoration projects is determined by the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands and 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 what restoration actions and projects 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.

LOCAL AND STATE PLANS

Coast 2050: Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana

Coast 2050 is a comprehensive, ecosystem-based plan developed to address coastal wetland loss throughout southern Louisiana by private citizens, local, state and federal agencies, and the scientific community. This plan, which is recognized by the State of Louisiana, five federal agencies, and local coastal parish governments, served as the joint coastal restoration plan for CWPPRA until 2012, when it was replaced with the “Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast.” The goals of the plan are to assure vertical accumulation (i.e., soil, vegetation and other organic material) to achieve sustainability, maintain estuarine gradient to achieve diversity, and to maintain exchange and interface to achieve system linkages. Delta and Breton NWRs are included in Region 2 of this plan.

Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Plan (LCA)

The LCA 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, designed to identify critical ecological needs, identify restoration efforts, establish restoration priorities, and identify scientific uncertainties to present a strategy for addressing long-term needs of coastal Louisiana restoration. The restoration plans identified in LCA relate directly and indirectly to the refuges through long-term efforts to explore large-scale restoration projects that will influence the entire coastal zone of Louisiana.

Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast (MP)

The state’s MP was approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor in 2012. The MP lays out the state’s vision for coastal restoration and a blueprint of projects to accomplish this vision. Since its approval, the state has determined that all work within the coastal zone and all projects and expenditures must be consistent with the MP and the projects contained

8 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

therein. This includes all CWPPRA funding and other funding sources where the state is a cost- share participant or a potential beneficiary of such funding. The areas of the state encompassing both Delta and Breton NWRs are excluded from the MP. Therefore, as of this writing (July 2013), the state will no longer cost-share and will not approve any projects on these two refuges that utilize funds that the state determines may be used to support the objectives and projects of the MP.

Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife Action Plan)

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries produced the Wildlife Action Plan in 2005 (Lester et al. 2005). This plan details the conservation needs and strategies for aquatic and terrestrial systems across the state, and lists a number of high-priority actions for imperiled species and systems. In the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes ecoregion, salt marsh, brackish marsh, intermediate marsh, freshwater marsh, barrier islands, coastal dune grassland/shrub thicket, and coastal mangrove-marsh shrubland are all listed as high priorities for conservation action, because of the severe threats they face. Strategies described in Lester et al. (2005) to which management actions detailed in this HMP will contribute include:

• Salt Marsh o Terns . “develop partnerships to strengthen the protection and restoration of barrier islands” o Shorebirds, Wading Birds . “continue to protect and restore coastal marshes”

• Brackish Marsh o Waterbirds . “continue to conduct rookery surveys to update the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program database information” o Waterfowl . “continue to encourage the creation/enhancement/maintenance of high-quality habitat across Louisiana” . “work with DU, DW, and the Service to assure that quality habitat, including refuge from hunting and other disturbance, is distributed across the landscape” o Habitat Conservation Strategies . “work with LCA and CWPPRA to support coastal restoration projects, specifically targeting important waterbird nesting areas and species of conservation concern”

• Intermediate Marsh o Shorebirds, Wading Birds . “continue to protect and restore coastal marshes” o Waterfowl . work with DU, DW, and the Service to assure that quality habitat, including refuge from hunting and other disturbance, is distributed across the landscape”

Habitat Management Plan 9

• Freshwater Marsh o Shorebirds, Wading Birds . “continue to encourage the creation/enhancement/maintenance of high-quality habitat across Louisiana” . “work with DU, DW, and the Service to assure that quality habitat, including refuge from hunting and other disturbance, is distributed across the landscape”

• Barrier Islands o Terns . “develop partnerships to strengthen the protection and restoration of barrier islands” o Snowy Plover, Wilson’s Plover, Piping Plover . “continue to monitor breeding and wintering populations along the coast and on barrier islands” o Waterbirds . “continue to conduct rookery surveys to update database information” o Habitat Conservation Strategies . “partner with state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, private landowners, etc., to promote the protection and restoration of barrier islands” . “work with LCA and CWPPRA to support coastal restoration projects, specifically targeting important nesting areas and species of conservation concern”

• Coastal Dune Grassland/Shrub Thicket o Brown Pelican . “continue with long-term monitoring of nesting colonies” o Waterbirds and Shorebirds . “work with LCA and CWPPRA to incorporate strategies specifically targeting important waterbird and shorebird nesting areas in all future coastal restoration efforts”

• Coastal Mangrove-Marsh Shrubland o Habitat Conservation Strategies . “promote the planting of mangrove as a soil stabilizer in habitat restoration projects” . work with LCA and CWPPRA to support coastal restoration projects, specifically targeting important nesting habitat for species of conservation concern”

10 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

II. Environmental Setting and Background

LOCATION

Delta NWR is a 48,799-acre refuge in Plaquemines Parish, in southeast Louisiana, at the mouth of the Mississippi River (Figure 1). Access to the refuge is by boat only; the nearest town is Venice, across the Mississippi River from refuge lands. The refuge office is located in Venice, Louisiana. Delta NWR has no special designations.

Breton NWR consists of a chain of barrier islands in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes in southeast Louisiana (Figure 2). Access is limited to seaplanes or to boats that are able to venture offshore. Breton NWR, except for the north portion, has been designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System; all of the refuge is designated as part of the critical habitat for wintering piping plovers, and as a Globally Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy in association with The Nature Conservancy.

HABITAT TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS

DELTA NWR

Habitat types on Delta NWR range from sandy natural levees along the Mississippi River and its distributaries, to brackish marsh and mud flats (Figure 3). Habitat types are described in Table 1.

BRETON NWR

Lester et al. (2005) classify habitats on Louisiana barrier islands together as one habitat type (Barrier Island), and include four natural communities as described by Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (2009). Breton NWR provides a variety of barrier island habitats including beach/dune, tidal flats, and black mangrove/marsh. Also present on Breton NWR is un- vegetated (and therefore not classified by Louisiana Natural Heritage Program) beach habitat, which is used by a host of shorebirds, gulls and terns, and others. Elliott and McKnight (2000) defined beach habitat as part of their Beach/Upper Shoreface habitat, which also included dunes. Beach habitat lies on the Gulf Coast side of the refuge islands, and consists of the area from low tide to 1.5 m (4.9 ft.) in elevation. This habitat is characterized by frequent inundation by sea water, high wave energy, sandy substrate with shell fragments. Characteristic fauna, other than birds, include crustaceans, molluscs, and echinoderms.

Habitat Management Plan 11

Figure 2. Management units, Delta NWR

12 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 3. Management Units, Breton NWR

Habitat Management Plan 13

Table 1. Habitat types, condition, and treatment history for Delta NWR

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community [Live Oak] 110 acres Highly disturbed forest/shrub “This community occurs principally in southeastern (Natural community dominated by black Louisiana on natural levees or frontlands and on islands Levee) willow and red maple overstory, with within marshes and swamps. It is similar in some respects to Forest eastern baccharis and waxmyrtle coastal live oak-hackberry forest in that both develop on understory. Herbaceous plants natural ridges in the coastal zone and overstory dominants include sedges and the exotic are comparable. Quercus virginiana (live oak) typically elephant-ear or taro (Colocasia dominates the stand, but Q. nigra (water oak), Ulmus esculenta). Recovering from americana (American elm), Celtis laevigata (hackberry), Acer extensive blowdown during rubrum var. drummondii (Drummond red maple), and Hurricane Katrina. Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash) are usually prominent community members, and may be predominant in areas. Overstory associates may include Q. falcata var. pagodaefolia (cherrybark oak), Q. nuttallii [=Q. texana](Nuttall oak), Gleditsia triacanthos (honey locust), Liquidambar s[t]yraciflua (sweetgum), and Acer negundo (box-elder). Nyssa aquatica (tupelo gum) and Taxodium distichum (baldcypress) are often present in wet depressions or on edges. Sabal minor (dwarf palmetto) is usually the most conspicuous midstory and understory shrub, often attaining heights of up to 4 m, but a number of other shrubs may be present, including Ilex decidua (deciduous holly), Crataegus viridis (green hawthorn), Cornus foemina var. foemina (swamp dogwood), Planera aquatica (water elm), Myrica cerifera [=Morella cerifera] (wax myrtle), Sambucus canadensis (elderberry), and Persea borbonia (red bay). The herbaceous layer is often poorly developed, but may contain such species as Tradescantia spp. (spiderworts), Solidago sempervirens (seaside goldenrod), Samolus [valerandi] (water-pimpernel), Sanicula canadensis (snakeroot), Arisaema dracontium (green

14 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community dragon), Nemophylla aphylla (baby blue eyes), Geum canadensis (geum), Hydrocotyle spp. (penny-worts), Eupatorium spp. (thoroughworts), Polygonum spp. (smartweeds), Tovara virginica (jumpseed), Senecio glabellus (yellow-top), Panicum spp. (panic grasses), Oplismenus hirtellus (basket grass), and Thelypteris spp. (marsh ferns). Vines are usually prominent and include Mikania scandens (climbing hempvine), Cocculus carolin[us] (Carolina moonseed), Campsis radicans (trumpet creeper), Rhus radicans (poison ivy), Berchemia scandens (rattan vine), and Smilax rotundifolia (common greenbrier). Epiphytes are significant community members and include the highly conspicuous Tillandsia usneoides (Spanish moss), plus Polypodium polypodioides (resurrection fern), and Phoradendron tomentosum (mistle-toe). Several introduced species have become serious invaders of this habitat, including Lygodium japonicum (Japanese climbing fern), Sapium sebiferum [=Triadica sebifera] (Chinese tallow tree), and Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle). S1S2.”

Freshwater 28,890 Fresh marsh on Delta NWR covers “Freshwater Marsh is normally located adjacent to Marsh acres about 60 percent of the refuge, Intermediate Marsh along the northern most extent of the concentrated near the freshwater coastal marshes, although it may occur beside coastal Bays distributaries from the Mississippi where freshwater is entering the bay (e.g., Atchafalaya Bay). River. Dominant plant species are Small pools or ponds may be scattered. The floristic delta duck potato (Sagittaria composition of these sites is quite heterogeneous and is playtyphylla), elephant-ear, wild millet variable from site to site. Frequency and duration of flooding (Echinochloa spp.), and three-square which are intimately related to microtopography seem to be (Schoenoplectus pungens). Much of the primary factors governing species distributions. the fresh marsh area on the refuge Substrate, current flow, salinity, competition, and allelopathy has been converted to open-water are also important in determining species distribution ponds by the action of recent storms. patterns. Freshwater Marsh has the greatest plant diversity

Habitat Management Plan 15

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community and highest soil organic matter content of any marsh type. It is frequently dominated by Panicum hemitomon (maidencane). Other characteristic species include Eleocharis spp. (spikesedge), Sagittaria lancifolia = S. falcata (bulltongue), Alternanthera philoxeroides (alligator weed), Spartina patens (wire grass), Phragmites communis (roseau cane), Bacopa monnieri (coastal water hyssop), Ceratophyllum dem[e]rsum (coontail), Cyperus odoratus (fragrant flatsedge), Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth), Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed), Peltandra virginica (arrow arum), Hydrocotyle spp. (pennyworts), Lemna minor (common duckweed), Myriophyllum spp. (water milfoils), Nymphaea odorata (white waterlilly), Typha spp. (cattail), Utricularia spp. (bladderworts), Vigna luteola (deer pea), and Zizaniopsis miliacea (southern wildrice). Epiphytic and benthic algae are two other major autotroph groups in Freshwater Marsh. A significant portion of Freshwater Marsh is floating marsh (flotant). Salinities are usually less than 2 ppt. and normally average about 0.5-1 ppt. Wildlife populations are generally highest in this marsh type. As the other marsh types, Freshwater Marsh acts as important nursery areas for the young of many marine species, such as, croaker, seatrout, blackdrum, and flounder (see Salt Marsh for other functions). The community may change to a more saline marsh type with the invasion of salt water or may become open water. Freshwater Marsh has undergone the largest reduction in acreage of any of the marsh types over the past twenty years due to salt water intrusion. S1S2.”

16 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community Intermediate 0-2,000 Highly variable, occurs as a “This natural community lies between Brackish Marsh and Marsh acres fluctuating band where the influence Fresh Marsh, although it infrequently may be adjacent to the of the outgoing Mississippi River Gulf. Intermediate Marsh has an irregular tidal regime, is meets the incoming waters of the oligohaline, and is dominated by narrow-leaved, persistent Gulf of Mexico. Species found here species. Small pools or ponds may be scattered. Plant include those which can tolerate both diversity and soil organic matter content is higher than in fresh and brackish conditions. Brackish Marsh. This marsh is characterized by a diversity of species, many of which are found in Freshwater Marsh and some of which are found in Brackish Marsh. It is often dominated by Spartina patens (wire grass). Other characteristic species include Phragmites communis [=P. australis] (roseau cane), Sagittaria lancifolia= S. falcata (bulltongue), Bacopa monnieri (coastal water hyssop), Eleocharis spp. (spikesedge), Scirpus olneyi (three-cornered grass), S. californicus (giant bulrush), S. americ[an]us (common threesquare), Vigna luteola (deer pea), Paspalum vaginatum (seashore paspalum), Panicum virgatum (switch grass), Leptochloa fascicularis (bearded sprangletop), Pluchea camphorata (camphor-weed), Echino[]chloa walteri (walter millet), Cyperus odoratus (fragrant flatsedge), Alternanth[e]ra philoxeroides (alligator weed), Najas guadalupensis (southern naiad), Spartina cynosuroides (big cordgrass), and S. spartin[ae] (gulf cordgrass). Two other major autotrophic groups in Intermediate Marsh are epiphytic and benthic algae. Intermediate Marsh occupies the least acreage of any of the four marsh types. Salinity averages about 3.3 ppt. This marsh type is very productive of many species of wildlife and is important to larval marine organisms (see Salt Marsh for other functions). The community may be changed to one of the other marsh types by shifts in salinity. The acreage of Intermediate Marsh appears to be decreasing, quite probably due to salt water intrusion. S3S4.”

Habitat Management Plan 17

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community Brackish 19,500 Brackish marsh covers about 40 “This community is usually found between Salt Marsh and marsh acres percent of the refuge, generally Intermediate Marsh, although it may occasionally lie adjacent around the periphery farthest from to the gulf. Irregularly tidally flooded, flat, mesohaline zones the sources of freshwater. This zone dominated by salt-tolerant graminoids. Small pools or ponds of the refuge is dominated by may be scattered. Plant diversity and soil organic matter Spartina alterniflora and remnant content is higher than Salt Marsh. Typically dominated by Phragmites australis. Much of the Spartina patens (wire grass). Other significant associated brackish marsh has been converted species include Distichlis spicata (salt grass), Scirpus olneyi to open water in recent storm events. (three-cornered grass), S. robustus (salt marsh bulrush), Eleocharis parvula (dwarf spikesedge), and Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass), Paspalum vaginatum (seashore paspalum), Juncus roema[r]ianus (black rush), Bacopa monnieri (coastal water hyssop), Spartina alter[n]iflora (smooth cordgrass), and S. cynosuroides (big cordgrass). Two other major autotrophic groups in Brackish Marsh are epiphytic algae and benthic algae. Generally speaking, vertebrate species population levels increase in Brackish Marsh compared to Salt Marsh. Brackish Marsh is of very high value to estuarine larval forms of marine organisms such as shrimp, crabs, menha[d]en etc. (see Salt Marsh for other functions). Brackish Marsh salinity averages about 8 ppt. The community may be changed to another marsh type by shifts in salinity. Intrusion of saline water up the numerous waterways exerts a major influence in the configuration of the various marsh types. The total acreage of Brackish Marsh appears to be increasing due to shifts in marsh salinity levels. S3S4.”

18 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community Vegetated 100-1,500 Mud flats Vegetated Pioneer Emerging Delta is a dynamic community Pioneer acres A dynamic fluctuating zone forming primarily within the actively building delta region at Emerging comprised primarily of developing the mouth of the Atchafalaya River. Zonation of species Delta deltaic splays and other emergent occurs on the newly accreted land. Echinochloa walteri lands. Mud flats are highly transient (coast cockspur grass) dominates the higher areas; as they vegetate quickly once Sagittaria latifolia (broadleaf bulltongue), S. platyphylla (delta sufficient elevation has been arrowhead), Cyperus difformis (variable flatsedge), reached. Maintained as a narrow Leptochloa uninervia (Mexican sprangletop), and Eleocharis band on margins of splays, dredge parvula (dwarf spikerush) dominate the lower zones spoil deposits, and other emergent inundated by daily tides; Sagittaria platyphylla (delta land forms. arrowhead), Cyperus difformis (variable flatsedge), Leptochloa uninervia (Mexican sprangletop), Eleocharis parvula (dwarf spikerush) and Bacopa monnieri (coastal water hyssop) dominate the intermediate zone. Other characteristic vegetation includes Salix spp. (willow), Typha latifolia (common cattail), Scirpus validus (softstem bulru[s]h), Scirpus americanus (threesquare bulrush), and Juncus effusus (soft rush). The island soils contain a greater percentage of sand and less moisture than marsh soils. The pioneer ridge vegetation is similar to the sand bars and delta of the Mississippi River while the pioneer marsh vegetation is similar to that of fresh marsh areas. The community is very diverse with as many as 241 species. The pioneer community is successional in nature and changes rapidly with time. The new delta community's ecological functions are similar in nature to marsh and mudflat systems. S2S3.”

Habitat Management Plan 19

Table 2. Habitat types, condition, and community descriptions for Breton NWR

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community Coastal 5 acres Highly fragmented and subject to “This natural community occurs on beach dunes and relatively Dune continued loss from storm events. elevated backshore areas (ridges) above Intertidal Beaches on Grassland barrier islands and on the mainland. The dunes of Louisiana's barrier islands and mainland beaches are poorly developed because of the high frequency of overwash associated with hurricanes and storms, and a limited amount of eolian- transported sand. The sites are normally xeric (excessively drained) owing to the fact that they are elevated above the highest flood mark (except during hurricanes). Sites are exposed to moderate to high amounts of salt spray. In addition, limited nutrient availability and substrate instability also affect coastal dune vegetation. The vegetative cover ranges from sparse to fairly dense and is dominated by salt spray tolerant grasses, which may include Spartina patens (wiregrass, usually present and often dominant), Uniola paniculata (sea oats), Panicum amarum (beach panic), Triplasis purpurea (purple sandgrass), Paspalum vaginatum (jointgrass), Schizachyrium maritimum (seacoast bluestem), Distichlis spicata (saltgrass), Cenchrus spp (sandburs), Chloris petraea (finger grass), Sporobolus virginicus (coast dropseed), Eragrostis oxylepis (red lovegrass), and Andropogon spp. (broomsedges). Forbs are common in this community and may form forb-dominated zones, particularly on the gulfward side of the dune. Forbs include Batis maritim[a] (salt wort), Ipomea stolonifera (beach morning-glory), I. pes-caprae (goat- foot morning-glory), Heliotropium curras[a]vicum (seaside heliotrope), Strophostyles helvola (sand wild bean), Agalinis maritima (seaside false foxglove), Iva imbricata (sumpweed), Solidago sempervirens (seaside goldenrod), sea rockets (Cakile spp.), punctate goatweed (Croton punctatus), large leaf

20 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis), camphor weed (Heterotheca subaxillaris), sea purs[]lane (Sesuvium portulacastrum), camphor-weed (Pluchea camphorata), seastar rose-gentian (Sabatia stellaris), quelite (Atriplex arenaria), lazy daisy (Aphanostephus skirr[h]obasis), glassworts (Salicornia spp.), annual seepweed (Su[a]eda linearis), butterfly pea (Centrosema virginianum) and common frog-fruit (Lippia nodiflora [=Phyla nodiflora]). Shrubs from adjacent Coastal Dune Shrub Thickets may occur as scattered individuals in this community. These sites are subject to frequent storm overwash with salt water flooding and sand deposition. These events frequently give rise to what are called "barrier flats". Dune swales may be extensive and are considered as inclusions in this natural community. Dunes and ridges may be shifted or eroded by storm floods, destroying vegetation. S1S2.”

Coastal 0 No longer present due to storm “This community is found on stabilized sand dunes and beach Dune Shrub events ridges on barrier islands and the mainland coast. It is of very Thicket limited extent in Louisiana due to relatively poorly developed coastal dunes. The sites are typically xeric to xeric/mesic and moderately exposed to salt spray. The community normally appears as a relatively dense stand of shrubs. A variety of salt-tolerant shrubs may occur including Morella cerifera (wax myrtle), Ilex vomitoria (yaupon), Iva spp. (marsh elder), Baccharis halimifolia (saltbush), Acacia smallii [=Acacia farnesiana] (acacia), and Zanthoxy[]lum clava-herculis (toothache tree). The shrubs are often covered with a dense growth of lichens. Vines, such as Smilax spp. (greenbriers) and Vitis mustangensis (wild grape), are often present. The community may be destroyed by sand dune migration or erosion and may be replaced by Coastal Dune Grassland. S1.”

Habitat Management Plan 21

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community Coastal 293 Acres Highly fragmented and subject to “Coastal Mangrove/Marsh Shrubland are estuarine Mangrove- continued loss from storm events. communities dominated by Avicennia germinans (black Marsh mangrove). Although sometimes termed a swamp, the Shrubland physiognomy of the community in Louisiana more closely resembles a shrub thicket. The coastal region of Louisiana delimits the northern range of this community due to mangrove's inability to tolerate temperatures much below freezing. Other characteristic vegetation besides black mangrove is Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Mixed stands of both species are comparatively frequent in Louisiana. Salt marshes and mangrove habitats are integral parts of the Louisiana barrier island system. The mangrove shrubland has several important ecological functions: the extensive root systems stabilize the shoreline and reduce erosion; the cover and food they provide create an excellent nursery area for fish and shellfish; the community improves surrounding water quality by filtering nutrients and suspended sediments; and many colonial waterbirds use the mangrove swamp as nesting areas. Montz estimated a total of 1,600 to 2,400 hectares of mangroves in Louisiana found along the fringes of coastal marshes and islands with some more extensive thickets on barrier islands. The hard winters of 1983 and 1984 seriously reduced the extent of the community in coastal Louisiana. Its importance in erosion control is clearly documented by the extreme erosion of Queen Bess Island since this dieback. S3.”

Back 299 acres Highly fragmented and degraded, “Typically, Salt Marsh is the marsh area closest to the beach barrier and subject to continued loss from rim of the gulf, and, in general, varies from 1-15 miles in width. marsh storm events. These marshes are regularly tidally flooded, flat, polyhaline areas dominated by salt-tolerant grasses and very few other species. Small pools or ponds may be scattered. Salt Marsh

22 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community has the least plant diversity and the lowest soil organic matter content of any marsh type. The community is often totally dominated by Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Significant associate species includes S. patens (wiregrass), Distichlis spicata (salt grass), Juncus roemarianus (black rush), and Batis maritima (salt wort). Two other major groups of autotrophs found in Salt Marsh are microscopic algae on the surface of the vascular plants, and benthic algae (usually diatoms) living on or in the marsh sediment. Soil and water conditions regulate plant growth and salinity appears to be the primary factor determining species composition. The mean salinity of salt marsh is about 16 ppt. The area of Salt Marsh is increasing apparently due to saltwater intrusion resulting in shifts in marsh salinity levels. Salt Marsh acts as nursery areas for myriads of larval forms of shrimp, crabs, redfish, seatrout, menhad[]en, etc., and greatly enhances the production of marine organisms in adjacent water bodies. This fertility is directly related to the enormous primary productivity of the marsh vegetation. Factors which promote the growth of Salt Marsh plants include: (1) a long growing season, (2) abundant rainfall, (3) presence of soil nutrients, and (4) low tide differential and tidally transported nutrients. Natural factors negatively impacting salt marsh include prolonged periods of inundation caused by winds, tides, or rain, especially those periods associated with hurricanes; subsidence; and erosion. Salt Marsh also functions as a nitrogen and phosphorus sink (at least seasonally), thereby improving the quality of water that passes through it. In addition, it can modify the effects of storms and flooding by acting as a buffer and providing storage for large amounts of water. Relative to other marsh types, Salt Marsh typically has the lowest vertebrate species population levels (other than fish). S3S4“

Habitat Management Plan 23

Habitat Description (taken from Louisiana Type/ Size Current Condition on Refuge Natural Heritage Program 2009) Community Beach and 603 acres Variable condition; fragmented by [Not described by Louisiana Natural Heritage] other non- storm action. vegetated habitats

24 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

PHYSICAL AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

CLIMATE

General Climatic Conditions

Climate in southeastern Louisiana is classified as subtropical; the region’s proximity to the Gulf of Mexico ensures that temperatures will be moderate and humidity will be high. Summers are warm and humid; winters are mild. Climate change and subsidence for the Southeast Region are discussed in Appendix E.

Named tropical storms (i.e., storms with sustained winds at least 35 knots (64.8 km/h) impact southeast Louisiana on an average of three or four times per decade. Since 1947, five storms have wreaked major damage on southeastern Louisiana. An unnamed storm in 1947, Hurricane Betsy in 1965, Hurricane Camille in 1969, Hurricane Georges in 1998, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, all caused extensive damage to infrastructure and loss of human life (Global Security.org 2005). Hurricanes, as evidenced most recently by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, have the potential to severely impact Delta and Breton NWRs. Especially notable was the extensive erosion of the Chandeleur Islands by Hurricanes Georges (Global Security.org 2005) and Katrina.

Temperature

Normal temperature maxima for January and July, respectively, at Boothville, Louisiana, 15 miles to the northwest of Delta NWR, are 62.3°F and 89.9°F; minima are 47.1°F and 76.0°F (National Climatic Data Center 2002). Mean and daily average temperature maxima and minima are presented in Figure 4.

Precipitation

The average annual precipitation for the area around Delta NWR, as recorded at Boothville (1971-2000), is 59.95 inches (National Climatic Data Center 2002). Rainfall follows a bimodal distribution, with dry periods April-May and October (Figure 5). Summer rainfall is mostly associated with thunderstorms. These rainfall events are short-duration, high-intensity localized storms. From November to February, the weather patterns are influenced by cold continental air masses. Rainfall during this period comes from the effects of frontal passages. Rain events are more widespread and less intense than those in the summer. The transitional periods between these two wet seasons tend to be dry, with the important exception of tropical storms, which begin forming in early mid-summer and continue through the fall. Tropical storms impact the Louisiana coast every 1.6 years, and hurricanes every 3.3 years (Roth 1998). Areas in the path of one of these storms can receive significant rainfall in addition to wind and storm surge.

Habitat Management Plan 25

Figure 4. Mean temperature, degrees Fahrenheit, with average daily minima and maxima, by month at Boothville, LA, 1971-2000

Figure 5. Monthly average precipitation, inches, 1971-2000, at Boothville, LA

26 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

AIR QUALITY

Delta and Breton NWRs are designated Class II Clean Air Areas by the Clean Air Act, as are most national wildlife refuges. This means that limited development (i.e., sources of pollution) can be permitted near the refuge as long as the levels of particulate, matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide do not exceed the Class II increments. Air quality on the refuges is influenced by off-site sources, including petrochemical industrial facilities along the Mississippi River north and west of Delta NWR. Prevailing southeast winds transport relatively clean air to the refuges for most of the year.

GEOMORPHOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The Mississippi River delta system, which includes Delta and Breton NWRs, is a dynamic, geologically active area where land and open water are created, destroyed, and rearranged on a daily basis under the action of river, tide, wind, sediment, and storm. Unlike most places on earth, where geologic changes are imperceptibly slow, here, new features can be created, and old ones destroyed, in a single hurricane or flood. Major shifts in the Mississippi River’s course occur every 2 or 3 millennia, extending new terrestrial features many miles into the sea and abandoning old land to the mercy of the waves. Delta NWR, situated as it is on the east bank of the Mississippi River, is the beneficiary of land creation processes which have acted over the past 2,000 years to build the present-day “bird’s foot” delta at the mouth of the Mississippi River. In the current, managed hydrologic system that the Mississippi River has become through the efforts of the Army Corps of Engineers, the river remains a source of freshwater and sediment that can be used by refuge managers to restore and build marsh habitat on Delta NWR. The refuge is on land which was created when a gap (Cubit’s Gap) was opened up in the natural levee of the Mississippi in 1862. A huge sediment splay resulted, and was quickly colonized by marsh vegetation and hundreds of thousands of waterfowl. Sediment splays, which form when natural or artificial gaps occur in the natural levee along the river or its distributaries, are the primary source of marsh-building material for Delta NWR today (Strader 2006).

Breton NWR represents a different stage of the delta building process. The Chandeleur Islands were formed between 3,000 and 1,700 years ago when the Mississippi River’s course was further north and east than it is now, and formed the St. Bernard Delta Complex. When the course of the river shifted to its present position, sediment deposition slowed, and the Gulf of Mexico reclaimed the area that is now Breton Sound, leaving the Chandeleur Islands (Hunter and Harris 2006, Rogers 2009, Lavoie 2009). When they were discovered by European sailors in 1700, the Chandeleur Islands were apparently quite substantial. Subsequent storm events, coastal subsidence, and erosion have gradually reduced the area of the islands to their present- day extent. Today only beach, dunes, sand flats, and marsh remain. Without human intervention, the islands will eventually disappear beneath the sea.

However, as for the rest of the Mississippi River system, human intervention is ever-present, and a number of efforts have been made to conserve and restore Breton NWR’s habitats. While the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), a canal which created a shortcut to the Gulf for Mississippi River shipping, was being maintained, 1.7 million cubic yards (1.3 million m3) of dredge material from it were pumped into a near-shore berm in an attempt to nourish the islands and restore storm-created gaps. After Hurricane Katrina, however, when its negative impacts on the coastal environment became painfully obvious, MRGO was closed, and no more dredge material is available from that source. In 2010-11, during and after the oil spill resulting from the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon, the State of Louisiana used restoration funds from BP to construct

Habitat Management Plan 27

another sand berm along portions of the Chandeleur Islands. Originally conceived as a way to prevent BP Deepwater Horizon oil from coming ashore, the berm was later justified as a coastal restoration project (National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling 2011). Construction was stopped in December 2010, with about 9 miles of berm in place. Tropical Storm Lee which came ashore September 3, 2011 and surged over the islands washed large portions of the berm away. Refuge managers deployed sand fence during summer 2011, in an attempt to trap sand from the berm and build the dune system on the islands. Tropical storms in 2012 all but eliminated the berm. It is now present only as a subtidal sandbar.

HYDROLOGY

Hydrologically, Delta NWR is dominated by the Mississippi River. The constant flow of river water through the refuge to Breton Sound creates a salinity gradient from freshwater on the western side to brackish water along the shoreline. On Breton and the Chandeleurs, there is no source of freshwater other than rainfall, and under normal circumstances waters surrounding the islands are at or near 35 ppt salinity. Shallow ponds on the islands can be less saline after rainfall events (USFWS 2008).

SOILS

Soils on Delta NWR are all formed in recent Mississippi River alluvium, and range from fine sand to clay in texture. Imperfect to poor drainage is the rule, and flooding is frequent. Soils on Delta NWR are mapped to Association, but series are not broken out individually. Two soil series are mapped on Breton NWR (Table 3).

Table 3. Classification and characteristics of soil series found on Delta and Breton NWRs

Map Group/ Management Classification* Description* Unit Consociation Considerations* FE Felicity loamy Mixed, Gently sloping, Used mainly for wildlife fine sand, hyperthermic somewhat poorly habitat and recreation frequently Aquic drained mineral uses. This soil is either flooded Udipsamments soils, very rapidly nearly void of vegetation permeable, saline or has a sparse stand of and firm. Form in salt-tolerant plants, such sandy tidal as black mangrove, big sediments on ridges leaf sumpweed, and and barrier islands. saltwort. Frequently flooded by seawater in storms; slopes 1-3 percent.

SC Scatlake Very-fine, Very poorly drained Wetland wildlife habitat. mucky clay smectitic, mineral soils, very Vegetation is saltwater nonacid, slowly permeable, marsh plant species, hyperthermic saline, very fluid. such as marshhay

28 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Map Group/ Management Classification* Description* Unit Consociation Considerations* Sodic Form in clayey cordgrass, big cordgrass, Hydraquents alluvium in saline smooth cordgrass, marsh; ponded or seashore saltgrass, olney flooded most of the bulrush, saltmarsh time. bulrush, and needlegrass rush.

BA Balize and Balize: Fine- Balize: Very poorly Balize: Used mainly for Larose soils silty, mixed, drained, mineral wildlife habitat. The superactive, soils, slowly vegetation is freshwater nonacid, permeable and very herbaceous plants, hyperthermic fluid. Form in including elephants ear, Typic loamy alluvium in roseau cane, delta Hydraquents. areas of active duckpotato, Walter's Larose: Very- filling by Mississippi millet, and delta fine, smectitic, River. threesquare. nonacid, Larose: Very poorly Larose: Used mainly for hyperthermic drained, mineral wildlife and recreation. Typic soils, very slowly Vegetation is freshwater Hydraquents permeable and very plants, including fluid. Form in maidencane, bulltongue, clayey alluvium in alligatorweed, cattail, freshwater marsh; giant cutgrass, ponded and flooded pickerelweed, swamp most of the time. smartweed, and common rush.

CV Carville, Carville: Carville: Very Carville: Most areas Cancienne, Coarse-silty, deep, somewhat have been cleared and and Schriever mixed, poorly drained, are primarily used for soils, superactive, moderately sugarcane, small grain, frequently calcareous, permeable soils that soybeans, corn, truck flooded hyperthermic formed in recent crops, pasture, and hay Fluventic loamy alluvium. crops. The native forest Endoaquepts These soils are on vegetation in uncultivated Cancienne: nearly level to very areas is predominantly Fine-silty, gently sloping oaks, cottonwood, mixed, natural levee hickories, and sweetgum, superactive, positions on flood with an undergrowth of nonacid, plains, mainly along vines and canes. hyperthermic the Mississippi Cancienne: Areas are Fluvaquentic River and its used mainly for cropland; Epiaquepts distributaries. sugarcane, soybeans, Schriever: very Slopes range from corn, and wheat are the fine, smectitic, 0 to 2 percent. principal crops. Some hyperthermic Cancienne: Very acreage is in pasture and Chromic deep, level to gently hay crops. A significant

Habitat Management Plan 29

Map Group/ Management Classification* Description* Unit Consociation Considerations* Epiaquerts undulating, acreage has been somewhat poorly developed for urban, drained mineral industrial, or residential soils, moderately uses. slowly permeable. Schriever: Areas are Formed in loamy used mostly for cropland; and clayey sugarcane, rice, alluvium. High and soybeans, wheat, grain intermediate sorghum, and oats are positions on natural the principal crops. levees and deltaic Some areas are used for fans. pasture, and hay crops. Schriever: Very Frequently flooded areas poorly drained, very are mainly in bottomland slowly permeable, hardwood stands. formed in clayey alluvium. Lower positions on natural levees and backswamps; slopes 1-3 percent.

*All information taken verbatim from Soil Survey Staff (no date).

SUBSIDENCE AND SEA LEVEL RISE

Among the most serious consequences of forecast climate change are sea level rise and the likely increase in hurricane intensity and associated storm surge (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2009). Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st Century at a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change 2007). Subsidence, or land sinking, also contributes heavily to coastal erosion and land loss in Louisiana and the surrounding Gulf states. Geological modeling has suggested that the weight of Pleistocene sediments on the coast of Louisiana can explain between 0.1 and 0.8 cm (0.04 and 0.3 inches) of sinking per year (NASA 2008). Predicted global sea level rise of 1-2 m, coupled with local subsidence, which the NASA (2008) model predicts would be about 36 cm over the next 90 years in the vicinity of Breton NWR and 50 cm near Delta NWR, could add up to more than 2 m of relative sea level rise by the end of the 21st Century. The result will be shoreline retreat and inundation of most of both refuges, absent continued efforts at beach nutrition on Breton NWR and sediment capture on Delta NWR.

Predicted impacts of sea level rise include increased risks of coastal erosion, conversion of wetlands to open water, increase in salinity of estuaries and freshwater aquifers, and flooding for coastal communities (Climate Change Science Program 2009). Rising sea temperatures are expected to increase the frequency and strength of hurricanes (Emanuel 2005). Stronger storms with higher wind speeds, more intense rainfall, and more powerful surges are expected to cause

30 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

more severe damage (Knutson and Tuleya 2004). As sea level rises and salinities increase, vegetation zones will migrate inland; present salt marsh will convert to open water, brackish marsh will become saline, freshwater marsh will become brackish, and freshwater swamps and shrub communities will convert to herbaceous systems as episodes of saltwater intrusion become more frequent and occur further inland. Also predicted for south-central Louisiana by Karl et al. (2009) are changes in overall precipitation and in seasonal distribution of precipitation, and temperature averages and extremes. Current trends measured over the past century suggest that in southeast Louisiana, warming will continue, with more days over 90oF, fewer freezes, and longer frost-free periods, and precipitation will continue to decrease and to change distribution, with more fall precipitation and less precipitation during spring, summer, and winter.

The likely extent of changes to the habitats of Delta and Breton NWRs is unclear; however, certain management actions are called for by the Service (USFWS 2010), which will promote adaptation to changes in climate, regardless of their nature or magnitude. Most pertinent among the goals set forth by the Service (USFWS 2010) for HMPs is the third, which states: “We will plan and deliver landscape conservation actions that support climate change adaptations by fish and wildlife of ecological and societal significance.” Objectives under this goal include the following:

• Take conservation action for climate-vulnerable species; • Promote habitat connectivity and integrity; • Reduce non-climate change ecosystem stressors; • Identify and fill priority freshwater needs; • Conserve coastal and marine resources; • Manage genetic resources; • Reduce susceptibility to diseases, pathogens, and pests; • Address fish and wildlife needs in renewable energy development, and • Foster international collaboration for landscape conservation.

Most of these objectives are directly relevant to one or both refuges. Conserving coastal and marine resources, restoring habitat, and reducing the effects of non-climate stressors like hydrologic modifications are central to the management direction laid out in the refuge CCP and further detailed in the present document.

FLYWAYS

Delta and Breton NWRs lie at the southern terminus of the Mississippi Flyway (Figure 6). The Mississippi Flyway is an important migration corridor for hundreds of North American bird species. Delta and Breton NWRs, because of their geographic positions, provide important resting and recovery habitat for trans-Gulf migratory birds, including neotropical passerines. Some attention to providing woody vegetation on artificial uplands on Delta NWR is warranted to enhance this habitat value that the refuge provides.

Habitat Management Plan 31

Figure 6. Mississippi Flyway

32 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

HISTORY OF REFUGE LANDS

HISTORIC HABITAT CONDITIONS

Prehistoric human occupation

Delta NWR, because of its very recent creation as a sediment splay in the 19th Century, was not occupied by humans in prehistory.

Likewise, no evidence of prehistoric human occupation of Breton NWR has been discovered, although it is possible that prehistoric peoples used the islands for temporary habitation.

Historical human occupation

Spanish exploration of the Gulf Coast began as early as 1502, and by the end of the 17th Century, Spanish and French settlements had been established in what was to become Louisiana (Kniffen 1968). France ceded Louisiana to the Spanish in 1763, but regained control of the territory east of the Red River, exclusive of the Florida Parishes, in 1803, prior to its sale to the United States later that year (Handbook of Texas Online 2010). In 1700, Pierre LeMoyne, Sieur d’Iberville, on the eve of Candlemas, or La Fête de la Chandeleur, named the islands “Isles Chandeleurs.” The islands were uninhabited then, and d’Iberville described them as “covered with grass” (McWilliams 1981).

Sporadic attempts at human habitation were made during the 19th and 20th Centuries. Breton Island was used as a pirate base for some time during the early 19th Century; the base was destroyed by the United States Revenue Cutters Alabama and Louisiana on April 19, 1819 (Wikipedia 2011). A series of lighthouses were constructed, the first in 1848, the second in 1855, and the last in 1895, on the northern end of the Chandeleur Island chain; each, in turn, was destroyed by hurricanes, the last by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In the early 20th Century, a fishing settlement existed on the islands, but it, too, was destroyed by a hurricane, in 1915.

Major historical events

• 1700—Chandeleur Islands named by Pierre LeMoyne, Sieur d’Iberville • 1862—Cubits Gap created, causing sediment splay that became Delta NWR • 1904—Breton NWR created by executive order of President Theodore Roosevelt • 1935—Delta NWR created by executive order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt • 1947—Hurricane of 1947 causes extensive erosion on Breton and Delta NWRs • 1965—Hurricane Betsy causes extensive erosion on Breton and Delta NWRs • 1969—Hurricane Camille causes extensive erosion on Breton and Delta NWRs • 1975—All federally owned lands in Breton NWR, with the exception of North Breton Island, were designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System • 1998—Hurricane Georges causes extensive erosion on Breton and Delta NWRs • 2005—Hurricane Katrina destroys lighthouse on Chandeleur Islands, causes loss of approximately 70 percent of Breton NWR land area, and causes extensive erosion on Delta NWR

Habitat Management Plan 33

• 2010—BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill deposits large amounts of crude oil on the beaches of Breton NWR; Delta NWR also is subject to smaller-scale fouling of marsh vegetation and soil. Over 1 million pounds (450,000 kg) of oil has been removed from beaches on Breton NWR as of this writing. • 2012-Hurricane Isaac causes extensive erosion on Breton and Delta NWRs

PREHISTORIC HABITAT CONDITIONS

The area that became Delta NWR was open water in prehistory. The Mississippi delta is a dynamic environment in which sediment is constantly deposited and eroded. Newly deposited sediments become vegetated with marsh vegetation quickly; floristic composition depends largely upon salinity and inundation regime.

Breton Island and the Chandeleur Islands are remnants of the St. Bernard Delta Complex built by the Mississippi River between 3,000 and 1,700 years BP. After the Mississippi River abandoned the St. Bernard Delta Complex, erosional forces associated with hurricanes shifted and removed sediments, creating Breton Island and the Chandeleurs at the margin of the old delta (Rogers 2009).

CURRENT HABITAT CONDITIONS

See Tables 1 and 2.

CHANGES IN HABITAT CONDITIONS

Major changes in habitats on Delta NWR have come about as a result of subsidence and storm action. These two forces interact to convert marsh to open water by allowing saltwater to move into formerly brackish or freshwater zones, killing less salt-tolerant vegetation and causing erosion and loss of substrate. Refuge managers have countered these forces with strategically located sediment splays (created by artificially breaching the natural levees), which have re- nourished the marsh and replaced lost sediments.

On Breton NWR, recent changes in habitat mostly reflect the natural cycle of river delta creation and destruction; storm action, including most recently Hurricanes Katrina and Isaac, is reducing the land area of the islands and cutting gaps. Lee et al. (2006) documented decreases in land area for the northern Chandeleurs since 1855 (Figure 7). Especially heavy losses resulted from Hurricane Katrina; estimates 5 years later are that about half of the land area of the Chandeleurs that existed before the storm is still above sea level (USGS 2011a). Refuge managers and the State of Louisiana have tried to counter this process by adding sand, either dredged from shipping channels (MRGO) or from nearby shallow waters (berm construction 2010-2011).

34 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 7. Historical location and extent of barrier islands which compose Breton NWR (Lee et al. 2006)

Habitat Management Plan 35

III. Resources of Concern

Priorities associated with wildlife and habitat management for the Refuge System are determined through directives, policies, and legal mandates. Resources of concern include species, species groups, and/or communities that support refuge purposes, as well as Service trust resources responsibilities, including threatened and endangered species and migratory birds. Resources of concern are also native species and natural, functional communities such as those found under historic conditions that are to be maintained and, where appropriate, restored on a refuge (601 FW 3.10B[1]).

Resources of concern for Delta and Breton NWRs were selected after taking into account the conservation needs identified within international, national, regional, or ecosystems goals/plans; state fish and wildlife conservation plans; recovery plans for threatened and endangered species; and previously approved refuge resource management plans as identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process policy (602 FW 3.4C(1)(E)), as well as Chapter I-C of this HMP. The species/communities selected as resources of concern from these plans support the following Refuge System mandates:

• Support refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission; • Conserve biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; • Give special consideration to rare, declining or unique natural communities, species, and ecological processes within the refuge boundary; • Fulfill Service trust resource responsibilities.

IDENTIFICATION OF RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Resources of concern for Delta and Breton NWRs, including major species represented on each refuge, are presented in Table 4. Each resource of concern is discussed below in context of the refuge(s) on which it occurs. Resources designated as “Complementary Needs” are those which are not resources of concern for the refuge, but which will benefit from habitat management strategies prescribed in this plan.

Table 4. Resources of concern for Delta and Breton NWRs

Major Species Resource of Concern Delta NWR Breton NWR Waterfowl Snow goose, scaup, northern Complementary Needs pintail, gadwall, blue-winged [redhead, scaup, gadwall, teal, green-winged teal, mottled bufflehead, mergansers, blue- duck winged teal]

Shorebirds Piping plover, buff-breasted Piping plover, Wilson’s plover, sandpiper, snowy plover, long- American oystercatcher, snowy billed curlew, Eskimo curlew. plover, dowitchers, sanderling, dunlin, red knot, least sandpiper, western sandpiper

36 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Major Species Resource of Concern Delta NWR Breton NWR Secretive marsh birds King rail, clapper rail, yellow rail, Complementary needs [clapper black rail, pied-billed grebe, rail] horned grebe, least bittern, purple gallinule

Brown Pelican Complementary needs Brown Pelican (nesting) Colonial wading birds Little blue heron, reddish egret, Reddish egret, snowy egret, yellow-crowned night heron, great blue heron, tricolored wood stork, white ibis heron

Gulls and Terns Complementary needs: [gull- Laughing gull, royal tern, billed tern, black skimmer, least Caspian tern, sandwich tern, tern, royal tern, sandwich tern, black skimmer, sooty tern, Caspian tern, common tern, common tern, least tern, black tern] Forster’s tern, gull-billed tern

DESCRIPTIONS OF RESOURCES OF CONCERN

WATERFOWL

Because of historic and ongoing habitat losses due to agricultural development, oil and gas exploration and extraction, and climate change, suitable habitat for wintering waterfowl has decreased over the past two centuries, leading to a decrease in waterfowl populations in North America (Batt et al. 1992). When large, unbroken expanses of wetlands and coastal prairies were available for use by waterfowl, the entire system was more resilient in the face of natural disturbances, such as fire, drought, and tropical storms. In the current, anthropogenically modified landscape, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, the introduction of exotic plant and animal species, and disruption of natural hydrologic and pyric processes mean that remaining habitat, in order to function in the larger context of the continent-wide ecosystem, must be actively managed. Small fragments of habitat are less resilient to disturbances and without management of vegetation, hydrology, fire, and animal populations, will change over time so that they no longer serve as high-quality habitat for waterfowl or other desirable species.

Coastal Louisiana is one of the most important waterfowl wintering areas in North America. Delta NWR’s freshwater and brackish marshes and ponds support a diversity of plants favorable for waterfowl, as well as provide loafing and roosting habitat for many species of ducks and geese. Seagrass beds in shallow, protected waters to the west of Breton NWR provide irreplaceable winter foraging habitat for diving ducks, notably redheads, greater scaup, lesser scaup, and red-breasted merganser.

Habitat Management Plan 37

Delta and Breton NWRs are located at the southern terminus of the Mississippi Flyway, which is a critical region for migrating ducks and geese in North America (Reinecke et al. 1989). Delta NWR attracts tens of thousands of gadwall (Anas strepera), northern pintail (Anas acuta), and snow geese (Chen caerulescens), among other species during the winter. Migratory waterfowl use the refuge as a feeding, loafing, and roosting site. Resident mottled ducks inhabit the refuge year-round, obtaining locally all of the resources necessary for their annual cycle. Protecting and enhancing the marsh habitats of the refuge will thus conserve important breeding, migratory, and wintering habitat. Breton NWR provides shallow seagrass beds on the western side of the islands which serve as important winter foraging habitat for diving ducks, most notably redheads.

Northern pintails once were one of the most abundant ducks in North America, but have suffered a disturbing population decline since the 1970s, because of losses of breeding and wintering habitat (USFWS 2004). They are among the first ducks to migrate south in the fall. Pintails using the Central Flyway winter in the Texas Panhandle and on the Gulf Coast of Texas and western Louisiana (Moon and Haukos 2006). The majority of pintails using the Mississippi Flyway winter in Louisiana, with smaller numbers wintering in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama. Delta NWR is a key wintering area for northern pintails, which concentrate on shallow fresh or brackish estuaries, brackish and saline marshes, and scattered freshwater impoundments (Johnsgard 1978). They will also use flooded agricultural land, especially corn, rice, wheat, and soybean fields, and pastures.

The mottled duck is a year-round resident in coastal marshes along the western Gulf Coast (western subspecies, Texas and Louisiana; Anas fulvigula maculosa) and in the wetlands of Florida (eastern subspecies, Anas fulvigula fulvigula) (Rorabaugh and Zwank 1983). Wilson (2007) reported a dramatic and consistent downward trend in the western mottled duck population between 1966 and 2002. However, population declines have been concentrated in the western end of the range, along the Texas coast; in Louisiana populations appear stable. Declining recruitment, possibly related to wetland habitat drainage, declining rice farming, lead exposure, and increasing predator populations, is the most likely cause of recent population declines (Wilson 2007).

Mottled ducks depend on tall, dense, undisturbed stands of grass for nesting (Rorabaugh and Zwank 1983) and on shallow water ponds for foraging (Wilson 2007). Delta NWR has the ability to provide important habitat for breeding mottled ducks and can contribute to the sustainability of the species.

Snow geese migrate southward during the fall in large flocks and spend the winter on the Louisiana Gulf Coast, including on Delta NWR. Their distribution is variable, occasionally occurring in great numbers on the refuge and other times on adjacent areas such as Pass À Loutre Wildlife Management Area. Geese have long life spans and, like many other large water birds, they imprint along migratory corridors, using stopovers year after year. Maintaining habitat for these important waterfowl is part of the refuge purpose. Geese feed on invertebrates and on seeds, roots, tubers, and leaves of various food plants. They ingest sand and pebbles to supply their gizzards with abrasive material for breaking down hard foods, such as seeds.

Diving ducks utilize the habitats in and around Breton NWR for wintering habitat. An estimated 10,000-20,000 redheads as well as mergansers, scaup, and bufflehead, winter in the seagrass beds in protected waters to the west of the Chandeleur Island chain. Redheads depend largely on a single species of seagrass, shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), for sustenance over the winter

38 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

(Michot et al. 2008). However, since these habitats are largely outside the acquisition boundary of the refuge, and their conservation does not drive management actions, wintering diving ducks are considered species with complementary habitat needs for Breton NWR.

SHOREBIRDS

Resident, wintering, and migratory shorebirds all use maritime and coastal marsh habitats on both Delta and Breton NWRs. Elliott and McKnight (2000) listed 39 species of shorebirds which occur along the Texas and Louisiana coasts, of which 35 are commonly observed (Table 5).

Table 5. Seasonal occurrence and abundance of shorebird species in the Gulf Coastal Prairies Planning Region (taken from Elliott and McKnight 2000)

Common Name Scientific Name Refuge1 Seasonal Abundance2

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola B M, W

American Golden- Pluvialis dominica B M Plover

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus B M, W, b

Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia B m, w(tr),B

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus B M, w

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus B M, W Killdeer Charadrius vociferus B, D m, W,b

American Haematopus palliatus B W, b Oystercatcher

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus D M, W, b

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana D M, W, b

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca D M, W

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes D M, W

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria D M, w(tr)

Willet Catoptrophorus B, D M, W, B semipalmatus

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia B, D M, w

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda D M

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus B M

Habitat Management Plan 39

Common Name Scientific Name Refuge1 Seasonal Abundance2

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus B M, W

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica B M

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa B M, W

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres B, D M, W

Red Knot Calidris canutus B m, w

Sanderling Calidris alba B, D M, W

Semipalmated Calidris pusilla B, D M Sandpiper

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri B, D M, W

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla B, D M, W

Dunlin Calidris alpina B, D M, W

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus B, D M, w

Short-billed Limnodromus griseus B, D M, W Dowitcher Long-billed Limnodromus scolopaceus B, D M, W Dowitcher

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata D M, W

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor D M

1B=Breton; D=Delta 2Occurrence code: B = breeding, M = migration, W = winter. UPPER CASE BOLD = region as important as any other to the species; UPPER CASE = region important to the species; lower case = region not important relative to other regions; (tr) = species only occurs in the region sporadically in small numbers.

Piping plovers breed along the Atlantic Coast, in the Great Lakes region, and in the northern Great Plains. They winter along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts from Tamaulipas to North Carolina, as well as in the West Indies and the Bahamas, and are occasionally sighted further south along the Mexican Gulf Coast and on the Coast of Sonora (Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). Late 19th Century population declines were attributed to overhunting; later declines in the 20th Century were caused by habitat loss, human disturbance, contaminants, disease, and predation (Hunter and Harris 2006). The Great Lakes population of the piping plover was listed Endangered in 1986. Atlantic Coast and Great Plains populations were listed as threatened in 1986. Recovery plans for Atlantic (USFWS 1996) and Great Lakes (USFWS 2003) populations of piping plover have been produced. The Service designated the Chandeleur Islands as critical habitat for the piping plover under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act in 2001. No

40 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

special management actions have been specified for Breton NWR for piping plovers; however, in the wake of the BP oil spill in 2010, stepped-up monitoring has been put into place as part of Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Recovery activity.

SECRETIVE MARSH BIRDS

Emergent marsh habitat on Delta NWR supports a diverse assemblage of secretive marsh birds, including king rail, clapper rail, yellow rail, black rail, purple gallinule, pied-billed grebe, horned grebe, and least bittern. These birds use the marsh habitat and associated mud flats for feeding, nesting, and cover. They also may use stands of Phragmites for winter cover (Strader 2006). All of these birds share a propensity for secretive behavior and an affinity for emergent marsh vegetation. This group of species was selected as a resource of concern for Delta NWR, because the refuge’s high-quality marsh habitat supports healthy populations of all of them, and they are, as a group, suffering moderate-to-severe declines throughout their ranges. Wheeler et al. (no date) assessed the vulnerability of 43 solitary breeding waterbird species to population unsustainability. They rated 26 of the species “high” or “highest” concern, including all but one of the species included in (Table 6). Some of these species use the salt marsh habitats on Breton NWR; however, since management actions taken for other resources of concern also provide for these species, they are considered species with complementary habitat needs for that refuge.

Table 6. Secretive marsh birds of concern on Delta NWR

Vulnerability to Unsustainable Non- Breeding Population breeding Common Name Scientific Name (Delta Declines (Delta NWR) (Wheeler et al. NWR) no date)

King Rail Rallus elegans High Concern x x

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris Moderate Concern x x

Coturnicops Yellow Rail High Concern x noveboracensis

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis Highest Concern x

Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinica High Concern x

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus High Concern x

Pied-billed Podilymbus podiceps High Concern x x Grebe

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis High Concern x x

Habitat Management Plan 41

The king rail is a large rail which is widely distributed throughout the eastern United States exclusive of the Appalachians and New England. It breeds in freshwater and brackish marsh throughout its range, and winters from eastern Texas across the southeastern coastal plain to Florida, in parts of Mexico and Cuba, and along the Atlantic Coast north to New Jersey (Poole et al. 2005). King rails feed on crustaceans and aquatic insects and nest in emergent graminoid vegetation. They are year-round residents on Delta NWR.

The clapper rail is closely related to the king rail; hybrids between the two species occur in areas of range overlap (Poole et al. 2005). Clapper rails are exclusively coastal in the eastern United States, although western races occur inland (Eddleman and Conway 1998). This species, like king rail, nests in graminoid emergent marsh vegetation, constructing a platform to raise the nest above high tide. Preferred food is crustaceans, although clapper rails are opportunistic feeders, taking seeds, insects, fish, snails, eggs of other bird species, and occasionally nestlings of other bird species (Eddleman and Conway 1998).

Black rail and yellow rail are small, secretive rails which winter on the Louisiana Gulf Coast. Like king rails and clapper rails, these birds forage, breed, and spend most of their time in emergent marsh habitat foraging for molluscs, crustaceans, insects, and other small prey (Eddleman et al. 1994, Bookhout 1995).

The purple gallinule is a wide-ranging tropical rail which breeds along the U.S. Gulf and southern Atlantic Coasts, including Delta NWR. Breeding habitat is freshwater or intermediate marsh with either floating vegetation such as water lilies or water hyacinth, or emergent vegetation, broad-leaved or graminoid. Preferred water depth is between .25 and 1 m. Purple gallinules walk on floating and emergent vegetation and eat seeds and other plant parts and invertebrates, including arthropods, annelids, and molluscs. Nests are constructed either on top of floating mats of vegetation such as water hyacinth or alligatorweed, or suspended in emergent vegetation (West and Hess 2002).

Pied-billed grebes and horned grebes are secretive marsh birds that build floating nests in emergent marsh vegetation. They are capable of swimming like ducks, and feed by diving and capturing fish, crustaceans, molluscs, insects, and other small prey. Pied-billed grebes are year-round residents on Delta NWR, breeding and wintering in the marsh habitat on the refuge, while horned grebes breed in western Canada and Alaska and winter in the southeastern United States, including the Louisiana Coast (Stedman 2000, Muller and Storer 1999).

Although a member of the heron family, least bitterns are considered secretive marsh birds because of their habits of slipping through marsh vegetation and foraging at the transition between marsh and open water. They are solitary breeders which nest in dense, tall graminoid marsh vegetation habitat. They range throughout the eastern United States exclusive of the Appalachians, including the Louisiana Coast, and in parts of California, and are year-round residents on the lower Texas Coast and peninsular Florida, as well as parts of Mexico and the eastern Caribbean. The nest is constructed of sticks and marsh grass and consists of an elevated platform with an overhead canopy (Poole et al. 2009). Delta NWR provides breeding habitat for these birds.

42 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

COLONIAL BREEDING WADING BIRDS

Delta and Breton NWRs provide habitat for colonial waterbirds throughout the year. Ten species of colonial waterbirds are documented to breed on the refuges (Table 7). Nine species are ranked “Moderate” or “High” risk conservation status by Kushlan et al. (2002), including the following birds which breed on one or both of the refuges: snowy egret, reddish egret, little blue heron, tricolored heron, black-crowned night heron, yellow-crowned night heron, and white ibis. In the southeast regional waterbird plan, 6 species are placed in Tier I (Species of Conservation Concern): great egret, reddish egret, little blue heron, yellow-crowned night heron, white ibis, and wood stork. Of these, reddish egret is designated for Immediate Action in the Gulf Coastal Prairie Bird Conservation Region (Hunter et al. 2006). Providing breeding habitat for these birds is a priority for the refuges. Restoring and maintaining emergent marsh and shallow pond habitat and marginal woody vegetation on natural and artificial levees on Delta NWR benefits colonial waterbirds throughout the year, by providing high-quality breeding, foraging, and roosting habitat. Likewise, conserving and restoring coastal dune shrub thicket on Breton Island and the Chandeleur Islands are priorities for reddish egret breeding habitat.

Table 7. Colonial waterbird species known to utilize habitats on Delta and Breton NWRs, and their conservation status

Tier1 and Action B=breeding; O=nonbreeding Common Name Scientific Name Codes2 (Hunter et al. 2006) Delta NWR Breton NWR Great Blue IV PR Ardea herodias O O Heron Great Egret Ardea alba I MA B B Snowy Egret Egretta thula IV PR B B Egretta I IM Reddish Egret O B rufescens Little Blue I PR Egretta caerulea B B Heron Tricolored II PR Egretta tricolor B B Heron Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis IV PC B O Black-crowned Nycticorax IV PR B B Night Heron nycticorax Yellow- I MA Nyctanassa crowned Night B violacea Heron Butorides IV PR Green Heron B virescens Roseate II PR Platalea ajaja O Spoonbill

Habitat Management Plan 43

Common Name Scientific Name Tier1 and Action B=breeding; O=nonbreeding 2 Eudocimus I MA White Ibis B albus White-faced II PR Plegadis chihi O Ibis Plegadis IV PR Glossy Ibis O falcinellus Mycteria I MA Wood Stork O Americana

1 Tier I=Species of Conservation Concern; Tier II=Additional Stewardship Species, Tier III=Additional Federal Listed Species; Tier IV=Additional Local and Regional Interest Species. 2 Action Codes: IM=immediate management; MA=management attention; PR=planning and responsibility; PC=population control.

Rookery areas on Delta NWR were damaged in Hurricane Katrina; restoration of these habitats will benefit colonial wading birds. On Breton NWR, protection and restoration of black mangrove and other scrub/shrub habitats will help conserve and restore rookery habitat.

BROWN PELICANS

The brown pelican, Louisiana’s iconic state bird, was placed on the Endangered Species list in 1970, after western Gulf of Mexico populations were extirpated due to the effects of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, particularly DDT and endrin. Endrin was implicated in direct adult mortality events (Nesbitt et al. 1978), while DDT (or more accurately, its anaerobic decomposition product, DDD (Hill and McCarty 1967)) was shown to be responsible for egg shell thinning which caused widespread nest failure (Blus et al. 1971, Blus 1982). Most uses of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were banned in the United States in the 1970s, and brown pelicans were reintroduced to the western Gulf Coast from Florida. They have since made a full recovery, and were removed from the endangered species list in the southeastern United States in 1985, with the exception of those populations found west of Alabama. These populations were removed from the endangered species list in 2009 and are currently under a post-delisting monitoring plan.

Brown pelicans are native to coastal areas in tropical and temperate zones in the Americas. They spend most of their time in or near marine habitats, nesting on small islands and catching fish by plunge-diving, a foraging behavior which distinguishes them from all other members of their family (Shields 2002).

Breton NWR supports a year-round resident breeding population of brown pelicans. Nests numbered approximately 8,500 in 2011. The number of successful nests dropped to approximately 1,000 in 2012, due to two overwash events that destroyed over 80 percent of both first and second nesting attempts (Figure 8). Only those nests located on higher dunes and mangroves escaped inundation.

Brown pelicans also use habitats on Delta NWR for foraging, loafing, and roosting. However, we determined that since the species primarily benefits from management actions taken for

44 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

other species (the resources of concern), that brown pelicans on Delta NWR are considered a species with complementary habitat needs.

Habitat Management Plan 45

Figure 8. Nest counts for brown pelicans on Breton NWR from 1992 to 2012

GULLS AND TERNS

Gulls and terns make up the largest group of nesting waterbirds on Breton NWR. Laughing gulls are the most numerous breeders on the refuge, with smaller numbers of sandwich terns, royal terns, black skimmers, and sooty terns. A number of other species in this family winter along the Louisiana Coast and use the habitats on Breton NWR (Table 8).

Table 8. Gulls, terns, and allies which use habitats on Breton or Delta NWRs, and their conservation status

B=Breeding; Conservation Status W=Wintering Common Name Scientific Name (Level of Concern) M=Migratory (Kushlan et al. 2002) P=Pelagic Black Skimmer Rhynchops niger High BW

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Not Currently at Risk W

Herring Gull Larus argentatus Low W

46 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

B=Breeding; Conservation Status W=Wintering Common Name Scientific Name (Level of Concern) M=Migratory (Kushlan et al. 2002) P=Pelagic Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia Moderate W

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla Not Currently at Risk BW

Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica High W

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Low BW

Royal Tern Sterna maxima Moderate BW

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis Not Currently at Risk BW

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Low BM

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Moderate W

Least Tern Sterna antillarum High BW

Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata Moderate BP

Black Tern Chlidonias niger Moderate M

Nesting populations of these species fluctuate over time as a result of storms, weather, and other factors. Nest count data for royal terns, sandwich terns, sooty terns, Caspian terns, and black skimmers for the years 1992 to 2012 are presented in Figures 9, 10, and 11. Laughing gull nests are too numerous to count, and data are not collected on them.

Habitat Management Plan 47

Figure 9. Nest counts for Sandwich terns on Breton NWR from 1992 to 2012

Figure 10. Nest counts for royal terns on Breton NWR from 1992 to 2012

48 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 11. Nest counts for black skimmers on Breton NWR from 1992 to 2012

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF RESOURCES OF CONCERN

WATERFOWL

Wintering Ducks

Most North American waterfowl species satisfy their annual cyclic habitat needs through long- distance migration. Habitat requirements vary with the breeding cycle, and habitats all along the flyways are critical links in a chain which sustains waterfowl populations. Strategic conservation of habitat, including planning, protection, and management, is the primary way that humans can ensure healthy populations of waterfowl (or any wildlife) (Reinecke et al. 1989).

During winter, dabbling ducks prefer shallow wetland habitat that is approximately 50 percent vegetation and 50 percent open water, dispersed in a mosaic pattern with the largest edge effect possible. In coastal Louisiana, wintering waterfowl forage and rest in marshes and moist-soil habitats. Both marshes and moist-soil habitats (either natural early-successional mud flats or managed moist-soil units) are rich in edible plant material (e.g., grass and sedge seeds, roots, tubers) and aquatic invertebrates (Kaminski et al. 2003; Heitmeyer 1988, 2006). Mallards, gadwall, teal, American wigeon, shovelers, and geese all utilize marsh and moist-soil areas as preferred habitats (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988). These areas are vital to waterfowl for pair bonding, loafing, sanctuary, thermal cover, and feeding (Reinecke et al. 1989).

Habitat Management Plan 49

Waterfowl need sanctuary from human, predator, and mechanical disturbance. Wintering ducks and geese have significant energetic and nutritional requirements to support moults and other biological processes, and to maintain the animals through cold weather periods. Disturbance-free habitat enables some species of waterfowl to prepare biologically for spring migration and reproduction (Reinecke et al. 1989; Strickland et al. 2009). Disturbance can interrupt resting and feeding bouts, resulting in a loss of energy and lowering body weight (Henry 1980, Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988, Kahl 1991). Paulus (1984) found in Louisiana that increased foraging time by gadwalls was insufficient to counterbalance energy loss due to disturbance.

Mottled Ducks

Preferred mottled duck habitats include treeless marshes, prairies, and rice fields, with the highest densities of nesting birds found in brackish to fresh coastal marsh (Rorabaugh and Zwank 1983). Mottled ducks are primarily vegetarians and feed in shallow water with depth as an important variable for autumn habitat (Singleton 1953; White and James 1978). However, their diet may be highly varied, and considerable animal mass may be consumed (Singleton 1953). Invertebrates are especially important for young ducklings. Singleton (1953) and Stutzenbaker (1979) found that from hatching to 3 weeks, 80 percent of the diet of broods consisted of insects, insect larvae, small fish, snails, and amphipods. Ducklings began their transition to plant foods in the fourth week.

Nesting habitat in coastal marshes is characterized by tall, dense stands of grass located on elevated sites above high tide and generally within 150m of water (Rorabaugh and Zwank 1983). They nest on the ground under bushes or concealed among large clumps of graminoid vegetation, such as bulrush (Scirpus spp.) in or near the marsh (Terres 1980). Engeling (1950) and Singleton (1953) found nests on levees, road sites, and fallow rice fields with little grazing pressure in rice production areas.

Mottled ducks use a variety of plant species for nesting cover which may include clumps of cordgrass (Spartina spp.), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and false indigo (Baptisia sphaerocarpa) where grasses are sparse or short. However, wet-soil conditions, with an abundance of rushes, bulrush, and cattails, lower nesting habitat quality, and areas with dense woody cover are avoided entirely (Rorabaugh and Zwank 1983).

Adequate brood habitat can seriously affect duckling survival and reproductive success. Hens with newly hatched ducklings prefer a high water to land ratio, with emergent and shoreline vegetation that may be used as cover (Rorabaugh and Zwank 1983). Engeling (1950) found that in Texas coastal marshes brood-rearing sites, which were bordered by cordgrass, saltgrass, and bulrush, were the most successful. Flooded rice fields are also used as brood-rearing sites, but the quality of this habitat is disputed.

Geese

Wintering geese require food and foraging habitat, escape cover, and roosting habitat (Tesky 1993, Kaminsky 1986). In addition, they require a source of grit for gizzard function. Wintering geese forage on seeds of wetland graminoid plants (Hobaugh 1984, Kaminski 1986, Laskowski no date) and utilize green browse and invertebrates in freshwater marsh. Tall marsh vegetation and vegetation on levees and spoil banks provide escape cover for geese.

50 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

SHOREBIRDS

Elliott and McKnight (2000) defined maritime shorebird habitat as “submerged to emergent lands between seagrass beds and upland grasslands on bay sides of barrier islands and the mainland, and as the area between the low intertidal zone (forebeach) and backshore (backbeach) on Gulf of Mexico beaches.” They divide maritime habitats into five types, including beach, washover, tidal flats, made land (spoil), and [oyster] reef flank. All of these habitats, with the exception of reef flank, are part of the Barrier Island habitat type defined by Lester et al. (2005) and are well represented on Breton NWR. Non-maritime habitats on the Gulf Coast include coastal marsh as well as artificial impoundments and agricultural lands. Maritime habitats are used by 31 of the 39 species listed for the Gulf Coast Prairie region (Table 9).

Table 9. Maritime habitat use by shorebirds in the Gulf Coast Prairie planning region (taken from Elliott and McKnight 2000)

Tidal Reef Made Common Name Beach Washover Flats Flank Land

Black-bellied Plover x x x x

American Golden-Plover x

Snowy Plover x x x x

Wilson's Plover x x x x

Semipalmated Plover x x

Piping Plover x x x x

Killdeer x American Oystercatcher x x x x

Black-necked Stilt x

American Avocet x x

Greater Yellowlegs x x x x

Lesser Yellowlegs x x x

Solitary Sandpiper x

Willet x x x x x

Whimbrel x

Long-billed Curlew x x x

Hudsonian Godwit x

Habitat Management Plan 51

Tidal Reef Made Common Name Beach Washover Flats Flank Land

Marbled Godwit x x x

Ruddy Turnstone x x x x x

Red Knot x x x

Sanderling x x x x

Semipalmated Sandpiper x x

Western Sandpiper x x x x x

Least Sandpiper x x x

White-rumped Sandpiper x

Baird's Sandpiper x

Dunlin x x x

Stilt Sandpiper x

Short-billed Dowitcher x x Long-billed Dowitcher x

Wilson's Phalarope x

SECRETIVE MARSH BIRDS

Variables that control habitat selection and quality for secretive marsh birds are many and complex. At small scales, food availability, cover, nest material, protection from predators and weather, presence of open water, water depth, and type, height and density of vegetation, all influence habitat selection and use by these birds (Riffell et al. 2003, Osnas 2003, Lor and Malecki 2006, Johnson and Dinsmore 1986). On landscape scales, the size and distribution of suitable habitat patches are important determinants in use by certain marsh birds, while others appear not to be affected by these variables (Brown and Dinsmore 1986, Benoit and Askins 2002, Fairbairn and Dinsmore 2001). A general understanding of these variables and how they influence habitat quality and avian species richness on the refuge is important for management decisions. Two habitat requirements are shared by most or all of the species which use Delta NWR: the presence of emergent marsh vegetation, mostly graminoid, and the presence of open water in various proportions to the marsh cover. Specific requirements of the eight species of secretive marsh birds which breed or winter on Delta NWR are presented in Table 10.

52 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Table 10. Specific habitat requirements of eight secretive marsh bird species which breed or winter on Delta NWR

HABITAT COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DELTA NWR

Preferred or Other Emergent associated plant Open Water requirements Large Scale SPECIES graminoid Salinity species (Gulf Coast Water Depth or Requirements marsh portion of range) preferences

King Rail* yes Typha spp., Scirpus Fresh to High marsh (Poole et al. olneyi, Spartina Brackish with sparse 2005) cynosuroides, woody Zizaniopsis miliacea, vegetation Panicum hemitomon, Cladium jamaicense, Echinochloa spp., Polygonum spp.

Clapper Rail* yes Spartina alterniflora, S. Nest 5.6-7.0 Shallow Low marsh; (Eddleman patens, Salicornia spp., within 15 ppt Scattered and Conway Juncus roemerianus, m of open shrubs; 25% 1998) Avicennia spp., water of marsh within 15m of a shoreline

Yellow Rail yes Spartina spp. Drier portions (Bookhout of marsh 1995)

Black Rail yes Tolerates May tolerate (Eddleman et flooding more al. 1994) in winter fragmentation in habitat winter habitat

Habitat Management Plan 53

HABITAT COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DELTA NWR

Preferred or Other Emergent associated plant Open Water requirements Large Scale SPECIES graminoid Salinity species (Gulf Coast Water Depth or Requirements marsh portion of range) preferences

Purple yes Brasenia schreberi, Prefers 0-5.0 ppt Deep: Walks on Gallinule* Nelumbo lutea, Nuphar <25% 0.25- floating or (West and lutea, Nymphaea open 1.0m emergent Hess 2002) odorata, Pontederia water vegetation to cordata, Sagittaria spp., feed on Typha spp., Panicum invertebrates hemitomon, and flowers Schoenoplectus spp., Zizaniopsis miliacea, Juncus spp., Lemna spp., Eichhornia crassipes, Potamogeton spp., Ceratophyllum demersum, Hydrilla verticillata, Cephalanthus occidentalis.

Horned Grebe Moderate 0-35 ppt. (Stedman to large 2000) fresh to salt water

54 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

HABITAT COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DELTA NWR

Preferred or Other Emergent associated plant Open Water requirements Large Scale SPECIES graminoid Salinity species (Gulf Coast Water Depth or Requirements marsh portion of range) preferences

Pied-billed marsh nest Breeds on fresh to >.25m Nest on Area-dependent Grebe* (Muller requires ponds brackish floating breeder (Naugle and Storer ≥10 cm2 of >0.2ha platform et al. 2001); 1999) stem basal among tall Nests much area per m2 emergent more frequently of marsh vegetation on in marsh habitat in open water patches ≥5ha (Brown and Dinsmore 1986)

Least Bittern* Typha spp., Carex spp., Yes, Fresh to ≤0.5m Clumps of Nests much Schoenoplectus spp., mixed brackish woody more frequently Sagittaria spp., Myriscus with vegetation in marsh habitat spp. marsh patches ≥5ha and (Brown and woody Dinsmore 1986) veg.

Habitat Management Plan 55

COLONIAL BREEDING WADING BIRDS

Colonial waterbirds on Delta and Breton NWRs can be considered as a single resource of concern, because their general habitat requirements are similar, and management actions taken to benefit one species will generally benefit all. Hafner (1997) divides the general habitat requirements of these wading birds into three components: colony site requirements (rookeries), feeding habitat during breeding season, and feeding habitat during nonbreeding season.

Nesting sites, or rookeries, must provide the nesting birds with nest substrates, protection from weather, and security from predation. Rookeries where ground-nesting takes place are therefore usually surrounded by water, but can be protected by dense vegetation instead. In the absence of these components, most colonial wading birds require tall woody vegetation as nest substrate in order to secure the nest from ground-based predators (Hafner 1997). Great blue herons prefer nest sites 7-10 m high in trees, while black-crowned night herons, snowy egrets, little blue herons, and great egrets tend to nest on islands in shrubby vegetation (Habitat Objectives Workgroup 1991). Reddish egrets nest in shrubs or trees on coastal islands and forage in saltwater (Vermillion and Wilson 2009). Protection from wind, rain, and flooding must be adequate for successful nesting to occur. Rookeries also must have nearby food and nest material resources adequate for the number of birds using the rookery (Hafner 1997).

Feeding habitat during the breeding season must provide sustenance for adults as well as chicks, and must be located within some maximum radius of the rookery that allows foraging adults to efficiently capture and transport food to the nest (Gibbs 1991, Hafner 1997). The size of the rookery (number of nesting pairs) is often limited by availability of suitable feeding habitat within this radius (Hafner 1997). This has been shown for great blue herons (Gibbs 1991) and black-crowned night herons (Fasola and Barbieri 1978) among other species. Fasola and Barbieri (1978) reported that heron rookeries in Italy were spatially arranged to efficiently divide up the available feeding habitat. Gibbs (1991) likewise reported that great blue heron rookeries in Maine were located near optimum locations relative to dispersed, disjunct wetland feeding habitat. Birds are able to exploit different prey and feeding habitats at different times of the day when prey is most available; therefore, habitat diversity within the available radius is an important factor as well (Hafner 1997).

Non-breeding season feeding habitat requirements for Gulf Coast wading birds are similar to those during the breeding season, except that white ibises, which require freshwater prey for feeding nestlings during the breeding season, can forage in saltwater during the non-breeding season (Chavez-Ramirez and Slack 1995). Types of habitat used during the non-breeding season include shallow open water and water margins. Vegetated areas are much less likely to be utilized by wading birds on the Gulf Coast (Chavez-Ramirez and Slack 1995).

Some researchers have reported that multi-species populations of wading birds partition feeding habitat use. Partitioning can occur by water depth, with longer-legged birds able to forage in deeper water (Hafner 1997), by time of day (Post 2008), or size/configuration of open-water area (Chavez- Ramirez and Slack 1995). Recent work has questioned the idea that resource partitioning occurs among diurnal wading birds, especially when food resources are not limiting (Post 2008).

BROWN PELICAN

Brown pelicans inhabit warm coastal waters in North and South America, rarely straying far inland except for populations in the southwestern United States and in Florida. Along the Louisiana Coast, they are year-round residents, breeding and roosting on barrier islands, including Breton NWR

56 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

(Shields 2002). Habitat requirements for these birds include an adequate supply of food within 50 km (30 miles) of breeding colonies (Anderson et al. 1982), predator-free, disturbance-free nesting area (generally on islands), and appropriate roosting sites (USFWS 1983). Vegetation can be variable in nesting colonies, ranging from herbaceous to shrubby communities; nest material comes from whatever vegetation is available (USFWS 1983). Protection from mammalian predators and human disturbance is essential for brown pelican breeding habitat (USFWS 1983). Pelicans are unable to roost on the water, because they become waterlogged after an hour or so and therefore must roost on land or other structure out of the water. They prefer to roost in protected places, either natural sites such as islands and sand bars, or man-made structures such as pilings and jetties (Shields 2002).

GULLS AND TERNS

Gulls, terns, and related species are distributed worldwide in marine and freshwater habitats from the arctic to the tropics. The six major species which breed on Breton NWR (e.g., black skimmer, laughing gull, Caspian tern, royal tern, sandwich tern, and sooty tern) are primarily coastal-to- pelagic, nesting on shorelines and spending most of their time in marine and estuarine environments. Specific habitat requirements of each of these are briefly summarized below.

Black Skimmer

Black skimmers are restricted to coastal environments, and range from Mexico (mostly wintering habitat) to the northeastern United States and southern California. Birds which breed north of North Carolina are migratory, while birds on the southern Atlantic Coast of the United States and the U.S. Gulf Coast are resident (Gochfeld and Burger 1994). On the Gulf Coast, they breed on sandy beaches in loose colonies (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2011), preferentially selecting sites occupied by common terns, from which they apparently derive protective cover and early warning of predator approach (Erwin 1979). The preferred nesting site is interdune areas out of danger from flooding; however, in the presence of human disturbance, black skimmers may nest on lower sites where flooding is a possibility to avoid disturbance (Gochfeld and Burger 1994). Presence of human disturbance and/or predators, such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes), in barrier island habitat reduces breeding success and causes black skimmers (and other waterbirds) to select alternate breeding habitat, including artificial habitats such as dredge spoil islands and buildings (Erwin et al. 2003). Wintering habitat is similar to breeding, consisting of marine beaches, estuarine shell and sand bars, and occasionally freshwater lakeshores (Gochfeld and Burger 1994). Feeding habitat is in tidal waters where small fish are concentrated. Skimmers feed at night or during the day, depending on tide stage, and prefer to feed when winds are light and water is calm. Erwin (1977) reported that black skimmers fed exclusively in marsh channels and tide pools in his study in North Carolina. They fly just above the surface of the water with the tip of their mandible extended into the water until it contacts a fish. They are then able to snap their jaw shut and capture the fish (Gochfeld and Burger 1994).

Laughing Gull

The most abundant breeding bird species on Breton NWR, laughing gulls, are found along the east, west, and Gulf Coasts of the United States, Mexico, and Central and northern South America. Breeding habitat can range from salt marshes and sandy beaches on barrier islands in the Gulf of Mexico, to mangrove islands in Florida. Generally, some vegetative cover is preferred on breeding habitat to provide protection from predators and weather. Wintering habitat is along beaches and estuary shores (Burger 1996).

Habitat Management Plan 57

Caspian Tern

In North America, Caspian terns breed from Alaska to Florida and winter along the southern coasts of the United States and in coastal and inland areas of Mexico. They are year-round residents on the Gulf Coast, including southeastern Louisiana, and breed on Breton NWR. Breeding habitat, though widely dispersed, conforms to a fairly narrow set of conditions: sparsely or un-vegetated sand or gravel in areas free of predators where cover consists of driftwood or other flotsam. Migratory and wintering habitat for this species, in addition to coastal areas, includes larger bodies of freshwater inland. They feed by hovering over the water, bill turned down, until they see a fish, and then plunging beneath the surface to capture the prey. Nesting is colonial in tightly packed nesting grounds near those of other birds (Cuthbert and Wires 1999).

Royal Tern

Unlike Caspian terns, royal terns are restricted to coastal habitats and warm waters, and are only rarely sighted inland (Sibley 2003, Buckley and Buckley 2002). They are year-round residents of the Gulf Coast of the United States, including Breton NWR, where they breed. Royal terns, like all crested terns, breed in densely packed colonies and share behavioral similarities, including extended parental care (5-8 months, into winter), vocal recognition between chicks and parents, and visual recognition of the nest and eggs by the parents (Buckley and Buckley 2002). Breeding habitats for royal terns is open (usually) sandy habitat either on barrier islands or spoil islands. Shell or wrack substrate has also been reported. Requirements for breeding habitat include the absence of mammalian predators, inaccessibility and the ability to see surroundings, shallow feeding areas close by, and proximity to an inlet to the sea (Buckley and Buckley 2002). Royal terns feed farther from the nesting colony than do black skimmers, and are able to use open water areas as well as inlets for feeding (Erwin 1977).

Sandwich Tern

In addition to its Old World range, this species breeds on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States, including Breton NWR, and winters from Florida to South America. More than 90 percent of breeding in North America for this species takes place along the Texas and Louisiana Coasts (Shealer 1999). Nesting habitat for Sandwich terns is low, flat sandy areas on islands, either natural or constructed from dredge spoil. Areas of bare sand, gravel, or grass cover may be used for nesting (Shealer 1999). As for other colonial nesting shorebirds, absence of mammalian predators is a key to their success, and human disturbance should be minimized.

Sooty Tern

Sooty terns nest on open, sparsely vegetated, habitat in the tropics and subtropics. Significant nesting colonies in the United States occur in Hawaii, the Florida Keys, at Breton NWR, and along the Texas Coast. Other breeding colonies exist throughout the Caribbean on small, predator-free islets and cays. The species is distributed throughout the tropics (Schreiber et al. 2002).

REFUGE CONTRIBUTION TO HABITAT NEEDS OF RESOURCES OF CONCERN

Delta and Breton NWRs have the potential to provide high-quality habitat for their respective resources of concern, provided that they continue to be properly managed and restored. Estimates of potential contributions to the habitat needs of the resources of concern for each refuge are provided in Table 11.

58 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Table 11. Potential refuge contributions to the habitat needs identified for refuge resources of concern on Delta and Breton NWRs

POTENTIAL HABITAT CONTRIBUTION Resource of Concern Delta NWR Breton NWR

Waterfowl • Freshwater/Intermediate/ Brackish Marsh: 48,000 acres

• Inviolate sanctuary: 31,719 acres

Shorebirds • Freshwater/Intermediate/ • Unvegetated Beach Brackish Marsh: 48,000 acres • Coastal Dune Grassland • Vegetated Pioneer Emerging Delta • Coastal Mangrove Marsh Shrubland

Secretive marsh birds • Freshwater/Intermediate/ Brackish Marsh: 48,000 acres

Brown Pelicans • Coastal Mangrove Marsh Shrubland

Colonial wading birds • Freshwater/Intermediate/ • Coastal Mangrove Marsh Brackish Marsh: 48,000 acres Shrubland

• Rookery (wooded) areas

Gulls and Terns • Unvegetated Beach

• Coastal Dune Grassland

• Coastal Mangrove Marsh Shrubland

Habitat Management Plan 59

IV. Habitat Management Goals and Objectives

The refuge CCP (USFWS 2008) established the following goals for habitat management on Delta NWR:

Goal 1. Manage, conserve, and restore the physical and ecological functions of coastal wetland habitats for fish and wildlife resources.

The associated objective emphasizes management and restoration of interior emergent marsh:

Objective 1.1: Continue to maintain quality interior emergent marsh, and initiate a restoration program that focuses on restoration of the Gulf shoreline, which will aid in protecting interior marsh.

Additionally, the CCP established Goal 2, focused on managing populations of fish and wildlife on Delta NWR:

Goal 2. Manage, conserve, and protect coastal fish and wildlife species with special emphasis on migratory birds and threatened and endangered species.

Monitoring and protection of fish and wildlife under this goal are addressed with a single objective:

Objective 2.1: Protect and monitor federal trust species and targeted species of management concern and interest.

The refuge CCP (USFWS 2008) established the following goal for habitat management on Breton NWR:

Goal 5. Manage, conserve, and, if feasible, restore the physical and ecological functions of barrier island habitats for fish and wildlife resources.

Four objectives, the last of which is addressed by the preparation of this HMP, were included to support this goal:

Objective 5.1: Monitor and maintain island habitat with large-scale restoration projects.

Objective 5.2: Protect the islands that are under Wilderness status in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Objective 5.3: Seek research possibilities with universities and conservation agencies.

Objective 5.4: Develop a Habitat Management Plan by 2018.

Additionally, the CCP established Goal 6, focused on managing populations of fish and wildlife on Breton NWR:

Goal 6. Manage, conserve, and protect coastal fish and wildlife species with special emphasis on migratory birds, colonial nesting waterbirds, and threatened and endangered species.

60 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Monitoring and protecting fish and wildlife under this goal are addressed with a single objective:

Objective 6.1: Depending on the quantity and success of habitat restoration and recovery, continue to protect and monitor colonial nesting seabirds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, and other targeted species and species of federal responsibility.

This HMP is a step-down plan of the CCP, and therefore its goals and objectives support and follow the management direction defined in the CCP. To address these goals and objectives in the CCP, we defined the following objectives for this HMP:

A. DELTA NWR HABITAT MANAGEMENT: EMERGENT MARSH

OBJECTIVE A-1: EMERGENT MARSH PROTECTION

By the end of the planning period for this HMP, devise, seek funding and partnerships for, and implement a project or projects of sufficient scale and scope to restore the refuge’s shoreline along Breton Sound and the Gulf of Mexico, to protect interior marsh from further loss due to storm action. Intermediate-term objectives include:

• By 2015, identify and assess the feasibility of options for protecting emergent marsh on Delta NWR; • Begin seeking funding for selected option[s] once identified.

Rationale: Delta NWR has suffered significant losses of marsh in recent years, with especially severe reductions in cover of marsh vegetation after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Also damaged were the shoreline beaches surrounding the refuge, which protected the marsh from saltwater intrusion, wave action, and storm surge. Much of the sediment which composed those natural barriers is gone, and will need to be replenished if their former function is to be restored. Replenishment options include beneficial deposition of dredge spoil and dedicated dredging and depositing of material from nearby marine areas.

Supports CCP Objective 1.1.

Resources of Concern: Waterfowl, shorebirds, secretive marsh birds, and colonial breeding wading birds

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods • Aquatic vegetation cover and extent • Periodic acquisition and analysis of • Emergent wetland vegetation remotely sensed data composition

Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods • Waterfowl species composition and • Aerial winter surveys (3x yr) abundance • Ground fall/winter surveys (3x yr)

Habitat Management Plan 61

OBJECTIVE A-2: EMERGENT MARSH RESTORATION

By the end of the planning period for this HMP, restore marsh cover to pre-Hurricane Katrina levels through sediment trapping, by monitoring flow through existing crevasses, reopening crevasses that have silted in, and creating new crevasses in strategic locations whenever potential sites are identified. Intermediate-term objectives include:

• By 2015, identify 12 sites (1,500 acres) likely to benefit from marsh creation and likely to be responsive to crevasse creation or reopening; • Once identified, begin seeking resources to restore 1,500 acres of marsh by creating or reopening crevasses.

Rationale: Delta NWR was created in the mid-1800s, when a crevasse was opened in the natural levee of the Mississippi River. Since then, smaller crevasses have been used by refuge staff to collect, trap, and incorporate new sediment into the refuge. As the twin threats of local geological subsidence and global sea-level rise exert their inexorable influence over the coming decades, adding new sediment will be the only way to keep Delta NWR from disappearing below the sea. Maintaining the dynamic balance between sediment inflow and relative sea-level rise is critical to the long-term presence of marsh habitats on Delta NWR.

Supports CCP Objective 1.1.

Resources of Concern: Waterfowl, shorebirds, secretive marsh birds, and colonial breeding wading birds

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements

Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods

• Emergent wetland vegetation extent • Periodic acquisition and analysis of remotely sensed data

Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods

• Waterfowl species composition and • Aerial winter surveys (3x yr) abundance • Ground fall/winter surveys (3x yr)

OBJECTIVE A-3: EMERGENT MARSH MANAGEMENT

Provide 48,000 acres of quality fresh, intermediate, and brackish marsh and open water areas every year for the 15-year duration of the planning period covered by this HMP, with the following characteristics:

• An approximate emergent vegetation to open water ratio of 50:50; • At least 50 percent of the emergent vegetation consists of plants of high waterfowl food value, including Sagittaria spp. and Scirpus spp., while Colocasia is maintained at less than 50 percent of the emergent plant cover;

62 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

• At least 65 percent of the total marsh area (31,719 acres) is maintained as inviolate sanctuary; • Predator populations are managed so that they do not have a deleterious effect on the resources of concern, especially those which breed on the refuge.

Rationale: Providing high-quality marsh habitat, including inviolate sanctuary, for waterfowl and other migratory birds fulfills the refuge purposes and is the refuge’s highest priority. Generally speaking, emergent marsh habitat that is 50 percent open-water and 50 percent emergent vegetation is optimum for wintering waterfowl on the Gulf Coast. Maintaining high-quality breeding habitat for mottled duck and other ground-nesting birds which breed on the refuge will help ensure the continued viability of populations of these resources of concern.

Supports CCP Objectives 1.1, 2.1.

Resources of Concern: Waterfowl, shorebirds, secretive marsh birds, and colonial breeding wading birds

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements

Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods

• Emergent wetland vegetation • Periodic acquisition and analysis of configuration and composition remotely sensed data

Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods

• Waterfowl species composition and • Aerial winter surveys (3x yr) abundance • Ground fall/winter surveys (3x yr)

B. BRETON NWR HABITAT RESTORATION: BARRIER ISLAND HABITAT

OBJECTIVE B-1: ISLAND RESTORATION

By the end of the planning period for this HMP, seek to restore 500 acres of barrier island habitat, including bayside emergent (marsh) habitat and beach/dune habitat, on Breton NWR, through dedicated dredging projects. Interim objectives include:

• By 2015, identify partners and potential funding sources for dedicated dredging projects. • By 2017, develop partnerships with U.S. Geological Survey, other state and federal agencies, conservation nonprofits, universities, and private industry to accomplish conservation projects on Breton NWR. • By 2018, seek funding for one or more dedicated dredging projects at a scale which would achieve CCP Objective 5.1.

Habitat Management Plan 63

Rationale: With or without major restoration efforts, Breton NWR will eventually be reclaimed by the sea through natural geologic processes which operate in river deltas. However, the natural lifespan of the barrier islands which make up the refuge can be extended by targeted sediment nourishment which enhances natural island-building processes (Lavoie 2009). In the absence of human intervention, new deltas, barrier islands, and associated habitats would be continuously created and destroyed over time scales of millennia. However, since the Mississippi River system has been engineered to support commerce and human development in its floodplain, natural, dynamic delta-building processes have been disrupted and are not expected to produce more habitat like that represented on Breton NWR. This means that if the resources of concern which have been identified for the refuge are to be conserved, existing habitat must be artificially protected and restored. Downstream intervention in riverine geologic processes is an interim-term strategy at best, and it is recognized that long-term health of the Mississippi Delta system will depend on changes in the engineering systems which have disrupted those processes.

Supports CCP Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3

Resources of Concern: Shorebirds, brown pelicans, colonial wading birds, and gulls and terns

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements

Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods

• Elevation and areal extent of terrestrial • Periodic acquisition and analysis of habitat and seagrass beds remotely sensed data

Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods

• Nest numbers and success • Aerial and ground surveys

OBJECTIVE B-2: DUNE RESTORATION

Within the planning period of this HMP, and using partnerships to leverage funding, labor, and technical expertise, restore dune habitat on 20 acres of barrier island by constructing 5,000 feet of sand fence and planting 20,000 plugs of dune species, including sea oats (Uniola paniculata), bitter panicum (Panicum amarum), Gulf bluestem (Schizachyrium maritimum), marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens), and other appropriate species.

Rationale: Dune habitat is ranked S1/S2 (critically imperiled/imperiled in Louisiana) and G2/G3 (imperiled/vulnerable globally) (Lester et al. 2005). Its importance for wildlife, as well as the health of coastal systems and human safety, has been discussed above. Restoring and maintaining this habitat on Breton NWR will provide breeding habitat for gulls and terns, as well as stabilize the islands, prolong their lifespan, and enhance the effects of large-scale restoration (sediment nutrition) projects.

Supports CCP Objectives 5.1 and 5.2

64 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Resources of Concern: Waterfowl, shorebirds, brown pelicans, colonial wading birds, and gulls and terns

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements

Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods

• Areal extent of dune habitat • Ground surveys • Plant diversity in dune habitat • Plot/transect data collection

Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods

• Numbers and success of dune- • Aerial and ground surveys nesting birds

C. BRETON NWR WILDERNESS

All of the federally owned lands in Breton NWR, with the exception of North Breton Island (Figure 3), were designated as Breton Wilderness by Public Law 93-632, dated January 3, 1975, and are protected by the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act. The purpose of the Act is to “secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.” Management of wilderness areas within the Refuge System is governed by the Act, by the designating legislation, and by policies set forth by the Department of the Interior and the Service. Priorities for wilderness areas within the Refuge System include:

• Preserving wilderness values as mandated by the Wilderness Act (610 FW 1); • Designing wildlife population management strategies to support refuge purposes, including Wilderness Act purposes; • Controlling invasive species, pests, or diseases when they have degraded, or there is a high probability they will degrade, the biological integrity, diversity, environmental health, or wilderness character of a wilderness area (610 FW 1, 2.16 and 2.19).

A wilderness area, according to the Wilderness Act, is an:

“area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value” (Wilderness Act Sec. 2(c)).

Habitat Management Plan 65

Wilderness is thus, by definition, land which is protected and managed for the benefit of the public. Administering agencies are required by the Act to maintain the wilderness character of wilderness areas: “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.” Wilderness areas are to be “devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” Commercial activity, mechanized transport, roads, structures, and installations are all specifically prohibited except in emergencies.

Issues facing wilderness management on Breton NWR include the gradual loss of terrestrial habitat as a result of natural processes accelerated by anthropogenic climate change, and episodic events such as the recent oiling of habitat on the refuge by the 2010 BP oil spill.

OBJECTIVE C-1: WILDERNESS PROTECTION

For the duration of the planning period of this HMP, restore and maintain the wilderness character of all lands designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System on Breton NWR by continuing to remove contaminants from the BP oil spill, working to prevent and mitigate future such incidents, and working to slow or reverse land loss processes in a manner consistent with legal and policy requirements for wilderness areas on national wildlife refuges.

Rationale: The 2010 BP oil spill damaged the wilderness character of Breton Wilderness by substantially reducing its “primeval character” and making very “noticeable” the “imprint of man’s work,” as well as impairing natural ecological processes which operate under normal conditions. Loss of terrestrial areas of the refuge and shallow-water habitats protected by the islands, although arguably a natural process, may be accelerated by anthropogenic climate change and manipulation of the Mississippi River for flood protection and transportation. Furthermore, human actions have disrupted the natural cycle of river delta lobe formation and destruction, with the result that creation of similar habitat (associated with new delta lobes), which would normally offset natural destruction of old lobes, is impaired. Under these circumstances, delaying the loss of habitat until larger-scale solutions are found will help mitigate anthropogenic changes to the larger region of which Breton NWR is a part.

Supports CCP Objective 5.2.

Resources of Concern: Shorebirds, brown pelicans, colonial wading birds, and gulls and terns

66 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Adaptive Management Monitoring Elements

Habitat Response Variables Probable Methods

• Occurrence of oil or other pollutants • Monitor oil occurrence by periodic • Size of terrestrial habitats ground surveys • Periodically acquire and analyze remotely sensed data to determine areal extent of terrestrial and shallow water (sea grass bed) habitat

Wildlife Response Variables Probable Methods

• Population and breeding success of • Annual ground or aerial surveys resources of concern

Habitat Management Plan 67

V. Habitat Management Strategies

The following management strategies for Delta and Breton NWRs will be employed to achieve the habitat objectives stated in Chapter IV Habitat Goals and Objectives.

EMERGENT MARSH PROTECTION STRATEGIES FOR DELTA NWR

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

A number of strategies are possible to protect and restore emergent marsh habitat on Delta NWR. Marsh protection consists of replacing natural shoreline which was lost to recent storm action. Sediment can be deposited in place, either from dredging operations used to clear shipping lanes or from dedicated dredging for the purpose of obtaining sediment for restoration. Less resource-intensive options include continuing or expanding the use of crevasses in natural levees along Mississippi River distributaries to direct sediment to areas of the refuge where natural fluvial transport would move it into place along the shoreline. Once in place, sediment deposits could be stabilized by artificial or natural revegetation, possibly assisted by sand fencing or other mechanical means of trapping and accumulating particles undergoing aeolian transport. Other methods of protecting the marshes of Delta NWR from loss during storms may be possible; research to identify and test them is an important component of the strategic direction for the refuge. Furthermore, it is clear that the resources for large-scale restoration of shorelines, as well as other landforms discussed below, can only be assembled by working with agency partners who have a common interest in the projects.

STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

The following strategies have been selected to address the marsh protection Objective (A-1) above:

• Identify potential research partners and funding for research to test potential shoreline restoration methods on Delta NWR. • Form partnerships with agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and LDWF to obtain CWPPRA or other funding for large-scale shoreline restoration projects on Delta NWR.

EMERGENT MARSH RESTORATION STRATEGIES FOR DELTA NWR

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Restoration of emergent marsh which has been converted to open water by storm action depends upon new sources of sediment. That sediment can come from either dredge spoil or splays; however, on Delta NWR, the opportunities for dredge spoil deposition for interior marsh restoration are currently limited. Sediment splays have historically played a critical role in creating and maintaining marsh on Delta NWR.

68 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

The following strategies have been selected to address the emergent marsh restoration Objective (A-2) above:

• Evaluate existing crevasses; • Rehabilitate existing crevasses; • Identify crevasses; • Create new crevasses; and • Monitor results.

RESEARCH STRATEGIES

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Research to identify and evaluate the efficacy of marsh restoration methods and identify workable strategies for island and dune restoration can be conducted by various agencies, including federal agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey, academic institutions like the University of New Orleans and Louisiana State University, or by nonprofit or for-profit research-oriented organizations. Funding, likewise, would be available from a variety of sources, mostly federal.

STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

The following strategies have been selected to support Objectives A-2 and B-2. • Form or strengthen partnerships with other federal, state, and academic partners to identify research opportunities, refine research questions, and request funding. • Once the partners identify research questions, actively seek funding to conduct research.

ISLAND RESTORATION (BRETON NWR)

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Sediment nutrition can be accomplished either by beneficial deposition of dredge spoil which has been removed from shipping channels or other sources for another purpose, or sediment can be dredged and transported to the nutrition site solely for the purpose of restoration at the deposition site (dedicated dredging). Both of these strategies have been pursued in the past on Breton NWR; however, the most cost-effective source of dredge spoil for beneficial disposal is no longer available, since the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was closed in 2009. A dedicated dredge project, funded by restoration funding from BP, was implemented by the State of Louisiana in 2010 in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Sediment was dredged from the nearby sea floor and deposited along the east (Gulf) side of the Chandeleur Islands to construct a berm (Figure 12). This berm, constructed at a cost of well over $100 million, mostly washed away during Tropical Storm Lee in September 2011. Six potential locations for dedicated dredge material acquisition were identified in Lavoie (2009). The largest and most usable of these sand deposits is Hewes Point, at the north end of the Chandeleur Island chain; however, the authors caution that further study of the possible effects of removing sediment from that area is necessary before large-scale mining is begun.

Habitat Management Plan 69

Figure 12. Sand berm constructed during 2010-11 on the Chandeleur Islands. (Photo: USFWS)

STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

• Partner with U.S. Geological Survey and other organizations to evaluate, by modeling or other means, the effects of a dedicated dredge project which would remove material from Hewes Point or one of the other five sand deposits identified by Lavoie (2009) and use it for sediment nutrition on Breton NWR. • If further study indicates that such a course would be beneficial, seek funding and partners for implementation of a large-scale sediment nutrition project for Breton NWR.

DUNE RESTORATION STRATEGY (BRETON NWR)

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Dune restoration can be accomplished by revegetation, by construction of mechanical devices to trap and hold sand (sand fences), or by use of heavy earth-moving equipment. Sand fences and vegetation both build dunes by trapping and holding windblown sand, and can be considered “natural” means of encouraging dune development. Construction of dunes with bulldozers or other equipment is expensive, incompatible with wilderness area management regulations, and often fails because of poor placement of dunes.

70 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

• Identify areas where dune restoration can and should be attempted based on prior experience, expert opinion, and research. • Use sand fences (5,000 linear feet over the planning period for this HMP) and plantings of dune grassland species (20,000 plugs) to restore dune habitat over 20 acres by 2018.

WILDERNESS PROTECTION STRATEGY (BRETON NWR)

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Management actions which are implemented in wilderness areas in order to accomplish refuge objectives and to comply with the Wilderness Act, the designating legislation, and with DOI and Service policy (610 FW) will follow a decision process, and each decision will be recorded. Records will be archived in the refuge’s administrative record. Projects will be assessed first for their suitability within the Breton Wilderness and, for projects determined to be suitable, the selection of the minimum tool or technique to use in the completion of the project will be made based on this process (Minimum Requirement Concept 610 FW 1.18).

Wilderness area regulations set forth by the Service (601 FW 1) define “wilderness character” in terms of natural scenic condition, habitats, clean water and air, absence of sound and light pollution, primeval character of the land, and opportunities for solitude and recreation. Five principles, reproduced here, are also laid out for administering wilderness:

(1) Accomplish Administration Act purposes, refuge purposes, including Wilderness Act purposes, and the Refuge System mission. The Administration Act, refuge purposes, and Wilderness Act purposes tell us what to accomplish on a refuge. The Wilderness Act, however, may affect how we accomplish these purposes, and the Refuge System mission. (2) Secure “an enduring resource of wilderness” by maintaining and, where appropriate, restoring a wilderness area’s biological integrity, diversity, environmental health, and wilderness character. (3) Administer wilderness areas to provide a wide variety of public benefits “for the use and enjoyment of the American people” (Wilderness Act, Section 2(a)) in a manner that is appropriate and compatible with the Administration Act, refuge purposes, including Wilderness Act purposes, and the Refuge System mission; retains wilderness character; is consistent with the non-degradation principle; and leaves the areas “unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.” (4) Use restraint in our administration of wilderness. As a place “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,” we minimize actions for administration of wilderness areas. We may allow exceptions to the generally prohibited uses if the uses are the minimum requirement for administering the area as wilderness and are necessary to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including Wilderness Act purposes. We may limit even non-motorized refuge management activities to protect wildness. (5) Provide opportunities for primitive recreation, giving priority to compatible wildlife- dependent activities that are enhanced by a wilderness setting. Provide physical, social, and administrative settings that are conducive to experiencing opportunities for solitude, adventure, challenge, inspiration, and other aspects of wilderness character that the American people can use and enjoy.

Habitat Management Plan 71

Since the first of these principles requires managers to accomplish refuge purposes and fulfill responsibilities under the Administration Act, restoration of habitat using minimum required methods is necessary. Passive management of the refuge would result in the eventual loss of habitat and failure to achieve refuge purposes.

Planning

The refuge CCP (USFWS 2008) proposed funding (Appendix J, USFWS 2008) to write a Wilderness Management Plan for the Breton Wilderness. This plan should describe detailed responses to the BP oil spill and to accelerated land loss on the refuge, as well as lay out responses to future incidents which may threaten the wilderness character of the area. (610 FW 3.8)

Visitor Access

Visitor access to Breton Wilderness is limited to protect habitat and nesting birds. Visitor use will be guided by the determination of appropriateness and compatibility of visitor activities (610 FW 2.3).

Threatened and Endangered Species

The refuge will meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and any recovery plan affecting listed species. Any refuge operations or visitor use of Breton Wilderness will support and observe the requirements of the ESA. Listed species considered in the Intra- Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation (USFWS 2008) include brown pelican (E) [recovered], interior least tern (E), and piping plover (T). The evaluation determined that the preferred action (i.e., managing Breton NWR according to the CCP) would have no effect on these species or their critical habitat.

Monitoring

Resource monitoring, particularly the effects of habitat management strategies, will be conducted annually, using an established procedure (610 FW 2.28). Monitoring is the foundation of adaptive management; without good data on the effects of past management actions, rational decisions on future actions cannot be made. Monitoring in the wilderness area will be addressed in the Wilderness Management Plan as described in the refuge CCP (USFWS 2008). The following general monitoring actions are potential strategies for Breton Wilderness:

• Habitat condition—Aerial surveys can be conducted to detect changes in habitat condition, particularly changes in extent of terrestrial habitat and near-shore, shallow seagrass beds. • Use by birds—Aerial or ground surveys can be used to monitor use by migratory and resident birds. • Presence of pollutants including oil—ground surveys can be conducted to determine the extent of pollutants within the wilderness area. • Human use—Human use of the wilderness area, including that required for management, should be monitored in order to manage its impact on wilderness character and habitat quality.

72 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

Actions prescribed in this HMP which fall under general prohibitions for wilderness areas will be subjected to Minimum Requirement Analysis before they are approved; only actions which constitute the minimum requirement to achieve refuge purposes will be undertaken. All other provisions in the Service’s Wilderness Stewardship Policy will be followed.

• Wilderness Management Plan—To manage with minimum intrusion, preserve the wilderness character of Breton Wilderness, and prevent the loss of wilderness values, a Wilderness Management Plan will be developed by 2018 (610 FW 3). • Restoration—Actions to restore habitat and wilderness values, including removal of pollutants and the addition of sediment and other large-scale interventions may be taken after a Minimum Requirement Analysis has been conducted. • Monitoring—Work with U.S. Geological Survey and other partners to conduct remote sensing surveys of the wilderness area to document habitat changes and identify potential migratory and nesting bird habitats. Baseline and threshold conditions for actions will be established in the Wilderness Stewardship Plan as described in 610 FW 3.8. • Threatened and Endangered Species—Manage such as to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and relevant recovery plans (USFWS 1983, 1990, 2003, 2006). All operations and visits to the Breton Wilderness will observe the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. • Visitor Access—Closures of specific areas of this wilderness will occur to protect habitat, species, and wilderness values. These closures will be described in the Wilderness Management Plan. Closed areas may be signed. • Exotic Species—Exotic species will be actively contained, suppressed, and where possible, extirpated. Herbicides may be used, but must follow approved Service procedures. Every effort will be taken to extirpate exotic invasive species in the wilderness.

PARTNERSHIP STRATEGIES

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

The Service recognizes that management of Delta and Breton NWRs depends on the actions of multiple partners. Currently, we work with other federal agencies like U.S. Geological Survey, Corps of Engineers, state agencies like LDWF, corporate entities like energy companies, and individuals. Partnerships with strategically important partners can be actively sought, with aims clearly identified beforehand, or they can form more organically in response to current needs.

STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

• Take an active approach to seeking out partners to accomplish specific management goals, particularly in the areas of: o Restoring o Funding o Monitoring

Habitat Management Plan 73

MONITORING STRATEGIES

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Comprehensive monitoring, accomplished through the efforts of Service personnel and partners, is necessary to evaluate the effects of management and restoration actions and to detect trends in populations of resources of concern, species with complementary needs which have economic or other value, and exotic, invasive, or pest species. Adaptive management is impossible without monitoring. A comprehensive monitoring program, which covers resources of concern, exotics, fisheries, and game animals, could be set up with refuge staff, volunteers, partners, or some combination thereof. Monitoring can be conducted as a stand-alone enterprise or in conjunction with other activities such as hunter check station operation or routine maintenance activities. Any monitoring strategy must include a robust, comprehensive data management component.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

Continue, or if not presently conducted, devise and implement by 2017, annual monitoring procedures for all resources of concern, exotic pest species, fisheries, and game animals which have complementary habitat needs, with sufficient precision to detect population trends, identify management needs, and evaluate effects of ongoing habitat management and restoration efforts.

• Monitoring on Delta NWR will be conducted as follows: o Waterfowl: Aerial surveys o Exotic invasive pest species: aerial and ground surveys • Monitoring on Breton NWR will be conducted as follows: o Waterfowl: Aerial surveys o Shorebirds: Participate in national piping plover surveys o Brown pelicans: Ground colony surveys o Gulls and terns: Ground colony surveys o Size and condition of terrestrial habitat: Remote sensing o Presence and extent of pollutants, including oil: participate in partner led surveys • By 2018, develop and maintain a comprehensive database of monitoring information from Delta and Breton NWRs, including breeding and wintering survey data for all resources of concern and other trust species. Maintenance of the database will be an assigned duty for one refuge employee.

UNDESIRABLE SPECIES MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Exotic species can degrade habitats, compete with desirable native wildlife and plants, and can have other undesirable effects, such as serving as disease vectors (or agents), damaging infrastructure, altering physical habitat conditions, impeding access, etc. Exotic species, once established, can rarely be eradicated, so managers are left with the task of managing their populations or effects such that their ecological impacts are minimized and refuge purposes can be achieved.

Predation on resources of concern can become a threat to the resource, especially when exotic predators such as feral swine are involved, or where mechanisms which ordinarily maintain a balance between native predator and prey populations do not operate for some reason. This

74 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

can occur when, for example, prey species are restricted to, or concentrated on, small fragments of habitat which formerly were more widespread and connected, when predators are introduced to habitat which was previously inaccessible to them (e.g., an island), or when habitat modifications such as hydrologic regime have been altered, providing some advantage to the predator which did not exist under natural conditions.

Authority to control wildlife populations for management is governed by 50 CFR, Part 31, Section 14:

“Animal species which are surplus or detrimental to the management program of a wildlife area may be taken in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations by federal or state personnel or by permit issued to private individuals.”

“Animal species which damage or destroy federal property within a wildlife refuge area may be taken or destroyed by federal personnel.”

50 CFR, Part 30, Section 11(a), states that:

“Feral animals, including horses, burros, cattle, swine, sheep, goats, reindeer, dogs, and cats, without ownership that have reverted to the wild from a domestic state may be taken by authorized federal or state personnel or by private persons operating under permit in accordance with applicable provisions of federal or state law or regulation.”

Executive Order 13112 (Federal Register/Vol. 64 No. 25/February 8, 1999/Presidential Documents 6183) states in Section 2 “Federal Agency Duties” that we should:

“(i) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (ii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (iii) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; and (iv) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species.”

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Potential strategies for managing the populations of exotic invasive species include removal by Service personnel, removal by contractors (e.g., trapping of nutria or swine), and removal by the public (through authorized hunting, in the case of feral swine). Control of native predators can be accomplished by removal by Service personnel or by contractors, by changing conditions which promote the predator or provide it with an advantage (e.g., removing raptor perches in prairie chicken habitat), or by creating conditions which limit the predator’s effectiveness (e.g., predator guards on wood duck boxes).

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

• Exotic Invasive Animals - Participate in the state’s nutria control program. Continue to remove and seek additional resources to remove feral pigs and nutria on Delta NWR. Use ground trapping, opportunistic shooting and aerial gunning to remove feral pigs on Delta NWR.

Habitat Management Plan 75

• Exotic Invasive Plants - Use approved herbicides to reduce and remove exotic plants on Delta and Breton NWRs. • Native Predators - Where necessary, remove mammalian and avian predators from colonial sea bird nesting islands on Breton NWR.

INVIOLATE SANCTUARY STRATEGIES

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES

Inviolate sanctuary is a component of management for both Delta and Breton NWRs. Wintering waterfowl at Delta NWR require refuge from human disturbance in order to prepare energetically and nutritionally for migrating and breeding. On Breton NWR, inviolate sanctuary is required to ensure breeding success of pelicans, gulls, terns, and other birds which use the refuge for breeding habitat. Human disturbance of habitats during breeding can induce abandonment of nests and result in direct nest destruction from careless foot traffic.

Human disturbance can be restricted by regulation, or it may be minimized by the remoteness of an area. Delta and Breton NWRs are not considered to be sufficiently remote to guarantee an acceptably low level of human disturbance during critical periods of the life cycles of the resources of concern.

STRATEGY PRESCRIPTION

The following strategies have been selected for minimizing human disturbance of important habitat on Delta and Breton NWRs:

• Approximately 65 percent of Delta NWR, south of Main Pass and north of Raphael Pass, will be maintained as inviolate sanctuary. No waterfowl hunting will be allowed in this area. • Breton NWR will be closed to all land access as necessary during the breeding season and at other times deemed necessary to protect resources of concern and achieve the refuge purposes.

76 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Appendix A: Literature Cited

Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, and K.F. Mais. 1982. Brown pelicans: influence of food supply on reproduction. Oikos 39(1):23-31.

Batt, B.D.J., A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu. 1992. Ecology and Management of Breeding Waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN 645 pp.

Bedoya, M., Kates, J., and Van Metter, E. 2008. A primer on Climate Change and the National Wildlife Refuge System. A Report by the Graduate Program in Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology University of Maryland, College Park.

Benoit, L.K., and R.A. Askins. 2002. Relationship between habitat area and the distribution of tidal marsh birds. Wilson Bulletin 114:314-323.

Blus, L.J., R.G. Heath, C.D. Gish, A.A. Belisle, R.M. Prouty. 1971. Eggshell thinning in the brown pelican: implication of DDE. BioScience 21(24):1213-1215.

Blus, L.J. 1982. Further interpretation of the relation of organochlorine residues in brown pelican eggs to reproductive success. Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological and Biological 28(1):15-33.

Bookhout, T.A. 1995. Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/139

Brown, M., and J.J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392-397.

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. United States shorebird conservation plan, second edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA, 60 pp. Viewed online 27APR2011 at: http://www.manomet.org/usscp.htm.

Buckley, P.A. and F.G. Buckley. 2002. Royal Tern (Thalasseus maximus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/700

Burger, J.. 1996. Laughing Gull (Leucophaeus atricilla), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/225

Chavez-Ramirez, F. and R.D. Slack. 1995. Differential use of coastal marsh habitats by nonbreeding wading birds. Colonial Waterbirds 18(2):166-171.

Climate Change Science Program. 2009. Website of US Climate Change Science Program. Viewed online 27JUN2011 at: http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 77

Cuthbert, F.J. and L.R. Wires. 1999. Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/403

Eddleman, W.R. and C.J. Conway. 1998. Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/340

Eddleman, W. R., R. E. Flores and M. Legare. 1994. Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/123

Elliott, L., and K. McKnight, eds. 2000. U.S. shorebird conservation plan: lower Mississippi/western Gulf Coast shorebird planning region. Gulf Coastal Prairie Working Group and Mississippi Alluvial Valley/West Gulf Coastal Plain Working Groups, 64 pp.

Elliott-Smith, E., and S.M. Haig. 2004. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/002

Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:686-688.

Engeling, G.A. 1950. Nesting habits of the mottled duck in Colorado, Fort Bend and Brazoria Counties, Texas. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 137.

Erwin, R.M. 1977. Foraging and breeding adaptations to different food regimes in three seabirds: the common tern, Sterna hirundo, royal tern, Sterna maxima, and black skimmer, Rynchops niger. Ecology, 58(2):389-397.

Erwin, R.M. 1979. Species interactions in a mixed colony of common terns (Sterna hirundo) and black skimmers (Rynchops niger). Animal Behaviour 27(4):1054-1062.

Erwin, R.M., D.H. Allen, and D. Jenkins. 2003. Created versus natural coastal islands: Atlantic waterbird populations, habitat choices, and management implications. Estuaries 26(4A):949-955.

Fairbairn, S.E., and J.J. Dinsmore. 2001. Local and landscape-level influences on wetland bird communities of the prairie pothole region of Iowa, USA. Wetlands 21(1):41-47.

Fasola, M. and F. Barbieri. 1978. Factors affecting the distribution of heronries in northern Italy. Ibis, 120: 537–540. Viewed online 02MAR2011 at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1978.tb06823.x/pdf.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011. Biological status review report for the black skimmer (Rynchops niger). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL, 15 pp.

Fredrickson, L.H. and Heitmeyer, M.E. 1988. Waterfowl use of forested wetlands of the southern United States: an overview. University Minnesota Press, Minnesota.

78 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Gibbs, J.P. 1991. Spatial relationships between nesting colonies and foraging areas of great blue herons. The Auk 108:764-770. Viewed online 02MAR2011 at: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v108n04/p0764-p0770.pdf.

Global Security.org. 2005. New Orleans hurricane risk. Web page viewed 28JUN2011 at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hurricane-risk-new-orleans.htm.

Gochfeld, M., and J. Burger. 1994. Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/108

Habitat Objectives Workgroup. 1991. Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources, second edition. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, MD. Viewed online 28FEB2011 at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/docs/00000260_01.pdf.

Hafner, H. 1997. Ecology of wading birds. Colonial Waterbirds 20(1):115-120.

Handbook of Texas Online, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/NN/nbn2.html (accessed August 17, 2010).

Heitmeyer, M.E. 1988. Body composition of female mallards in winter in relation to annual cycle events. Condor, 90, 669-680.

Heitmeyer, M.E. 2006. The importance of winter floods to mallards in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70, 101-110.

Heitmeyer, M. E. and Raveling. D.G. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in California. (Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Final Report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada,200). University of California, Davis.

Henry, W.G. 1980. Populations and behavior of black brant at Humboldt Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, 111.

Hill, D.W., and P.L. McCarty. 1967. Anaerobic degradation of selected chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) 39(8):1259-1277.

Hobaugh, W.C. 1984. Habitat use by snow geese wintering in southeast Texas. J. Wild. Manage. 48(4):1085-1096. viewed online 03AUG2010 at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3801770

Hunter, W.C., W. Golder, S. Melvin, and J. Wheeler. 2006. Southeast United States regional waterbird conservation plan. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Viewed online 27APR2011 at: http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/southeast_us.html.

Hunter, W.C., and J. Harris. 2006. Breton National Wildlife Refuge Biological Review April 27-29, 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, 36 pp.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth assessment report: climate change 2007 (AR4). Report of the IPCC. Viewed online 27JUN2011 at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 79

Janetos, A.C., Hansen, L., Inouye, D., Kelly, B.P., Meyerson, L., Peterson, W., and Shaw, R. 2008. Biodiversity. In The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States, M. Walsh (managing ed.), P. Backlund, A. Janetos, and D. Schimel (convening lead authors). (A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 151-181).

Johnsgard, P. A. 1978. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Johnson, R.R., and J.J. Dinsmore. 1986. Habitat use by breeding Virginia Rails and Soras. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:387-392.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19,242-248.

Kaminski, R.M. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: greater white-fronted goose (wintering). Biological Report 82(10.116), US Fish and Wildlife Service, 14 pp. Viewed online 03AUG2010 at: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsi-116.pdf

Kaminski, R.M., Davis, J.B., Essig, H.W., Gerard, P.D., and Reinecke, K.J. 2003. Waterfowl fall migration. Journal of Wildlife Management, 67, 542-550.

Karl, T.R., Melillo, J.M., and Peterson, T.C. (eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kniffen, F.B. 1968. Louisiana: it’s land and people. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 196 pp.

Knutson, T.R. and Tuleya, R.E. 2004. Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. Journal of Climate, 17(18), 3477-3495.

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, RM. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: The North American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC, U.S.A., 78 pp.

Laskowski, H. no date. Canada geese. Maryland Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 612, 8 pp. viewed online 03AUG2010 at: http://extension.umd.edu/publications/pdfs/fs612.pdf

Lavoie, D., ed. 2009. Sand resources, regional geology, and coastal processes of the Chandeleur Islands coastal system—an evaluation of the Breton National Wildlife Refuge: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5252, 180 p. Viewed online 15JUN2011 at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5252/downloads/SIR2009-5252.pdf.

80 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Lee, D., S. Penland, D. Lavoie, and L. Martinez. 2006. Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring Program (BICM) Shoreline Change Analysis of Coastal Louisiana: 1855 – 2005 Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana. Viewed online 26MAY2011 at: http://www.ladigitalcoast.uno.edu/PDFs/chan1855-2005_shrlnchng.pdf.

Lester, G.D., S.G. Sorensen, P.L. Faulkner, C.S. Reid, and I.E. Maxit. 2005. Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Baton Rouge. 455 pp.

Lor, S., and R.A. Malecki. 2006. Breeding ecology and nesting habitat associations of five marsh bird species in western New York. Waterbirds 29:427-436.

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 2009. The natural communities of Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, 46 pp.

McWilliams, R.G. 1981. Iberville’s Gulf journals. University of Alabama Press, 208 pp. Excerpts viewed online 13MAY2011 at: http://www.datasync.com/~davidg59/biloxi1.html.

Michot, T.C., M.C. Woodin, and A.J. Nault. 2008. Food habits of redheads (Aythya americana) wintering in seagrass beds of coastal Louisiana and Texas, USA. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54(Suppl. 1):239-250.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Moon, J.A, and D.A. Haukos. 2006. Survival of Female Northern Pintails Wintering in the Playa Lakes Region of Northwestern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(3):777-783.

Muller, M.J. and R.W. Storer. 1999. Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/410

NABCI. no date. Bird Conservation Regions. Viewed online 27APR2011 at: http://www.nabci-us.org/plans.htm.

NASA. 2008. Glacial Sediments Add to Louisiana Coastal Subsidence: The Weight they Add to the Mississippi River Delta Contributes to the Sinking. Retrieved on October 29, 2009, from http://geology.com/nasa/louisiana-coastal-subsidence.shtml

National Climatic Data Center. 2002. Climatography of the United States no. 81: Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1971 – 2000; 16 Louisiana. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, 25 pp.

National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. 2011. The story of the Louisiana berms project. Staff Working Paper No. 8, originally released December 16, 2010; updated January 11, 2011. 44 pp. Viewed online 29NOV2011 at: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Updated%20Berms%20Worki ng%20Paper.pdf.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 81

Naugle, D.E., R.R. Johnson, M.E. Estey, and K.F. Higgins. 2001. A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of eastern South Dakota. Wetlands: 21:1-17.

Nesbitt, S.A., L.E. Williams, Jr., L McNease, T. Joanen. 1978. Brown pelican restocking efforts in Louisiana. The Wilson Bulletin 20(3):443-445.

NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan—strengthening the biological foundation. United States Fish and Wildlife Service/Environment Canada/Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Mexico). Viewed online 27JUN2011 at: http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/nawmp/files/nawmp2004.pdf.

Osnas, E.E. 2003. The role of competition and local habitat conditions for determining occupancy patterns in grebes. Waterbirds 26:209-216.

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of non-breeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48, 371-380.

Poole, A.F., L.R. Bevier, C.A. Marantz and B. Meanley. 2005. King Rail (Rallus elegans), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/003

Poole, A.F., P. Lowther, J. P. Gibbs, F. A. Reid and S. M. Melvin. 2009. Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/017

Post, W. 2008. Food exploitation patterns in an assembly of estuarine herons. Waterbirds 31(2):179-192.

Reinecke, K.J.,. Kaminski, R.M, Moorhead D.J., Hodges, J.D., and Nassar, J.R. 1989. Mississippi Alluvial Valley habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.

Riffell, S.K., B.E. Keas, and T.M. Burton. 2003. Birds in North American great lakes coastal wet meadows: is landscape context important? Landscape Ecology 18:95- 111.

Rogers, B.E. 2009. Framework and evolution of a transgressed delta lobe: St. Bernard Shoals, northern Gulf of Mexico, USA. MS Thesis, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, 94 pp.

Rorabaugh, J.C. and Zwank, P.J. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: mottled duck. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.52.

82 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Roth, D.M. 1998. A historical study of tropical storms and hurricanes that have affected Southwest Louisiana and Southeast Texas. National Weather Service. Lake Charles, LA.

Schreiber, E.A., C.J. Feare, B.A. Harrington, B.G. Murray, Jr., W.B. Robertson, Jr., M.J. Robertson and G.E. Woolfenden. 2002. Sooty Tern (Onychoprion fuscatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/665

Shealer, D. 1999. Sandwich Tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/405

Shields, M. 2002. Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/609

Sibley, D.A. 2003. The Sibley field guide to birds of eastern North America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 431 pp.

Singleton, J.R. 1953. Mottled duck studies. in: Texas coast waterfowl survey. Texas Game and Fish Comm. Fed. Aid Rep. Serv., No.11.

Smith, J.B. 2004. A Synthesis of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.

Soil Survey Staff. no date. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. Accessed 13MAY2011.

Strader, R.W. 2006. Delta National Wildlife Refuge biological review report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS, 9 pp.

Strickland, B. K., R.M. Kaminski, K. Nelms, and A. Tullos. 2009. Waterfowl Habitat Management Handbook for the Lower Mississippi Valley. Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication 1864, 31 pp.

Stedman, S.J. 2000. Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/505

Stutzenbaker, C.D. 1979. The mottled duck: its life history, ecology and management. Federal Aid Project W-96-R Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Terres, J. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Tesky, J.L. 1993. Anser albifrons. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 83

Titus, J.G. Anderson, K.E. , Cahoon, D.R.,. Gesch, D.B., Gill, S.K., Gutierrez, B.T., Thieler, E.R., and Williams, S.J. 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region (A Report by the U.S. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Washington, D.C.: Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research.

U.S. Congressional Budget Office. 2009. Potential impacts of climate change in the United States. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/101xx/doc10107/05-04-ClimateChange_forWeb.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. The California brown pelican recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR, 179 pp. Viewed online 23JUN2011 at: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/brnPelican/documents/1986%20Recovery%20Plan%20for %20the%20Brown%20Pelican.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery plan for the interior population of the least tern (Sterna antillarum). US Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA 90 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes piping plover (Charadrius melodus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN, 141 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Trends in Duck Breeding Populations 1955-2003. US Dept. of Interior Office of Migratory Bird Management. Laurel, Maryland.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic Coast population revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA, 245 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges comprehensive conservation plan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4, Atlanta, GA, 140 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Rising to the Urgent Challenge. Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 32 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011a. Hurricane Katrina photographs August 30, 2005. USGS National Wetlands Research Center. Viewed online 26MAY2011 at: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/hurricane/katrina_rita/post-hurricane-katrina-photos.htm.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011b. Climate Science Centers. USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center web site. Viewed online 29JUN2011 at: http://nccwsc.usgs.gov/csc.shtml.

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Southeast Climate Change. Retrieved on April 14, 2010 from http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific- assessments/us- impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/southeast.

Vermillion, W., J.W. Eley, B. Wilson, S. Heath, and M. Parr. 2008. Partners in Flight landbird conservation plan BCR 37: Gulf Coastal Prairie, version 1.3. Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Lafayette, LA, 78 pp.

Vermillion, W.G., and B.C. Wilson. 2009. Gulf Coast Joint Venture Conservation Planning for Reddish Egret. Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Lafayette, LA. 18pp.

84 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Walther, G., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416:389-395.

Webster, P.J., G.J. Holland, J.A. Curry, and H.R. Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309:1844-1846.

West, R.L. and G.K. Hess. 2002. Purple Gallinule (Porphyrio martinica), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/626

Wheeler, J., K. Parsons, and S. Schmidt. no date. Assessment of the vulnerability to population unsustainability of 43 waterbirds. Poster. Viewed online 21OCT2010 at: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nacwcp/pdfs/marshbirdmonitoring/Marshbird%20Poster.pdf

White, D. H. and James, D. 1978. Differential use of freshwater environments by wintering waterfowl of coastal Texas. Wilson Bulletin, 90(1), 99-111.

Wikipedia. 2011. Capture of the Bravo. Article viewed online 17NOV2011 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_the_Bravo.

Wilson, B.C. 2007. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mottled Duck Conservation plan. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Albuquerque New Mexico.

Wilson, B.C., C.A. Manlove, and C.G. Esslinger. 2002. North American waterfowl management plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River coastal wetlands initiative. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Albuquerque, NM. 28 pp. + appendix.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 85

Appendix B: Authors and Contributors

Neil Lalonde, Refuge Manager

James Harris, Complex Wildlife Biologist

Donald Westlake, Refuge Operations Specialist

Kenneth Litzenberger, Project Leader

Thomas Greene, Natural Resource Planner

86 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Appendix C: Refuge Biota

The following species are reported from Delta and Breton NWRs (lists adapted from the CCP (USFWS 2008).

DELTA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE—VERTEBRATE BIOTA

BIRDS

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula

Gadwall Anas strepera

Northern Pintail Anas acuta

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

American Wigeon Anas americana

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata

Redhead Aythya americana

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Greater Scaup Aythia marila

Southern Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

King Rail Rallus elegans

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris

Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinica

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 87

DELTA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE—VERTEBRATE BIOTA

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Eastern Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Great Egret Ardea alba

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Roseate Spoonbill Platalea ajaja

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus

MAMMALS

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Nutria Myocastor coypus

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochelys temminckii

Alligator Alligator mississippiensis

FISH

Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus

Alligator Gar Atractosteus spatula

88 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

BRETON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE—VERTEBRATE BIOTA BIRDS Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Eastern Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis Redhead Aythya americana Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Greater Scaup Aythia marila Laughing Gull Larus atricilla Royal Tern Sterna maxima Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis Black Skimmer Rynchops niger Sooty Tern Onychoprion fuscatus Common Tern Sterna hirundo Least Tern Sternula antillarum Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica Magnificent Frigate Bird Fregata magnificens Great Egret Ardea alba Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens Snowy Egret Egretta thula Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris White Ibis Eudocimus albus Louisiana or Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Black-Crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Herring Gull Larus argentatus Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus MAMMALS Raccoon Procyon lotor REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 89

Appendix D: Threatened and Endangered Species

E=Endangered T=Threatened C=Candidate CH=Critical Habitat

Species Occurrence Taxonomic Group Status

West Indian Manatee Breton/Delta Mammal E Piping plover Breton Bird T, CH

Gulf sturgeon Breton/Delta Fish T

Green sea turtle Breton Reptile T Hawksbill sea turtle Breton Reptile E Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Breton Reptile E Leatherback sea turtle Breton Reptile E Loggerhead sea turtle Breton Reptile T

90 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Appendix E: Climate Change Impacts

Anthropogenic climate change is causing increases in global average land and ocean temperatures (Bedoya 2008). This warming trend is likely to cause substantial impacts to precipitation levels, sea level, ocean currents, species, and ecosystems (USFWS 2010, Walther et al. 2002). The southeast may be one of the most vulnerable regions in the United States to climate change mainly due to its high biodiversity and long, low-lying coastline (Smith 2004; Karl et al. 2009).

In the Southeast Region the increase in average temperature is expected to continue, with the greatest increases occurring in summer. The magnitude of rise is expected to be between 4.5° and 9° Fahrenheit by 2100, along with an increase in frequency of very hot days (Titus et al. 2009, U.S. Congressional Budget Office 2009). The number of freezing days per year for most of the southeast has declined by four to seven days since the mid-1970s (Karl et al. 2009).

Seasonal precipitation is also changing dramatically in this region. Fall precipitation over most of the region is up about 30 percent, with only a small decrease in south Florida (Karl et al. 2009). Summer precipitation has decreased in most areas of the southeast, and during the past three decades there have been several severe droughts. Across the region the proportion of precipitation that falls in high-intensity storms has increased. High intensity storms cause an increased chance of flooding (Karl et al. 2009).

Currently, climate change is not the most important driver of changes in biodiversity; however, it could be the largest driver by the end of the 21st Century (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Even so, there have already been measurable changes in global biodiversity due to climate change, particularly with regard to changes in species distributions, population sizes, timing of reproduction or migration events, and increases in the frequency of pest and disease outbreaks (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Janetos et al. 2008, Walther et al. 2002). In the United States, climate change has already impacted terrestrial ecosystems by changing the timing and length of growing season, phenology, and species distribution and diversity (Janetos et al. 2008). In some cases, warming climate conditions have been shown to cause increases in density and cover of exotic species from warmer areas (Walther et al. 2002).

As climate change disrupts ecological processes with increasing severity, the Refuge System is likely to experience significant changes in its physical and biological resources. Regional climate science centers are being established by the Department of the Interior. These centers will provide scientific information, tools, and techniques needed to manage land, water, wildlife and cultural resources in the face of climate change. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of the Interior centers will also work closely with a network of landscape conservation cooperatives in which federal, state, tribal, and other managers and scientists will develop conservation and adaptation and mitigation strategies for dealing with the impacts of climate change (U.S. Geological Survey 2011b, USFWS 2010).

Climate change effects which can be expected on Delta and Breton NWRs include increased temperatures, increased fall precipitation coupled with decreased summer precipitation, increased frequency and severity of droughts, increased intensity of hurricanes with possible increased frequency as well, and rising sea level. Local subsidence will exacerbate the effects of global sea level rise on southern Louisiana. Management of the

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 91

refuges will certainly be affected by these changes, though the details are uncertain. Some likely scenarios, however, include the following for Delta NWR:

• Increased temperatures and concomitant decreases in severity of cold weather may lead to changes in species composition, including increases in tropical and subtropical exotic invasives such as water hyacinth, giant salvinia, tallowtree, and nutria. Additional management actions may be required to control these species in this case. • If seasonal precipitation distribution in major portions of the Mississippi River watershed becomes more uneven, salinity fluctuation in marsh habitat may be wider, leading to changes in plant and animal communities which may or may not be desirable from a management perspective. • More intense tropical storms will lead to recurring impacts similar to that experienced from recent hurricanes—conversion of freshwater marsh to brackish, conversion of marsh to open water, and damage to refuge infrastructure. • Rising global sea level, combined with local subsidence caused by geologic forces, will lead to changes in relative sea level. These processes will increase the rate at which sediment must be added to the refuge land area in order to maintain habitats in place.

And, for Breton NWR:

• Increased intensity of tropical storms will result in faster removal of sediment from the islands and more losses of land area for the refuge. • Rising sea level will further decrease land area and convert low-lying habitats to open water. • Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes will have unpredictable effects on habitats and species, including resources of concern and their food resources.

92 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Appendix F: Oil and Gas Activities

Breton NWR:

With the exception of a pipeline right-of-way in the vicinity of Redfish Point on the Chandeleur Island, there are no oil and gas activities on Breton NWR.

Delta NWR:

Delta NWR has experienced oil and gas activities since the 1940s. These include the full gamut of activities including exploration, development, production, and transportation pipelines. Over 400 oil/gas wells, three production facilities, countless miles of flowlines, miles of dredged canals, and more than 50 miles of pipeline rights-of-way have been constructed or placed on refuge lands.

Management of oil and gas activities involves oversight and management of surface disturbance activities from both private mineral holdings and leased federal minerals. Refuge management of these activities follows and adheres to all applicable federal and state statutes, policies, and guidance.

Management of oil and gas activities on the refuge has been an evolutionary process, and the refuge has often been at the forefront in development of methods and techniques to minimize or mitigate for damage and disturbance caused by oil and gas activities. Primary management involves assessment of potential damage/disturbance and development of alternative actions to eliminate or minimize impacts. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the refuge assesses appropriate mitigation and takes steps to implement restoration projects to offset any impacts to refuge resources. Such mitigation is in line with Service policy and follows an approved refuge mitigation plan.

Restoration projects include but are not limited to creation of small-scale sediment diversions, earthen terraces, dedicated and beneficial dredge disposal, vegetative plantings, and removal of exotic species. All projects are aimed at meeting refuge habitat management goals and objectives as outlined in this HMP and the CCP.

Oil spills and other material releases are responded to in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard, with appropriate response activities being guided by refuge personnel. Following response and cleanup activities, all damages to refuge resources are calculated and appropriate mitigation is assessed. Development of mitigation and restoration projects is again aimed at meeting refuge habitat management goals and objectives of this HMP and the CCP.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 93

Figure F-1. Oil and gas facilities on Delta NWR

94 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Appendix G: Soil Mapping Units

Figure G-1. Soil mapping units on Delta NWR

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 95

Figure G-2. Soil mapping units on southern Breton NWR

96 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Figure G-3. Soil mapping units on central Breton NWR

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 97

Figure G-4. Soil mapping units on northern Breton NWR

98 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Appendix H: Environmental Action Statement

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and determined that the following proposed action is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4, 516 DM 2.3A, 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1.4.

Preferred Action and Alternatives. The preferred action is the approval and implementation of this Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). This HMP is a step-down management plan of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 2008), providing the refuge manager with specific guidance for implementing goals, objectives, and strategies identified in the CCP.

The CCP action was the preferred alternative among three alternatives considered in the Environmental Assessment (EA) (Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 2008). In the CCP, the management action for Delta NWR was “Improved Habitat Restoration and Public Outreach Management.” “Implementing the preferred alternative will result in expanding current habitat restoration efforts to include not only interior marsh, but also Gulf shoreline; activities open to the public will remain at present levels with the exception of eliminating the primitive camping location; public outreach will be improved with kiosks and a wayside exhibit, updated brochures and maps, and establishing communication with and providing information within the school systems and in surrounding parishes.”

The CCP also listed the preferred action for Breton NWR: “Large-scale Habitat Restoration and Improved Public Outreach Management.” “Implementing the preferred alternative will result in partnering with other conservation agencies and large corporations to carry out restoration projects based on dedicated dredging, vegetation restoration, and exploring landscape-scale efforts to restore the barrier islands. Activities open to the public will remain at present levels with the exception of eliminating primitive camping. Public outreach will be improved with kiosks and a wayside exhibit at the Venice headquarters, updated brochures and maps, and establishing communication with and providing information within the school system and surrounding parishes.”

The CCP has defined goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve the stated action. The actions (strategy prescriptions) further detailed in this HMP have been identified, addressed, and authorized by the Delta and Breton NWRs’ CCP. These include:

• Identify potential research partners and funding for research to test potential shoreline restoration methods on Delta NWR.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 99

• Form partnerships with agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to obtain Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) funding or other funding for large-scale shoreline restoration projects on Delta NWR • Evaluate existing crevasses on Delta NWR. • Rehabilitate existing crevasses on Delta NWR. • Identify crevasses on Delta NWR. • Create new crevasses on Delta NWR. • Monitor results on Delta NWR. • Form or strengthen partnerships with other federal, state, and academic partners to identify research opportunities, refine research questions, and request funding. • Once the partners identify research questions, actively seek funding to conduct research. • Partner with U.S. Geological Survey and other organizations to evaluate, by modeling or other means, the effects of a dedicated dredge project which would remove material from Hewes Point or one of the other five sand deposits identified by Lavoie (2009) and use it for sediment nutrition on Breton NWR. • Seek funds and partners for implementation of a large-scale sediment nutrition project for Breton NWR, if further study indicates that such a course would be beneficial. • Identify areas where dune restoration can and should be attempted based on prior experience, expert opinion, and research. • Use sand fences (5,000 linear feet over the planning period for this HMP) and plantings of dune grassland species (20,000 plugs) to restore dune habitat over 20 acres by 2018. • Develop a Wilderness Management Plan by 20?? (610 FW 3), to preserve the wilderness character of the Breton Wilderness and prevent the loss of wilderness values. • Take actions to restore habitat and wilderness values, including removal of pollutants and the addition of sediment, after a Minimum Requirement Analysis has been conducted. • Work with U.S. Geological Survey and other partners to conduct remote sensing surveys of Wilderness Area to document habitat changes and identify potential migratory and nesting bird habitats. Baseline and threshold conditions for action will be established in the Wilderness Stewardship Plan as described in 610 FW 3.8. • Manage to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and relevant recovery plans (USFWS 1983, 1990, 2003, 2006). All operations and visits to the Breton Wilderness will observe the requirements of the ESA. • Close specific areas of the Breton Wilderness to protect habitat, species, and wilderness values. These closures will be described in the Wilderness Management Plan. Closed areas may be signed. • Actively contain, suppress, and where possible, extirpate exotic invasive species. Herbicides may be used but must follow approved Service procedures. All efforts will be made to extirpate exotic invasive pest species. • Take an active approach to seek out partners to accomplish specific management goals, particularly in the areas of: o Restoration o Funding o Monitoring o Management needs - evaluate effects of ongoing habitat management and restoration efforts.

100 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

• Monitoring on Delta NWR will be conducted as follows: o Waterfowl: Aerial surveys o Monitoring for exotic invasive pest species will be conducted as follows: aerial and ground surveys • Monitoring on Breton NWR will be conducted as follows: o Waterfowl: Aerial surveys o Shorebirds: Participate in national piping plover surveys o Brown pelicans: Ground colony surveys o Gulls and terns: Ground colony surveys o Size and condition of terrestrial habitat: Remote sensing o Presence and extent of pollutants, including oil: participate in partner led surveys • By 2018, develop and maintain a comprehensive database of monitoring information from Delta and Breton NWRs, including breeding and winter survey data for all resources of concern and other trust species. Maintenance of the database will be an assigned duty for one refuge employee. • Participate in the state’s nutria control program. Continue to remove, by seeking additional resources, feral pigs and nutria on Delta NWR. Use ground trapping, opportunistic shooting, and aerial gunning to remove feral pigs on Delta NWR. • Use approved herbicides to reduce and remove exotic plants on Delta and Breton NWRs. • Where necessary, remove mammalian and avian predators from colonial sea bird nesting islands on Breton NWR. • Approximately 65 percent of Delta NWR, south of Main Pass and north of Raphael Pass, will be maintained as inviolate sanctuary. No waterfowl hunting will be allowed in this area. • Breton NWR will be closed to all land access as necessary during the breeding season and at other times deemed necessary to protect resources of concern and achieve the refuge purposes.

Categorical Exclusion(s). Categorical Exclusion Department Manual 516 DM 6, Appendix 1, Section 1.4 B (10), states “…the issuance of new or revised site, unit, or activity-specific management plans for public use, land use, or other management activities when only minor changes are planned. Examples could include an amended public use plan or fire management plan….” This is applicable to implementation of this HMP.

Consistent with Categorical Exclusion (516 DM 6, Appendix 1, Section 1.4 B (10)), this HMP is a step-down management plan which provides guidance for implementation of the general goals, objectives, and strategies established in the CCP, serving to further refine those components of the CPP specific to habitat management. This HMP does not trigger an Exception to the Categorical Exclusions listed in 516 DM 2 Appendix 2.

Minor changes or refinements to the CCP in this activity-specific management plan include:

. Habitat management objectives are further refined by providing numerical parameter values that more clearly define the originating objective statement. . Habitat management objectives are restated so as to combine appropriate objectives or split complicated objectives to provide improved clarity in the context of this HMP.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 101

. Specific habitat management guidance, strategies, and implementation schedules to meet the CCP goals and objectives are included (e.g., location, timing, frequency, and intensity of application).

All details are consistent with the CCP and serve to provide the further detail necessary to guide the refuge in application of the intended strategies for the purpose of meeting the habitat objectives.

Permits/Approvals. Endangered Species Act, Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted during the CCP process. The determination for Delta NWR was a concurrence that the CCP will have no effect on the Brown pelican (Endangered), Interior least terns (Endangered), Gulf sturgeon (Threatened), or Piping plover (Threatened) (signed November 5, 2007, within CCP). The determination for Breton NWR was a concurrence that the CCP will have no effect on the Brown pelican (Endangered), Interior least tern (Endangered), or Piping plover (Threatened) (signed November 5, 2007, within CCP).

Other items to include that should be listed and can be found in the FONSI accompanying the final CCP:

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges, Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region.

Public Involvement/Interagency Coordination. This HMP is a step-down of the approved CCP for Delta and Breton NWR. The development and approval of the CCP included appropriate NEPA documentation and public involvement. An Environmental Assessment was developed (Draft CCP/EA 2008) which proposed and addressed management alternatives and environmental consequences. Public involvement included public notification (Notice of Intent: Federal Register May 30, 2006, Volume 71, No. 103), and Notice of Availability for the Draft CCP/EA: Federal Register July 11, 2008, Volume 73, No. 134). A public comment period was on the Draft CCP/EA was held from July 11 to August 11, 2008.

Public scoping was initiated in May 2006, with a statement published in the Federal Register giving notice of the start of the comprehensive conservation planning process, listing contact information, and asking for comments; a meeting was held at the public library in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. A second scoping meeting was held in Metairie, Louisiana, in June 2006. A total of twelve people attended the meetings. The turnout was low probably because so many communities were devastated by the hurricanes in 2005, and people were busy rebuilding or still evacuated from the area. In addition to the meetings, fliers were placed throughout St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes, and news releases were sent to several newspapers in both Louisiana and Mississippi.

Notice of availability for the final CCP was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2008, Volume 73, No. 239).

102 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

Supporting Documents. Supporting documents for this determination include relevant office file material and the following key references:

USFWS. 2008. Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges.

USFWS. 2008. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges.

Appendices Habitat Management Plan 103

104 Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Louisiana Refuges Kenneth Litzenberger, Project Leader, Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex Neil LaLonde, Refuge Manager, Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex

Southeast Louisiana Refuges Bayou Lacombe Centre 61389 Hwy. 434 Lacombe, LA 70445

Phone - 985-882-2000 Facsimile - 985-882-9133

E-mail: [email protected]

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov

August 2013