The Louisiana 

Regional Restoration 

Planning Program 

Final 

Regional Restoration Plan 

Region 2

January 2007 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of the Interior
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... II

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... IV

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1

LOUISIANA REGIONAL RESTORATION PLANNING PROGRAM SUMMARY...........................3

Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services ...........................................4

Restoration Types ...........................................................................................4

Settlement Alternatives....................................................................................5

Screening Criteria............................................................................................5

Regional Boundaries of the RRPs...................................................................5

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM BENEFITS.............................................................................5

CHAPTER 2 REGION 2 - DESCRIPTION ............................................................................7

REGION 2 BOUNDARIES .............................................................................................7

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES................................................................7

Physical Environment ......................................................................................7

Biological Resources .......................................................................................7

Socioeconomic Resources ..............................................................................9

CHAPTER 3 REGIONAL RESTORATION PLAN .................................................................11

POTENTIALLY INJURED TRUST RESOURCES AND SERVICES ........................................11

Coastal ..........................................................................................................11

Herbaceous Wetlands ...................................................................................11

Forested Wetlands ........................................................................................11

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ..................................................................12

Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs)....................................................................12

Water Column Organisms .............................................................................12

Inland.............................................................................................................12

Herbaceous Wetlands ...................................................................................12

Forested Wetlands ........................................................................................12

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ..................................................................13

Upland Vegetation.........................................................................................13

Water Column Organisms .............................................................................13

Regionwide (Coastal/Inland) .........................................................................13

Birds ..............................................................................................................13

Wildlife...........................................................................................................13

Recreational Resource Services ...................................................................13

Cultural Resource Services...........................................................................14

RESTORATION TYPES ..............................................................................................14

Restoration Type Selection Criteria...............................................................15

Project Selection Screening Criteria..............................................................17
iii 

Special Circumstances ..................................................................................17

RESTORATION PROJECTS IN PLAN ............................................................................17

RRP Project Solicitation ................................................................................18

Region 2 RRP Restoration Project Selection ................................................19

SETTLEMENT CALCULATION .....................................................................................19

Responsible Party-Implemented Restoration Project ....................................19

Cash Settlement - Project-Specific Cash Settlement.....................................20

Cash Settlement - Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement [Reserved]...........20

RRP REVISIONS .....................................................................................................20

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR THE REGION 2 RRP....................................................20

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................22

LIST OF PREPARERS...................................................................................................23

LIST OF AGENCIES......................................................................................................24

APPENDIX A - COMMON BIOTA AND ASSOCIATED HABITAT TYPES IN REGION 2 ............ A-1

APPENDIX B - NRDA RESTORATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ........................... B-1

APPENDIX C - REGION 2 RRP RESTORATION PROJECTS............................................. C-1

APPENDIX D - NON-PROJECT-SPECIFIC CASH SETTLEMENT COST ANALYSES FOR 

COASTAL HERBACEOUS WETLANDS IN REGION 2 [RESERVED].......................... D-1

APPENDIX E - NON-PROJECT-SPECIFIC CASH SETTLEMENT COST ANALYSES FOR 

FORESTED WETLANDS IN REGION 2 [RESERVED] ............................................. E-1

APPENDIX F - NON-PROJECT-SPECIFIC CASH SETTLEMENT COST ANALYSES FOR 

OYSTER REEFS IN REGION 2 [RESERVED].........................................................F-1

APPENDIX G - PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ...................................................G-1

APPENDIX H – LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH THE REGION 2 – REGIONAL 

RESTORATION PLAN WAS MAILED................................................................... H-1

APPENDIX I – ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

CONSULTATIONS .............................................................................................I-1
iv 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: RRP Regions ........................................................................................2

Figure 2: Region 2 Boundary, Parishes, and Associated Habitat Types 

(adapted from Hartley et al. 2000) ........................................................8

Figure 3: Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services 

(NOAA et al. 2007) .............................................................................15

Figure 4: Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services 

(NOAA et al. 2007) .............................................................................16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Project Solicitation Meetings for Region 2 RRP..................................18

Table A- 1: Common Vegetation in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats....... A-2 

Table A- 2: Common Mammals in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats ........ A-3

Table A- 3: Common Reptiles and Amphibians in Region 2 and their 

Associated Habitats .......................................................................... A-3

Table A- 4: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – 

Waterfowl and Waterbirds................................................................. A-4

Table A- 5: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – 

Colonial Nesting Wading Birds ......................................................... A-5

Table A- 6: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – 

Raptors ............................................................................................. A-6

Table A- 7: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – 

Non-Passerine Land Birds................................................................ A-6

Table A- 8: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – 

Seabirds and Gulls ........................................................................... A-6

Table A- 9: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – 

Passerine Birds................................................................................. A-7

Table A- 10: Common Fish and Shellfish Species in Region 2 and their 

Associated Habitats .......................................................................... A-8

Table A- 11: Threatened and Endangered Species in Region 2 and their 

Associated Habitats .......................................................................... A-9

Table A- 12: Key for Habitat Type Abbreviations. All habitat types are found 

in Region 2 except for upland forest, upland barren, and upland 

scrub/shrub habitats. ...................................................................... A-10

Table C-1: Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects.................................. C-2 

Table C- 2: Region 2 RRP Restoration Projects Not Included............................. C-9
1 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION

Federal and Louisiana natural resource trustees have developed a statewide Louisiana 

Regional Restoration Planning Program to assist the natural resource trustees in carrying out 

their Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)1

 responsibilities for discharges or 

substantial threats of discharges of oil (referred to as an “incident”). The goals of this statewide 

Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program are to: 1) expedite and reduce the cost of the 

NRDA process; 2) provide for consistency and predictability by describing in detail the NRDA 

process, thereby increasing understanding of the process by the public and industry; and 3) 

increase restoration of lost trust resources and services. Attainment of these goals will serve to 

make the NRDA process as a whole more efficient in Louisiana. 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 USC 2701 et seq.), and the Louisiana Oil Spill 

Prevention and Response Act of 1991 (OSPRA) (La. Rev. Stat. 30:2451 et seq.), are the 

principal federal and state statutes, respectively, authorizing federal and state agencies and 

tribal officials to act as natural resource trustees for the recovery of damages for injuries to trust 

resources and services resulting from incidents in Louisiana. The Louisiana Regional 

Restoration Planning Program is being established to address incidents under OPA and 

OSPRA. A complete description of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program is 

provided in the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

[NOAA] et al. 2007). Copies of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS 

may be obtained by contacting: 

NOAA/Damage Assessment Center Headquarters 

1305 East West Highway, Suite 10218 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

(301) 713-3038 

or 

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor 

150 Third Street, Suite 405 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 

(225) 219-5800 

This document is a Final Regional Restoration Plan (RRP) for Region 2 and is the first of the 

nine regional plans being developed under the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning 

Program (see Figure 1, RRP Regions). Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.) regulations, 40 CFR 1500.4(i) and (k)2

, 40 

 

1

 Natural resource damage assessment is the mechanism by which the trustees pursue damages from responsible 

parties to compensate the public for any injuries to natural resources. 

2

 Sec. 1500.4(i) - Using program, policy, or plan environmental impact statements and tiering from statements of 

broad scope to those of narrower scope, to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues (Secs. 1502.4 and 

1502.20). Sec. 1500.4(k) Integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental review and consultation 

requirements (Sec. 1502.25). 
2 

Figure 1: RRP Regions 

CFR 1502.203

, the trustees will tier by both reference and incorporation information relevant to 

an incident-specific Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment 

(DARP/EA). Specifically, the analyses from the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning 

Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) and the relevant information from the RRPs will be included 

in the DARP/EAs, as appropriate. The following items can be tiered from the Louisiana 

Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) and this document to sitespecific and more detailed analyses: general descriptions of the physical and biological 

environment; descriptions of the regional boundaries of the RRPs; restoration types; settlement 

types; general description of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program; general 

descriptions of environmental consequences and impacts; descriptions of potentially injured 

trust resources and services; restoration type selection criteria; project selection screening 

criteria; and descriptions of the nexus analysis. Decisions on the selection of restoration types 

 

3 Sec. 1502.20 - Tiering. Agencies are encouraged to tier their environmental impact statements to eliminate 

repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of 

environmental review (Sec. 1508.28). Whenever a broad environmental impact statement has been prepared (such 

as a program or policy statement) and a subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then prepared on an 

action included within the entire program or policy (such as a site-specific action) the subsequent statement or 

environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement and incorporate 

discussions from the broader statement by reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent 

action. The subsequent document shall state where the earlier document is available. Tiering may also be 

appropriate for different stages of actions (Sec. 1508.28).

Federal Waters 
3 

and projects to be implemented as part of the restoration planning process for a specific incident 

are subject to NEPA requirements. Therefore, the trustees will reference and/or incorporate 

appropriate information and analyses from both the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning 

Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) and RRPs when preparing the DARP/EA for a specific 

incident or incidents. 

This chapter provides summary background information on the Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program, including its goals, objectives, components, and benefits. Chapter 2, Region 

2 – Description, describes the boundaries of Region 2 and the affected environment. Chapter 3, 

Regional Restoration Plan, describes the Region 2 RRP, including the trust resources and 

services that are likely to be or anticipated to be injured by an incident, the appropriate 

restoration types for each of the “potentially injured trust resources and services,” the restoration 

alternatives that have been identified to date in Region 2, and the development process for the 

Region 2 RRP. The appendices contain information about the biological resources and 

associated habitat types in Region 2 (see Appendix A, Common Biota and Associated Habitat 

Types in Region 2), the NRDA Restoration Project Information Sheet (see Appendix B, NRDA 

Restoration Project Information Sheet), the list of restoration alternatives identified to date in 

Region 2 according to restoration type (see Appendix C, Region 2 RRP Restoration Projects), 

Public Comments on the Draft RRP for Region 2 (see Appendix G, Public Comments and 

Responses, the list of Organizations Receiving Copies of the Final RRP for Region 2 (Appendix 

H, List of Organizations to Which the Region 2 – Regional Restoration Plan was Mailed), and 

the results of the Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations (Appendix I, 

Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations). [Note: Appendices D, E, 

and F of the September 2003 Draft RRP for Region 2 , which contained the technical papers 

providing the basis for the Region 2 unit-costs for the “Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement” 

alternative, have been reserved pending determination of feasibility of the development of unitcosts for all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement alternative of “Non-Project-Specific 

Cash Settlement” in the September 2003 Draft RRP for Region 2 have been removed from this 

Final RRP document. If feasibility of the unit-cost concept across all regions is determined at a 

later date, this Final RRP may be amended to include this settlement alternative. 

Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Summary

The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program identifies the statewide Program 

structure, decision-making process, and criteria that are used to select the restoration project(s) 

that may be implemented to restore the trust resources and services injured by a given incident. 

Specifically, the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program defines, expands, and/or 

refines the following important components of the existing NRDA process: 

♦ Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services; 

♦ Restoration Types (including nexus analysis4 and environmental consequences analysis of 

implementation); 

♦ Settlement Alternatives; 

♦ Screening Criteria; and 

♦ Regional Boundaries of the RRPs. 

 

4

 According to the NRDA regulations at 15 CFR 990 et seq., trustees must consider compensatory restoration actions 

that provide services of the same type and quantity, and of comparable values as those lost. In the nexus analysis, 

restoration types are evaluated to determine how well the restoration would address the injuries to “potentially injured 

trust resource and services” affected by the incident.
4 

Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services 

The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program defines those trust resources and 

services in Louisiana that are likely to be or are anticipated to be injured (i.e., at-risk) by 

incidents as “potentially injured trust resources and services.” Pre-identification of these 

“potentially injured trust resources and services” will facilitate the development of the RRPs and 

assist in the coordination of response activities by informing agency personnel who are 

participating in the incident response (i.e., clean up) of trust resources and services that may be 

of greatest concern to the trustees. The “potentially injured trust resources and services” are 

defined under three broad categories: coastal, inland, and statewide. 

Restoration Types 

The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program identifies restoration types that are 

appropriate for the restoration of injuries for each of the identified “potentially injured trust 

resources and services” in the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. These 

restoration type categories are: 

♦ Creation / Enhancement of Habitat; 

♦ Physical Protection of Habitat; 

♦ Acquisition / Legal Protection of Resources and Services; 

♦ Stocking of Fauna; 

♦ Physical Protection of Fauna; 

♦ Restoration of Recreational Resource Services; and 

♦ Restoration of Cultural Resource Services. 

The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program describes the specific restoration type(s) 

in each restoration type category that is appropriate for the restoration of injuries to each of the 

identified “potentially injured trust resources and services” in the Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program. This determination of the range of appropriate restoration types is based on 

a nexus analysis and entailed matching appropriate restoration types with potentially injured 

trust resources and services. The trustees have also conducted an environmental 

consequences analysis by evaluating impacts of implementation of various restoration 

techniques on the restoration types. Carrying out both analyses will result in technical process, 

and NEPA compliance efficiencies at the case level during the Restoration Planning Phase. 

The trustees will be able to use relevant analysis and information from the Louisiana Regional 

Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) and RRPs to produce the incident(s)-

specific DARPs/EAs. 

The trustees have also developed restoration type selection criteria to assist in determining 

which of the various restoration types identified are most appropriate to restore the trust 

resources and services injured during a given incident. It is anticipated that the criteria will also 

provide a level of predictability to the public and affected parties regarding restoration project 

selection. Furthermore, projects in each RRP will be classified by restoration type to facilitate 

the selection of specific restoration projects based on the type of trust resources and services 

injured. This approach will streamline the process of evaluating and selecting preferred 

restoration project(s) to be reviewed by the public. 
5 

Settlement Alternatives 

The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program describes a number of additional case 

settlement alternatives to assist the trustees and Responsible Parties in negotiations to resolve 

Responsible Party liabilities for incidents. These additional settlement alternatives generally 

represent different ways of resolving liability from an incident under one or the other (or both) of 

the two options: Responsible Party-implemented restoration, or Responsible Party cash 

settlement and trustee-implemented restoration. These settlement alternatives also may 

provide opportunities for implementing restoration projects more quickly and cost-effectively, 

pooling settlements to implement larger projects than could otherwise be accomplished by using 

individual settlements, and, potentially, facilitating implementation of more ecologically 

significant projects. 

Screening Criteria

In order to improve the consistency, predictability, and accountability of the NRDA decisionmaking process, the trustees identified and defined project selection and other screening criteria 

to be used in implementing the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. These 

criteria are for: 

♦ Selection of restoration projects to be incorporated into each RRP; 

♦ Selection of most appropriate restoration type(s) to restore the injured trust resources and 

services in a case (discussed above); and 

♦ Project selection screening of specific restoration actions required for a case. 

Regional Boundaries of the RRPs 

The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program established nine regions for which 

regional plans will be developed. There are four coastal regions based on the Coast 2050 Plan 

(Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998) regions and five inland regions based on the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) defined watersheds (LDEQ 2000). For 

each region, an individual RRP will be produced. Each RRP will identify the trust resources and 

services that could potentially be affected by an incident and the restoration projects that have 

been identified to date for implementation within that region. The Region 2 RRP is the first of 

those plans to be developed. Establishing regions also provides an administrative tool to, 

among other things, facilitate tracking of cases, settlement accounting, restoration, and 

monitoring. 

Summary of Program Benefits

The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, including the RRPs, is intended to 

benefit the public, industry, and natural resource trustees by: 

♦ Providing greater opportunities to restore injuries to trust resources and services; 

♦ Expediting restoration of injured trust resources and services from incidents; 

♦ Reducing the cost of restoration planning and implementation; 

♦ Pooling of individual case recoveries to maximize opportunities for implementation of larger, 

more ecologically significant restoration projects; 
6 

♦ Providing for more consistency and predictability by describing in detail the NRDA process, 

thereby increasing the understanding of that process by the public and industry; 

♦ Improving coordination between restoration activities under the NRDA mandates and other 

restoration efforts in the state; 

♦ Enhancing the capability for trustees to restore trust resources and services injured by 

incidents for which there is no viable Responsible Party; 

♦ Maximizing opportunities for partnering among Responsible Parties, trustees, and other 

public and private restoration efforts; and 

♦ Increasing opportunity for public participation in the NRDA process through pre-incident 

planning. 

The trustees will periodically review the implementation of the Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program in the context of the benefits described above, in order to identify 

opportunities for improvement. In addition, the trustees are committed to identifying, 

developing, and using innovative operational tools and methods that will achieve the intended 

benefits of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. 
7 

CHAPTER 2 

REGION 2 - DESCRIPTION

This chapter describes the geographic boundaries, environment, and resources in Region 2. 

Region 2 Boundaries

Region 2 encompasses the Breton Sound and Barataria hydrologic basins and the lower 

Mississippi River basin, delta plain, and modern Balize (Birdfoot) delta. Bordered to the north 

by the headwaters of Bayou Lafourche and the Mississippi River, Region 2 extends south to the 

Caminada-Moreau Headland, Plaquemines barrier system, and Birdfoot delta, and from Bayou 

Lafourche along its western border to the Mississippi River and Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 

along its eastern border. The following parishes are located either partly or completely within 

Region 2: Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. 

Charles, St. James, and St. John the Baptist. 

Affected Environment and Resources

A summary description of the environment and resources that may be impacted by the 

implementation of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program in Region 2 is provided 

below. 

Physical Environment

Coastal Louisiana, which includes Region 2, has been formed over the last 7,500 years and is 

the result of delta formations. The modern deltaic coastal plain is experiencing land loss on the 

order of 25 to 30 square miles of marsh each year5

 due to the combined effects of levee 

construction, subsidence, and associated hydrologic changes (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Authority 1998). Region 2 is comprised primarily of Alluvial soils and Gulf Coast marsh soils, as 

described by Johnson and Yodis (1998). The Mississippi River runs through or adjacent to 

Ascension, St. Bernard, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Charles, Jefferson, Orleans, and 

Plaquemines parishes. 

Region 2 ground water is primarily contained within the Chicot Equivalent Aquifer System 

(Stuart et al. 1994). Region 2 encompasses the Breton Sound and Barataria hydrologic basins 

and the lower Mississippi River basin, delta plain, and modern Balize (Birdfoot) delta. The 

surface waters in Region 2 range from fresh to saline. 

Biological Resources

As Figure 2, Region 2 Boundary, Parishes, and Associated Habitat Types, illustrates, Region 2 

habitats are dominated by coastal herbaceous wetlands (i.e., fresh, intermediate, brackish, and 

salt marsh) and open waters in the seaward areas, while forested wetlands with some 

agricultural cropland/grassland and upland vegetated habitat occur in the interior portions of the 

 

5

 The estimate of 25-30 square miles of land lost per year is a historic average rate of loss for the combined periods 

of 1978-2000 (Barras et al. 2003). 
8 

Region. The following habitat types are present in Region 2 (detailed descriptions of each are 

provided in the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS [NOAA et al. 2007]): 

♦ Marsh (Salt, Brackish/Intermediate, Flotant, and Fresh); 

♦ Wetland Forest (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed); 

♦ Wetland Scrub/Shrub (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed); 

♦ Agriculture-Cropland-Grassland; 

♦ Wetland Barren; 

♦ Open Water; 

♦ Marine/Estuarine Shore; 

♦ Freshwater Shore; 

♦ Marine/Estuarine and Freshwater Benthic (Soft-Sedimentary); 

♦ Marine/Estuarine Encrusting Community (Natural/Artificial Substrates); 

♦ Living Reefs; 

♦ Marine/Estuarine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV); 

♦ Mangrove Swamp; 

♦ Batture; 

♦ Upland Forest; and 

♦ Upland Scrub/Shrub (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed). 

Figure 2: Region 2 Boundary, Parishes, and Associated Habitat Types (adapted from 

Hartley et al. 2000) 
9 

Common biota associated with these habitat types are summarized in Appendix A, Common 

Biota and Associated Habitat Types in Region 2 (Vegetation, Table A-1; Mammals, Table A-2; 

Reptiles and Amphibians, Table A-3; Birds, Table A-4 through Table A-9; Fish and Shellfish, 

Table A-10). Detailed descriptions of wildlife species associated with these habitat types are 

also described in the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 

2007). 

The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority (1998), as part of their Coast 2050 plan, identified 21 

wildlife species and species groups that rely on the habitats in Region 2 for all or part of the 

year. These include wading birds, seabirds and shorebirds, raptors, woodland residents 

including various birds and mammals, and the American alligator. 

As of March 2004, the published list of threatened and endangered species for the State of 

Louisiana includes 32 animal and three plant species (U.S. Department of the Interior, [USDOI] 

2004). The following 12 threatened and endangered animal species are found in Region 2 (see 

Table A-11, Threatened and Endangered Species in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats): 

inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus); bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); brown pelican 

(Pelecanus occidentalis); piping plover (Charadrius melodus); green sea turtle (Chelonia 

mydas); hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); Kemp’s (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii); leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); loggerhead sea turtle 

(Caretta caretta); Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi); pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus albus); and West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Critical habitat has 

been designated for the piping plover and Gulf sturgeon. There are no endangered plants 

identified in Region 2. 

Socioeconomic Resources

Infrastructure within Region 2 includes 13 highways (that pass through or border the region), 77 

miles of primary roads, 322 miles of secondary roads, 2,631 miles of tertiary roads, and 

approximately 218 miles of railroads (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). Major bridges 

within or adjacent to Region 2 include the Sunshine Bridge, the bridge at I-310, the Huey P. 

Long Bridge, and the Crescent City Connection. In addition, smaller crossings over Bayou 

Lafourche include, but are not limited to, bridges at Rita, Raceland, Thibodaux, Freetown, and 

Plattenville. There are numerous private helipads in Region 2, and the nearest public heliport is 

located just north of Region 2 at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. In 

addition, there are numerous sea planes available in the Region to rent from private companies. 

Commercial and recreational ports located either within or adjacent (when noted) to Region 2 

include: 

♦ Port Fourchon; 

♦ New Orleans (adjacent); 

♦ Braithwaite; 

♦ LaPlace (adjacent); 

♦ Grand Isle; 

♦ Metairie (adjacent); 

♦ Empire-Venice port; 

♦ Delacroix port; 

♦ Grand Isle port; and 

♦ Lafitte port. 
10 

The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, a critical shallow-draft transportation link, traverses Region 2. 

In addition, the Bayou Segnette Waterway, South Pass Channel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) maintained Barataria Bay Waterway, and the waterway from Empire to the Gulf of 

Mexico traverse Region 2. The Mississippi River main stem levee system, comprised of levees, 

floodwalls, and various control structures, traverses Region 2. 

The inland waters, coastal marshes, and offshore waters of Region 2 support commercial 

fishing and aquaculture industries. There is little forest industry in Region 2. Sugarcane, citrus, 

and commercial fruits and vegetables are important agricultural products. Animal furs and 

alligator skins are also important commodities in Region 2. 

Oil and gas production is important in the region. There are more than 1,500 miles of oil and 

gas pipelines and more than 15,000 oil and gas wells located within Region 2 (Louisiana 

Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation 

and Restoration Authority 1998). The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), which provides 

deepwater tanker offloading and temporary storage of crude oil, has a pipeline that delivers 

product onshore through Barataria Bay to Clovelly Farms. The LOOP receives approximately 

13% of the United States’ imported crude oil. Onshore salt domes located near Galliano have a 

40 million barrel capacity to receive oil from the LOOP terminal (LA 1 Coalition 2003). 

Region 2 has both State and National Parks that provide for the recreational use and/or 

preservation of natural and cultural resources. Bayou Segnette and Grand Isle State Parks are 

both located in Jefferson Parish. Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve, operated by 

the National Park Service, is located in Orleans Parish. In addition, residents of, and visitors to, 

Region 2 take advantage of the numerous habitat types and wildlife and fisheries resources, 

which provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, boating, swimming, hiking, 

biking, camping, and picnicking. Tourism in Region 2 is a multibillion dollar industry (Louisiana 

Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism 2005). Within Region 2, the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) manages the four Wildlife Management Areas 

(WMAs) of Salvador/Timken, Wisner, Maurepas, and Pass-a-Loutre. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) manages the Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges. Bayou Des 

Allemands borders Lafourche and St. Charles Parishes and is a state-designated scenic river. 
11 

CHAPTER 3 

REGIONAL RESTORATION PLAN

The Region 2 RRP is made up of the following components: 1) an identification of “potentially 

injured trust resources and services”; 2) an identification of one or more restoration types 

appropriate for each of the “potentially injured trust resources and services” in Region 2; 3) 

restoration projects in Region 2 that have been identified for this RRP6

; and 4) the criteria for 

selecting restoration types and restoration projects during a NRDA for a given incident. These 

components are described below with references to the Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) and appendices in this document as appropriate. 

Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services

As described in the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et. al.

2007), the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program defines those trust resources and 

services in Louisiana that are likely to be or are anticipated to be injured (i.e., at-risk) by 

incidents as “potentially injured trust resources and services.” Pre-identification of these 

”potentially injured trust resources and services” will facilitate the development of the RRPs and 

assist in the coordination of response activities by informing agency personnel who are 

participating in the incident response (i.e., cleanup) of trust resources that may be of greatest 

concern to the trustees. The “potentially injured trust resources and services” in Region 2 are 

defined under three broad categories: coastal, inland, and regionwide. 

The following describes the “potentially injured trust resources and services” found in Region 27

. 

Coastal

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Herbaceous wetlands are primarily salt, brackish/intermediate, and fresh marshes located in or 

near the coastal zone and alluvial basin. The marshes of the Mississippi River delta complex 

and other similar areas in Louisiana support a mix of freshwater, estuarine, and marine species. 

These wetlands are vital habitat for various fish, mammals, and resident and migratory birds. 

As considered here, this category includes marsh plants and the invertebrates, bacteria, algae, 

and sediments associated with the vegetation that contribute to all marsh habitat functions. 

Forested Wetlands 

Forested wetlands are wetland areas dominated by woody vegetation. They usually consist of 

an overstory of large trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and an herbaceous layer. 

As considered here, this category includes the trees, understory vegetation, soils, closely 

associated invertebrates, and the services that this habitat provides to other trust resources. 

 

6

 Trustees are not strictly limited to the selection of projects contained in this RRP, but may consider other restoration 

projects as appropriate. 

7

 The list under the Biological Resources Section of Chapter 2, Region 2 – Description, identifies habitat types in 

Region 2. The list provided in this section and in the header of Figures 3, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust 

Resources and Services, and 4, Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, is “potentially injured 

trust resources and services” (which includes, but is not limited to, habitat).
12 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Unvegetated beaches and shorelines in coastal waters include the perimeters of headlands, 

barrier islands, estuaries and bays, tidal mudflats, and river deltas. This zone begins at the 

lowest part of the intertidal zone and extends into the supratidal zone. As considered here, this 

injury category includes the invertebrates that burrow and/or live in this habitat. It encompasses 

all ecological functions performed by this habitat, including, among others, primary production 

by benthic diatoms in the intertidal zone and secondary production by grazers, but does not 

include human recreational services. 

Streambeds include all wetlands and water channels, which are defined by Langbein and Iseri 

(1960) as natural or artificial open conduits either naturally or artificially that periodically or 

continuously contain moving water, or that form a connecting link between two bodies of 

standing water. Streambeds containing flowing water include: seasonally flooded, temporarily 

flooded, intermittently flooded, irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, 

seasonal-tidal, or temporary-tidal water regimes (Cowardin et al. 1979). As considered here, 

this injury category includes the substrate (soils/sediments and hard surfaces) and closely 

associated invertebrates, and includes all ecological functions performed by this habitat 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

This category considers living reefs in marine and estuarine waters. As considered here, living 

reefs encompass oysters, mussels, and/or other benthic organisms that contribute to the reef 

structure, and the fauna and flora that attach to or are closely associated with these reefs. It 

also includes all ecological services this habitat provides to other trust resources. 

Water Column Organisms 

As considered here, this category consists of planktonic (i.e., drifting) (including larval fish) and 

nektonic (i.e., swimming) organisms in marine and estuarine waters, and the ecological services 

these organisms provide to other trust resources. It also includes large mobile crustaceans, 

such as crabs and shrimp, and demersal fishes which live on or near the seafloor. 

Inland

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Inland herbaceous wetlands are those environments that experience periodic flooding and are 

comprised of emergent vegetation having little or no woody tissue. This definition refers 

specifically to the inland geographic areas where freshwater flow regimes prevail throughout the 

year and saltwater does not typically penetrate from the coast. These wetlands support a 

diverse group of fish, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. As considered 

here, this category includes marsh plants and the invertebrates, bacteria, algae, and sediments 

associated with the vegetation that contribute to marsh habitat functions. 

Forested Wetlands 

Forested wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation that is at least 18.5 feet tall. They 

occur in freshwater systems and normally possess an overstory of tall/mature trees, an 

understory of young trees or shrubs, and an herbaceous layer. Specific examples of this habitat 

in Louisiana are wetland forest (evergreen, deciduous, and mixed) and swamp. As considered 

here, this category includes the trees, understory vegetation, soils, closely associated 

invertebrates, and the services that this habitat provides to other trust resources. 
13 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Unvegetated beaches and shorelines in fresh waters include, but are not limited to, lakefronts, 

pond shores, mudflats, and riverbanks. As considered here, this injury category includes the 

invertebrates that burrow and/or live in this habitat. It encompasses all ecological functions 

performed by this habitat, including, among others, primary production by benthic algae in the 

nearshore/limnetic zone and secondary production by grazers, but does not include human 

recreational services. 

Streambeds include all water channels and wetlands contained within the intermittent 

subsystem of the riverine system. Water regimes are restricted to irregularly exposed, regularly 

flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, and intermittently flooded 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). As considered here, this injury category includes the substrate 

(soils/sediments and rocks) and closely associated invertebrates, and includes all ecological 

functions performed by this habitat (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Upland Vegetation 

As defined in the Louisiana Geographic Approach to Planning GAP analysis program (United 

States Geological Survey [USGS] 2001), this category includes agricultural-cropland-grassland, 

upland scrub/shrub (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed), and upland forest (deciduous, 

evergreen, and mixed). It encompasses trees, as well as, understory vegetation, soils, and 

invertebrates in the soil or associated with plants, and the services this habitat provides to other 

trust resources. 

Water Column Organisms 

As considered here, this category consists of both planktonic (including larval fish) and nektonic 

organisms, such as fish that live in fresh waters streams, ponds, swamps, and lakes. It also 

includes the ecological services these organisms provide to other trust resources. 

Regionwide (Coastal/Inland)

Birds 

Common resident and migratory birds that are found in coastal and inland areas of Region 2, 

and tables describing habitat use by season, are listed in Appendix A, Common Biota and 

Associated Habitat Types in Region 2, Tables A-4 through A-9. This category may also include 

the ecological services these organisms provide to other trust resources. 

Wildlife 

Common mammals, reptiles, and amphibians from all habitats in Region 2 are listed in 

Appendix A, Common Biota and Associated Habitat Types in Region 2, Table A-2, Common 

Mammals in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats, and Table A-3, Common Reptiles and 

Amphibians in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats, and are included in this category. This 

injury category can also include the ecological services these organisms provide to other trust 

resources. 

Recreational Resource Services 

Human recreational services are provided by habitats and/or areas throughout Region 2. 

Indirect activities (e.g., hiking, biking, picnicking, or jogging) and direct activities (e.g., bird and 

wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, boating, or swimming) all take place in Region 2 and therefore 

are included in this category. This category does not, however, include the resources 

themselves that are involved in the activity. 
14 

Cultural Resource Services 

Cultural resource services is a broad term that includes prehistoric, historic, architectural, and 

traditional cultural services that flow from natural resources that have cultural attributes. 

Cultural resources in Louisiana include lands, buildings, monuments, travel routes, ship wrecks, 

burial sites, ceremonial sites, battle grounds, Indian mounds, middens, and other artifacts, 

generally in excess of 50 years of age, that represent the history and culture of the region as 

perceived by the public or cultural scientists. While all state and local historic preservation 

groups may contribute to the list of state cultural resource sites or attributes, the Louisiana State 

Preservation Office, state Indian tribes, and USDOI are primarily responsible for designating 

Louisiana’s cultural resource sites and attributes. Biological resources can have cultural 

significance and values under specific conditions. The loss or injury of a biological resource that 

has cultural significance and value would constitute not only a natural resource injury, but a loss 

of cultural resource services as well. Therefore this category includes all cultural resource 

services that natural resources in the state may provide. 

Restoration Types

In accordance with OPA and OSPRA, trustees must restore, replace or acquire the equivalent 

of the injured resource or lost trust services. To ensure that the Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program efficiently satisfies this mandate, the trustees: 1) conducted a nexus analysis 

to identify one or more appropriate restoration types for each of the “potentially injured trust 

resources and services” in the region; 2) developed restoration type screening criteria to assist 

in the selection of the most appropriate restoration type(s) to restore trust resources and 

services injured during a given incident; and 3) developed screening criteria to aid in selecting 

the most appropriate restoration project(s) for a given incident. 

Detailed results and descriptions of the nexus analyses are presented in Section 4.2.4.1, Nexus 

Analysis, of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007), 

and are summarized in Figure 3, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services,

and Figure 4, Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, excerpted from the 

Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS. As shown in the figures below, the 

restoration types identified for Region 2 include the following seven broad categories (see 

Section 4.2.3, Restoration Types, of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program 

FPEIS for a detailed description [NOAA et al. 2007]): 

♦ Creation / Enhancement of Habitat; 

♦ Physical Protection of Habitat; 

♦ Acquisition / Legal Protection of Resources and Services; 

♦ Stocking of Fauna; 

♦ Physical Protection of Fauna; 

♦ Restoration of Recreational Resource Services; and 

♦ Restoration of Cultural Resource Services. 
15 

Figure 3: Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services (NOAA et al. 

2007) 

Restoration Type Selection Criteria

As described in Section 4.2.4.1.5, Restoration Type Selection Criteria, of the Louisiana 

Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007), the trustees have 

developed restoration type selection criteria to assist in determining which of the various 

restoration types are most appropriate to restore the trust resources and services injured 

during a given incident. 

POTENTIALLY INJURED TRUST 

RESOURCES AND SERVICES 

COASTAL 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Forested Wetlands 

Beaches/Shorelines/ 

Streambeds 

Oyster Reefs 

(and Other Reefs) 

Water Column Org. 

Birds 

Wildlife 

Recreation 

Cultural 

Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) √ √ √ √ √ 

Creation/ 

Enhancement 

of Habitat 

Coastal SAV √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Physical 

Protection of 

Habitat Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) √ √ √ √ √ 

Acquisition/ 

Legal 

Protection of 

Habitat 

Coastal SAV √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Water Column Org. √ √ 

Coastal Oyster Reefs and Other Reef 

Organisms √ √ √ 

Birds √ √ 

Stocking of 

Fauna 

Wildlife √ √ 

Physical Birds √ √ Protection of 

Fauna Wildlife √ √ 

RESTORATION TYPES 

 Recreational Resource Services √ 

 Cultural Resource Services √
16 

POTENTIALLY INJURED TRUST 

RESOURCES AND SERVICES 

INLAND 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Forested Wetlands 

Beaches/Shorelines/ 

Streambeds 

Upland Vegetation 

Water Column Org. 

Birds 

Wildlife 

Recreation 

Cultural 

Inland Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Creation/ 

Enhancement 

of Habitat 

Inland Upland Vegetation √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Physical 

Protection of 

Habitat 

Inland Upland Vegetation √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Acquisition/ 

Legal 

Protection of 

Habitat Inland Upland Vegetation √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Water Column Org. √ √ 

Birds √ √ Stocking of 

Fauna 

Wildlife √ √ 

Physical Birds √ √ Protection of 

Fauna Wildlife √ √ 

Recreational Resource Services √ 

RESTORATION TYPES 

Cultural Resource Services √

Figure 4: Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services (NOAA et al. 

2007) 

These restoration type selection criteria are based in part on the OPA regulations, Section 

990.54(a)(1-6), and include (see Section 4.2.4.1.5, Restoration Type Selection Criteria, of the 

Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) for definitions): 

♦ Strength of Nexus to the Injury; 

♦ Scalability; 

♦ Degree to Which Restoration Type Addresses Multiple Injuries; 

♦ Availability of Projects for this Restoration Type in RRP; and 

♦ Other Case Specific Parameters. 
17 

Project Selection Screening Criteria

The trustees will select the appropriate restoration types, conduct initial scaling, and select a set 

of potential project alternatives (including a preferred alternative), and provide the Draft 

Restoration Plan to the public for review under OPA, OSPRA, NEPA, and other applicable 

statutes and regulations. In order to provide consistency, predictability, and accountability in 

this phase of the NRDA decision-making process, the trustees established project selection 

screening criteria to assist in selecting the preferred restoration project(s). 

These project selection screening criteria are based in part on the OPA regulations, Section 

990.54(a)(1-6), as described in Section 4.2.4.2, Project Selection Screening Criteria, of the 

Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et Al. 2007). These include: 

♦ Project Cost-Effectiveness (including ability to partner); 

♦ Proximity to Affected Area; 

♦ Scalability; 

♦ Extent of Benefit to Injured Trust Resources and Services; 

♦ Technical Feasibility and Likelihood of Success; 

♦ Avoidance of Future Additional Injury Resulting from Project; 

♦ Degree to Which Project Addresses Multiple Injuries; 

♦ Degree to Which Project Affects Public Health and Safety; 

♦ Ability to Implement Project with Minimal Delay; 

♦ Degree to Which Project Supports Existing Strategies/Plans; 

♦ Project Urgency; and 

♦ Other Factors as Appropriate. 

A Final Restoration Plan will be issued for public comment prior to implementing the selected 

restoration project(s). 

Special Circumstances

If an incident occurs that affects trust resources and services in more than one RRP region, the 

trustees may select a restoration project(s) in any of the affected regions. In other cases, the 

trustees may find that in applying the restoration type and/or project selection screening criteria, 

the most appropriate restoration project(s) for an incident in one region is located outside that 

region. In both cases, in accordance with the law, regulation, and criteria above, the trustees 

will select the restoration project(s) that will provide the closest nexus between the injuries and 

restoration in the most cost-effective manner. 

Restoration Projects in Plan

Each region-specific RRP includes a list of restoration projects identified to date in that region. 

These project lists are not intended to be final, and will be periodically updated as appropriate 

projects are identified for inclusion. Further, trustees are not strictly limited to selecting projects 

contained in the lists, but rather can refer to the project lists as tools for expediting settlements. 

The projects were identified through a two-step process: 1) projects were solicited from the 

public, government agencies, and industry; and 2) restoration projects that were submitted were 

reviewed relative to the criteria for incorporation into the RRP as defined in the Section 4.2.1, 

Regional Restoration Plans, of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS 

(NOAA et al. 2007). 
18 

RRP Project Solicitation

Solicitation of projects for inclusion in the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program 

regional plans began during the informal scoping meetings conducted in October 2000 through 

Spring 2001. Project solicitation will continue as an ongoing process and the projects lists will 

be updated as additional projects are identified. 

In June 2001, the Louisiana’s Proposed Regional Restoration Planning Program, Public Review 

Document (PRD) was finalized and the formal scoping of the Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program and project solicitation began. Over 1000 copies of the PRD were distributed 

to the public and affected parties on or before July 2, 2001. Each PRD disseminated included a 

NRDA Restoration Project Information Sheet (see Appendix B, NRDA Restoration Project 

Information Sheet) and directions for public and private groups to submit projects to be 

considered for implementation. Six public meetings were held throughout the State of Louisiana 

in July 2001 (see Section 9.3, Formal Scoping, of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning 

Program FPEIS [NOAA et al. 2007]). 

In addition to the six public meetings, 16 additional project solicitation meetings were conducted 

prior to release of the Draft RRP for Region 2 in September of 2003 (see Table 1, Project 

Solicitation Meetings for Region 2 RRP). 

Table 1: Project Solicitation Meetings for Region 2 RRP 

Organization Event Date 

Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources/Coastal Management Division - 

Coastal Zone Management 

Quarterly Parish Meeting 05/22/2002 

Lafourche Parish CZM Advisory Committee 07/16/2002 

St. James Parish CZM Advisory Committee 07/31/2002 

Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary 

Program Informal Meeting 08/13/2002 

St. Charles Parish Informal Meeting 08/23/2002 

Ascension Parish Informal Meeting 08/26/2002 

Inter-Tribal Council Informal Meeting 08/27/2002 

Ducks Unlimited Informal Meeting 08/28/2002 

Jefferson Parish Informal Meeting 08/29/2002 

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural 

Resources Conservation Service Informal Meeting 09/16/2002 

Plaquemines Parish CZM Advisory Committee 09/17/2002 

Lafourche Basin Levee District Board of Commissioners 10/08/2002 

Lafourche Basin Levee District Board of Commissioners 11/27/2002 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries Informal Meeting 02/25/2003 

Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources/Dedicated Dredge Program Informal Meeting 04/30/2003 

Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources/Coastal Restoration Division Informal Meeting 06/10/2003 
19 

Region 2 RRP Restoration Project Selection 

As of June 30, 2003, 1248

 projects were received for the Region 2 RRP. A group of state and 

federal trustees reviewed each submitted project relative to the criteria for incorporation into the 

RRP as defined in Section 4.2.1, Regional Restoration Plans, of the Louisiana Regional 

Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007). If a project did not meet all of the 

criteria, it was not included in the Region 2 RRP. Table C-1, Region 2 RRP Accepted 

Restoration Projects, lists the projects that have met the screening criteria for inclusion in the 

Region 2 RRP. Table C-2, Region 2 RRP Restoration Projects Not Included, lists projects that 

have not met the screening criteria for inclusion in the Region 2 RRP.

Settlement Calculation

The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program describes a number of additional 

settlement alternatives to assist the trustees and Responsible Parties in negotiations to resolve 

the Responsible Party’s natural resource damage liability for incidents. As a requirement of 

settlement the Responsible Party(s) or the trustees will be implementing a restoration project(s) 

to compensate for the injured trust resources and services lost as a result of an incident. These 

settlement alternatives are described in detail in Section 4.2.6, Settlement Alternatives, of the 

Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et. al. 2007). 

Regardless of the specific settlement alternatives selected to restore the injured trust resources 

and services lost from a given incident, the financial responsibilities of the Responsible Party 

include: the costs associated with injury assessment, project planning (e.g., site selection, 

feasibility analyses, engineering and design, permitting, and conservation easements), project 

implementation, monitoring, operations and maintenance, trustee oversight and administrative 

costs, corrective actions, contingencies, and any other project-related costs that may 

foreseeably arise throughout the life of the project. Under each settlement alternative, a 

Consent Decree or other binding settlement document will be required to provide a Responsible 

Party with a release from liability. 

Responsible Party-Implemented Restoration Project

If a Responsible Party chooses to implement a restoration project itself or through a contracted 

third party, the settlement calculation will consist primarily of the cost associated with the 

trustees’ costs to conduct the injury assessment and restoration planning, and the required 

trustee oversight and administrative costs for the life of the project. Costs associated with the 

implementation of the project, monitoring, operations and maintenance, potential corrective 

actions, and contingencies would remain the responsibility of the Responsible Party(s) as part of 

the settlement, but would not need to be calculated. In the case of multiple Responsible Parties 

or the implementation of an RRP restoration project with a partnering program or organization, 

the settlement calculation would take into account what portion of the cost each contributing 

Responsible Party or program is responsible for. Partnering will not decrease a Responsible 

Party’s liability, but may allow them to take advantage of economies of scale in implementing a 

larger project, thereby lowering the cost of resolving their specific liabilities. 

 

8

 The Coastwide Nutria Control Program and the Dedicated Dredge Program submitted project information sheets 

containing information about the respective programs. However, project-specific information was not provided and 

these submittals could not be evaluated to include as projects in the Region 2 RRP. Projects submitted by these and 

other programs will be considered for inclusion in the Region 2 RRP. 
20 

Cash Settlement - Project-Specific Cash Settlement

If the Responsible Party(s) provides the trustees with the money to implement a specific 

restoration project (which was selected by the trustees with input from the Responsible Party(s) 

and the public (by applying the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program project 

selection screening criteria), the settlement calculation would include the trustees’ assessment 

costs plus the sum of all costs to conduct the project planning and design, permitting, 

implementation, monitoring, operation and maintenance, oversight and administration, and 

contingencies for a specific project that compensates for the direct and interim losses of trust 

resources and services. If the Responsible Party’s liability is less than the full amount of the 

project, the Responsible Party can pay the trustees based on the percentage of the selected 

restoration project (e.g., “Responsible Party/Fund CO-OP Settlement” alternative). 

Cash Settlement - Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement [Reserved]

This section is reserved pending determination of feasibility of the development of unit costs for 

all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement alternative of “Non-Project-Specific Cash 

Settlement” in the September 2003 Draft RRP for Region 2 have been removed from this Final 

RRP document. If feasibility of the unit costs across all regions is determined at a later date, 

this Final RRP may be amended to include this settlement alternative. 

RRP Revisions 

The Region 2 RRP will be updated through periodic project solicitations and will be revised 

accordingly (see Appendix B, NRDA Restoration Project Information Sheet, for the NRDA 

Restoration Project Information Sheet). A public review and comment period on revisions to the 

Region 2 RRP will be provided as needed. 

Development Process for the Region 2 RRP

Development of the Region 2 RRP paralleled the development process of the FPEIS as outlined 

in Chapter 9.0, Regional Restoration Planning Program Development Process, of the FPEIS 

(NOAA et al. 2007). Based on input from the public and further consideration by the Regional 

Restoration Planning Program Workgroup, the Draft RRP for Region 2 was completed and 

released for public review pursuant to NEPA on September 17, 2003. A 30-day comment 

period ending on October 23, 2003 was provided. 

All written comments on the Draft RRP for Region 2, a summary of the written comments, and 

responses are also provided in Appendix G, Public Comments and Responses. Based on input 

from the public during the public comment period and further consideration by the RRP Program 

Workgroup, the Draft RRP for Region 2 was finalized. 

The Administrative Record for the Region 2 RRP is maintained at NOAA in Silver Spring, 

Maryland and duplicate copies are maintained at LOSCO, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: 

NOAA/Damage Assessment Center Headquarters 

1305 East West Highway, Suite 10218 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

(301) 713-3038 
21 

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor 

150 Third Street, Suite 405 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 

(225) 219-5800 
22 

REFERENCES

Barras, J., Beville, S., Britsch, D., Hartley, S., Hawes, S., Johnston, J., Kemp, P., Kinler, Q., 

Martucci, A., Porthouse, J., Reed, D., Roy, K., Sapkota, S., and Suhayda, J., 2003, 

Historical and projected coastal Louisiana land changes: 1978-2050: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open File Report 03-334, 39 p. 

Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F., and LaRoe, E., 1979, Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 103 p. 

Hartley, S., Pace, R. III, Johnston, J. B., and others, 2000, A GAP analysis of Louisiana: Final 

report and data. 

Johnson D.C. and Yodis, E.G., 1998, Geography of Louisiana: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 

Inc., New York, NY, 213 p. 

Langbein, W. B. and Iseri, K. T., 1960, General introduction and hydrologic definitions manual of 

hydrology - Part 1 general surface-water techniques: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 1541-A, 29 p. 

LA 1 Coalition, 2003, Energy facts and estimates, URL: www.la1coalition.org/facts.html 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority, 1998, Coast 2050: Toward a sustainable 

coastal Louisiana: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA, 161 p. 

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, 2005, URL: www.crt.state.la.us

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 2000, State of Louisiana water quality 

management plan, water quality inventory, Section 305(b), URL: 

www.deq.state.la.us/planning/305b/2000/index.htm 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, Louisiana Oil 

Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor, Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2007, The Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 172p + 

appendices,. 

Stuart, C. G., Knochenmus, D., and McGee, B. D., 1994, Guide to Louisiana’s ground water 

resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, LA, prepared in cooperation with 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA, WaterResources Investigations Report 94-4085, 55 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004, The endangered species 

program, URL: ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageUsaLists?state=LA 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, Louisiana GAP Analysis Program, Biological Resources Division, 

URL: http://sdms.nwrc.gov/gap/gap2.html. 
23 

LIST OF PREPARERS

PREPARERS EXPERTISE

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor (LOSCO) 

Karolien Debusschere Geomorphology 

Charles K. Armbruster Coastal Geomorphology 

Christina M. Swaye Geography 

Gina Muhs Saizan Biology 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

William Conner Marine Biology 

Ann Berger Planning 

Lisa DiPinto Marine Science 

Sheila O’Brien Attorney 

John Rapp Wetland Ecology 

Katherine Wheelock Coastal Ecology 

Katherine Pease Attorney 

John Iliff Restoration Science 

Tony Penn Economics 

Jim Hoff Fisheries Biology 

Troy Baker Fisheries Biology 

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) 

Stephen Spencer Biology 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

Chris Piehler Aquatic Botany 

John de Mond Coastal Ecology 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) 

Jim Rives Wildlife Biology 

Richard Stanek Wildlife Biology 

Jennifer Beall Coastal Geology 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) 

Jim Hanifen Biology 

Terry Romaire Marine Biology 
24 

LIST OF AGENCIES

Office of the Governor 

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office (LOSCO) 

United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) 
A-1 

APPENDIX A - COMMON BIOTA AND ASSOCIATED HABITAT TYPES IN REGION 2 
A-2 

Table A- 1: Common Vegetation in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitats 

(see Table A-12 for key) 

Spartina alterniflora smooth cordgrass SM, B/IM 

Distichlis spicata saltgrass SM, B/IM 

Salicornia spp. glasswort SM 

Juncus roemerianus black rush SM 

Batis maritime saltwort SM 

Iva frutescens shrubby marsh alder SM, B/IM 

Spartina patens marshhay cordgrass SM, B/IM 

Solidago sempervirens seaside goldenrod SM, B/IM 

Schoenoplectus spp. bulrushes, three squares, three corner grass B/IM, FM 

Phragmites spp. common reeds, roseau cane B/IM, FM 

Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis B/IM, FM 

Cladium jamaicense saw grass B/IM, FM 

Hydrocotyle spp. pennyworts B/IM, FM 

Typha spp. cattails FM 

Zizaniopsis miliacea giant cutgrass FM 

Panicum hemitomon maidencane FM 

Juncus effusus soft-stem rush FM 

Eleocharis spp. spike-rushes FM 

Pontederia cordata pickerelweed FM 

Sagittaria spp. arrowheads FM 

Salix nigra black willow FM, WF, B 

Quercus spp. oaks WF, UF 

Liquidambar styraciflua sweet gum WF, UF 

Sassafras albidum sassafras WF, UF 

Cornus spp. dogwoods WF, UF 

Fraxinus spp ashes WF, UF 

Acer rubrum red maple WF, UF 

Nyssa aquatica tupelo gum WF 

Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo WF 

Saururus cernuus lizard's tail WF 

Taxodium distichum bald cypress WF 

Ulmus americana American elm WF 

Ilex spp. holly WF 

Platanus occidentalis sycamore WF 

Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush WF 

Pinus echinata short-leaf pine UF 

Pinus taeda loblolly pine UF 

Carya spp. hickory UF 

Avicennia germinans black mangrove MS 

Potamogeton sp. pondweed M/ESAV, FSAV 

Zostera marina eel grass M/ESAV 

Vallisneria americana American eelgrass M/ESAV 

Thalassia testudinum turtlegrass M/ESAV 

Ceratophyllum demersum coontail FSAV 

Utricularia spp. bladder worts FSAV 

Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth FSAV 

Alternanthera philoxeroides alligatorweed FSAV 

Limnobium spongia American frog-bit FSAV 

Pistia stratiotes water lettuce FSAV 

Nymphaea odorata white water lily FSAV 

Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla FSAV 
A-3 

Table A- 2: Common Mammals in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Odocoileus virginianus whitetail deer B/IM, FM, WF, B, WS/S, UF, A/C/G, US/S, FS 

Sylvilagus sp. swamp rabbit, eastern 

cottontail B/IM, FM, WF, B, WS/S, UF, A/C/G, US/S 

Myocastor coypus nutria B/IM, FM, WF, B, WS/S, FS 

Ondatra zibethica muskrat B/IM, FM, WF, B, WS/S, FS 

Procyon lotor raccoon B/IM, FM, WF, B, WS/S, UF, US/S, FS, M/ES, A/C/G 

Sus scrofa wild boar FM, WF, B, UF, WS/S, US/S 

Reithrodontomys 

fulvescens fulvous harvest mouse SM, B/IM, FM, WF, B, UF, MS, A/C/G, WS/S, US/S, FS, M/ES 

Dasypus novemcinctus armadillo WF, B, UF, A/C/G, WS/S, US/S 

Canis latrans coyote UF, A/C/G, WF, B, WS/S, US/S 

Lynx rufus bobcat WF, B, UF, US/S 

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum WF, B, UF, US/S 

Lasiurus borealis eastern red bat WF, UF 

Sciurus carolinensis eastern grey squirrel UF, US/S 

Mustela vison mink B/IM, FM, FS, M/ES, W 

Lutra canadensis river otter B/IM, FM, WF, B, WS/S, FS 

Table A- 3: Common Reptiles and Amphibians in Region 2 and their Associated 

Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator SM, B/IM, FM, WF, B, MS, M/ESAV, FSAV, M/EB, FB 

Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle B/IM, FM, M/ES, FS, WF, B, M/ESAV, FSAV, M/EB, FB 

Sternotherus spp. musk turtles FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, FB 

Kinosternon spp. mud turtles B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, M/ESAV, M/EB, FB 

Graptemys 

psuedogeographicakohnii Mississippi map turtle FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, FB 

Malaclemys terrapin diamondback terrapin SM, B/IM, M/ES, M/ESAV, M/EB 

Deirochelys reticularia chicken turtle FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, FB 

Chrysemys picta painted turtle FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, FB 

Pseudemys concinna river cooter (turtle) FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, FB 

Trachemys scripta slider (turtle) FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, FB 

Terrapene spp. box turtles WF, B, UF, A/C/G, WS/S, US/S, FS, 

Apalone spp. softshell turtles FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, FB 

Nerodia spp. water snakes SM, B/IM, M/ES, M/ESAV, FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV 

Regina spp. crawfish snakes FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, A/C/G, WS/S 

Thamnophis spp. garter, ribbon snakes FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV, UF, A/C/G, US/S, WS/S 

Storeria spp. redbelly, brown snakes FM, FS, FSAV, WF, B, UF, A/C/G, US/S, WS/S 

Virginia spp. earth snakes FM, FS, FSAV, WF, B, UF, A/C/G, US/S, WS/S 

Diadophis punctatus ringneck snake WF, B, UF, A/C/G, US/S, WS/S, FS 

Heterodon platirhinos eastern hognose snake WF, B, UF, A/C/G, US/S, WS/S, FS 

Opheodrys aestivus rough green snake WF, B, UF, A/C/G, US/S, WS/S, FS, FM 

Farancia abacura mud snake SM, B/IM, M/ES, M/ESAV, FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV 

Coluber constrictor racer (snake) WF, B, FM, FS, WS/S 

Elaphe spp. rat snakes UF, A/C/G, WF, B, US/S, WS/S 

Lampropeltis spp. milk snakes, 

kingsnakes B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, WF, B, UF, A/C/G, WS/S, US/S 

Agkistrodon piscivorus cottonmouth (snake) B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, WF, B, WS/S 

Agkistrodon contortrix copperhead (snake) FS, WF, B, US/S, WS/S, A/C/G, UF 

Sistrurus miliarius pigmy rattlesnake FS, WF, B, WS/S, US/S, A/C/G, UF 

Crotalus horridus timber rattlesnake FS, WF, B, WS/S, US/S, A/C/G, UF 

Scincella lateralis ground skink WF, WS/S, UF, B, A/C/G, FS, M/ES, US/S, UB 

Hyla spp. tree frogs B/IM, M/ES, M/ESAV, FM, FS, FSAV, WF, B, WS/S 

Pseudacris spp. chorus frogs B/IM, M/ES, M/ESAV, FM, FS, FSAV, WF, B, WS/S, A/C/G 

Acris spp. cricket frogs B/IM, M/ES, M/ESAV, FM, FS, FSAV, WF, B, WS/S, A/C/G 

Rana spp. true frogs B/IM, M/ES, M/ESAV, FM, FS, FSAV, WF, B, WS/S, US/S, 

A/C/G, UF 
A-4 

Table A- 4: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – Waterfowl and 

Waterbirds 

Scientific Name Common Name Season Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Gavia immer common loon W M/ES, FS, M/ESAV, FSAV, W 

Podiceps spp. grebes W M/ES, M/ESAV, W 

Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant W M/ES, M/ESAV, FS, FSAV, W 

Anhinga anhinga American anhinga YR WF, B, A/C/G, FS, WS/S, W 

Chen caerulescens snow goose W M/ES, FS, B/IM, FM, A/C/G, W 

Anas fulvigula mottled duck YR B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, M/ESAV, FSAV, W 

Anas strepera gadwall W B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, M/ESAV, FSAV, W 

Anas platyphynchos mallard W B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, M/ESAV, FSAV, WF, B, 

WS/S, W 

Anus acuta common pintail W SM, B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, M/ESAV, FSAV, W 

Anus americana American wigeon W B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, M/ESAV, FSAV, A/C/G, W 

Aix sponsa wood duck YR WF, WS/S, FS, B, W 

Anas clypeata northern shoveler W FM, FS, FSAV, SM, B/IM, M/ES, M/ESAV, W 

Anas discors blue-winged teal YR FM, FS, FSAV, W 

Anas crecca green-winged teal W M/ES, B/IM, FM, FS, FSAV, W 

Aythya valisineria canvasback W SM, B/IM, FM, M/ES, FS, M/ESAV, FSAV, W 

Aythya collaris ring-necked duck W WF, WS/S, FS, B, W 

Aythya affinis lesser scaup W FS, FSAV, M/ES, W 

Bucephala clangula common goldeneye W WF, WS/S, FS, W, B, M/ES 

Bucephala albeola bufflehead W FS, FSAV, M/ES, M/ESAV, W 

Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck W FS, FM, FSAV, M/ES, W 

Mergus serrator red-breasted merganser W FS, M/ES, FSAV, W 

Gelochelidon nilotica gull-billed tern YR SM, M/ES, WB, A/C/G, W, B/IM 

Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser W, Br WF, WS/S, B, FS, W 

Fulica americana American coot W W, FM, B/IM, FS, M/ES, A/C/G, M/ESAV, FSAV 

Gallinula chloropus common moorhen YR W, FM, FS, FSAV 

Porphyrula martinica purple gallinule Br W, FM, FS, WF, B, FSAV 

* Br = present during breeding season (generally spring and/or summer) 

 W = present in winter 

 YR = present year round 
A-5 

Table A- 5: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – Colonial 

Nesting Wading Birds 

Scientific Name Common Name Season Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Ardea herodias great blue heron YR FM, B/IM, SM, WB, FS, M/ES, WF, MS, B, 

WS/S, W 

Egretta caerulea little blue heron YR FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, MS, B, WS/S, A/C/G, 

W, FS, ME/S 

Egretta tricolor tricolored heron YR FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, MS, B, WS/S, W, FS, 

ME/S 

Casmerodius albus great egret YR FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, W, FS, ME/S, WF, FS, 

M/ES 

Egretta thula snowy egret YR FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, MS, B, WS/S, W, FS, 

M/ES 

Bubulcus ibis cattle egret YR FM, WB, W, A/C/G, FS 

Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night 

heron YR FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, MS, B, WS/S, W, FS, 

M/ES 

Nyctanassa violacea yellow-crowned night 

heron Br FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, MS, B, WS/S, W, FS, 

M/ES 

Butorides striatus green-backed heron YR FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, MS, B, WS/S, W, FS, 

M/ES 

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern Br FM, FS, W 

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern W FM, FS, W 

Eudocimus albus white ibis YR FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, MS, B, WS/S, W, FS, 

M/ES, A/C/G 

Rallus spp. rails W, Br FM, B/IM, SM, WB, WF, MS, B, WS/S, W, FS, 

M/ES 

Himantopus mexicanus black-necked stilt YR FM, FS, W, WB 

Recurvirostra 

americana American avocet W M/ES, FS, W 

Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied plover W FS, WB, ME/S, W 

Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone W FS, WB, ME/S, W, WS/S 

Charadrius 

semipalmatus semipalmated plover W ME/S 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s plover Br ME/S 

Charadrius vociferous killdeer YR A/C/G, FS, WS/S, W 

Philohelo minor American woodcock W WS/S, WF, B 

Capella gallinago common snipe W WB, FM, B/IM, A/C/G 

Limnodromus griseus short-billed dowitcher W WB, FM, B/IM, FS 

Calidris canutus red knot W M/ES, FS 

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus willet YR FM, B/IM, SM, M/ES, WB 

Tringa melanoleuca greater yellowlegs W FM, WB, FS, W, B, WF, WS/S 

Tringa flavipes lesser yellowlegs W FM, WB, FS, W, WF, WS/S, M/ES, B/IM, SM 

Calidris alba sanderling W FS, M/ES 

Calidris alpine dunlin W WB, M/ES, FS 

Actitus macularia spotted sandpiper W WS/S, FS 

Calidris minutilla least sandpiper W WB, FM, W, FS 

Calidris mauri western sandpiper W WB, M/ES, FS 

* Br = present during breeding season (generally spring and/or summer) 

 W = present in winter 

 YR = present year round 
A-6 

Table A- 6: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – Raptors 

Scientific Name Common Name Season Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi kite Br WF, B, WS/S 

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk W WF, UF, B, WS/S, US/S 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk YR WF, UF, B, WS/S, US/S 

Circus cyanus northern harrier W FM, B/IM, A/C/G 

Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk YR A/C/G, WF, B, UF, FM, WS/S 

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk YR A/C/G, WF, B, UF, FM, WS/S 

Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk Br WF, UF, B 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus bald eagle Br WF, UF 

Pandion haliaetus osprey YR WF, FS, M/ES 

Cathartes aura turkey vulture YR WF, UF 

Coragyps atratus black vulture YR WF, UF 

Falco sparverius American kestrel W A/C/G, WF, UF 

Falco columbarius merlin W UF, WF, FM, A/C/G 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon W A/C/G 

Otus asio eastern screech owl YR WF, UF, A/C/G, US/S, WS/S, B 

Bubo virginianus great horned owl YR WF, UF, WS/S, US/S, A/C/G 

* Br = present during breeding season (generally spring and/or summer) 

 W = present in winter 

 YR = present year round 

Table A- 7: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – Non-Passerine 

Land Birds 

Scientific Name Common Name Season Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Zenaida macroura mourning dove YR A/C/G, UF, US/S 

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo Br UF, US/S, A/C/G 

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk Br A/C/G, UF 

Archilochus colubris ruby-throated hummingbird Br A/C/G, UF 

Megaceryle alcyon belted kingfisher W FS, M/ES, W, FM, B/IM, SM 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker YR A/C/G, UF, US/S 

Dryocopus pileatus pileated woodpecker YR UF, WF 

Colaptes auratus common flicker YR UF, WF, A/C/G 

Melanerpes carolinus red-bellied woodpecker YR WF, UF, A/C/G 

Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker W WF, UF, 

Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker YR WF, UF, B, WS/S, US/S 

Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker YR WF, UF, B, WS/S, US/S 

* Br = present during breeding season (generally spring and/or summer) 

 W = present in winter 

 YR = present year round 

Table A- 8: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – Seabirds and 

Gulls 

Scientific Name Common Name Season Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos American white pelican W W, FS, M/ES, FM, B/IM 

Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican YR, Br SM, B/IM, FM, FS, M/ES, W 

Fregata magnificens magnificent frigatebird NBr SM, M/ES 

Morus bassanus northern gannet W M/ES 

Larus spp. gulls W SM, B/IM, FM, M/ES, FS, W, A/C/G 

Sterna spp. terns W, Br SM, B/IM, FM, WB, W, M/ES, FS 

Rynchops niger black skimmer YR SM, B/IM, WB, W, M/ES 

* Br = present during breeding season (generally spring and/or summer) 

 NBr = not a breeder, but present during the breeding season (spring and/or summer) 

 W = present in winter 

 YR = present year round 
A-7 

Table A- 9: Common Birds in Region 2 and their Associated Habitats – Passerine Birds 

Scientific Name Common Name Season Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Tyrannus tyrannus eastern kingbird Br UF, WF, WS/S, A/C/G 

Myiarchus crinitus great crested flycatcher Br UF, WF 

Empidonax virescens acadian flycatcher Br UF, WF, B 

Anthus spinoletta water pipit W FS, M/ES, A/C/G 

Progne subis purple martin Br FS, A/C/G 

Hirundo rustica barn swallow Br A/C/G, FM, FS, W 

Iridoprocne bicolor tree swallow W A/C/G, FS, WB, FM, WF 

Stelgidopteryx ruficollis rough-winged swallow Br FS, WS/S, FM 

Corvus ossifragus fish crow YR FS, A/C/G, M/ES 

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow YR UF, WF, A/C/G, WS/S, FS 

Cyanocitta cristata blue jay YR UF, A/C/G 

Parus carolinensis Carolina chickadee YR UF, A/C/G 

Parus bicolor tufted titmouse YR WF, UF, A/C/G 

Certhia familiaris brown creeper W WF, UF, WS/S, US/S 

Troglodytes aedon house wren W A/C/G, US/S, UF 

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina wren YR A/C/G, US/S 

Cistothorus platensis sedge wren W A/C/G, FM 

Regulus satrapa golden-crowned kinglet W UF, WF 

Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet W UF, WF 

Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher YR, Br UF, WF, US/S, WS/S 

Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher YR US/S, WS/S 

Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird W, YR US/S, WS/S, A/C/G 

Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird YR US/S, UF, A/C/G 

Sialia sialis eastern bluebird YR A/C/G, US/S, WS/S 

Turdus migratorius American robin W A/C/G, UF 

Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing W UF, WF, US/S, A/C/G 

Vireo spp. vireos Br, W, YR UF, US/S, UB 

Protonotaria citrea prothonotary warbler Br WF, B, WS/S 

Parula americana northern parula warbler Br WF, B 

Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler W UF, WF, US/S, WS/S 

Dendroica palmarum palm warbler W A/C/G, UF, US/S 

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler W WS/S, B 

Wilsonia citrina hooded warbler Br WF, B, WS/S 

Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat YR FW, B, FM, WS/S 

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat Br WS/S, US/S 

Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird YR FM, WF, B, A/C/G, FS, WS/S 

Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird YR A/C/G, WS/S, WF, US/S, UF 

Euphagus carolinus rusty blackbird W WS/S, WF, B 

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird W A/C/G 

Quiscalus quiscula common grackle YR A/C/G, WS/S 

Quiscalus major boat-tailed grackle YR SM, M/ES 

Sturnella magna eastern meadowlark YR A/C/G 

Sturnus vulgaris European starling YR A/C/G 

Icterus spurious orchard oriole Br A/C/G, UF, US/S 

Passer domesticus house sparrow YR A/C/G 

Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal YR A/C/G, UF, US/S 

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch W, Br US/S, A/C/G, UF 

Passerina cyanea indigo bunting Br A/C/G, US/S 

Passerina ciris painted bunting Br US/S, UF, A/C/G 

Zonotrichia spp. sparrows W UF, WF, US/S, WS/S, A/C/G, FM, B/IM, 

SM 

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush W UF, WF, US/S, WS/S, A/C/G 

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike YR A/C/G 

* Br = present during breeding season (generally spring and/or summer) 

 W = present in winter 

 YR = present year round
A-8 

Table A- 10: Common Fish and Shellfish Species in Region 2 and their Associated 

Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat (see Table A-12 for key 

Dasyatis sabina Atlantic stingray BW, SW 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon FW, BW, SW 

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon FW 

Polyodon spathula paddlefish FW 

Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar FW 

Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar FW 

Lepisosteus spatula alligator gar FW, BW 

Amia calva Bowfin (or choupique) FW 

Elops saurus ladyfish BW, SW 

Megalops atlanticus tarpon SW 

Anguilla rostrata American eel FW, BW, SW 

Myrophis punctatus speckled worm eel BW, SW 

Brevoortia patronus Gulf menhaden BW, SW 

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad FW, BW 

Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad FW, BW 

Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy BW, SW 

Cyprinus carpio common carp FW 

Hybognathus hayi cypress minnow FW 

Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi silvery minnow FW 

Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner FW 

Notropis spp. shiners FW 

Phenacobius mirabilis suckermouth minnow FW 

Pimephales vigilax bullhead minnow FW 

Carpiodes carpio river carpsucker FW 

Ictiobus bubalus smallmouth buffalo FW 

Ictiobus cyprinellus bigmouth buffalo FW 

Ictiobus niger black buffalo FW 

Ictalurus furcatus blue catfish FW, BW 

Ictalurus natalis yellow bullhead FW 

Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish FW 

Noturus spp madtoms FW 

Pylodictis olivaris flathead catfish FW 

Mugil cephalus striped mullet FW, BW, SW 

Fundulus notatus blackstripe topminnow FW 

Fundulus notti bayou topminnow FW 

Morone chrysops white bass FW 

Morone mississippiensis yellow bass FW 

Morone saxatilis striped bass FW, BW, SW 

Centrarchus macropterus flier FW 

Lepomis spp. hybrid sunfish FW 

Lepomis gulosus warmouth FW 

Lepomis humilis orangespotted sunfish FW 

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill FW 

Lepomis megalotis longear sunfish FW 

Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish FW 

Lepomis punctatus spotted sunfish FW 

Lepomis symmetricus bantam sunfish FW 

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass FW 

Pomoxis annularis white crappie FW 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie FW 

Caranx hippos crevalle jack SW 

Trachinotus carolinus Florida pompano SW 

Lutjanus griseus gray snapper SW 

Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead BW, SW 

Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum FW 

FW = Fresh Water 

BW = Brackish Water 

SW = Saltwater 
A-9 

Table A- 10: Common Fish and Shellfish Species in Region 2 and their Associated 

Habitats (Continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat (see Table A-12 for key 

Bairdiella chrysoura silver perch BW, SW 

Cynoscion arenarius sand seatrout BW, SW 

Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout BW, SW 

Leiostomus xanthurus spot BW, SW 

Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker BW, SW 

Menticirrhus americanus southern kingfish BW, SW 

Pogonias cromis black drum BW, SW 

Sciaenops ocellatus red drum (redfish) BW, SW 

Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel SW 

Prionotus spp. searobins BW, SW 

Citharichthys spilopterus bay whiff BW, SW 

Etropus crossotus fringed flounder BW, SW 

Paralichthys lethostigma southern flounder BW, SW 

Trinectes maculatus hogchoker BW, SW 

Macrobrachium ohione river shrimp FW 

Palaemonetes spp. grass shrimp FW, BW, SW 

Penaeus aztecus brown shrimp BW, SW 

Penaeus duorarum pink shrimp BW, SW 

Penaeus setiferus white shrimp BW, SW 

Xiphopenaeus kroyeri seabob shrimp SW 

Callinectes sapidus greater blue crab BW, SW 

Callinectes simileis lesser blue crab BW, SW 

Menippe adina stone crab BW, SW 

Panopeus spp. mud crabs BW, SW 

Loliginidae squid BW, SW 

Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster BW, SW 

Stramonita haemostoma southern oyster drill SW 

Mercenaria campechiensis southern quahog clam SW 

FW = Fresh Water 

BW = Brackish Water 

SW = Saltwater 

Table A- 11: Threatened and Endangered Species in Region 2 and their Associated 

Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitats (see Table A-12 for key) 

Potamilus inflatus inflated heelsplitter (mussel) FS, W 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle WF 

Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican M/ES, W, MS, WS/S 

Charadrius melodus piping plover* ME/S, WB 

Chelonia mydas green sea turtle W, M/ESAV, ME/S 

Eretmochelys imbricata hawksbill sea turtle W, M/ESAV, ME/S 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle W, M/ESAV, ME/S 

Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle W, ME/S 

Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle W, ME/S, M/ESAV, SM 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon* W 

Scaphirhynchus albus pallid sturgeon W 

Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee W 

* Note: critical habitat has been designated for these species. 
A-10 

Table A- 12: Key for Habitat Type Abbreviations. All habitat types are found in Region 2 

except for upland forest, upland barren, and upland scrub/shrub habitats. 

Habitat Type Abbreviation 

Salt Marsh SM 

Brackish/Intermediate Marsh B/IM 

Fresh Marsh FM 

Wetland Forest WF 

Wetland Scrub-Shrub WS/S 

Mangrove Swamp MS 

Upland Forest UF 

Marine/Estuarine SAV M/ESAV 

Freshwater SAV FSAV 

Batture B 

Agriculture-Cropland-Grassland A/C/G 

Freshwater Shore FS 

Marine/Estuarine Shore M/ES 

Upland Scrub/Shrub US/S 

Wetland Barren WB 

Upland Barren UB 

Water W 

Marine/Estuarine Benthic M/EB 

Freshwater Benthic FB 

Marine/Estuarine Encrusting Communities M/EEC 

Living Reefs LR 
B-1 

APPENDIX B - NRDA RESTORATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
B-2 

OMB Control #0648-0497 

Expires 07/31/2007 

Paperwork Reduction Act Information 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

Restoration Project Information Sheet 

Responses to this collection are voluntary. Collection of restoration project information will be undertaken in order to 

provide information to Natural Resource Trustees to develop potential restoration alternatives for natural resource injuries 

and service losses requiring restoration during the restoration planning phase of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

(NRDA) process. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 minutes including 

the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspects of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation, 

Restoration Division, LSU/LBTC, South Stadium Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to 

penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. 

The identity of respondents will not remain confidential. The information collected will be reviewed for compliance with 

the NOAA Section 515 Guidelines established in response to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 

and certified before dissemination. 
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

RESTORATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET

B-3 

Organization: Project Name: 

Organization Web Page: Project Location: 

Contact Name: Parish & Watershed: 

Contact Title: Latitude/Longitude: 

Contact Address: 

Contact Phone: Contact Fax: Contact E-Mail: 

Restoration Activity 

Resource/Habitat/Service Marine/Estuarine Wetland Freshwater Wetland Reef Biological (Fish, Birds, Wildlife) Upland Recreational 

Restoration Result Creation Rehabilitation Enhancement Protection Project Size: Affected Area: 

Project Status (please provide as much information as is currently available)

Activity Funded? Completed? Additional Notes 

Planning/Design/Permitting: Yes No n/a Yes No n/a 

Property or Resource Acquisition: Yes No n/a Yes No n/a 

Construction: Yes No n/a Yes No n/a 

Maintenance and Future Activities: Yes No n/a Yes No n/a 

Future Construction & Oversight: Yes No n/a Yes No n/a 

Restoration Monitoring: Yes No n/a Yes No n/a 

Conservation Servitude/Easement Yes No n/a 

Other ( ): Yes No n/a Yes No n/a 

Restoration Description and Benefits 

 

Project Partners 

Organization Contact Information Project Involvement 

 

Please return this form to the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Attn: RRP Program Manager, 150 Third Street, Suite 405, Baton Rouge, LA 70801, Fax: (225) 219-5802 
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

RESTORATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET

B-4 

Guidelines for Completion 

Please complete all of the information requested with the best information that you have available. Limited attachments are 

acceptable if they are necessary to adequately describe the project, however every effort should be made to have all pertinent 

information included on the Restoration Project Information Sheet. Below are specific guidelines for completion. 

Organization: The name of the organization or agency submitting the information. 

Organization Web Page: The web page of the above organization or agency. 

Contact Name: The name of a person who can be contacted for additional information. 

Contact Title: The title of the above individual. 

Contact Address: The mailing address of the above individual. 

Phone/Fax/Email: The Phone number, Fax and E-mail of the above individual. 

Project Name: The common name of the project, usually a combination of location and 

 restoration activity, for example the Cross Bayou Mangrove Restoration. 

Project Location: The location where the restoration activity will take place, for example 

East Timbalier Island. 

Parish & Watershed: The Parish and Watershed where the project will be completed. 

Latitude/Longitude: The project location in Degrees/Minutes/Seconds or Decimal Degrees 

Resource/Habitat/Service: The type of resource, habitat, and/or service that will be restored. 

Restoration Result: The type of activity that will be completed as part of the restoration 

Creation: Creation of a habitat, resource, or service in a area where it did not previously exist. 

 Rehabilitation: The reestablishment or rehabilitation of an area that once provided, but does not currently, the resource, habitat, or 

service in which you are trying to restore. 

 Enhancement: The enhancement of an existing resource, habitat, or service. 

 Preservation/Protection: The removal of a threat to a resource, habitat, or service. 

Project Size: The size of the area where restoration activities will be completed. 

Affected Area (Size): The size of the area that will be affected by the restoration activity. 

Project Status: Please check the appropriate boxes concerning whether certain aspects of the project have funding from an outside 

source allocated to them, and/or if certain activities have been completed. Additionally if a certain activity is not 

required for completion of the project check the box “n/a” for not applicable. 

Conservation Servitude: Please check the appropriate box indicating whether or not the landowner would be willing to sign a conservation 

servitude. A conservation servitude or easement is a restriction landowners voluntarily place on specified uses of their 

property for a predesignated period of time to protect the natural resources on their property while maintaining private 

ownership. A conservation easement is recorded as a written legal agreement between the landowner and the “holder” 

of the easement, which may be either a non-profit conservation organization or government agency. 

Project Description A 1-2 paragraph description of the project and the restoration activities to be completed, 

And Benefits along with information on the benefits of this project to public and environment. In addition feel free to attach other 

information, maps, or diagrams concerning your project. 

Project Partners: Please provide the name, contact, and involvement (equipment, matching funds, design, etc.) of other organizations or 

agencies involved with the restoration activity. 
C-1 

APPENDIX C - REGION 2 RRP RESTORATION PROJECTS
Table C-1: Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects 

RRP Track Code Project Name Sponsor Organization(*) State Project Number Federal Project Number Basin Parish R2-5CWP2001-001 Northeast Extension of Barataria Land Bridge Shoreline Protection NRCS BA-27d BA-24-4 Barataria Jefferson R2-5CWP2001-002 Grand Bayou to Pass Chaland Island Restoration NMFS BA-35 BA-21-2 Barataria Plaquemines R2-5CWP2001-003 Little Lake Shoreline Protection/Dedicated Dredging near Round Lake NMFS BA-37 BA-24-1 Barataria Lafourche R2-5CWP2001-004 Dedicated Dredging in Connection with Existing Barataria Basin Land Bridge USFWS BA-36 BA-CW- 3 Barataria Jefferson R2-5CWP2001-013 Bayou Lafourche Diversion USEPA BA-25b R2-5CWP2001-014 Pelican Island & Pass La Mer to Chaland Pass NMFS BA-38 Barataria Plaquemines R2-5CWP2001-015 Lake Lery Dedicated Dredging USACE BS-CW- 1 Breton Sound St. Bernard R2-5CWP2001-016 South Shore of the Pen Protection/Dedicated Dredging USACE BA-24- 3A;B Barataria Jefferson R2-5CWP2000-025 Delta Management at Fort St. Phillip USFWS BS-11 Breton Sound Plaquemines R2-5CWP2000-027 Delta-Building Diversion North of Fort St. Phillip USACE BS-10 Breton Sound Plaquemines R2-5CWP2000-029 Delta-Building Diversion at Benny's Bay 50000 cfs with Outfall Management USACE MR-13 Mississippi River Delta Plaquemines R2-5CWP2000-033 Small Freshwater Diversion to the Northwestern Barataria Basin USEPA BA-34 Barataria St. James/ Lafourche R2-5CWP2000-034 Delta-Building Diversion at Myrtle Grove USACE BA-33 Barataria Plaquemines/

rson/ Lafourch

R2-5CWP2000-037 Delta-Building Diversion at Benny's Bay 20000 cfs with Outfall Management USACE Mississippi River Delta Plaquemines R2-5CWP2000-038 South Lake Salvador Shoreline Protection and Marsh Creation NMFS Barataria Lafourche R2-5CWP1999-046 Barataria Basin Landbridge Shoreline Protection Phase III NRCS BA-27c XBA-63iii Barataria Lafourche/ Jefferson R2-5CWP1999-050 LA Highway 1 Marsh Creation (S. of Leeville) USEPA BA-29 BA-32a Barataria Lafourche R2-5CWP1999-054 East/West Grand Terre Restoration Project NMFS BA-30 XBA- 1a/b Barataria Jefferson 

C-2
Table C-1: Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects (Continued) 

RRP Track Code Project Name Sponsor Organization(*) State Project Number Federal Project Number Basin Parish R2-5CWP1999-058 River Diversion (15000 cfs) Between Triumph and Venice USACE BA-31 Barataria Plaquemines R2-5CWP1999-059 Sediment Trap South of Venice USACE MR-12 Mississippi River Delta Plaquemines R2-5CWP1999-065 Amoretta (City Price) Freshwater Diversion NRCS Mississippi River Delta Plaquemines R2-5CWP1999-066 East Golden Meadow Terracing Project USACE Barataria Lafourche R2-5CWP1999-067 Grand Pierre Island Restoration USEPA Barataria Plaquemines R2-3JEF082301-075 Wave Absorbers/Reef Zones in Barataria Bay JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-2TNC012402-084 Des Allemands (Portfolio Site_Nature Conservancy) Nature Conservancy Barataria St. John/ St. Charles/ Lafourche R2-2TNC012402-086 Fort Jackson Woods (Action Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Barataria Plaquemines R2-2TNC012402-087 Lake Boeuf (Action Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Barataria Lafourche R2-2TNC012402-089 Grand Isle/Barataria Bay Complex (Portfolio Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Barataria Lafourche/ Jefferson/ Plaquemines R2-2TNC012402-090 River Aux Chenes Forest (Portfolio Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Breton Sound Plaquemines R2-2TNC012402-091 Abandoned Channel of Bayou Barataria (Portfolio Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Barataria Jefferson R2-2TNC012402-093 Jean Lafitte NP (Portfolio Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Barataria Jefferson R2-2TNC012402-094 Caernarvon Marshes (Portfolio Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Breton Sound Plaquemines R2-2TNC012402-095 Des Allemands Marsh (Portfolio Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Barataria St. John/ Lafourche/ St. Charles R2-2TNC012402-096 Delta Farms Marshes (Portfolio Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Barataria Lafourche R2-2TNC012402-098 Lake Salvador (Portfolio Site_N.C.) Nature Conservancy Barataria St. Charles/ Jefferson/Lafo

e 

C-3
Table C-1: Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects (Continued) 

RRP Track Code Project Name Sponsor Organization(*) State Project Number Federal Project Number Basin Parish R2-5CWP2002-102 Bayou Dupont Sediment Delivery System USEPA Barataria Plaquemines/ Jefferson R2-5CWP2002-103 Shell Island Barrier Headland Restoration NRCS Barataria Plaquemines R2-5CWP2002-104 East Fourchon Marsh Creation and Terracing NMFS Barataria Lafourche R2-2DU082802-116 Pass A Loutre WMA Crevasse Splays DU Mississippi River Plaquemines R2-3JEF010303-125 Grand Pierre Island Restoration (BS-1) JEF XBA-1c Barataria Plaquemines R2-3JEF010303-126 Elmer's Island and West Grande Terre Oak Ridge Restoration (BI-4) JEF Barataria Lafourche/ Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-127 Caminada Chenier Restoration (FN-1) JEF Barataria Lafourche R2-3JEF010303-128 Grand Isle Plan (BI-6) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-129 Naomi Siphon Sediment Enrichment (NA-1) JEF Barataria Plaquemines R2-3JEF010303-130 Hero Canal Diversion (NA-7) JEF BA-13 Barataria Plaquemines R2-3JEF010303-131 Bayou Dupont Sediment Delivery Expansion (NA-9) JEF Barataria Plaquemines/ Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-133 Myrtle Grove Natural Ridge Restoration (MG-1) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-134 Bayou Segnette Shoreline Restoration at Yankee Pond (CS-5) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-135 North of Yankee Pond Restoration (CS-6) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-136 Southeast Lake Salvador near Bayou Villars Shoreline Protection/Stabilization (CS-9) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-137 Northeast Lake Salvador Chenier Restoration (CS-10) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-138 North Cuba Island Shoreline Protection JEF Barataria St. Charles R2-3JEF010303-139 Tenneco Canal Restoration-National Park Service (CS-18) JEF Barataria Jefferson 

C-4
Table C-1: Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects (Continued) 

RRP Track Code Project Name Sponsor Organization(*) State Project Number Federal Project Number Basin Parish R2-3JEF010303-140 Goose Bayou to Cypress Bayou Shoreline Protection (NA-3) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-141 South Shore of the Pen Shoreline Protection/Stabilization (MG- 5) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-142 Land Bridge Shoreline Protection Extension and Wetland Protection (PR-7) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-143 Bayou Perot/Bayou Rigolettes Peninsula Restoration (PR-11) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-144 Bay Dos Gris Vicinity Wetlands Restoration JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-145 Mud Lake Vicinity Wetland Restoration (LL-5) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-146 BBWW from Bayou Normand to Bayou St. Denis Shoreline Restoration (LL-6) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-147 North Barataria Bay Shoreline Wave Breaks JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-148 Whiskey Canal Wetland Enhancement (CS-19) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-149 Dupre Cut Project 9 (BA-26) Wetlands Restoration (MG-3) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-150 Lafitte Oil and Gas Field (East) Restoration (MG-2) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-151 Manila Oil and Gas Restoration (MG-4) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-152 Little Lake Hunting Club Wetland Restoration (PR-3) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-153 Delta Farms Oil and Gas Field Restoration (PR-6) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-154 Bayou Rigolettes Bayou Perot and Harvey Cut Channel Management (PR-1) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-155 Dupre Cut/Barataria Bay Waterway Channel Management (PR- 2) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-156 Bayou St. Denis Channel Management (LL-1) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-158 Wetland Harbor Activities Recreational Facility (WHARF) (CS-4) JEF Barataria Jefferson 

C-5
Table C-1: Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects (Continued) 

RRP Track Code Project Name Sponsor Organization(*) State Project Number Federal Project Number Basin Parish R2-3JEF010303-159 Elmer's Island Acquisition and Preservation (BI-3) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-162 North Bayou Segnette Water Quality Improvement Project (CS-1) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-163 Bayou Segnette Wetlands Sewage Effluent Diversion (CS-3) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-164 Rosethorne Wetlands Sewage Effluent Diversion (NA-6) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-166 Barataria Basin Barrier Levee (BW-1) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-169 Jones Point Shipyard Wetland Restoration-National Park Service (CS-17) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-171 Grand Isle Oil and Gas Pipeline Corridor Shoreline Protection (BI-5) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3LBLD010603-172 South of Clovelly Farms Levee Stabilization (C1) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-173 East of Clovelly Farms Levee Stabilization (C2) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-174 North of Clovelly Farms Levee Stabilization (C2) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-175 Delta Farms Levee Stabilization (C4) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-176 GIWW Bank Stabilization Phase 1 (C5) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-177 GIWW Bank Stabilization Phase 2 (C6) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-178 GIWW Bank Stabilization Phase 3 (C7) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-179 Bayou Perot Shoreline Protection (C8) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-180 West of Bayou Perot Marsh Creation (C9) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-181 North of Little Lake Phase 1 Marsh Creation (C10) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-182 North of Little Lake Phase 2 Marsh Creation (C11) LBLD Barataria Lafourche 

C-6
Table C-1: Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects (Continued) 

RRP Track Code Project Name Sponsor Organization(*) State Project Number Federal Project Number Basin Parish R2-3LBLD010603-183 South of Yankee Canal Freshwater Diversion (LE1) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-184 Pointe Fourchon LA Highway 1 Ridge Protection (CB1) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-185 Lake Laurier LA Highway 1 Ridge Protection (CB2) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-186 Bay Jaque Hydrologic Restoration (CB3) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-187 Tidewater Canal Hydrologic Restoration (CB4) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-188 Golden Meadow Farms Hydrologic Restoration (CB5) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-189 Hydrologic Restoration South of Bayou L'ours Ridge (LL1) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-190 Marsh Rim Establishment on the South Shore of Little Lake (LBLD1) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-191 East Snail Bay Shoreline Protection (LBLD2) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-192 West of Snail Bay Shoreline Protection and Marsh Creation (LBLD3) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-193 Live Oak Bay Shoreline Protection (LBLD4) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-194 Hackberry Bay North Island Restoration (LBLD5) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-195 West Champagne Bay Marsh Creation (LBLD6) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-196 Caminada Bay Breakwaters (LBLD7) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-197 Lake Palourde Tidal Restriction (LBLD8) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-3LBLD010603-198 Caminada Bay Marsh Creation (LBLD9) LBLD Barataria Lafourche R2-4LDWF061103-204 Cultch Placement for Oyster Enhancement - Hackberry Bay LDWF Barataria Jefferson/ Lafourche R2-4LDWF061103-205 Cultch Placement for Oyster Enhancement - Barataria Bay LDWF Barataria Jefferson 

C-7
Table C-1: Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects (Continued) 

RRP Track Code Project Name Sponsor Organization(*) State Project Number Federal Project Number Basin Parish R2-5CWP2003-216 Caernarvon Diversion Outfall Management (East) BS-5-2 USACE BS-5-2 Breton Sound St. Bernard/ Plaquemines R2-5CWP2003-218 Spanish Pass Diversion USACE Mississippi River Plaquemines R2-1MPH061903-225 Edward Wisner Marsh Creation Edward Wisner Foundation Barataria Lafourche R2-3SJA062703-226 Hydrologic Restoration / South Vacherie Bayou Chevreuil Land Company Barataria St. James R2-3SJA062703-228 Levee Gapping / West Bank St. James Parish St. James Parish CZM Barataria St. James R2-5CWP2003-231 Lake Lery Shoreline Protection LDNR/Coastal Resources Division Breton Sound St. Bernard R2-5CWP2003-232 Shell Island Barrier Protection (2-4) NRCS Barataria Plaquemines R2-3SJA062703-233 Wetland Creation-Parishwide / West Bank St. James Parish CZM Barataria St. James CW-5CWP2000-043 Deep Hole Breakwaters USACE Barataria Plaquemines CW-5CWP2000-044 Enhancing Salt Marsh Creation by Coupling Bay Bottom Terracing with Innovative SAV Plantings NMFS Coastwide Coastwide CW-5CWP2000-045 Fiber Mat Demo for Erosion Control and SAV and Marsh Creation USEPA Terrebonn e Terrebonne CW-5CWP1999-048 Periodic Introduction of Sediment and Nutrients at Selected Diversion Sites USACE MR-11 MR- DEMO Mississippi River Delta No location Identified 

(*) NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service C/E COR Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Oyster Reefs  NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service C/E CSAV Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Submerged Aqu USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency PP CHW Physical Protection of Coastal Herbaceous Wetland

 USACE U.S. Army, Army Corps of Engineers PP CFW Physical Protection of Coastal Forested Wetlands  USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PP CBSS Physical Protection of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/

 DU Ducks Unlimited AcLp CHW Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Herbaceo JEF Jefferson Parish AcLp CFW Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Forested W LBLD Lafourche Basin Levee District AcLp CBSS Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Beaches/

 LDNR/CRD Louisiana Department of Natural Resources R Recreational Resources Restoration  LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (**) C/E CHW Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands  C/E CFW Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Forested Wetlands  C/E CBSS Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

C-8
Table C- 2: Region 2 RRP Restoration Projects Not Included 

RRP Track Code Project Name Sponsor Organization (*) State Project Number Federal Project Number Basin Parish R2-3JEF010303-132 Freshwater Introduction through Abandoned O&G Pipelines (BW-2) JEF Barataria Basinwide R2-3JEF010303-157 Grande Terre Channel Management (BI-1) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-165 Goose Bayou to Lafitte Levee (NA-8) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-168 Peters and Engineers Road Extension and Widening (JW- 1) JEF Barataria Jefferson R2-3JEF010303-170 Shoreline Stabilization at North Bank of Bayou Rigolette near Bayou Barataria (PR-5) JEF Barataria Jefferson 

(*) NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service C/E COR Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Oyster Reefs  NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service C/E CSAV Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Submerged Aqu USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency PP CHW Physical Protection of Coastal Herbaceous Wetland

 USACE U.S. Army, Army Corps of Engineers PP CFW Physical Protection of Coastal Forested Wetlands  USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PP CBSS Physical Protection of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/

 DU Ducks Unlimited AcLp CHW Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Herbaceo JEF Jefferson Parish AcLp CFW Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Forested W LBLD Lafourche Basin Levee District AcLp CBSS Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Beaches/

 LDNR/CRD Louisiana Department of Natural Resources R Recreational Resources Restoration  LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (**) C/E CHW Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands  C/E CFW Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Forested Wetlands  C/E CBSS Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

C-9
D-1 

APPENDIX D - NON-PROJECT-SPECIFIC CASH SETTLEMENT COST ANALYSES FOR 

COASTAL HERBACEOUS WETLANDS IN REGION 2 [RESERVED] 

This section is reserved pending determination of feasibility of the development of unit costs for 

all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement alternative of “Non-Project-Specific Cash 

Settlement” in the September 2003 Draft RRP for Region 2 have been removed from this Final 

RRP document. If feasibility of the unit costs across all regions is determined at a later date, 

this Final RRP may be amended to include this settlement alternative. 
E-1 

APPENDIX E - NON-PROJECT-SPECIFIC CASH SETTLEMENT COST ANALYSES FOR 

FORESTED WETLANDS IN REGION 2 [RESERVED] 

This section is reserved pending determination of feasibility of the development of unit costs for 

all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement alternative of “Non-Project-Specific Cash 

Settlement” in the September 2003 Draft RRP for Region 2 have been removed from this Final 

RRP document. If feasibility of the unit costs across all regions is determined at a later date, 

this Final RRP may be amended to include this settlement alternative. 
F-1 

APPENDIX F - NON-PROJECT-SPECIFIC CASH SETTLEMENT COST ANALYSES FOR 

OYSTER REEFS IN REGION 2 [RESERVED] 

This section is reserved pending determination of feasibility of the development of unit costs for 

all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement alternative of “Non-Project-Specific Cash 

Settlement” in the September 2003 Draft RRP for Region 2 have been removed from this Final 

RRP document. If feasibility of the unit costs across all regions is determined at a later date, 

this Final RRP may be amended to include this settlement alternative. 
G-1 

APPENDIX G - PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
G-2 

Comments received from LDWF on the Draft RRP for Region 2 during the public 

review period 
G-3 
G-4 

Comments received from LDEQ on the Draft RRP for Region 2 during the public 

review period 
G-5 

Comments received from LDNR on the Draft RRP for Region 2 during the public 

review period 
G-6 

Comments received from USDOI on the Draft RRP for Region 2 during the public 

review period 
G-7 
G-8 

Comments received from USFWS on the Draft RRP for Region 2 during the public 

review period 
G-9 
G-10 

Comments received from the Natural Resource Conservation Service on the Draft 

RRP for Region 2 during the public review period 
G-11 

Comments received from the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association on the 

Draft RRP for Region 2 during the public review period 
G-12 
G-13 
G-14 
G-15 

Summary of Written Comments Received on the Draft Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program Regional Restoration Plan - Region 2 and Trustee Responses 

Public Comment Period: September 23 to October 23, 2003 

 

General Comments and Responses

1. Several commenters expressed support for the Draft Regional Restoration Plan 

(RRP) for Region 2, generally indicating that there would be benefits accrued to 

the environment, the trustees, and the Responsible Parties in potentially 

restoring services to injured resources faster and more efficiently. The Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources cited excellent collaboration between the state 

and federal natural resource trustees during development of the Draft Region 2 

Plan. 

Response: The trustees agree with these comments. No further response necessary. 

2. Several commenters provided editorial and minor technical comments. These 

include adding a reference to “Banks 2003” in Appendix F, Non-Project-Specific 

Cash Settlement Cost Analyses for Oyster Reefs in Region 2 (Now Reserved), 

correcting an inconsistency in the reporting of cost/Discounted Service Acre 

Years (DSAY) estimates in Chapter 3, Regional Restoration Plan, and Appendix F, 

Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement Cost Analyses for Oyster Reefs in Region 2 

(Now Reserved), making the lines in the Figure E-1, Typical mortality curve due to 

naturally induced thinning following canopy closure of an even-aged forest. 

Hypothetical productivity of the same even-aged forest is displayed, but no units 

are applied (Now Reserved) graph distinguishable, adding the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to the list of Sponsor Organizations in Table 

C-2, Region 2 RRP Restoration Projects Not Included, and presenting a complete 

“Table of Contents” Section. 

Response: For those comments that were unrelated to the “Non-Project-Specific Cash 

Settlement” alternative, the text was revised accordingly. 

Note: For those comments that were related to the reserved “Non-Project-Specific 

Cash Settlement” alternative, the trustees have taken note of the comments on the 

concept of the “Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement” alternative and the underlying 

unit costs. These reserved sections are pending determination of feasibility of the 

development of unit costs for all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement 

alternative of “Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement” in the September 2003 Draft RRP 

for Region 2 have been removed from this Final RRP document. If feasibility of the unit 

costs across all regions is determined at a later date, this Final RRP may be amended 

to include this settlement alternative. 

3. Several commenters asked that species be added and/or removed from the tables 

in Appendix A to more accurately reflect the species present in Region 2. 

Response: The tables were revised accordingly. 
G-16 

Specific Comments and Responses

4. If implementation of work under the Draft RRP for Region 2 requires a permit 

from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act, the trustees should contact the Water Quality Certifications Unit of the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to determine if a Section 401 

Clean Water Certification is also necessary. 

Response: The trustees agree with this comment. No further response necessary. 

5. The biological resources and subsequent habitat types listed in Chapter 2, 

Region 2 – Description, should remain open to additions and/or refinements. 

Response: The trustees agree with this comment. No further response necessary. 

6. The last sentence of the “RP Implemented Restoration Project” Section of 

Chapter 3, Regional Restoration Plan, may be unclear with regards to the 

Responsible Party’s liability. 

Response: In response to this comment, the sentence was revised. Specifically, the 

phrase “. . . thereby lowering the cost of their specific liabilities” was changed to “. . . 

thereby lowering the cost of resolving their specific liabilities”.

7. Does the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) provide 

life history data for the species listed in Appendix A, Common Biota and 

Associated Habitats? If not, development of inputs for Resource Equivalency 

Analysis (REA) would aid in facilitating quicker settlements. 

Response: The trustees agree that development of REA inputs (e.g., species-specific 

life history parameters) prior to a spill could facilitate and expedite injury assessments. 

However, compiling this information for all of the species in Region 2 would be very 

time-consuming. Given the limited use of REA in past damage assessments in the 

state of Louisiana, the trustees believe that it would be more efficient and cost-effective 

to develop REA inputs as needed on a case-by-case basis. 

8. The “Project Solicitation Form” [now titled “NRDA Restoration Project 

Information Sheet”] should be circulated among the participating agencies for 

review prior to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. In addition, 

the form should contain a Conservation Servitude Agreement checkbox and a 

brief description of what a conservation servitude entails. 

Response: Each of the trustee agencies participating in development of the Louisiana 

Regional Restoration Planning Program will have an opportunity to review the “NRDA 

Restoration Project Information Sheet” before it is finalized for use in the Louisiana 

Regional Restoration Planning Program. The final form will include a Conservation 

Servitude Agreement’ checkbox. 

9. Does the FPEIS have full instruction on how to do a Habitat Equivalency Analysis 

(HEA)? If not, some may need to be added. 
G-17 

Response: The FPEIS provides a general description of HEA, as well as a specific 

reference to a more detailed discussion of the modeling approach.

10. The Draft RRP for Region 2 does not describe the overall Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment (NRDA) process from pre-assessment through injury 

assessment and restoration plan development. Neither does the Draft Plan 

describe the role of the Responsible Party in the process. While the Louisiana 

NRDA regulations place a big emphasis on a cooperative approach, the Draft 

Plan focuses primarily on the trustees’ role. 

 Response: Discussions of the NRDA process, role of the Responsible Party in the 

NRDA process, and cooperative assessments are provided in the Louisiana Regional 

Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007). While the trustees do not 

intend to repeat these discussions in the RRPs (RRPs), the trustees have revised the 

Final RRP for Region 2 to include additional references to the appropriate sections of 

the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS. 

11. It is not clear how closure is reached for the different settlement options, 

particularly for the cash-out option. 

Response: The trustees have revised the text to clarify that a consent decree or other 

binding settlement document will be required to close cases. 

12. The process of pre-identified and pre-screened restoration projects will promote 

faster and more efficient restoration. This option becomes even more attractive 

when the upfront engineering and permitting has been completed. Table C-1, 

Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects, should be revised to provide 

priority order and include all potential restoration projects with estimated costs, 

acreage, habitat value, and public vs. private, if available. 

 Response: The trustees have identified and pre-screened potential restoration projects 

to facilitate incident-specific restoration planning efforts. Approximately 124 potential 

restoration projects were identified in Region 2 prior to release of the Draft –RRP for 

Region 2. A similar list of potential restoration projects will be developed for each of the 

other eight regions established under the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning 

Program (NOAA et al. 2007). Because many of these potential projects could be 

implemented with other sources of funds (e.g., Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, 

and Restoration Act [CWPPRA]), the trustees decided not to invest further resources 

towards engineering and permitting each of these potential projects prior to incident–

specific restoration planning efforts. 

13. The Draft RRP for Region 2 states that the goals of the statewide program are to 

“reduce the cost of the NRDA process.” While the program as described in this 

document may reduce administrative costs for the government, there is nothing 

that shows how this will reduce total costs (i.e., costs to the Responsible Party 

and government combined). 

 Response: Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 USC 2701 et seq), 

Responsible Parties are responsible for costs incurred by the natural resource trustees 

to assess natural resources injuries and plan appropriate restoration actions. The 

trustees believe that by streamlining the NRDA process and making it more efficient 
G-18 

(e.g., pre-identification of restoration projects), costs to both the trustees and 

Responsible Parties will be lower. 

14. The Draft RRP for Region 2 relies on the boundaries for the four coastal regions 

described in the Coast 2050 Plan. The meaningfulness of these boundaries has 

been questioned by the National Technical Review Committee (and probably 

others) that is reviewing Coast 2050 and the LCA Plan. Developing a separate 

RRP for each of the regions that are in part defined by these boundaries does not 

make sense and should probably not be pursued. If the boundaries are not 

abandoned, their use should be clearly justified. Also, if the boundaries remain 

intact, the footnote on page 18 of the Draft RRP for Region 2 (in which it is noted 

that these boundaries may be ignored by the trustees) should be spelled out 

more clearly on first mention of the boundaries and emphasized elsewhere. 

Response: Coast 2050 is a joint planning initiative of state and federal agencies 

working to develop a strategic plan to enhance protection of the State’s coastal 

resources. In an effort to be consistent with this effort, the boundaries of the four 

coastal regions in the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program are the same 

as the four regions delineated in the Coast 2050 plan. The trustees will review any 

alternative boundaries identified in the final LCA Plan, and consider revising the coastal 

boundaries for the Regional Restoration Planning Program, as appropriate. 

15. On page 5 of the Draft RRP for Region 2, the document claims to improve 

coordination between NRDA and other mandates. Were the contents of this 

document considered in a consistency assessment that incorporated regulations 

such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the proposed LCA Plan that is 

being drafted by an interagency group? (Note the project list provided in this 

document does not match the preferred alternatives project lists provided in the 

LCA Plan.) 

Response: Section 8.2, Program Compliance with Environmental Laws and 

Regulations, and Appendix E, Compliance Status of Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Program with Relevant Federal and State Laws, Regulations and Programs of the 

Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) provide 

detailed information about the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program 

compliance with environmental laws and regulations. As discussed in these sections, 

the program is in compliance with the Clean Water Act. The trustees believe it is 

probable that some of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program’s 

restoration projects will require permits. Through coordination with the USACE, the 

trustees will ensure that any site-specific restoration project is properly permitted under 

both Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

The projects listed in Table C-1, Region 2 RRP Accepted Restoration Projects, of the 

Draft and this Final Region 2 Plan represents an initial list of potential restoration 

projects identified by the trustees. This project list is not intended to be comprehensive 

or final, and will be periodically updated as appropriate projects are identified for 

inclusion. Further, trustees are not limited to selecting projects contained in the lists, 

but rather can refer to the project lists as tools for expediting settlements. The trustees 

will, therefore, consider projects identified through the LCA planning process. 

 
G-19 

16. On page 6 of the Draft RRP for Region 2, the document claims that 25-30 square 

miles of land is lost every year in coastal Louisiana. This is no longer an 

accurate number -- recent data show that land loss rates are slowing down. The 

most recent estimates from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) suggest 

loss rates of about 14 square miles per year over the next 50 years (on average, 

assuming that the LCA Plan is not implemented). 

 Response: The estimate of 25-30 square miles of land lost each year is an historical 

average rate of loss for the combined periods of 1978-1990 and 1990 to 2000 period 

(Barras et al. 2003). The text has been revised to clarify and provide a reference for 

this estimate. 

17. The rationale behind the various decisions made to develop Figures 3, Coastal 

Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, and 4, Inland Restoration Types 

by Trust Resources and Services, are not clear. Please provide the rationale. 

 Response: As described in the “Restoration Type” Section of the Draft and this Final 

RRP for Region 2, the trustees conducted a nexus analysis to identify one or more 

appropriate restoration types for each of the potentially injured resources and services. 

Figures 3, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, and 4, Inland 

Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, conceptually demonstrate the 

results of this analysis for Region 2. The Region 2 Plan refers the reader to Section 

4.2.4, Relationship of Trust Resources and Services to Restoration Types/Projects, of 

the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS for more detailed results 

and descriptions of the nexus analysis. 

18. On page 18, the Draft RRP for Region 2 refers to project “success.” Success in 

this context requires a clear definition. In general, restoration projects are 

considered successful if they have met their stated performance standards, but 

the document does not discuss proposed performance standards for the projects 

that it promotes. 

 Response: Page 18 of the Draft RRP for Region 2 lists project screening criteria that 

will be used to select the preferred restoration project(s). These project selection 

screening criteria are based in part on the OPA regulations (Section 990.54(a)(1-6)). 

One of the criteria for selecting restoration provided by OPA, and listed on page 8 of the 

Draft –RRP for Region 2, is the “likelihood of success”. An explanation of the criteria is 

provided in Section 4.2.4.2, Project Selection Screening Criteria, of the Louisiana 

Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) 

 The trustees agree that determining success requires a clearly defined performance 

standards or criteria that can be used to determine when the desired restoration 

outcome has been achieved. Section 4.2.7, Restoration Project Performance Criteria,

of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) 

provides more information on how project performance criteria will be used to evaluate 

the success of restoration projects and includes guidelines that will be considered 

fundamental to the development off project-specific performance criteria. 

19. Clear objectives and performance standards should be designed at the outset of 

the project, with success defined in relation to performance standards. Recently, 

the Environmental protection Agency’s Mitigation Action Plan recognized the 
G-20 

importance of performance standards. This document does not consider this 

aspect of restoration planning and monitoring, and instead appears to focus on 

ongoing and open-ended monitoring requirements without clearly spelling out 

that projects should have a pre-defined performance standards that establish an 

end point. 

Response: The trustees agree that all restoration projects should have clear goals, 

objectives, and performance standards/criteria to determine project success. As stated 

above, Section 4.2.7, Restoration Project Performance Criteria, of the Louisiana 

Regional Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007) provides more 

information on how project performance criteria will be used to evaluate the success of 

restoration projects and includes guidelines that will be considered fundamental to the 

development off project-specific performance criteria. 

 The trustees also agree that monitoring of restoration projects needs to be an essential 

component of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. As described in 

Section 4.2.8, Restoration Project Monitoring Requirements, of the Louisiana Regional 

Restoration Planning Program FPEIS (NOAA et al. 2007), monitoring will provide the 

trustees with quantitative information that will be used to determine when a Responsible 

Party has satisfied its liability for natural resource injuries or if interim corrective action 

is necessary. Prescribed monitoring protocols will be project-specific and vary by 

restoration type, habitat type, project features, and the availability of cost-effective 

sampling techniques. Specific monitoring requirements for restoration projects will be 

specified in a monitoring plan that will be drafted prior to implementation of the project. 

The monitoring plan will: 1) define the project objectives that must be attained to 

achieve the desired outcome of the restoration project; 2) identify the performance 

criteria that will measure the attainment of each objective; and 3) specify monitoring 

protocols pertaining to sampling design, sampling frequency, sampling techniques, data 

procurement and analysis, quality assurance and quality control of data, the schedule of 

site visits, report deadlines, and corrective action plans. 

20. Several comments, some of which were specifically technical in nature, were 

received on the concept of the “Non-Project-Specific Cast Settlement” alternative 

and the underlying unit costs. These comments are: 

♦ The information in the “Cash Settlement – Non-Project-Specific Cash 

Settlement” Section of Chapter 3, Regional Restoration Plan, about the 

costs/DSAYs has no context. Why is $28,464 correct? Does the FPEIS 

have a full reference for this cost and the HEA in Appendix D, Non-ProjectSpecific Cash Settlement Cost Analyses for Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands 

in Region 2? If not, it needs a reference for a defensible settlement. 

♦ The time scale for the unit costs of each restoration type may be too broad 

and should be reevaluated to reflect new data as it becomes available. 

♦ The cash settlement option, while supportable (particularly for smaller 

restoration requirements), will essentially be unusable because of its high 

cost per unit of services provided. 

♦ By regulation, selected restoration options are to be the lowest cost option 

that will provide lost resources and resource services. As such, in cases 

where the trustees and Responsible Party carry out a full damage 

assessment/restoration planning process, the Responsible Party pays the 

cost of the lowest suitable alternative, rather than the average cost of 
G-21 

regional restoration. The per acre costs should therefore be based on the 

lowest cost restoration option. 

♦ Using CWWPRA projects to develop mean costs of planned and 

implemented restoration projects is likely to yield unrealistically high 

estimates, as these data sets tend not to be normally distributed. The 

population of projects included in the analysis is unduly influenced by high 

cost to benefit projects, such as CS-18, which is projected to cost more 

than $400,000 per acre projected. In fact, analysis of this data set indicates 

that the standard deviation of project cost/benefit exceeds the mean, an 

indication of a significantly skewed data set. 

♦ The estimated brown marsh costs were calculated using the average bid 

price from seven contractors. Whenever a restoration project is bid, the 

lowest qualified bidder will be chosen; therefore, it would be inappropriate 

to use an average bid price for this estimate. Rather the trustees should 

consider taking the lowest bid price of the qualified bidders. 

♦ There is potential for double counting inherent in the calculation of 

projected costs. The proposed estimation methodology inflates the total 

cost by adding the estimated preconstruction costs, monitoring costs, and 

oversight costs to the implementation cost. It is not clear whether the 

implementation costs from such data sets as CWPPRA projects do, or do 

not, include many of these costs in the implementation costs already. At a 

minimum, some of the pre-construction costs are presented in the costs of 

these projects. It is likely that monitoring and project oversight costs are 

also included. If this is indeed the case, the projected restoration costs are 

artificially high. 

♦ Projected monitoring costs are very high, especially for forested wetlands. 

As the data indicate, larger projects are more cost effective from a 

monitoring and oversight perspective than smaller projects. For example, 

monitoring on a four-acre marsh restoration project is more than 40 

percent more expensive than on a 10-acre project and nearly four times as 

expensive as a 40-acre project. Since the goals of the regional restoration 

program is to accrue funding for the implementation of larger projects, 

monitoring and oversight costs should reflect the benefits of scale inherent 

in such projects and should not be based upon an average that inflates 

costs. 

♦ Data from private mitigation banks, privately implemented restoration 

projects, and local governments restoration projects should be included in 

the dataset to be analyzed to produce restoration costs estimates. While 

these data may be more difficult to collect, their inclusion is critical to the 

accurate estimation of regional restoration costs. Private restoration 

projects and those implemented by Ducks Unlimited and the Nature 

Conservancy were not taken into account. One commenter indicated that it 

will forward additional data to the trustees. 

♦ The assumptions made for the calculation of cost/DSAY estimates are 

difficult to decipher. Several of the assumptions made may create 

artificially inflated costs. More should be done to evaluate these 

assumptions and to make their impact on the calculations of DSAYs clear. 

♦ Does the FPEIS provide more information on project implementation? Staff 

implementing the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program 

Program may start inappropriately averaging and dividing costs by acres 

for other projects. It may be useful to have more detailed on some of the 
G-22 

limitations and special circumstances that make some projects more 

expensive than others. Additional interpretation of this information is 

recommended. 

♦ A discount factor should be shown in Appendix D-4. 

Response: The trustees have taken note of the comments on the concept of the 

reserved “Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement” alternative and the underlying unit 

costs. These reserved sections are pending determination of feasibility of the 

development of unit costs for all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement 

alternative of “Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement” in the September 2003 Draft RRP 

for Region 2 have been removed from this Final RRP document. If feasibility of the unit 

costs across all regions is determined at a later date, this Final RRP may be amended 

to include this settlement alternative. 
H-1 

APPENDIX H – LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH THE REGION 2 – REGIONAL 

RESTORATION PLAN WAS MAILED

♦ Congress: 

♦ United States House of Representatives - Louisiana Delegation 

♦ United States Senate - Louisiana Delegation 

♦ United States Senate/Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 

♦ Federal Agencies: 

♦ United States Department of Agriculture 

♦ United States Department of Commerce 

♦ United States Department of Defense 

♦ United States Department of Energy 

♦ United States Department of Homeland Security 

♦ United States Department of Justice 

♦ United States Department of the Interior 

♦ United States Department of Transportation 

♦ United States Environmental Protection Agency 

♦ Native American Tribes: 

♦ Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (Charenton) 

♦ Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (Elton) 

♦ Inter-Tribal Council of Louisiana, Inc. 

♦ Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (Jena) 

♦ Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (Marksville) 

♦ State Legislature: 

♦ Louisiana State Senators 

♦ Louisiana State Representatives 

♦ Louisiana State Agencies: 

♦ Lafourche Basin Levee District Board of Commissioners 

♦ Louisiana Applied and Educational Oil Spill Research and Development Program 

♦ Louisiana Department of Administration/State Land Office 

♦ Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

♦ Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism 

♦ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

♦ Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 

♦ Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

♦ Louisiana Department of Public Safety/State Police 

♦ Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

♦ Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

♦ Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Louisiana Office of the Governor 

♦ Other State Agencies: 

♦ Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

♦ California Office of Spill Prevention and Response 

♦ Colorado Office of the Attorney General 

♦ Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

♦ Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

♦ Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

♦ Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

♦ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 
H-2 

♦ New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

♦ New York State Department of Law 

♦ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

♦ Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 

♦ Texas General Land Office 

♦ Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

♦ Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

♦ Washington Department of Ecology 

♦ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

♦ Parish Government 

♦ Acadia Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Acadia Parish Police Jury 

♦ Allen Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Allen Parish Police Jury 

♦ Ascension Parish Council 

♦ Ascension Parish Government 

♦ Ascension Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Assumption Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Assumption Parish Police Jury 

♦ Avoyelles Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Avoyelles Parish Police Jury 

♦ Beauregard Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Beauregard Parish Police Jury 

♦ Bienville Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Bienville Parish Police Jury 

♦ Bossier Parish Police Jury 

♦ Caddo/Bossier Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Caddo Parish Commission 

♦ Calcasieu Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 

♦ Caldwell Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Caldwell Parish Police Jury 

♦ Cameron Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Cameron Parish Police Jury 

♦ Catahoula Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Catahoula Parish Police Jury 

♦ Claiborne Parish 

♦ Claiborne Parish Police Jury 

♦ Concordia Parish 

♦ Concordia Parish Police Jury 

♦ DeSoto Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ DeSoto Parish Police Jury 

♦ East Baton Rouge Parish Metro Council 

♦ East Baton Rouge Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ East Carroll Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ East Carroll Parish Police Jury 

♦ East Feliciana Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ East Feliciana Parish Police Jury 

♦ Evangeline Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Evangeline Parish Police Jury 

♦ Franklin Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Franklin Parish Police 

♦ Grant Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Grant Parish Police Jury 

♦ Iberia Parish Council 
H-3 

♦ Iberia Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Iberville Parish Council 

♦ Iberville Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Jackson Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Jackson Parish Police Jury 

♦ Jefferson Davis Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury 

♦ Jefferson Parish 

♦ Jefferson Parish Council 

♦ Jefferson Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Jefferson Parish Port 

♦ Lafayette Consolidated Government 

♦ Lafayette Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Lafourche Parish Council 

♦ Lafourche Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ LaSalle Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ LaSalle Parish Police Jury 

♦ Lincoln Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Lincoln Parish Police Jury 

♦ Livingston Parish 

♦ Livingston Parish Council 

♦ Livingston Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Madison Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Madison Parish Police Jury 

♦ Morehouse Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Morehouse Parish Police Jury 

♦ Natchitoches Parish Police Jury 

♦ Natchitoches Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Orleans Parish 

♦ Orleans Parish Council 

♦ Orleans Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Ouachita Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Ouachita Parish Police Jury 

♦ Plaquemines Parish Council 

♦ Plaquemines Parish Government 

♦ Plaquemines Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Pointe Coupee Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury 

♦ Police Jury Association of Louisiana 

♦ Port of Vermilion, Abbeville Harbor and Terminal District 

♦ Rapides Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Rapides Parish Police Jury 

♦ Red River Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Red River Parish Police Jury 

♦ Richland Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Richland Parish Police Jury 

♦ Sabine Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Sabine Parish Police Jury 

♦ St. Bernard Parish 

♦ St. Bernard Parish Council 

♦ St. Bernard Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Charles Parish Council 

♦ St. Charles Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Helena Parish 

♦ St. Helena Parish Police Jury 

♦ St. James Parish Council 
H-4 

♦ St. James Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. John the Baptist Parish 

♦ St. John The Baptist Parish Council 

♦ St. John The Baptist Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Landry Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Landry Parish Police Jury 

♦ St. Martin Parish Council 

♦ St. Martin Parish Government 

♦ St. Martin Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Mary Parish Council 

♦ St. Mary Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Tammany Parish 

♦ St. Tammany Parish Council 

♦ St. Tammany Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Tangipahoa Parish Council 

♦ Tangipahoa Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Tensas Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Tensas Parish Police Jury 

♦ Terrebonne Parish 

♦ Terrebonne Parish Council 

♦ Terrebonne Parish Government 

♦ Terrebonne Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Union Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Union Parish Police Jury 

♦ Vermilion Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Vermilion Parish Police Jury 

♦ Vernon Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Vernon Parish Police Jury 

♦ Washington Parish Council 

♦ Washington Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Webster Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Webster Parish Police Jury 

♦ West Baton Rouge Parish Council 

♦ West Baton Rouge Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ West Carroll Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ West Carroll Parish Police Jury 

♦ West Feliciana Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ West Feliciana Parish Police Jury 

♦ Winn Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Winn Parish Police Jury 

♦ Private Industry 

♦ Alpha Biotek Environmental, LLC 

♦ Apache Corp. 

♦ Arabie Environmental Solutions, Inc. 

♦ Associated Branch Pilots 

♦ Atchafalaya Water Trails, Inc. 

♦ Beuerman Miller Group 

♦ Boise Cascade/Southern Forest Resources 

♦ BP Amoco 

♦ Central Gulf Lines, Inc. 

♦ CH2M Hill 

♦ Chevron Pipe Line Co. 

♦ ChevronTexaco 

♦ CITGO Refinery Division 

♦ C-K Associates, Inc. 
H-5 

♦ Coastal Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

♦ Conoco, Inc. 

♦ Dominion Exploration and Production, Inc. 

♦ Dupont Specialty Chemicals 

♦ E&E Group, LLC 

♦ El Paso Production 

♦ Energy Services 

♦ Equilon Pipeline Company LLC 

♦ Equiva Services, LLC 

♦ ERDAS 

♦ Exxon Mobil Corp. 

♦ Exxon Mobil Production 

♦ Jones, Walker, et al 

♦ Justiss Oil Co., Inc. 

♦ Kerr-McGee 

♦ Louisiana Chemical Association 

♦ Louisiana Independent Oil and Gas Association 

♦ Louisiana Landowner Association 

♦ Louisiana Mid Continent Oil and Gas 

♦ Maxim Technologies, Inc. 

♦ Merlin Management Services, Inc. 

♦ Murray Law Firm 

♦ Ocean Energy 

♦ Patton Boggs LLP Attorneys at Law 

♦ Placid 

♦ PPG Industries 

♦ Public Strategies, Inc. 

♦ Pyburn and Odom, Inc. 

♦ Rabalais, Hanna, and Hebert 

♦ Shaw E&I 

♦ Shell 

♦ SMS USA 

♦ Stolt Offshore, Inc. 

♦ Sun Pipe Line Co. 

♦ T. Baker Smith and Son, Inc. 

♦ Texaco 

♦ The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited 

♦ Tidewater Marine, Inc. 

♦ UNOCAL 

♦ Non-Profit Organizations 

♦ Algiers Community Improvement Association 

♦ Ascension Parish Residents Against Pollution 

♦ Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program 

♦ Black Bear Conservation Committee 

♦ Citizens Against Contamination 

♦ Citizens for Clean Environment 

♦ CLEAN 

♦ Coalition for Community Action 

♦ Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana 

♦ Coast Alliance 

♦ Coastal States Organization 

♦ Concerned Citizens 

♦ Concerned Citizens of JFK 

♦ Concerned Citizens of Mossville 

♦ Concerned Citizens of Norco 
H-6 

♦ Deep South Center for Environmental Justice 

♦ Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

♦ Greenpeace 

♦ Gulf Restoration Network 

♦ League of Women Voters 

♦ Louisiana ACORN 

♦ Louisiana Audubon Council 

♦ Louisiana Environmental Action Network 

♦ Louisiana Environmental Justice Project 

♦ Louisiana State University 

♦ Louisiana Wildlife Federation 

♦ M.E.A.N., Inc. 

♦ McNeese State University 

♦ National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee 

♦ Natural Resources Defense Council 

♦ North Lake Charles Environmental Action Now 

♦ Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen Associations, Inc. 

♦ Poor People for Fair and Equal Access to Justice 

♦ R.E.S.T.O.R.E 

♦ Restore America's Estuaries 

♦ Sierra Club 

♦ South Louisiana Economic Council (SLEC) 

♦ Southern University and A&M College 

♦ St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment 

♦ The National Academies/Oceans Studies Board 

♦ The Nature Conservancy 

♦ Tulane Law School 

♦ United States Public Interest Research Group 

♦ University of Louisiana 
I-1 

APPENDIX I – ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

CONSULTATIONS
I-2 

USFWS Letter to NOAA Concurring with NOAA’s Determination that the Proposed Action 

is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Threatened or Endangered Species or their Critical 

Habitat 
I-3 
I-4 
I-5 

NOAA NMFS Letter to NOAA Concurring with NOAA’s Determination that the Proposed 

Action is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Threatened or Endangered Species or their 

Critical Habitat