FINAL 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the 

Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO), Louisiana, and 

Lake Borgne – Wetland Creation and Shoreline 

Protection Project 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

New Orleans District 

June 2009 
Please direct inquiries on this Final Environmental Impact Statement to 

Dr. William P. Klein, Jr., Environmental Manager, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers – New Orleans District; P.O. Box 60267, New Orleans, LA 

70160-0267, (504) 862-2540, email: mrgobks@mnv02.usace.army.mil 

Cover picture is Lake Borgne (foreground), MGRO Channel (middle), and the 

community of Yscloskey (background). 

Picture provided by Kenneth Duffy, Ph.D., BEM Systems, Inc. 
Abstract 

FEIS June 2009 

 Abstract – 1

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET (MRGO), LOUISIANA, 

AND LAKE BORGNE 

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection 

LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Mississippi Valley, New Orleans District (CEMVN). 

ABSTRACT: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District (CEMVN), proposes to construct 

shoreline protection features along the Lake Borgne shoreline and restore and nourish wetlands in the Mississippi 

River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) and Lake Borgne estuarine complex. Construction of the MRGO, in synergistic 

combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, 

habitat modification, and adversely impacted wildlife and fisheries within the project area. Without action, land 

loss in the project area is predicted to continue at the same or accelerated rates, with approximately 9,850 acres 

(3,991 hectares [ha]), including 6,255 acres (2,534 ha) of brackish marsh and 3,595 acres (1,456 ha) of saline 

marsh, projected to be lost over the 50-year period of analysis. Without action, critical landscape components of 

this estuarine complex, such as the land bridge separating Lake Borgne and the MRGO, would continue to degrade 

and fragment thereby increasing the number and size of breaches through the land bridge. The land bridge is an 

important geomorphic feature that isolates tidal processes in the lake and channel; protects inland barge traffic on 

the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; and provides critical and essential fish and wildlife habitat. Recent numerical 

sensitivity studies generally show that protecting wetlands (preventing their loss) has a net effect of lowering storm 

surge and wave heights compared to a future condition with extensive wetland loss. However, because the acreage 

of wetlands lost, levee heights and alignments, shoreward depths and storm characteristics all affect the height of 

storm surge, it is difficult to determine at this stage of scientific knowledge the effect of wetland loss in the area 

around Lake Borgne on storm surge. Ten alternative plans, with various combinations of wetland creation and 

nourishment and shoreline protection, were developed and evaluated with the assistance of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service as a Cooperating Agency. Screening criteria were developed to select an alternative plan that 

would best meet the planning goals and objectives. Seven alternative plans were eliminated from further 

consideration because they did not adequately address the problems or meet all of the planning goals or objectives. 

Three alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 10) were examined in detail. These three alternatives maximized the 

number of wetland acres that would be protected and restored, contained elements that would work together to 

produce a greater overall benefit to the land bridge, and limited detrimental environmental impacts to the project 

area. Alternative 2 would initially create, nourish, and protect a total of 3,897 acres (1,579 ha) of wetlands with a 

net total of 2,264 acres (917 ha) of wetlands and a value of 1,278 Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) over the 

50-year period of analysis. Alternative 3 would initially create, nourish, and protect a total of 4,050 acres 

(1,640 ha) of wetlands with a net total of 2,284 acres (925 ha) of wetlands and a value of 1,423 AAHUs over the 

50-year period of analysis. Alternative 10 would initially create, nourish, and protect a total of 3,867 acres 

(1,567 ha) of wetlands with a net total of 2,162 acres (876 ha) of wetlands and a value of 1,189 AAHUs over the 

50-year period of analysis. Alternative 10, with total estimated cost of $62,400,000 inclusive of associated 

investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the Selected Plan (SP). 

The SP best meets the screening criteria; would accomplish the planning objectives and goals; would be consistent 

with the Environmental Operating Principles; and would best satisfy the Congressional mandate provided in Public 

Law 109-148 and Public Law 109-234 for the repair, construction or provision of measures or structures necessary 

to protect, restore or increase wetlands, to prevent saltwater intrusion or storm surge along the MRGO. 

Comments: Please direct inquiries on this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, New Orleans District, Attention: Dr. William P. Klein, Jr., P.O. Box 60267, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70160-0267. Telephone: (504) 862-2540; FAX: (504) 862-2088. The official closing date for receipt of 

comments will be 30 days from the date on which the Notice of Availability of the FEIS appeared in the 

Federal Register (July 20, 2009). 

Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

S.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division, New Orleans District 

(CEMVN), proposes to construct shoreline protection features along the Lake Borgne shoreline 

and restore and nourish wetlands in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) and Lake 

Borgne estuarine complex. Construction of the MRGO, in synergistic combination with other 

natural and man-made factors, has caused land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, 

habitat modifications, and adversely impacted wildlife and fisheries within the project area. 

Without action, land loss in the project area is predicted to continue at the same or accelerated 

rates, with approximately 9,850 acres (3,991 hectares [ha]) including 6,255 acres (2,534 ha) of 

brackish marsh and 3,595 acres (1,456 ha) of saline marsh, projected to be lost over the 50-year 

period of analysis. Without action, critical landscape components of this estuarine complex, 

such as the land bridge separating Lake Borgne and the MRGO, would continue to degrade and 

fragment thereby increasing the number and size of breaches through the land bridge. The land 

bridge is an important geomorphic feature that isolates tidal processes in the lake and channel; 

protects inland barge traffic on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW); and provides critical 

and essential fish and wildlife habitat. 

Tropical storms and hurricanes with varying levels of storm surge and flood stages have 

impacted, and would likely continue to impact southeastern Louisiana. Recent numerical 

sensitivity studies generally show that protecting wetlands (preventing their loss) has a net 

effect of lowering storm surge and wave heights compared to a future condition with extensive 

wetland loss. However, because the acreage of wetlands lost, levee heights and alignments, 

shoreward depths, and storm characteristics all affect the height of storm surge, it is difficult to 

determine at this stage of scientific knowledge the effect of wetland loss in the area around Lake 

Borgne on storm surge. 

Environmental impacts from the continued degradation and fragmentation of the land bridge 

would include disruption of natural littoral flows; increased tidal prism; increased hydraulic 

flushing; degradation and loss of wetlands that provide critical and essential fish and wildlife 

habitats used for shelter, nesting, feeding, roosting, cover, nursery, and other life requirements; 

reduction in productivity; degradation and loss of essential fish habitat (EFH), especially 

transitional habitat between estuarine and marine environments; and increased inter- and intraspecific competition between resident and migratory fish and wildlife species for decreasing 

wetland resources. 

S.2 STUDY AUTHORITY 

In December 2005, the “Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to 

Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006” (Public Law 

109-148) directed the USACE to repair navigation channels and other projects damaged by the 

2005 hurricanes and to restore flood damage reduction and hurricane and storm damage 

reduction projects to the level of protection for which they were designed. The Act 

appropriated $75,000,000 for “authorized operation and maintenance activities along the 
Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 2

Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet channel.” In June 2006, Congress clarified the intended purpose 

of the $75,000,000 appropriated for authorized operation and maintenance activities along the 

MRGO. Consistent with the language in the Third Supplemental Conference Report, Section 

2304 in Title II, Chapter 3 of the “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 

the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006” (Public Law 109-234) states that the 

$75,000,000 is to be used for the repair, construction or provision of measures or structures 

necessary to protect, restore or increase wetlands, to prevent saltwater intrusion or storm surge. 

S.3 STUDY AREA 

The 92,217-acre (37,361 ha) project area, part of the Pontchartrain Basin, is located in the 

vicinity of New Orleans in Orleans and St. Bernard parishes, Louisiana. The project area is 

located within the St. Bernard delta complex, the oldest deltaic complex within the Mississippi 

Deltaic Plain Region. The project area is part of the Lake Borgne estuarine complex and is 

comprised of the MRGO navigation channel and Lake Borgne land bridge and the southern 

portion of Lake Borgne. 

S.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The National Environmental Policy Act provides for an early and open public process for 

determining the scope of issues, resources, impacts, and alternatives to be addressed in the draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS). A Notice Requesting Scoping Comments was sent out 

on December 8, 2006, to all individuals, organizations, and agencies believed to have an interest 

in or that may be affected by the proposed action project. The CEMVN also held an 

interagency meeting on December 19, 2006 to present the proposed action and request 

comments. A DEIS was released to the public on October 31, 2008, followed by a 45-day 

public review period. This Final Environmental Impact Statement incorporates the comments 

received from the 45-day review period of the DEIS. 

S.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 

Construction and operation of the MRGO, in synergistic combination with other natural and 

man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, 

saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources 

throughout the project area. Determining the extent to which the construction and operation of 

the MRGO contributes to these impacts and what, if any, actions would be necessary to 

remediate any such impacts remains a controversial issue. 

Based upon recent sensitivity studies conducted by the Engineer Research and Development 

Center (ERDC) in support of the South Louisiana Comprehensive Coastal Protection and 

Restoration (LACPR) evaluation of comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and designs, 

the loss of wetland areas does increase storm surge and wave potential at the nearby hurricane 

protection system. However, because the acreage of wetlands lost, levee heights and 

alignments, shoreward depths, and storm characteristics all affect the height of storm surge, it is 

difficult to determine at this stage of scientific knowledge the effect of wetland loss in the area 

around Lake Borgne on storm surge. 
Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 3

S.6 ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative plan features were developed as specific solutions that, when properly combined 

into alternative plans, would meet the project goals and objectives and be consistent with the 

Congressional mandate. Based upon the problems of wetland loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater 

intrusion, and storm surge threats in the project area, the PDT initially considered alternative 

plan features including wetland creation and nourishment, shoreline protection, surge barriers or 

wave breaks, ridge restoration, vegetative plantings, freshwater diversion, and saltwater 

barriers. Alternative plan features were combined into ten alternative plans, each with a total 

construction cost of about $55,000,000. Various combinations and sizes of wetland creation 

and nourishment and shoreline protection features were developed and evaluated to determine 

the best combinations of features that would meet the planning objectives. 

In addition to the No Action Alternative, ten alternative plans with various combinations of 

wetland creation and nourishment and shoreline protection features were developed and 

evaluated. Initial evaluation of the ten alternative plans examined how well the combination of 

features would protect the critical land bridge and complement existing projects, as well as meet 

the other sorting criteria. Seven alternative plans were eliminated from further consideration 

and not carried over for detailed analyses. While the features in all of the alternative plans 

would provide benefits, the alternative plans eliminated from further consideration either did 

not adequately complement existing/authorized projects along the Lake Borgne shoreline or 

would not sufficiently meet the other planning objectives, such as protecting the critical land 

bridge. 

Initial analysis found Alternatives 2, 3, and 10 would best meet the planning goals and 

objectives. These three alternatives were subsequently analyzed in greater detail to allow a 

more thorough comparison of potential benefits. Benefits were measured in three ways: 

(1) the initial acres created/protected/restored; 

(2) the net acres created/protected/restored over the 50-year study period; and, 

(3) Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs). 

Alternative 2. This alternative would create 1,500 acres (608 ha) and nourish 1,350 acres 

(547 ha) of brackish marsh in the Golden Triangle. Alternative 2 would also construct five 

shoreline protection features. Foreshore rock dikes would be located along the Lake Borgne 

shoreline in the Golden Triangle area (17,700 linear feet [lf]; 5,395 m) to protect 223 acres 

(90 ha); in the vicinity of Bayou Bienvenue (16,230 lf; 4,946 m) to protect 186 acres (75 ha); in 

the vicinity of Bayou Dupre (17,650 lf; 5,379 m) to protect 142 acres (58 ha); and west of Shell 

Beach (15,400 lf; 4,694 m) to protect 194 acres (79 ha). One shoreline protection feature would 

consist of the installation of ACM between Mile 45 and Mile 47 along the southern shoreline of 

the MRGO (10,840 lf; 3,304 m) to protect 301 acres (122 ha). These shoreline protection 

features would protect a total of 1,047 acres (424 ha) of adjacent fragmented wetlands from 

degradation and wave erosion. Alternative 2 would require a total 9.5 million cubic yards (cy) 

(7.3 million cubic meters) of borrow for wetland creation and nourishment that would be 

removed from approximately 1,070 acres (433 ha) of Lake Borgne waterbottoms. Alternative 2 

would place a total of 284,350 square yards (sq yd) (238,020 sq m) of geotextile fabric and 

572,800 tons (565,728 metric tons) of rock for the Lake Borgne shoreline protection features, 

and 24,600 tons (24,296 metric tons) of crushed rock and 10,840 lf (3,304 m) of ACM along the 

MRGO shoreline. A total of 186.2 acres (75.4 ha) of Lake Borgne and MRGO waterbottoms 
Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 4

would be dredged for floatation access. Material dredged for floatation access would be used 

beneficially to the maximum extent practicable to create wetlands between the shoreline 

protection dike and the shoreline, or temporarily stockpiled adjacent to the floatation channel 

and returned to the channel following completion of construction features. Over the 50-year 

period of analysis Alternative 2 would protect, create and nourish a net total of 2,264 acres 

(917 ha) and provide 1,278 AAHUs. 

Alternative 3. This alternative would create 1,400 acres (567 ha) and nourish 1,350 acres 

(547 ha) of brackish marsh in the Golden Triangle; and create 500 acres (203 ha) and nourish 

420 acres (170 ha) of saline marsh in the area west of Shell Beach. Alternative 3 would also 

construct two shoreline protection features located along the Lake Borgne shoreline in the 

vicinity of Bayou Bienvenue (16,230 lf; 4,946 m) to protect 186 acres (75 ha) and west of Shell 

Beach (15,400 lf; 4,694 m) to protect 194 acres (79 ha). These shoreline protection features 

would protect a total of 381 acres (154 ha) of adjacent fragmented wetlands from degradation 

and wave erosion. Alternative 3 would require a total 11.4 million cy (8.7 million cubic meters) 

of borrow for wetland creation and nourishment that would be removed from approximately 

1,850 acres (750 ha) of Lake Borgne waterbottoms. Alternative 3 would place a total of 

134,000 sq yd (112,167 sq m) of geotextile fabric and 286,200 tons (282,667 metric tons) of 

crushed rock along the Lake Borgne shoreline. A total of 59.9 acres (24.3 ha) of Lake Borgne 

waterbottoms would be dredged for floatation access. Material dredged for floatation access 

would be used beneficially to the maximum extent practicable to create wetlands between the 

shoreline protection dike and the shoreline, or temporarily stockpiled adjacent to the floatation 

channel and returned to the channel following completion of construction features. Over the 

50-year period of analysis Alternative 3 would protect, create and nourish a net total of 

2,284 acres (925 ha) and provide 1,423 AAHUs. 

Alternative 10. This alternative would create 1,250 acres (506 ha) and nourish 1,400 acres 

(567 ha) of brackish marsh in the Golden Triangle; and create 425 acres (172 ha) and nourish 

270 acres (109 ha) of saline marsh west of Shell Beach. Alternative 10 also includes three 

shoreline protection features located along the Lake Borgne shoreline: in the vicinity of Bayou 

Bienvenue (16,230 lf; 4,946 m) to protect 186 acres (75 ha); in the vicinity of Bayou Dupre 

(17,650 lf; 5,379 m) to protect 142 acres (58 ha); and west of Shell Beach (15,400 lf; 4,694 m) 

to protect 194 acres (79 ha). These shoreline protection features would protect a total of 

522 acres (211 ha) of adjacent wetlands from degradation and wave erosion. Alternative 10 

would require a total 9.7 million cy (7.4 million cubic meters) of borrow for wetland creation 

and nourishment that would be removed from approximately 1,850 acres (750 ha) of Lake 

Borgne waterbottoms. Alternative 10 would place a total of 208,650 sq yd (174,654 sq m) of 

geotextile fabric and 423,200 tons (417,975 metric tons) of rock along the Lake Borgne 

shoreline. A total of 118.3 acres (47.9 ha) of Lake Borgne waterbottoms would be dredged for 

floatation access. Material dredged for floatation access would be used beneficially to the 

maximum extent practicable to create wetlands between the shoreline protection dike and the 

shoreline, or temporarily stockpiled adjacent to the floatation channel and returned to the 

channel following completion of construction features. Over the 50-year period of analysis 

Alternative 10 would protect, create and nourish a net total of 2,162 acres (876 ha) and provide 

1,189 AAHUs. 
Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 5

S.7 COMPARISION OF IMPACTS 

No Action Alternative. Proposed wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection 

features would not be implemented under the No Action Alternative. The No Action 

Alternative would have no direct impacts on significant resources. Rather, impacts would 

primarily be indirect and cumulative, and related to continued land loss and shoreline erosion of 

Lake Borgne and the MRGO, including the eventual loss of the critical land bridge separating 

these two water bodies. Although the MRGO channel is deauthorized for navigation, land loss 

in the project area would continue at the same or accelerated rates, with approximately 

9,850 acres (3,991 ha), including 6,255 acres (2,534 ha) of brackish marsh and 3,595 acres 

(1,454 ha) of saline marsh, projected to be lost over the 50-year period of analysis. Continued 

wetland fragmentation and the eventual conversion to shallow open water habitat would have 

negative consequences on a variety of important environmental resources in the project area. 

Indirect impacts would primarily result from the continued wetland loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation from the land bridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO. Impacts would 

include an increase in the acres of water bottoms, disruption of natural littoral flows, increased 

tidal prism, increased hydraulic flushing, degradation and loss of wetlands that provide 

important and essential fish and wildlife habitats used for shelter, nesting, feeding, roosting, 

cover, nursery, and other life requirements; reduction in productivity; conversion of essential 

fish habitat (EFH) from higher quality categories to lower quality categories, especially from 

emergent wetlands to open water bottoms; localized decline in commercial fisheries and oyster 

leases; and increased inter- and intra-specific competition between resident and migratory fish 

and wildlife species, including endangered and threatened species, for decreasing wetland 

resources. Plankton and benthic populations would continue their shift towards more salinetolerant species. 

Continued land loss in the Lake Borgne estuarine complex would threaten cultural and historic 

resources as well as reduce the aesthetic visual complexity of the area. Wetland-related 

recreation resources would be potentially lost. Projected land loss would result in increased 

flows and water levels as area is converted from an estuarine system to a more marinedominated system. There would also be some redistribution of eroded sediments, especially 

during tropical storms. Other hydrology resources including water use and supply, and 

groundwater would remain similar to existing conditions. 

Socioeconomic and human resources within the uninhabited project area would generally be 

similar to existing conditions, with the following exceptions. Wetland degradation and loss 

throughout the project area would continue to threaten the stability of existing infrastructure and 

likely result in increased maintenance and possibly some relocation. Deauthorization of the 

MRGO provided in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007, coupled with the 

authorized construction of a closure structure and the Greater New Orleans Hurricane and 

Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (GNOHSDRRS), would eliminate navigation access 

from the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans along this channel. Increasing human populations and 

infrastructure in surrounding areas would indirectly adversely effect air and water quality in the 

project area. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the land bridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO channel 

would continue to degrade thereby reducing the storm buffering capability of this estuarine 

complex. Based upon recent sensitivity studies conduced by the ERDC in support of the 
Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 6

LACPR evaluation of comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and designs, the loss of 

wetland areas does increase storm surge and wave potential at the hurricane protection system. 

Increasing the acreage of wetlands in the proposed action area (landbridge between Lake 

Borgne and the MRGO) will not significantly change storm surge height in this area. A 

significant increase in wetland acreage in the area could have an effect on storm surge. 

Cumulative impacts would be the synergistic combination of wetland loss within the land 

bridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO with the impacts of other coastal wetland loss, and 

the benefits of restoration activities. Negative impacts would be offset, to some extent, by the 

positive benefits of restoration activities in and near the project area, including: the Coastal 

Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) PO-30 project; the MRGO 

2006 Lake Borgne Shoreline Protection, (Doullut's Canal to Jahncke's Ditch), St. Bernard 

Parish, LA (06-C-0210) project; the MRGO 2007 North Bank Foreshore Dike Construction and 

Repairs, Mile 44.4 to Mile 39.9 (Non-Continuous), St. Bernard Parish, LA (07-C-0089) project; 

and other wetland restoration efforts authorized under the LCA Plan in WRDA of 2007. 

Features of the authorized GNOHSDRRS as well as the closure structure on the MRGO channel 

near the Bayou La Loutre ridge could affect the hydrology of the study area. The closure 

structure near Bayou La Loutre would reduce tidal exchange between Lake Borgne and Breton 

Sound, which is projected to reduce salinities in the project area by up to 6.6 ppt. Additionally, 

the closure structure and sector gates on the GIWW and Bayou Bienvenue planned near the 

confluence of the GIWW and the MRGO channel for the authorized improvements to the 

GNOHSDRRS would alter flow patterns in and near the western end of the project area. These 

features, in combination with the authorized diversion near Violet, Louisiana, would further 

reduce salinities to an unknown level. 

Alternative 10 (Selected Plan [SP]). The land bridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO is 

a critical geomorphic feature of the Lake Borgne estuarine complex. Direct impacts of 

implementing Alternative 10 (SP) include the creation, nourishment, and protection of a total of 

3,867 acres (1,567 ha) of brackish and saline wetlands of this critical geomorphic feature. 

Approximately 1,850 acres (750 ha) of Lake Borgne water bottoms would be unavoidably 

impacted by removing 9,700,000 cy (7,406,454 cubic meters) of borrow material for marsh 

creation and nourishment. Other adverse direct impacts would be localized, temporary and 

primarily related to construction activities. These impacts would include increased turbidity, 

water temperatures and biological oxygen demand (BOD), and decreased dissolved oxygen. 

However, these impacts would generally be temporary and waters would return to ambient 

conditions following completion of construction. Any slow-moving or sessile organisms (e.g., 

benthic organisms) would likely suffer unavoidable injury or mortality due to dredging 

operations and placement of fill and rock. 

Indirect impacts of implementing Alternative 10 (SP) include the creation, nourishment, and 

protection of a net total of 2,162 acres (876 ha) of brackish and saline wetlands with a value of 

1,189 AAHUs over the 50-year period of analysis. Alternative 10 (SP) would restore and 

protect a large portion of the Lake Borgne estuarine complex that provides important and 

essential vegetated habitats, especially transitional habitat between estuarine and marine 

environments. These habitats are used by fish and wildlife for spawning, nursery, nesting, 

foraging, cover, and predator refugia habitats that support numerous economically and 

recreationally important fish and wildlife species. Increased wetland vegetative growth and 
Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 7

productivity would also reduce inter- and intra- specific competition between resident and 

migratory fish and wildlife species for limited coastal vegetated wetland resources. 

Shoreline protection features would reduce wave-induced erosion and alter sheet flows from 

Lake Borgne into adjacent emergent wetlands. However, shoreline protection features would be 

constructed to maintain interconnectivity and allow the ingress and egress of aquatic organisms 

throughout the Lake Borgne estuarine complex. In addition, natural bayous and other 

waterways and channels would not be affected by the proposed actions and their existing 

connectivity would continue. There would be localized changes in flows and sediment 

accretion and deposition patterns due to shoreline protection features. Shoreline protection 

features would impede previously open access between Lake Borgne and the brackish and 

saline emergent wetland marshes. However, shoreline protection features would reduce the 

wave energy between the dikes and the shoreline, which would encourage deposition of 

suspended sediments. 

The project area is remote and uninhabited. Consequently, there would be no direct, indirect or 

cumulative impacts to socioeconomic and human resources such as populations, employment 

and personal income, agriculture, or forestry. However, implementing Alternative 10 (SP) 

would protect and restore some portions of the land bridge between Lake Borgne and the 

MRGO channel that would provide some socioeconomic and human resource benefits. 

Alternative 10 (SP) would protect and restore portions of the land bridge that is an important 

geomorphic feature that isolates tidal processes in the lake and channel; protects inland barge 

traffic on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW); and provides critical and essential fish and 

wildlife habitat, especially transitional habitat between estuarine and marine environments that 

are important for commercial fisheries. 

Cumulative impacts would be the synergistic effect of the combination of impacts of other 

wetland loss and the benefits from other restoration efforts. Project benefits would be partially 

supplemented by the overall net acres created, nourished, and protected by other Federal, state, 

local, and private restoration efforts including: CWPPRA 33,690 acres (13,649 ha); State 

2,543 acres (1,030 ha); Mitigation Civil Works 4,990 acres (2,022 ha); Mitigation Regulatory 

Permits 6,411 acres (2,597 ha); Vegetation 535 acres (217 ha); Section 204/1135, Beneficial 

Use 226 acres (92 ha); WRDA 16,000 acres (6,482 ha) for a total of 64,410 acres (26,095 ha). 

The CWPPRA PO-30 and 32 projects are under construction, including the Lake Borgne 

shoreline between Doulluts Canal and Jahncke’s Ditch and the north bank of the MRGO 

between Mile 40 and Mile 44.5. These projects would provide shoreline protection near or 

adjacent to the features in this plan, and would protect portions of the land bridge area between 

the MRGO channel and Lake Borgne. Additionally, a diversion near Violet, Louisiana, coupled 

with the closure structure south of Bayou La Loutre and the features of the GNOHSDRRS, 

would serve to decrease salinities in the project area by up to 6.6 ppt. Alternative 10 (SP) 

would work synergistically with those projects to provide more complete protection for the land 

bridge, and increased habitat resources for wildlife and aquatic organisms, including fishery 

species. These projects would also interact synergistically to increase opportunities for 

recreation. 

Alternative 2. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to 

those described for Alternative 10 (SP), with the following exceptions. Alternative 2 would 

create, nourish, and protect a total of 3,897 acres (1,579 ha) of brackish and saline wetlands. 

Indirect impacts of implementing Alternative 2 include the creation, nourishment, and 
Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 8

protection of a net total of 2,264 acres (917 ha) of brackish and saline wetlands with a value of 

1,278 AAHUs over the 50-year period of analysis. 

Alternative 3. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to 

those described for Alternative 10 (SP), with the following exceptions. Alternative 3 would 

create, nourish, and protect a total of 4,050 acres (1,640 ha) of brackish and saline wetlands. 

Indirect impacts of implementing Alternative 3 include the creation, nourishment, and 

protection of a net total of 2,284 acres (925 ha) of brackish and saline wetlands with a value of 

1,423 AAHUs over the 50-year period of analysis. 

S.8 THE SELECTED PLAN 

Of the three alternative plans carried over for detailed analysis, Alternative 10 would best 

satisfy the Congressional mandate for the repair, construction, or provision of measures or 

structures necessary to protect, restore or increase wetlands, to prevent saltwater intrusion or 

storm surge. Alternative 10 best meets the screening criteria and would accomplish the 

planning objectives and goals. In addition, Alternative 10 would best meet the Economic and 

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Implementation Studies 

(P&G) criteria of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. Alternative 10 

would also be consistent with the USACE Environmental Operating Principles. Hence, 

Alternative 10 is the Selected Plan (SP). The SP would create a total of 1,675 acres (679 ha) of 

marsh and nourish an additional 1,670 acres (677 ha) of emergent wetlands in the Golden 

Triangle and Shell Beach vicinities. The SP would also provide shoreline protection in the form 

of foreshore rock dikes along three reaches of the Lake Borgne. Shoreline protection features 

would protect a total of 522 acres (211 ha) of adjacent wetlands from degradation and wave 

erosion. Over the 50-year period of analysis, the SP would create, nourish and protect a net 

total of 2,162 acres (876 ha). 

S.9 CONCLUSIONS 

The Selected Plan (SP) would create and nourish approximately 3,345 acres (1,355 ha) of 

brackish and saline wetlands within the Lake Borgne estuarine complex and provide 49,280 ft 

(15,020 m), or approximately 9.3 miles (15.0 km), of shoreline protection along Lake Borgne. 

Primary features of the SP include: 

1. Wetland creation and nourishment along the MRGO and Lake Borgne critical land 

bridge at the Golden Triangle and in the Shell Beach area. 

2. Shoreline protection (using foreshore rock dikes) in the vicinity of Bayou Bienvenue, 

Bayou Dupre, and west of Shell Beach in Lake Borgne. 

Wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection features of the SP would restore 

fragmented brackish and saline wetlands in the Golden Triangle and Shell Beach areas of the 

Lake Borgne estuarine complex. This action would also protect and restore a large portion of 

the MRGO and Lake Borgne critical land bridge; contribute to the overall goals of hurricane 

protection and wetlands restoration in southeast Louisiana; and foster advancing salinity 

reduction goals in the Pontchartrain Basin. 

The SP is the plan that would best meet the planning objectives implicit in the Congressional 

mandate to repair, construct, or provide measures or structures necessary to protect, restore or 
Executive Summary 

FEIS June 2009 

 ES – 9

increase wetlands, to prevent saltwater intrusion or storm surge in the MRGO. The SP would 

also best meet the four P&G criteria of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and 

acceptability. 

S.10 RECOMMENDATIONS 

The recommended plan presented in this report is in the overall public interest and a justified 

expenditure of Federal funds. As a comprehensive approach to protect, stabilize, and augment 

the land bridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO, the District Commander recommends the 

construction of rock dikes for shoreline protection along the south bank of Lake Borgne in the 

reaches referenced as Bayou Bienvenue, Bayou Dupre, and West of Shell Beach. The District 

Commander also recommends the construction of marsh creation projects in the Golden 

Triangle and Shell Beach area. 

The total estimated cost for the project is $62,400,000 inclusive of associated investigation, 

environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision. Construction of this 

project is funded 100 percent by the Federal Government. However, the operations and 

maintenance of this project would be assumed by the non-Federal sponsor (Coastal Protection 

and Restoration Authority of Louisiana) as recommended by the Legislative EIS prepared for 

the closure of the MRGO channel. 

The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time, January 

2008 price levels, and current Departmental policies governing the formulation of individual 

projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a 

national civil works construction program, nor the perspective of higher levels of review within 

the Executive Branch. Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before they are 

transmitted to the Congress as proposals for authorization and/or implementation funding. 

Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

1.1 AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................................... 1-1 

1.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION.............................................................. 1-2 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION...................................................... 1-2 

1.3.1 Purpose of Action ................................................................................................ 1-2 

1.3.2 Problems and Need for Action............................................................................. 1-2 

1.3.3 Opportunities........................................................................................................ 1-6 

1.4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...................................................................... 1-7 

1.5 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REQUIREMENTS...... 1-7 

1.6 PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, AND PROJECTS...................................... 1-8 

1.6.1 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) 1826 and others ....................................... 1-8 

1.6.2 Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T), 1928............................................... 1-8 

1.6.3 Bayous La Loutre, St. Malo and Yscloskey, 1945 .............................................. 1-8 

1.6.4 Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, September 1951.................................................. 1-9 

1.6.5 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock Study, 1956 .............................................. 1-9 

1.6.6 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana, 

Hurricane Protection Project, 1965...................................................................... 1-9 

1.6.7 Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana, 1968............................................ 1-9 

1.6.8 MRGO St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, Reconnaissance Report, 

February 1988 .................................................................................................... 1-10 

1.6.9 Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and 

Restoration Act (CWPPRA), 1990 .................................................................... 1-10 

1.6.10 MRGO North Bank Foreshore Protection Evaluation, 1996............................. 1-10 

1.6.11 Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, 1998............................. 1-10 

1.6.12 MRGO Reevaluation Study, 2002 ..................................................................... 1-11 

1.6.13 Environmental Assessment for the Lake Borgne Shoreline 

Protection Project, 2006..................................................................................... 1-11 

1.6.14 Ecological Review, Lake Borgne and MRGO Shoreline Protection, 2005....... 1-11 

1.6.15 Continuing Authorities Program........................................................................ 1-12 

1.6.16 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study (LCA Plan), 2005 ........ 1-12 

1.6.17 Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet the 

Immediate Needs Arising from the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 

2005 (Public Law 109-062) ............................................................................... 1-12 

1.6.18 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Acts, 2006....................................... 1-12 

1.6.19 Coastal Impact Assistance Program, 2006......................................................... 1-13 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – ii

1.6.20 Louisiana Coastal Protection & Restoration (LACPR), 2006 ........................... 1-13 

1.6.21 Investigation of the Performance of the New Orleans Flood Protection 

Systems in Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, Final Report, July 2006.... 1-13 

1.6.22 Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana 

Hurricane Protection System, Draft Final Report of the Interagency 

Performance Evaluation Task (IPET) Force, USACE, 2006............................. 1-14 

1.6.23 Violet Freshwater Distribution (Deauthorized as of September 11, 2006) ....... 1-14 

1.6.24 Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection: Louisiana’s 

Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast, 2007 .............................. 1-14 

1.6.25 Water Resources Development Act of 2007...................................................... 1-15 

1.6.26 Individual Environmental Report (IER), #11 Improved Protection on the 

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, 

Louisiana, 2007.................................................................................................. 1-15 

1.6.27 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Environmental Restoration, ongoing efforts ..... 1-15 

1.6.27.1 Integrated Final Report to Congress and Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement for the MRGO Deep-Draft 

Deauthorization Study, 2008 ........................................................... 1-15 

1.6.27.2 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Operations and Maintenance ........... 1-16 

1.6.27.3 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Ecosystem Restoration Plan 

Feasibility Study .............................................................................. 1-16 

1.6.27.4 Storm Surge Risk Reduction Projects.............................................. 1-16 

1.6.28 Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements ................ 1-16 

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 2-1 

2.1 GENERAL................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 PLAN FORMULATION ............................................................................. 2-2 

2.2.1 Overview.............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.2 Preliminary Alternative Plan Formulation........................................................... 2-2 

2.2.3 Environmental Operating Principles.................................................................... 2-3 

2.2.4 Planning Approach............................................................................................... 2-4 

2.3 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF FEATURES ......................... 2-4 

2.3.1 Development of Alternative Plan Features.......................................................... 2-4 

2.3.1.1 Wetland Creation and Nourishment................................................... 2-4 

2.3.1.2 Shoreline Protection Features ............................................................ 2-6 

2.3.1.3 Surge Barriers and/or Wave Breaks................................................. 2-12 

2.3.1.4 Ridge Restoration............................................................................. 2-13 

2.3.1.5 Vegetative Plantings ........................................................................ 2-13 

2.3.1.6 Freshwater Diversions ..................................................................... 2-13 

2.3.1.7 Saltwater Barriers............................................................................. 2-13 

2.3.2 Screening Alternative Plan Features.................................................................. 2-14 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – iii

2.3.3 Features Having Major Value............................................................................ 2-15 

2.3.3.1 Wetland Creation and Nourishment................................................. 2-16 

2.3.3.2 Shoreline Protection Features .......................................................... 2-17 

2.3.4 Features Having Limited or No Value............................................................... 2-17 

2.4 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS.... 2-21 

2.4.1 Development of Alternative Plans..................................................................... 2-21 

2.4.2 Description of Alternative Plans........................................................................ 2-21 

2.4.3 Plans Not Carried Over for Detailed Analysis................................................... 2-21 

2.4.4 Alternative Plans Retained for Detailed Analysis ............................................. 2-23 

2.4.4.1 Plan 2 Summary............................................................................... 2-24 

2.4.4.2 Plan 3 Summary............................................................................... 2-26 

2.4.4.3 Plan 10 Summary............................................................................. 2-26 

2.5 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................. 2-30 

2.6 PLAN FORMULATION RESULTS ......................................................... 2-31 

2.6.1 Description of the Selected Plan (SP)................................................................ 2-32 

2.6.1.1 Components of the Selected Plan .................................................... 2-40 

2.6.2 Effectiveness of the SP in Meeting Objectives and Goals................................. 2-48 

2.6.3 Effectiveness of the SP in Meeting Environmental Operating Principles ......... 2-49 

2.6.4 Project Costs ...................................................................................................... 2-49 

2.6.5 Plan Implementation and Accomplishments ..................................................... 2-50 

2.6.6 Summary of Tentatively Selected Plan Accomplishments................................ 2-52 

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.................................................. 3-1 

3.1 GENERAL................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 CLIMATE .................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.3 GEOMORPHIC AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING .............................. 3-2 

3.4 SOILS .......................................................................................................... 3-6 

3.4.1 Historic and Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3-6 

3.5 COASTAL VEGETATION RESOURCES ................................................. 3-6 

3.5.1 Historic and Existing Conditions......................................................................... 3-6 

3.6 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ........................................................................ 3-11 

3.6.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-11 

3.7 FISHERY RESOURCES........................................................................... 3-13 

3.7.1 General............................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.7.2 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-15 

3.7.2.1 Finfish .............................................................................................. 3-15 

3.7.2.2 Shrimp.............................................................................................. 3-16 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – iv

3.7.2.3 Blue Crab ......................................................................................... 3-18 

3.7.2.4 Oyster............................................................................................... 3-18 

3.8 PLANKTON RESOURCES...................................................................... 3-19 

3.8.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-19 

3.9 WATER BOTTOMS AND BENTHIC RESOURCES.............................. 3-20 

3.10 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT................................................................... 3-21 

3.10.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-21 

3.11 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES................................... 3-22 

3.11.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-22 

3.12 HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................... 3-26 

3.12.1 Flow and Water Levels ...................................................................................... 3-26 

3.12.1.1 Historic and Existing Conditions..................................................... 3-26 

3.12.2 Sediment ............................................................................................................ 3-27

3.12.2.1 Historic and Existing Conditions..................................................... 3-27 

3.13 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................... 3-29 

3.13.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-29 

3.13.2 Salinity ............................................................................................................... 3-30 

3.14 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES............................................................. 3-31 

3.14.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-31 

3.15 PUBLIC LANDS....................................................................................... 3-33 

3.15.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-33 

3.16 CULTURAL RESOURCES INCLUDING NATIONAL REGISTER 

LISTINGS.................................................................................................. 3-35 

3.16.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-35 

Cultural Setting .................................................................................................. 3-35 

3.16.2 Previous Investigations ...................................................................................... 3-35 

Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Surveys........................................... 3-36 

3.17 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................... 3-36 

3.17.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-36 

3.17.2 Scenic Rivers and Streams................................................................................. 3-36 

3.18 NOISE....................................................................................................... 3-38 

3.18.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-38 

3.19 AIR QUALITY.......................................................................................... 3-38 

3.19.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-38 

3.20 SOCIECONOMIC AND HUMAN RESOURCES................................... 3-40 

3.20.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-40 

3.20.1.1 Population ........................................................................................ 3-40 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – v

3.20.1.2 Infrastructure.................................................................................... 3-40 

3.20.1.3 Employment and Income ................................................................. 3-41 

3.20.1.4 Navigation........................................................................................ 3-41 

3.20.1.5 Oil, Gas and Utilities Pipelines........................................................ 3-41 

3.20.1.6 Commercial Fisheries ...................................................................... 3-42 

3.20.1.7 Oyster Leases................................................................................... 3-44 

3.20.1.8 Flood Control and Hurricane Protection Levees ............................. 3-45 

3.21 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTES...................... 3-48 

3.21.1 Historic and Existing Conditions....................................................................... 3-48 

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................. 4-1 

4.1 SOILS ........................................................................................................ 4-18 

4.1.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-18 

4.1.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-20 

4.1.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-20 

4.1.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-21 

4.2 COASTAL VEGETATION RESOURCES ............................................... 4-22 

4.2.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-22 

4.2.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-23 

4.2.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-25 

4.2.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-26 

4.3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ........................................................................ 4-27 

4.3.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-27 

4.3.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-27 

4.3.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-28 

4.3.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-28 

4.4 FISHERY RESOURCES........................................................................... 4-29 

4.4.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-29 

4.4.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-30 

4.4.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-31 

4.4.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-31 

4.5 PLANKTON RESOURCES...................................................................... 4-32 

4.5.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-32 

4.5.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-32 

4.5.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-33 

4.5.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-33 

4.6 WATER BOTTOMS AND BENTHIC RESOURCES.............................. 4-33 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – vi

4.6.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-33 

4.6.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-34 

4.6.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-34 

4.6.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-35 

4.7 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) ....................................................... 4-36 

4.7.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-36 

4.7.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-36 

4.7.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-37 

4.7.4 Future With Project Conditions Cumulative Impacts........................................ 4-37 

4.8 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES................................... 4-38 

4.8.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-38 

4.8.2 Future With Project Conditions Direct Impacts................................................. 4-38 

4.8.3 Future With Project Conditions Indirect Impacts .............................................. 4-40 

4.8.4 Future With Project Conditions Cumulative Impacts........................................ 4-41 

4.9 HYDROLOGY RESOURCES.................................................................. 4-41 

4.9.1 Flow and Water Levels ...................................................................................... 4-41 

4.9.1.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-41 

4.9.1.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-43 

4.9.1.3 Future With Project Condition – Indirect Impacts........................... 4-43 

4.9.1.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-43 

4.9.2 Sediment ............................................................................................................ 4-44 

4.9.2.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-44 

4.9.2.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-44 

4.9.2.3 Future With Project Condition – Indirect Impacts........................... 4-45 

4.9.2.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-45 

4.10 WATER QUALITY RESOURCES ........................................................... 4-46 

4.10.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-46 

4.10.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-47 

4.10.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-47 

4.10.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-48 

4.10.5 Salinity Regimes ................................................................................................ 4-49 

4.10.5.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-49 

4.10.5.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-50 

4.10.5.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-50 

4.10.5.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-50 

4.11 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES............................................................. 4-50 

4.11.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-50 

4.11.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-51 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – vii

4.11.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-51 

4.11.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-52 

4.12 PUBLIC LANDS....................................................................................... 4-52 

4.12.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-52 

4.12.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-53 

4.12.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-53 

4.12.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-54 

4.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES INCLUDING 

NATIONAL REGISTER LISTINGS ........................................................ 4-54 

4.13.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-54 

4.13.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-55 

4.13.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-55 

4.13.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-55 

4.14 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................... 4-55 

4.14.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-55 

4.14.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-56 

4.14.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-56 

4.14.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-56 

4.15 NOISE........................................................................................................ 4-57 

4.15.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-57 

4.15.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-57 

4.15.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-58 

4.15.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-58 

4.16 AIR QUALITY.......................................................................................... 4-58 

4.16.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-58 

4.16.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-58 

4.16.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-59 

4.16.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-59 

4.17 SOCIOECONOMIC AND HUMAN RESOURCES................................ 4-60 

4.17.1 Population .......................................................................................................... 4-60

4.17.1.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-60 

4.17.1.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-60 

4.17.1.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-60 

4.17.1.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-60 

4.17.2 Infrastructure...................................................................................................... 4-60

4.17.2.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-60 

4.17.2.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-61 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – viii

4.17.2.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-61 

4.17.2.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-61 

4.17.3 Employment and Income ................................................................................... 4-62 

4.17.3.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-62 

4.17.3.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-62 

4.17.3.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-62 

4.17.3.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-63 

4.17.4 Navigation.......................................................................................................... 4-63

4.17.4.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-63 

4.17.4.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-64 

4.17.4.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-64 

4.17.4.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-64 

4.17.5 Oil, Gas and Utilities Pipelines.......................................................................... 4-64 

4.17.5.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-64 

4.17.5.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-65 

4.17.5.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-65 

4.17.5.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-65 

4.17.6 Commercial Fisheries ........................................................................................ 4-65 

4.17.6.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-65 

4.17.6.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-66 

4.17.6.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-66 

4.17.6.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-66 

4.17.7 Oyster Leases..................................................................................................... 4-67 

4.17.7.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-67 

4.17.7.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-67 

4.17.7.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-68 

4.17.7.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-68 

4.17.8 Flood Control and Hurricane Protection Levees ............................................... 4-69 

4.17.8.1 The No-Action Alternative .............................................................. 4-69 

4.17.8.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts............................ 4-69 

4.17.8.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ......................... 4-70 

4.17.8.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts................... 4-70 

4.18 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOLOGICAL WASTE (HTRW) ..... 4-71 

4.18.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-71 

4.18.2 Future With Project Conditions – Direct Impacts.............................................. 4-71 

4.18.3 Future With Project Conditions – Indirect Impacts ........................................... 4-71 

4.18.4 Future With Project Conditions – Cumulative Impacts..................................... 4-71 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – ix

CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT......................................................... 5-1 

5.1 SCOPING .................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.1 Summary of Scoping Comments ......................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 OTHER SCOPING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ..................................... 5-2 

5.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS........................................... 5-3 

CHAPTER 6 COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH 

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS .................................. 6-1 

6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE ............... 6-1 

6.1.1 Clean Water Act – Section 401 Water Quality.................................................... 6-1 

6.1.2 Clean Water Act – Section 404(b)(1) .................................................................. 6-1 

6.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 .............................................................. 6-3 

6.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report......................................................... 6-3 

6.1.5 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).............................................................. 6-4 

6.1.6 Louisiana State Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Natural 

Communities Coordination.................................................................................. 6-5 

6.1.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization of 2006 (Essential Fish 

Habitat) ................................................................................................................ 6-5 

6.1.8 Clean Air Act – Air Quality Determination......................................................... 6-5 

6.1.9 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966......................................................... 6-6 

6.1.10 Farmland Protection Policy Act........................................................................... 6-6 

6.1.11 Executive Order 13186 – Migratory Bird Habitat Protection.............................. 6-6 

6.1.12 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice................................................. 6-6 

6.1.13 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies 

Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) ........................................................................ 6-7 

6.1.14 Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species ......................................................... 6-7 

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 7-1 

7.1 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES ................ 7-1 

7.2 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 7-1 

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 7-2 

CHAPTER 8 DISTRIBUTION LIST AND OTHER ....................................... 8-1 

8.1 DISTRIBUTION LIST................................................................................ 8-1 

8.2 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................ 8-1 

8.3 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................ 8-2 

8.4 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ 8-6 

8.5 ACRONYMS............................................................................................. 8-12 

8.6 INDEX....................................................................................................... 8-15 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – x

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1.1 Change in wetland habitat in the project area 

from 1956 to 2005 (Barras, 2006)........................................................................ 1-6 

Table 2.1 Summary of Shoreline Protection Materials and Methods Considered............. 2-10 

Table 2.2 Alternative Plan Features Initially Developed................................................... 2-15 

Table 2.3 Sorting Criteria and Ratings of Features Used for Preliminary Screening........ 2-18 

Table 2.4 Measures Removed from Further Consideration............................................... 2-20 

Table 2.5 Combinations and Specifications of Wetland Creation and 

Nourishment (WC) and Shoreline Protection (ShP) Features 

Included in the Ten Alternative Plans................................................................ 2-22 

Table 2.6 Details of the Three Plan Retained for Further Analysis................................... 2-25 

Table 2.7 Comparison of Opportunities in the Project area to the No-Action 

Alternative Among Significant Resources as well as Noise and HTRW .......... 2-33 

Table 2.8 Summary of Selected Plan Features .................................................................. 2-40 

Table 2.9 Cost of Selected Plan by Project Feature........................................................... 2-50 

Table 3.1 Pre-Hurricane Katrina Habitat Types in the Project Area (Years 1956, 

1978, 1988, and 2000), as well as Post-Hurricane Katrina Vegetation 

Types in 2005 (Wicker, 1980; Barras et al., 1994; Barras et al., 2003; 

Morton et al., 2005; Barras, 2006)..................................................................... 3-10 

Table 3.2 Status, Functions of Interest, Trends, and Projections through 2050 For 

Avifauna, Furbearers, Game Mammals, and Reptiles within the Project 

Area (LCWCRTF & WCRA, 1999) .................................................................. 3-12 

Table 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Various Life Stages for Shrimp, Red 

Drum, Reef Fish, and Stone Crab 

(Personal Communication, NMFS, 2006) ......................................................... 3-14 

Table 3.4 Population Trend And Projection through 2050 for Fishery Guilds within 

the Project Area (LCWCRTF & WCRA, 1999)................................................ 3-15 

Table 3.5 Pre-Construction Percent Relative Abundance of Top Ten Most Abundant 

Fish Species Collected by Otter Trawl in Areas in and Near Lake Borgne 

Along the Current MRGO Channel Alignment, 1959-61 

(Rounsefell, 1964).............................................................................................. 3-17 

Table 3.6 Freshwater Species That Were Not Collected after the Completion of the 

MRGO Channel (Fontenot and Rogillo, 1970).................................................. 3-18 

Table 3.7 Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species in Louisiana 

(E=Endangered; T= Threatened; C=Candidate; species in bold type are 

those potentially found within the study area)................................................... 3-23 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – xi

Table 3.8 Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species & Natural Communities Tracked 

by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Orleans and St. Bernard 

Parishes - March 2007 (source: 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/naturalheritage/rarespeciesandpa

rishhabitats/)....................................................................................................... 3-25 

Table 3.9 Mean monthly pre- and post-MRGO salinity (ppt) for the period 1951 to 

1963 and 1963 to 1977 (Source: Tate et al., 2002)........................................... 3-31 

Table 3.10 Cultural Resources Sites within the Project Area.............................................. 3-35 

Table 3.11 Scenic Streams and Rivers (LSRA)................................................................... 3-37 

Table 3.12 2000 Populations at Cities and Towns Near the Project Area 

(http://www.city-data.com)................................................................................ 3-40 

Table 3.13 Utility Crossing and Owners.............................................................................. 3-42 

Table 3.14 Annual Seafood Landings at the Delacroix-Yscloskey, LA Combined Port 

(personal communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries 

Statistics Division, Silver Spring, MD) ............................................................. 3-44 

Table 3.15 Existing Oyster Leases in Project Area That Would be Acquired (at Least 

in Part) for this Project....................................................................................... 3-45 

Table 4.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 4-2 

Table 4.2 Net Acres Created, Restored, and/or Protected by Other Federal, State, 

Local, and Private Restoration Efforts (USACE, 2004).................................... 4-19 

Table 4.3 Total Acres and AAHU of Emergent Wetlands Created and Nourished 

Under the Three Alternative Plans..................................................................... 4-24 

Table 4.4 Oyster leases potentially impacted by implementing alternatives..................... 4-68 

Table 5.1 Top Five Recurring Themes in LACPR Scoping Meetings ................................ 5-3 

Table 6.1 Relevant Federal Statutory Authorities and Executive Orders 

(Note: This list is not complete or exhaustive). .................................................. 6-2 

Table 6.2 Relevant State Statutory Authorities 

(Note: this list is not complete or exhaustive) ..................................................... 6-3 
Table of Contents 

FEIS June 2009 

 TOC – xii

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.1 Project Area and Prominent Features .................................................................. 1-3 

Figure 1.2 Marsh Types in Project Area (Barras, 2006) ....................................................... 1-5 

Figure 2.1 Plan 2 Features................................................................................................... 2-27 

Figure 2.2 Plan 3 Features................................................................................................... 2-28 

Figure 2.3 Plan 10 Features................................................................................................. 2-29 

Figure 2.4 Features of the SP (Western Features)............................................................... 2-42 

Figure 2.5 Features of the SP (Eastern Features) ................................................................ 2-43 

Figure 2.6 Typical Dike Cross Section for Lake Borgne Shoreline Protection Features.... 2-45 

Figure 2.7 Typical Fish Dip Design .................................................................................... 2-46 

Figure 3.1 Intersection of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge and the MRGO 

(USACE, 2007).................................................................................................... 3-4 

Figure 3.2 Existing Shoreline Protection Measures and Disposal Areas along the 

Upper MRGO Channel ........................................................................................ 3-5 

Figure 3.3 Habitat Analysis of the Project Area from 2005 (Barras, 2006).......................... 3-8 

Figure 3.4 Habitat Analysis in Project Area for Years 1956, 1978, 1988, and 2000 

(Wicker, 1980; Barras et al., 1994; Barras et al., 2003; Morton et al., 2007)...... 3-9 

Figure 3.5 Proposed Alignment of the Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm 

Damage Risk Reduction System Structure........................................................ 3-32 

Figure 3.6 Parks and Conservation Areas near the Project Area ........................................ 3-34 

Figure 3.7 Scenic Rivers And Bayous near the Project Area.............................................. 3-39 

Figure 3.8 Utility Crossings in and near the Project Area................................................... 3-43 

Figure 3.9 Active Oyster Leases in and near the Project Area............................................ 3-46 

Figure 3.10 Flood Protection Features near the Project Area ............................................... 3-47 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Biological Assessment 

Appendix B U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Letter 

Appendix C NOAA Fisheries Service Coordination Letter 

Appendix D 404(b)(1) Water Quality Report 

Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

Appendix F U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Act Report 

Appendix G State Historic Preservation Officer Coordination Letter

Appendix H Responses to Comments