Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection

FEIS June 2009 

 

APPENDIX A 

Biological Assessment 

Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 1

APPENDIX A 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA, AND LAKE BORGNE WETLAND 

CREATION AND SHORELINE PROTECTION 

1.0 PURPOSE 

Consistent with Congressional direction provided in the Fourth Emergency Appropriations Act 

(P.L. 109-234), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New Orleans District (CEMVN) 

proposes to repair, construct or provide measures or structures necessary to protect, restore or 

increase wetlands, to prevent saltwater intrusion or storm surge in the Mississippi River-Gulf 

Outlet (MRGO) area. The purpose of this biological assessment (BA) is to evaluate the potential 

impacts of the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) described in the draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) for the Mississippi River - Gulf Outlet (MRGO), Louisiana, and Lake Borgne 

– Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection project, on Federally-listed threatened and 

endangered species, and their critical habitat. The TSP includes features of wetland creation and 

nourishment and shoreline protection to the critical land bridge between Lake Borgne and the 

MRGO. This BA provides information to decision-makers to make determinations on whether 

to proceed with the construction of the TSP. 

2.0 LOCATIONS AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

OF THE PROJECT AREA 

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

New Orleans in Orleans and St. Bernard parishes. The project area is comprised of the MRGO 

and Lake Borgne land bridge and the southern portion of Lake Borgne (figure 1). The area is 

encompassed by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) along the northwest, a line through 

Lake Borgne from Bayou Thomas in the northern corner to near Bayou St. Malo and Jahncke’s 

ditch to the east, thence to the south bank of the MRGO, which comprises the southwestern 

boundary of the project area. The area encompasses brackish marsh in the western portion and 

saline and brackish marshes in the eastern portion. The land bridge area between the confluence 

of the MRGO channel and the GIWW and Lake Borgne in the northwest corner of the project 

area is commonly referred to as the “Golden Triangle,” and this term will be used throughout this 

report to refer to the marshes in that area. 

The CEMVN considered wetland creation and nourishment, and shoreline protection, at the land 

bridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO channel based on several factors. Restoration of 

the land bridge is considered by the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Restoration Plan (USACE, 

2004) to be one of five near-term critical restoration features for coastal Louisiana. The Lake 

Borgne estuarine complex is deteriorating at an accelerated rate. Rapid action is required to 

protect the integrity of the southern Lake Borgne shoreline and prevent the continued 

degradation of the land bridge separating Lake Borgne from the MRGO. In addition, the coastal 

features in the estuaries east of New Orleans provide a natural buffer against storm surges. 

These wetlands also produce valuable ecological outputs resulting in commercial and 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 2

recreational activities related to fisheries and wildlife resources. The complex system of 

waterways connecting the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Borgne, the MRGO, the Industrial Canal, and 

Lake Pontchartrain form an important sector of Louisiana’s working wetlands. The project area 

also provides essential fish habitat (EFH); critical habitat for Federally-listed endangered and 

threatened fish and wildlife; public conservation lands; energy production and transportation 

corridors; and commercially important maritime transportation routes. 

Figure A.1 Project Area 

3.0 PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action would create and nourish wetlands and provide shoreline protection along 

Lake Borgne thereby preserving the integrity of the Lake Borgne and MRGO land bridge 

(Figure 2). The proposed action would also contribute to the overall goals of hurricane 

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

reduction goals. The proposed action would create and nourish approximately 2,650 acres 

(1,074 ha) of brackish marsh in the Golden Triangle area and approximately 695 acres (282 ha) 

of saline marsh at previously designated beneficial use of dredged material sites in the Shell 

Beach area. The proposed action would also provide protection of the Lake Borgne shoreline at 

the following locations: approximately 16,230 linear feet (lf) (4,947 m) from Bayou Bienvenue 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 3

to the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) PO-30 project; 

approximately 17,650 lf (5,379 m) near Bayou Dupre; and approximately 15,400 lf (4,694 m) 

west of Shell Beach. 

Detailed description of the proposed action can be found in Chapter 2 of the DEIS; historic and 

existing conditions are discussed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS; and future without conditions, direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts of the recommended plan are discussed in Chapter 4 of 

the DEIS. 

Figure A.2 Map of Tentatively Selected Plan Features 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 4

Table A.1 Features of the Tentatively Selected Plan 

Plan 10 (TSP) Features Acres 

Created 

Acres 

Nourished Total Acres Net Acres AAHUs 

Golden Triangle WC 1,250 ac 1,400 ac 2,650 ac 1,495 ac 856 

Shell Beach WC 425 ac 270 ac 695 ac 397 ac 256 

Total Wetland Creation: 1,675 1,670 3,345 ac 1,892 ac 1,112 

Length (ft) Erosion Rate Total protected Net Acres AAHUs 

B. Bienvenue Vicinity SP (Reach 

A) 16,230 10 ft/yr 186 ac 96 ac 28 

B. Dupre Vicinity SP (Reach B) 17,650 7 ft/yr 142 ac 73 ac 21 

West of Shell Beach SP (Reach C) 15,400 11 ft/yr 194 ac 101 ac 28 

Totals: 49,280 3,867 ac 2,162 ac 1,189 

4.0 SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS 

Seventeen endangered or threatened species have been identified which may occur within the 

boundaries of the project area. However, the proposed activities would not be located within 

suitable habitat for most of those species. Suitable habitats for bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), brown belican (Pelecanus occidentalis), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), 

pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), 

gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus), 

Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis), red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Picoides borealis), 

and ringed sawback turtle (Graptemys oculifera) would be located outside the region of 

influence for the proposed action. Therefore, detailed species descriptions for those species are 

not included in this BA. The proposed action would potentially impact the Gulf sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) and sea turtles. 

Descriptions of these species follow. 

Two Federally endangered or threatened avian species occur or may occur in the project area: 

the brown pelican and the piping plover. The endangered brown pelican, completely extirpated 

from Louisiana by the 1960s (source: http://www.lacoast.gov/articles/bps/2/index.htm), now 

commonly feeds in adjacent shallow estuarine waters, using sand spits and offshore sand bars as 

resting and roosting areas. Brown pelicans commonly breed on Breton Island, which is outside 

of the project area. They also forage in the waters of Breton and Chandeleur Sounds, and Lake 

Borgne. Major threats to this species include chemical pollutants, colony site erosion, disease, 

and human disturbance. 

Brown pelicans may forage and/or roost within or in proximity to the proposed project areas; no 

nest sites are located in proximity to the proposed project areas. Potential effects to that species 

would be limited to temporary displacement during project construction. An abundance of 

suitable foraging and roosting habitat exists in proximity to the proposed project areas, and 

pelicans would not be permanently excluded from utilizing the area. Accordingly, the proposed 

activities are not likely to adversely affect the brown pelican (personal communication, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2008). 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 5

Piping plovers (including the threatened [Great Plains] and endangered [Great Lakes] 

populations) winter on barrier islands along the Gulf coast, including Louisiana. The most recent 

(January-February 2001) survey coordinated by the USFWS recorded no piping plovers at the 

mouth of the channel (personal communication, USFWS, 2006). The species may occasionally 

use exposed flats in the area, especially around the Chandeleur and Breton islands, but are 

unlikely to utilize habitats in the project area. Wintering plovers feed by probing for 

invertebrates at or just below the surface on exposed wet sand in wash zones; intertidal ocean 

beach; wrack lines; washover passes; mud-, sand-, and algal-flats; and shorelines of streams, 

ephemeral ponds, lagoons, and salt marshes. Beaches adjacent to foraging areas are used for 

roosting and preening. Small sand dunes, debris, and sparse vegetation within these adjacent 

beaches provide shelter from wind and extreme temperatures (source: 

http://www.fws.gov/plover/facts.html). Major threats to this species include: loss and 

degradation to breeding habitat, disturbance of breeding plovers by humans and pets, nonmotorized beach activities, motor vehicles, beach cleaning, predation, winter habitat loss, severe 

cold weather and storms, hurricanes, and oil spills and other contaminants (source: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingplover/recplan/threats.html). 

Although the piping plover may occasionally forage and/or roost on exposed flats in and around 

the proposed project areas, no such habitat would be affected by the proposed activities. Should 

any piping plovers be found in the area during construction, they would be temporarily displaced 

to nearby suitable habitat and would not be permanently excluded from the project areas. In 

addition, no piping plover designated critical habitat exists within the proposed project areas. 

Accordingly, the proposed activities are not likely to adversely affect the piping plover (personal 

communication, USFWS, 2008). 

Bald eagle, sea turtles, and West Indian manatee could potentially be found in the project area. 

Nevertheless, the features of the TSP would not adversely impact their critical habitat. Bald 

eagle were removed from the endangered species list in 2007, but are currently undergoing five 

years of monitoring to confirm their status. No nesting sites for bald eagle are available in the 

project area. Sea turtles and manatee are rare transient foragers in Lake Borgne. Lake Borgne 

does not encompass critical habitat for these species. 

A total of 28 cetaceans have been reported in the Gulf of Mexico waters (Davis et al., 2002, see 

http://www.fws.gov). Of these, five Mysticeti [e.g., baleen whales including blue whale 

(Balaneoptera musculus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), finback whale 

(Balaenoptera physalus) and sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis); and Odontoceiti (e.g., toothed 

whales, including sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)] have been reported in the Gulf of 

Mexico and all are listed as endangered species. Generally, infrequent historical sightings and 

strandings in the Gulf of Mexico of these endangered cetaceans suggest that most of these 

species are rare, accidental, or uncommon. All whales are principally marine deepwater species 

and would not likely be impacted by the proposed action. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 6

4.1 FISH 

4.1.1 Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

Status 

On September 30, 1991, the Gulf sturgeon was listed as a threatened species under the ESA, and 

the USFWS designated critical habitat for this species throughout its range on February 28, 2003. 

In Louisiana, Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes the Pearl River System in Washington and 

St. Tammany Parishes, the Bogue Chitto River, as well as Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Borgne, 

Lake Catherine, and the Rigolets. 

Species and Habitat Description 

The Gulf sturgeon, also known as the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, is an anadromous fish (i.e. a fish 

that breeds in freshwater after migrating from marine or estuarine environments). The Gulf 

sturgeon inhabits coastal rivers from Louisiana to Florida during spring and summer, and the 

estuaries, bays, and marine environments of the Gulf of Mexico during fall and winter. It is a 

nearly cylindrical, primitive fish embedded with bony plates or scutes. The head ends in a hard, 

extended snout; the mouth is inferior and protrusible and is preceded by four conspicuous 

barbels. The tail (caudal fin) is distinctly asymmetrical; the upper lobe is longer than the lower 

lobe (heterocercal). Adults range from 4 to 8 feet (1.2 to 2.4 meters) in length, with adult 

females larger than adult males. 

Gulf sturgeon are long-lived, with some individuals reaching at least 42 years of age (Huff, 

1975). Age at sexual maturity for females ranges from 8 to 17 years, and for males from 7 to 21 

years (Huff, 1975). In the spring (from late February to mid-April) when the river surface 

temperatures are 63 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) (17 to 21 degrees Celsius [oC]), sexually 

mature, males and females migrate into rivers to spawn (Carr, Tatman, and Chapman, 1996). It 

is believed that Gulf sturgeon exhibit a spawning periodicity similar to Atlantic sturgeon, with 

females spawning at intervals ranging from every 3 to 5 years, and males every 1 to 5 years 

(Smith, 1985, see http://www.fws.gov). 

Gulf sturgeon eggs are demersal (i.e. they sink to the bottom), adhesive, and vary in color from 

gray to brown to black (Vladykov and Greeley, 1963; Huff, 1975; Parauka et al., 1991). 

Sturgeon require hard substrates for eggs to adhere to and to provide shelter for developing 

larvae (Sulak and Clugston, 1998, see http://www.fws.gov). Egg collection sites have consisted 

of limestone bluffs and outcroppings, cobble, limestone bedrock covered with gravel, and small 

cobble, gravel, and sand (Marchant and Shutters, 1996, see http://www.fws.gov; Sulak and 

Clugston, 1999, see http://www.fws.gov; Heise et al., 1999a, see http://www.fws.gov; Fox et al., 

2000, see http://www.fws.gov; Craft et al., 2001, see http://www.fws.gov). Water depths at egg 

collection sites ranged between 4.6 to 26 ft (1.4 to 7.9 m), and temperatures ranged around 64.8 

to 75.0o

F (18.2 to 23.9oC) (Fox et al., 2000; Ross et al., 2000; Craft et al., 2001). Laboratory 

experiments indicate that optimal water temperature for survival of Gulf sturgeon larvae is 

between 59 and 68o

F (15 and 20oC), with low tolerance to temperatures above 77oF (25oC) 

(Chapman and Carr, 1995, see http://www.fws.gov). Young-of-the-year Gulf sturgeon appear to 

disperse widely, using extensive portions of the river as nursery habitat. They are typically 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 7

found on sandbars and sand shoals over rippled bottom and in shallow, relatively open, 

unstructured areas. 

Gulf sturgeon feeding habits in freshwater vary depending on the fish’s life history stage. 

Young-of-the-year Gulf sturgeon remain in freshwater feeding on aquatic invertebrates and 

detritus approximately 10 to 12 months after spawning occurs (Mason and Clugston, 1993; Sulak 

and Clugston, 1999, see http://www.fws.gov). Juveniles less than 11 lbs (5 kg) are believed to 

forage extensively and exploit scarce food resources throughout the river, including aquatic 

insects (e.g., mayflies and caddis flies), worms (oligochaetes), and bivalve mollusks (Huff, 1975; 

Mason and Clugston, 1993). Subadults (age 6 to sexual maturity) and adults (sexually mature) 

only feed in marine and estuarine habitats and are thought to forage opportunistically (Huff, 

1975) on primarily benthic (bottom dwelling) invertebrates. Gut content analyses have indicated 

that, at this life stage, the Gulf sturgeon’s diet is predominantly amphipods, lancelets, 

polychaetes, gastropods, shrimp, isopods, mollusks, and crustaceans (Huff, 1975; Mason and 

Clugston, 1993; Carr, Tatman, and Chapman, 1996b, see http://www.fws.gov; Fox et al., 2000, 

see http://www.fws.gov; Fox et al., 2002, see http://www.fws.gov). 

Gulf sturgeon are believed to be indiscriminate benthic suctorial feeders (Gilbert, 1989). 

Summaries of food habits data (Huff, 1975; Mason and Clugston, 1993, USFWS/GSMFC, 1995; 

Wakeford, 2001; Fox et al., 2002; and Harris, 2003) indicate that this species feeds on a wide 

variety of benthic prey. Examining the stomach contents of fish from the Suwannee River 

estuary, Mason and Clugston (1993) found the predominant prey of subadults to be brackish 

water amphipods (Gammarus sp. and haustorid amphipods), corophoiid amphipods (e.g., 

Cerapus sp. and Corophium tuberculatum), chironomid and ceratopogonid fly larvae, grass 

shrimp (Palaemonetes spp.), and mysid shrimp. Polychaetes and tubificid oligochaetes were 

also plentiful in the diet. Subadults fed on grass shrimp and the callianassid shrimp 

Lepidophthalmus louisianensis. Fish immigrating from offshore had lancelets (Branchiostoma 

caribaeum), brachiopods (Glottidia pyramidata), shrimp, polychaetes, molluscs, starfish and sea 

cucumbers in the stomachs. Also working in the Suwannee River estuary, Harris (2003) 

indicated that brachiopods were particularly important in the diet of gulf sturgeon although 

amphipods (Ampelisca spp.) and brittlestars (ophiouroids) were also frequent prey items. Based 

on these reports, especially those emphasizing the importance of brachiopods, lancelets, 

haustorid amphipods and the callianassid L. louisianensis, it would appear that sturgeon favor 

sandy bottomed areas for feeding. 

When river temperatures drop in the fall to about 63 to 72o

F (17 to 22oC), Gulf sturgeon return to 

the coastal shelf areas of the Gulf of Mexico (Carr, Tatman, and Chapman, 1996, see 

http://www.fws.gov). Most subadult and adult Gulf sturgeon spend the cooler months (October 

or November through March or April) in estuarine areas, bays, or the Gulf of Mexico feeding 

(Odenkirk, 1989; Foster, 1993; Clugston et al., 1995; Fox et al., 2002, see http://www.fws.gov). 

Winter habitats used by Gulf sturgeon coincide with the habitats of their prey. Along the 

Mississippi Sound barrier islands, Gulf sturgeon habitat typically consists of sandy substrates 

with an average depth of 6.2 to 19.4 ft (1.9 to 5.9 m). Gulf of Mexico near shore (less than 1 mi 

[1.6 km]) unconsolidated, fine-medium grain sand habitats, including natural inlets and passes 

from the Gulf to estuaries, support crustaceans such as mole crabs, sand fleas, various amphipod 

species, and lancelets (Menzel, 1971, see http://www.fws.gov; Abele and Kim, 1986, see 

http://www.fws.gov; American Fisheries Society, 1989, see http://www.fws.gov; Brim personal 

communication, 2002) where Gulf sturgeon are found. Estuary and bay unvegetated habitats 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 8

have a preponderance of sandy substrates that support burrowing crustaceans, such as ghost 

shrimp, small crabs, various polychaete worms, and small bivalve mollusks (Menzel, 1971, see 

http://www.fws.gov; Abele and Kim, 1986, see http://www.fws.gov; American Fisheries Society, 

1989, see http://www.fws.gov) which are prey for Gulf sturgeon. Bony fish are seldom 

consumed. Detritus, both inorganic and organic, is consumed incidentally by Gulf sturgeon of 

all sizes as they feed on various prey (Mason et al., 1993, in USACE, 2006). Non-spawning 

sturgeon appear to feed longer in the estuaries and bays prior to moving into the rivers than 

spawning adults (Fox et al., 2000, in USACE, 2006). 

Range and Population Dynamics 

Historically, the Gulf sturgeon occurred from the Mississippi River east to Tampa Bay. Its 

present range extends from Lake Pontchartrain and the Pearl River system in Louisiana and 

Mississippi, east to the Suwannee River in Florida, with infrequent sightings occurring west of 

the Mississippi River. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the Gulf sturgeon 

supported an important commercial fishery, providing eggs for caviar, flesh for smoked fish, and 

swim bladders for isinglass, a gelatin used in food products and glues (Huff, 1975; Carr, 1983). 

Gulf sturgeon numbers declined due to over fishing throughout most of the 20th century. After 

1950, the decline was exacerbated by habitat loss associated with the construction of water 

control structures, such as dams and sills (submerged ridges or vertical walls of relatively 

shallow depth separating two bodies of water). In several rivers throughout the species’ range, 

dams have severely restricted sturgeon access to historic migration routes and spawning areas 

(Boschung, 1976; Wooley and Crateau, 1985; McDowall, 1988). Gulf sturgeon exhibit a high 

degree of fidelity, with over 99 percent returning to spawn in the same river system in which 

they were hatched (USACE, 2006). 

The majority of recent Gulf sturgeon sightings in the Pearl River drainage have occurred 

downstream of the Pools Bluff Sill near Bogalusa, Louisiana, and downstream of the Bogue 

Chitto Sill on the Bogue Chitto River in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Between 1992 and 

1996, 257 Gulf sturgeon were captured from the Pearl River system (West Middle River, Bogue 

Chitto River, East Pearl River, and West Pearl River). The subpopulation in that system was 

estimated at 292 fish, of which only 2 to 3 percent were adults (Morrow et al., 1998b, see 

http://www.fws.gov). The annual mortality rate was calculated to be 25 percent. 

Preliminary results from captures between 1992 and 2001 suggest a stable subpopulation of 

430 fish, with approximately 300 adults (Rogillio et al., 2002, see http://www.fws.gov). 

Morrow et al. (1999 see http://www.fws.gov) suggested that the Pearl River Gulf sturgeon 

population would be self-sustaining if the number of adults was at least 100, recruitment was 

satisfactory, and annual mortality was less than about 15 percent. Based on those criteria and 

from data gathered during 2000 and 2001, it appears that the population is at least self-sustaining 

and may even be recovering. There may be as many as 300 adults. While mortality estimates 

may be somewhat biased, the rate is probably about half of the 15 percent deemed to be a 

minimum acceptable benchmark. 

Management and Protection 

Life history characteristics of Gulf sturgeon may complicate and protract recovery efforts. Gulf 

sturgeon cannot establish a breeding population rapidly because of the amount of time it takes 

them to reach sexual maturity. Further, Gulf sturgeon appear to be river-specific spawners, 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 9

although immature Gulf sturgeon occasionally exhibit plasticity in movement from one river to 

another. Therefore, natural repopulation by Gulf sturgeon migrating from other rivers may be 

non-existent or very low. 

The take of Gulf sturgeon is prohibited in the state waters of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 

and Florida. Section 6(a) of the ESA provides for extended cooperation with states for the 

purpose of conserving threatened and endangered species. Under that provision, the 

Departments of the Interior and Commerce may enter into cooperative agreements with a state, 

provided that state has an established program for the conservation of a listed species. The 

agreements authorize the states to implement the authorities and actions of the ESA relative to 

the listed species recovery. Specifically, the states are authorized: 1) to conduct investigations to 

determine the status and requirements for survival of resident species of fish and wildlife (this 

may include candidate species for listing), and 2) to establish programs, including acquisition of 

land or aquatic habitat or interests for the conservation of fish and wildlife. Federal funding is 

also provided to states under those agreements to implement the approved programs. All four of 

the above mentioned states have entered into Section 6 agreements with the USFWS. 

4.2 MAMMALS 

4.2.1 West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) 

Status 

The West Indian manatee was listed as endangered throughout its range for both the Florida and 

Antillean subspecies in 1967, and received Federal protection with the passage of the ESA in 

1973. Critical habitat was designated in 1976, 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2003 for the Florida 

subspecies. 

Species and Habitat Description 

The West Indian manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average 

approximately 10 feet (3 m) in length and weigh up to 2,200 pounds (999 kg). They have no 

hind limbs, and their forelimbs are modified as flippers. Manatee tails are flattened horizontally 

and rounded. Their body is covered with sparse hairs and their muzzles with stiff whiskers 

(USFWS, 2001c). The nostrils, located on the upper snout, open and close by means of muscular 

valves as the animal surfaces and dives (Husar, 1977; Hartman, 1979). Manatees will consume 

any aquatic vegetation (i.e., submerged, floating, and emergent) available to them and sometimes 

even shoreline vegetation. Although primarily herbivorous, they will occasionally feed on fish. 

Manatees may spend about five hours a day feeding, and may consume four to nine percent of 

their body weight per day. 

Observations of mating herds indicate that females mate with a number of males during their 2- 

to 4-week estrus period, and then they go through a pregnancy estimated to last 12 to 14 months 

(O’Shea et al., 1992). Births occur during all months of the year with a slight drop during winter 

months. Manatee cows usually bear a single calf, but 1.5 percent of births are twins. Calves 

reach sexual maturity at three to six years of age. Mature females may give birth every two to 

five years (USFWS, 2001c). 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 10

Manatees inhabit both salt and freshwater of sufficient depth (5 feet [1.5 m] to usually less than 

20 feet [6.1 m]) throughout their range. Shallow grassbeds with ready access to deep channels 

are preferred feeding areas in coastal and riverine habitats (USFWS, 2001c). They may also be 

encountered in canals, rivers, estuarine habitats, saltwater bays, and have been observed as much 

as 3.7 miles (6.0 km) off the Florida Gulf Coast. Between October and April, Florida manatees 

concentrate in areas of warmer water. Severe cold fronts have been known to kill manatees 

when the animals did not have access to warm water refuges. During warmer months they 

appear to choose areas based on an adequate food supply, water depth, and proximity to fresh 

water. Manatees may not need fresh water, but they are frequently observed drinking water from 

hoses, sewage outfalls, and culverts. 

Range and Population Dynamics 

During winter months, the United States’ manatee population confines itself to the coastal waters 

of the southern half of peninsular Florida and to springs and warm water outfalls as far north as 

southeast Georgia. Power plant and paper mill outfalls create most of the artificial warm water 

refuges utilized by manatees. During summer months, they migrate as far north as coastal 

Virginia on the east coast and the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico. 

During summer months, manatees disperse from winter aggregation areas, and are commonly 

found almost anywhere in Florida where water depths and access channels are greater than 3.3 to 

6.6 feet (1.0 to 2.0 m) (O’Shea, 1988). In the warmer months, manatees usually occur alone or 

in pairs, although interacting groups of five to ten animals are not unusual (USFWS 2001c). 

In the early 1980s, scientists tried to develop procedures for estimating the overall manatee 

population in the southeastern United States (USFWS, 2001c). The best estimate throughout the 

State of Florida was 1,200 manatees (Reynolds and Wilcox, 1987). In the early 1990s, the State 

of Florida initiated a statewide aerial survey in potential winter habitats during periods of severe 

cold weather (Ackerman, 1995), and the highest count of 3,276 manatees was recorded in 

January 2001. 

Management and Protection 

The most significant problem faced by manatees in Florida is death or injury from boat strikes 

(USFWS, 2001c). Minimum flows and levels for warm water refuges need to be established to 

ensure their long-term availability for manatees. Their survival will depend on maintaining the 

ecosystems and habitat sufficient to support a viable manatee population (USFWS, 2001c). The 

focus of recovery is on implementing, monitoring, and addressing the effectiveness of 

conservation measures to reduce or remove threats that will lead to a healthy and self-sustaining 

population (USFWS, 2001c). 

The West Indian manatee is also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 

of 1972. The MMPA establishes a national policy for the maintenance of health and stability of 

marine ecosystems and for obtaining and maintaining optimum sustainable populations of 

marine mammals. It includes a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals. The recovery 

planning under the ESA includes conservation planning under the MMPA (USFWS, 2001c). 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 11

4.3 REPTILES 

4.3.1 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Status 

The green sea turtle was listed as endangered/threatened on July 28, 1978. The breeding 

populations off Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico are listed as endangered while all others 

are threatened (USFWS, 1991; National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/). This species' current status in Louisiana is unknown (USFWS, 1990b). 

Species and Habitat Description 

Although green sea turtles are found worldwide in oceans and gulfs with water temperatures 

greater than 68°F (20°C), their distribution can be correlated to grassbed distribution, location of 

nesting beaches, and associated ocean currents (Hirth, 1971). Long migrations are often made 

between feeding and nesting grounds (Carr and Hirth, 1962). Within Louisiana waters, these 

turtles probably occur all along the coast and may nest on the Chandeleur Islands (Dundee and 

Rossman, 1989). Population decline has been attributed to heavy fishing pressure and human 

nest predation (Dundee and Rossman, 1989). Historically, green sea turtles were fished off the 

Louisiana coast (Rebel, 1974); exploitation and incidental drowning in shrimp trawls has 

contributed to the decline of this species and its eventual listing (King 1981). During their first 

year of life, green sea turtles are primarily carnivorous, feeding mainly on invertebrates. As 

adults they feed almost exclusively on seagrasses growing in shallow water flats (Fritts et al., 

1983), but also feed on invertebrates and carrion (Dundee and Rossman, 1989). 

Green sea turtles feed in shallow water areas with abundant seagrasses or algae. The turtles 

migrate from nesting areas to feeding grounds, which are sometimes several thousand miles 

away. Most turtles migrate along the coasts, but some populations are known to migrate across 

the ocean from nesting area to feeding grounds. The major nesting beaches are always found in 

places where the seawater temperature is greater than 77°F (25°C). As a species that migrates 

long distances, these turtles face special problems associated with differing attitudes toward 

conservation in different countries. 

Range and Population Dynamics 

In the southeastern United States, green sea turtles are found around the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

Puerto Rico, and the continental U.S. from Texas to Massachusetts. Important feeding grounds 

in Florida include Indian River Lagoon, the Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Homosassa, Crystal 

River and Cedar Key. The primary nesting sites in U.S. Atlantic waters are along the east coast 

of Florida, with additional sites in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. 

Green sea turtles are also found throughout the North Pacific, ranging as far north as Eliza 

Harbor, Admiralty Island, Alaska, and Ucluelet, British Columbia. In the eastern North Pacific, 

green sea turtles have been sighted from Baja California to southern Alaska. In the central 

Pacific, green sea turtles can be found at most tropical islands. In U.S. Hawaiian waters, green 

sea turtles are found around most of the islands in the Hawaiian Archipelago. The primary 

nesting site is at French Frigate Shoals 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/green.html). 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 12

Females deposit up to seven clutches, and the number of nests has been estimated to be between 

350 to 2,300 nests annually. Green sea turtles nest at two-, three-, or four-year intervals. This 

nesting activity indicates a population of less than 1,000 females in the breeding population of 

Florida and Mexico. 

Management and Protection 

Recovery plan objectives consider the delisting of green sea turtles if, over a period of 25 years, 

the following conditions are met: 1) the level of nesting in Florida has increased to an average of 

5,000 nests per year for at least 6 years (nesting data must be based on standardized surveys), 2) 

at least 25 percent (41 mi2

/105 km2) of all available nesting beaches (162 mi2/420 km2) is in 

public ownership and encompasses at least 50 percent of the nesting activity, and 3) a reduction 

in age class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on foraging grounds. The 1995 

Biological Assessment lists degradation of foraging grounds as one of the impediments to 

population recovery. There is evidence that supports foraging site as well as nesting site fidelity 

by green sea turtles (Renaud, 1995). The recovery plans include prevention of marine pollution 

of green sea turtle habitat and protection of the nesting sites. 

4.3.2 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Status 

The hawksbill was listed as an endangered species in June 1970 (USFWS, 1991) and its current 

status in Louisiana is unknown (USFWS, 1990). 

Species and Habitat Description 

Only one record of a hawksbill in Louisiana has been reported (Fuller and Tappen, 1986). This 

species is an omnivore, feeding primarily on invertebrates and marine vegetation (Dundee and 

Rossman, 1989). Hawksbill turtles are observed regularly in Florida and Texas. Florida is 

considered foraging habitat for those turtles, and Texas may be foraging habitat for hatchlings 

and juveniles (77 observations of small turtles were reported between 1972 and 1984) from the 

nesting sites in Mexico (NMFS and USFWS, 1993). 

Range and Population Dynamics 

The hawksbill occurs in tropical and subtropical seas of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. 

The species is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean, with 

representatives of at least some life history stages regularly occurring in southern Florida and the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (especially Texas); in the Greater and Lesser Antilles; and along the 

Central American mainland south to Brazil. Within the United States, hawksbills are most 

common in Puerto Rico and its associated islands, and in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the 

continental U.S., the species is recorded from all the Gulf of Mexico states and from along the 

eastern seaboard as far north as Massachusetts, but sightings north of Florida are rare. 

Hawksbills are observed in Florida with some regularity on the reefs off Palm Beach County and 

in the Florida Keys. Texas is the only other state where hawksbills are sighted with any 

regularity. Most sightings involve post hatchlings and juveniles, which are believed to originate 

from nesting beaches in Mexico. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 13

Nesting within the southeastern United States occurs principally in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. Within the continental United States, nesting is restricted to the southeast coast 

of Florida and the Florida Keys. 

Hawksbill turtles nest at low densities in aggregations of one to one hundred adults; in contrast, 

other sea turtles have concentrated nesting sites and aggregations of thousands of adults. The 

Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico is the most concentrated nesting site, where approximately 178 to 

222 adult females nest each year (NMFS and USFWS, 1993). Most of the countries in the 

Caribbean report less than 100 females nesting annually; less than two nests annually have been 

observed in Florida (NMFS and USFWS, 1993) and Texas (htpp://www.noaa.gov). 

Management and Protection 

Recovery criteria are directed at nesting beaches with U.S. jurisdiction in the Caribbean Sea, 

including Mona Island, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The hawksbill turtle can be delisted 

if the adult female population has an increasing trend over 25 years, as evidenced by increases in 

annual number of nests at five index beaches, including Mona Island. Numbers of turtles of all 

classes must show an increasing trend on at least five key foraging areas within Puerto Rico, the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, and Florida to meet recovery criteria. Actions needed to achieve recovery 

include long-term protection of foraging habitat and nesting beaches, and reduction of illegal 

exploitation (NMFS and USFWS, 1993). 

4.3.3 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 

Status 

On December 2, 1970 the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle was designated as endangered across its 

entire range (USFWS, 1991) and has continued to decline in Louisiana (USFWS, 1990). 

Species and Habitat Description 

This small sea turtle is believed to be the most frequently encountered (Dundee and Rossman, 

1989), if not the most abundant sea turtle, off the Louisiana coast (Viosca, 1961). Predation on 

eggs by humans, other mammals, birds, and crabs, in addition to the capture of diurnal nesting 

females has contributed to the decline of the Kemp’s Ridley. Recent causes of mortality are 

fishing activities and accidental capture in shrimp trawls (Fuller, 1978; Pritchard and Marquez, 

1973). These sea turtles are commonly captured by shrimpers off the Texas coast, as well as in 

heavily trawled areas off the coasts and in the bays of Louisiana and Alabama (Dundee and 

Rossman, 1989; Carr, 1980; Pritchard and Marquez, 1973). Inshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

appear to be important habitat for Kemp’s Ridleys, as they tend to concentrate around the mouths 

of major rivers (Frazier, 1980). Members of this genus are characteristically found in waters of 

low salinity and high turbidity and organic content, where shrimp are abundant (Hughes, 1972, 

as cited in Frazier, 1980; Zwinenberg, 1977). Kemp’s Ridleys have been collected in Louisiana 

from Lake Borgne, Barataria and Terrebonne Bays, and near Calcasieu Pass (Dundee and 

Rossman, 1989). Occurrence of these sea turtles in bays and estuaries along the Louisiana coast 

would not be unexpected, as many of their primary food items occur there. Stomach analyses of 

specimens collected in shrimp trawls off Louisiana revealed crabs, gastropods, and clams (Dobie 

et al., 1961). Although Kemp’s Ridleys are considered primarily carnivorous benthic feeders 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 14

(Ernst and Barbour, 1972), jellyfish as well as by-catch from shrimp trawlers have been reported 

as part of their diet (Landry, 1986). 

Trends in Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle populations in the Gulf of Mexico are identified through 

monitoring of their most accessible life stages on the nesting beaches, where hatchling 

production and the status of adult females can be directly measured. Most Kemp's Ridley 

nesting occurs on a single beach at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, about 30 kilometers south of the Rio 

Grande, with sporadic nesting along the Texas coast. Protection and monitoring by Mexico and 

the United States has occurred on that nesting beach since 1978. Nest production plummeted to 

only 742 nests in 1985, but has been steadily increasing since that time. Over 1,500 nests were 

observed during the 1994 nesting season. The latest data available show that the number of nests 

increased during 1994 through 2000; in 2000, 5,751 nests were observed. The possibility of 

Kemp’s Ridley nesting on the Louisiana coast has been suggested (Viosca, 1961), but no 

documentation exists. 

Range and Population Dynamics 

The known range of this species includes the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. The 

current range for Kemp’s Ridley in the United States includes marine habitat of the following 

coastal states: Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. 

Management and Protection 

The Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS, 1992) identified a 

recovery criterion of 10,000 nesting females in one season as a prerequisite for downlisting to 

threatened status. Considering that 58 percent of all adult females appear to nest in any given 

year, and each female lays an estimated 2.7 nests, the 5,751 nests documented in the year 2000 

represent approximately 3,700 adult female Kemp's Ridleys in the entire population; that is about 

one third of the amount included in the downlisting criteria identified in the Recovery Plan. 

Continued protection of all life stages of the Kemp's Ridley is necessary to increase recruitment 

to the reproducing population and insure recovery of the species. 

4.3.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

Status 

The leatherback sea turtle was listed as an endangered species throughout its range in June 1970 

(USFWS, 199l). 

Species and Habitat Description 

The leatherback is the largest living turtle, and is so distinctive as to be placed in a separate 

taxonomic family, Dermochelyidae. The carapace is distinguished by a rubber-like texture, 

about 1.5 in (4 cm) thick, and made primarily of tough, oil-saturated connective tissue. No sharp 

angle is formed between the carapace and the plastron, resulting in the animal being somewhat 

barrel-shaped. The average curved carapace length for adult turtles is 5 ft (155 cm) and weight 

ranges from 440 to 1,543 lbs (200 to 700 kg). Hatchlings are dorsally mostly black and are 

covered with tiny scales; the flippers are margined in white, and rows of white scales appear as 

stripes along the length of the back. Hatchlings average 2.4 in (61.3 mm) long and 0.1 lbs 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 15

(45.8 g) in weight. In the adult, the skin is black and scaleless. The undersurface is mottled 

pinkish-white and black. The front flippers are proportionally longer than in any other sea turtle, 

and may span 8.9 ft (270 cm) in an adult. In both adults and hatchlings, the upper jaw bears two 

tooth-like projections at the premaxillary-maxillary sutures. Age at sexual maturity is unknown 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/leatherback.html). 

The leatherback sea turtle occurs mostly in continental shelf waters, but will occasionally enter 

shallow waters and estuaries. Adults are highly migratory, and are believed to be the most 

pelagic of all sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 1992). Habitat requirements for juvenile and posthatchling leatherbacks are unknown. 

Leatherback turtles are omnivorous but feed primarily on jellyfish and other cnidarians, and have 

been associated with large schools of cabbage head jellyfish (Stomolophus meleagris). Fritts 

et al. (1983) reported that these turtles also ingest plastic, apparently mistaking it for food. 

Range and Population Dynamics 

The leatherback is found throughout the tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian 

Oceans (Ernst and Barbour, 1972), the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean (Carr, 1952). Critical 

habitat for the leatherback includes the waters adjacent to Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, up to and inclusive of the waters from the hundred fathom curve shoreward to the level 

of mean high tide with boundaries at 17°42'12" N and 64°50'00" W. This turtle exhibits seasonal 

fluctuations in distribution in response to the Gulf Stream and other warm water features (Fritts 

et al., 1983; Hirth, 1980; Pritchard, 1971). During the summer, leatherbacks tend to be found 

along the east coast of the U.S. from the Gulf of Maine south to mid-Florida. 

Nesting occurs from February through July at sites located from Georgia to the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Nesting leatherbacks occur along beaches in Florida, Nicaragua, and islands in the West 

Indies; however, no nesting has been reported in Louisiana (Gunter, 1981; Dundee and Rossman, 

1989). In Louisiana, leatherbacks are believed to occur offshore in deep waters; however, they 

have been sighted in Cameron Parish, Atchafalaya Bay, Timbalier Bay, and Chandeleur Sound 

(Dundee and Rossman, 1989). 

Leatherbacks are seriously declining at all major nesting beaches throughout the Pacific. The 

decline is dramatic along the Pacific coasts of Mexico, Costa Rica and Malaysia. Nesting along 

the Pacific coast of Mexico declined at an annual rate of 22 percent over the last twelve years, 

and the Malaysian population represents one percent of the levels recorded in the 1950s. The 

collapse of those nesting populations was precipitated by a tremendous over-harvest of eggs, 

direct harvest of adults, and incidental mortality from fishing. In the Atlantic and Caribbean, the 

largest nesting assemblages are found in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida. 

Nesting data for these locations have been collected since the early 1980s and indicate that the 

annual number of nests is likely stable; however, information regarding the status of the entire 

leatherback population in the Atlantic is lacking. Nesting activity has also declined in French 

Guiana due to erosion of nesting beaches. The population appears to have shifted to Surinam, 

where annual numbers of nests rose from less than 100 in 1967 to 5,565 in 1977 and 9,816 in 

1987. Current estimates are that 20,000 to 30,000 female leatherbacks exist worldwide. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 16

Management and Protection 

Habitat destruction, incidental catch in commercial fisheries, and the harvest of eggs and flesh 

are the greatest threats to the survival of the leatherback. Recovery plans are directed at all 

leatherbacks in the U.S. portion of Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico waters, whether they 

are nesting within this area or elsewhere. Stranding data for the United States shores indicate 

that stranded turtles are adult or near adult size, suggesting that leatherback turtles utilize the 

United States’ coastal waters for foraging as well as nesting (NMFS and USFWS, 1992). 

Leatherbacks begin nesting in February or March; other sea turtles begin nesting in May. 

Leatherback strandings are highest (84 percent) from October to April. Beach patrols are in 

place in May in most areas; however, few strandings (16 percent) occur from May to September. 

Aerial surveys indicate the presence of leatherback turtles in the southeastern U.S. in the winter 

months (NMFS and USFWS, 1992). The recovery plan for the leatherback sea turtle concludes 

that nesting trends in the United States appear stable, but that the population faces significant 

threats from incidental take as a result of commercial fishing and marine pollution. 

4.3.5 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 

Status 

The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as a threatened species in July 1978 (USFWS, 1991) and has 

continued to decline in Louisiana (USFWS, 1990). 

Species and Habitat Description 

Loggerheads are capable of living in a variety of environments, such as in brackish waters of 

coastal lagoons and river mouths. During the winter, they may remain dormant, buried in the 

mud at the bottom of sounds, bays, and estuaries. The major nesting beaches are located in the 

southeastern United States, primarily along the Atlantic coast of Florida, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Georgia. Only minor and solitary nesting has been recorded along the coasts of the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

The largest of the hard-shell sea turtles, the loggerhead is distributed worldwide in temperate and 

tropical bays and open oceans. Loggerheads probably range all along the Louisiana coast; 

however, Dundee and Rossman (1989) reported specimens only from Chandeleur Sound, 

Barataria Bay, and Cameron Parish. The population decline of loggerheads can be attributed to 

egg and nestling predation by mammals and birds (Dundee and Rossman, 1989). 

Nesting on the Gulf Coast occurs between the months of April and August, with 90 percent of 

the nesting effort occurring on the south-central Gulf Coast of Florida (Hildebrand, 1981). 

Although loggerheads have been documented as nesting on the Chandeleurs in 1962 and Grand 

Isle in the 1930s, it is doubtful whether this species currently successfully nests on the Louisiana 

coast (Hildebrand, 1981; Dundee and Rossman, 1989). The loggerhead's diet includes marine 

invertebrates such as mollusks, shrimp, crabs, sponges, jellyfish, squid, sea urchins, and basket 

stars (Caldwell et al., 1955; Hendrickson 1980; Nelson, 1986). Landry (1986) suggested that 

these turtles may also feed on discarded by-catch from shrimp trawling. Adult loggerheads feed 

in waters less than 164 ft (50 m) deep, while the primary foraging areas for juveniles appears to 

be in estuaries and bays (Nelson, 1986; Rabalais and Rabalais, 1980). 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 17

Nesting in the U.S. accounts for about one third of the Federally listed threatened loggerhead 

worldwide population. Ninety-one percent of nesting occurs in Florida, particularly within the 

Archie Carr NWR; the remaining U.S. nesting includes 6.5 percent in South Carolina, 1.5 

percent in Georgia, and 1 percent in North Carolina. Nests are constructed from May through 

September in the United States. According to Gosselink, Coleman, and Stewart 

(http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/cg138.htm), the only loggerhead turtle nesting sites 

observed in Louisiana were on the Chandeleur Islands. Because of storm processes, the 

Chandeleur Islands may no longer contain high beach and dune surfaces, i.e., beach structure 

suitable for nesting. Recent surveys by USFWS Refuge personnel have found no loggerhead 

nests in the area (James Harris, Southeast Louisiana Refuges, personal communication). 

Range and Population Dynamics 

Loggerheads are circumglobal, inhabiting continental shelves, bays, estuaries, and lagoons in 

temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters. In the Atlantic, the loggerhead turtle's range extends 

from Newfoundland to as far south as Argentina. During the summer, nesting occurs in the 

lower latitudes. The primary Atlantic nesting sites are along the east coast of Florida, with 

additional sites in Georgia, and the Carolinas; some nesting also occurs on the Gulf Coast of 

Florida. In the eastern Pacific, loggerheads are reported as far north as Alaska, and as far south 

as Chile. Occasional sightings are also reported from the coast of Washington, but most records 

are of juveniles off the coast of California. Southern Japan is the only known breeding area in 

the North Pacific (NMFS, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/loggerhead.html). 

Management and Protection 

The Recovery Plan is currently being revised, but its recovery criteria for delisting loggerhead 

sea turtles in the U.S. population include: 1) return to pre-listing nesting levels for North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and 2) demonstration of an increase in the adult female 

population of Florida (NMFS and USFWS, 1993). Nesting trends are stable in Florida, but 

appear to be declining in Georgia and South Carolina; current trends in North Carolina have not 

been identified. Recent aerial survey data indicate a current population of 14,150 adult females. 

Female turtles deposit a mean of 4.1 nests per year, which would be approximately 58,000 nests 

in the southeastern U.S. That figure is supported by aerial and ground surveys that estimated 

between 50,000 and 70,000 nests annually in the southeastern U.S. Increasing the hatch 

success will necessitate improvement of nesting habitat and minimizing mortality from 

commercial fisheries. 

5.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The potential exists that any of the endangered or threatened species listed may be present during 

proposed construction activities. However, while individuals may be affected, whole 

populations would not be adversely affected by implementation of the proposed action. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 18

5.1 FISH 

5.1.1 Gulf Sturgeon 

Although the proposed action would involve activities in the critical habitat of the Gulf sturgeon, 

the CEMVN believes that the scope of activities constitute a Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

(NLAA) determination for the species and its critical habitat. Potential project-induced impacts 

may result from incidental interaction with the Gulf sturgeon during the following construction 

activities: hydraulic dredging of approximately 1,850 acres (750 ha) of Lake Borgne water 

bottoms for borrow material for wetland creation and nourishment, dredging a total of 118.3 

acres (47.9 ha) of near-shore floatation access, and placement of rock on approximately 39.5 

acres (16.0 ha) of shallow nearshore water bottom for shoreline protection in Lake Borgne. 

The USFWS and NMFS utilized primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of 

the Gulf sturgeon in order to designate critical habitat for the species in the March 19, 2003, 

Federal Register. These primary constituent elements are those habitat components that support 

feeding, resting, sheltering, reproduction, migration, and physical features necessary for 

maintaining the natural processes that support those habitat components. The following are the 

primary constituent elements for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat and CEMVN responses on how 

the proposed action would affect these elements. The CEMVN has determined the proposed 

action is Not Likely To Adversely Affect Gulf sturgeon critical habitat based on the following 

responses. 

Primary constituent element #1: Abundant prey items within riverine habitats for larval and 

juvenile life stages, and within estuarine and marine habitats for juvenile, sub-adult, and adult 

life stages.

Response: The proposed action would not affect any riverine habitats. The proposed action 

would temporarily decrease the amount of prey species available in the estuarine areas that are 

being dredged for the project’s borrow and floatation and access channels, as well as those areas 

acting as disposal sites for access channel material. These areas would, however, quickly 

recolonize with the benthic species important to the diet of the various life stages of Gulf 

sturgeon using the area upon project completion. 

The benthic habitat that exists in the proposed location of the shoreline protection features and in 

the area behind these structures that would be filled for wetlands creation would be lost upon 

filling. Fox et al., (AFS Symposium 28:111-126, 2002) found in their investigations of the 

estuarine and nearshore marine habitats used by Gulf sturgeon in the Choctawhatchee Bay and 

nearshore Gulf of Mexico that Gulf sturgeon were typically found in water depths of 6.5 to 13 

feet (2 to 4 meters) over substrates high in sand (>80%). The depths along the majority of 

shoreline protection alignments for Lake Borgne are shallower than 3.3 feet (1 meter) in depth. 

According to borings taken by the CEMVN along the Lake Borgne shoreline, the substrate in the 

project area consists primarily of organic clays down to a depth of approximately –12 feet 

(3.7 m) NAVD88. 

Primary constituent element #2: Riverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for egg 

deposition and development, such as limestone outcrops and cut limestone banks, bedrock, large 

gravel or cobble beds, marl, soapstone, or hard clay.

Response: The proposed action would not occur within a riverine system or spawning area. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 19

Primary constituent element #3: Riverine aggregation areas, also referred to as resting, holding 

and staging areas, used by adult, sub-adult, and/or juveniles, generally, but not always, located in 

holes below normal riverbend depths, believed necessary for minimizing energy expenditures 

during freshwater residency and possibly for osmoregulatory functions.

Response: The proposed action would not occur within a riverine system or near any potential 

resting, holding, or staging areas. 

Primary constituent element #4: A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, 

seasonality, and rate-of-change of freshwater discharge over time) necessary for normal 

behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages in the riverine environment, including migration, 

breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization, resting, and staging; and necessary for 

maintaining spawning sites in suitable condition for egg attachment, egg sheltering, resting, and 

larvae staging. 

Response: The proposed action would not occur within a riverine system. Additionally, the 

proposed action would not impact the flow or flushing of water through a riverine system. 

Primary constituent element #5: Water quality, including temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, 

turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, 

growth, and viability of all life stages.

Response: The proposed action would result in a temporary and localized increase in turbidity 

and water temperature, and decrease in dissolved oxygen at the project area associated with 

dredging borrow material, dredging the access and floatation channels, placement of borrow 

material for wetland creation and nourishment, and placement of material for shoreline 

protection. However, adults and subadults are not greatly affected by changes dissolved oxygen, 

or high temperatures (Collins et al., 2000, in USACE, 2006), and any increases in turbidity and 

temperature and any decrease in dissolved oxygen would be localized and temporary, and would 

be moderated with the movement of the tides. Conditions would rapidly return to ambient 

following construction. Any Gulf sturgeon in the area would be free to relocate during 

construction. There would be no changes in salinity, pH, hardness, or other chemical 

characteristics of the water in Lake Borgne as a result of the proposed action. 

Primary constituent element #6: Sediment quality, including texture and other chemical 

characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.

The proposed action would result in localized sediment disturbance at the proposed action and 

borrow areas associated with the dredging of borrow material and access and floatation channels. 

However, any sediments disturbed from the dredging of the access channel would either be used 

beneficially to create wetlands, or returned to their original location upon project completion. 

The removal of sediments from the floatation channel would not impact the texture and other 

chemical characteristics necessary for the normal behavior, growth, and viability of Gulf 

sturgeon life stages because the type of sediment presently occurring in the project area (organic 

clays) would not change with the depth of the material being removed. 

A floatation channel no wider than 80 feet (24.4 m) bottom width will parallel the dike alignment 

to allow construction access of the construction equipment. This material will be used 

beneficially between the dike and the shoreline to create wetlands to the maximum extend 

practicable. Material would be placed in a 50-foot (15.2 m) wide footprint no closer than 10 feet 

(3.0 m) from the inside of the rock dike and no closer than 50 feet (15.2 m) from the existing 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 20

shoreline to a maximum elevation of +4.22 feet (1.29 m) NAVD88 so that the final elevation 

would be lower than the dike. Where capacity for spoil material along the shore is limited, spoil 

shall be placed in the open waters of Lake Borgne and backfilled upon completion the stone 

dike. 

The proposed action would result in approximately 1,850 acres (750 ha) of Lake Borgne water 

bottoms being hydraulically dredged for borrow material for wetland creation. This would 

temporarily impact the prey items available for Gulf sturgeon foraging. Nevertheless, the 

benthic prey items, primarily invertebrates and lancelets, would recolonize rapidly. 

Primary constituent element #7: Safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary for 

passage within and between riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats (e.g., a river unobstructed by 

a permanent structure, or a dammed river that still allows for passage).

The proposed action is for shoreline protection along Lake Borgne and wetland creation and 

nourishment on the Lake Borgne and MRGO land bridge. The proposed action would not block 

nor hinder the migratory movements of Gulf sturgeon between their riverine, estuarine, or 

marine habitats. 

In an effort to avoid direct impacts to Gulf sturgeon that may possibly be using the project area 

during the winter months to forage, the CEMVN would adhere to a dredging window for the 

project, allowing construction in the project area to occur during the months of May through 

September. The bucket drop procedure developed by USFWS would also be employed to 

encourage any Gulf sturgeon in the vicinity to leave the project area. Due to the depths in the 

project area, the type of substrate, and the ability of benthic organisms to rapidly recolonize 

disturbed areas, the CEMVN believes that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect 

Gulf sturgeon or their critical habitat. 

The USFWS and NMFS utilize standard language for contract specifications that specifically 

outline measures to be implemented should the Gulf sturgeon be encountered. Escape routes for 

adult sturgeon during disposal activities must be enacted. If they cannot be provided for, 

gap/fish dips must be provided. If gap/fish dips cannot be provided, then all culverts in spill 

boxes must remain open and solely closed gradually as the dredged material passes through the 

opening. Silt curtains may be implemented to prevent backflow. 

A 2006 prey availability study sampled four sites within Lake Borgne and found that the favored 

sandy habitat of benthic communities were significantly altered post Hurricane Katrina, such that 

the limited sampled sites typically exhibited a large amount of silt deposition (Ray, 2006). 

Furthermore, with limited sandy sediments and low salinities in Lake Borgne, researchers did not 

encounter frequently favored Gulf sturgeon prey (Ray, 2006). 

Additionally, in response to concerns by the USFWS and the NMFS, a benthic survey was 

performed by the USACE Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) to assess the 

potential for impacts to potential prey items for the Gulf sturgeon. To evaluate the potential for 

such impacts, benthos and sediments were sampled from the proposed dredging sites, nearby 

reference sites, and proposed access and floatation channels, to determine if foraging habitat for 

the Gulf sturgeon exists in the project area. A total of 111 infaunal samples and seven sediment 

grain size samples were taken between May 21 and May 24, 2007. Depths of the sample sites 

ranged from 5 ft to 10 ft (1.5 m – 3.0 m), salinities ranged from 9.1 ppt to 11.2 ppt and dissolved 

oxygen concentrations ranged from 6.0 mg/l to 8.0 mg/l. Sediments in the proposed borrow 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 21

areas are poorly sorted sandy mud with a mean grain size in the range of very coarse silts. Total 

silts and clays accounted for more than 64% of the sediment with the remainder dominated by 

very fine sand. Sediments in the proposed access channel sites differ somewhat with the 

innermost (shoreward) stations dominated by peat and the outermost resembling those of the 

borrow areas. 

The benthic assemblage of the study area is dominated by polychaetes (62%), bivalves (14%) 

and amphipods (11%). The most abundant species, the polychaete Mediomastus ambiseta

accounts for more than 28% of all animals collected. Other important polychaete species include 

Parandalia americana, Streblospio benedicti, Sigambra bassi, Glycinde solitaria, Nereis 

succinea, Pectinaria gouldii, and Capitella sp. The most abundant bivalve mollusks are Macoma 

mitchelli, Mulinia lateralis, and Mulinia pontchartrainensis. The amphipods are dominated by 

Ampelisca abdita, Ameroculodes sp. A, and Cerapus benthophilus. Other numerically abundant 

species include the gastropod Acetocina canaliculata, two unidentified species of nemerteans, 

and the oligochaete Tubificoides sp. Together these eighteen species comprise nearly 94% of all 

animals encountered. This assemblage is typical of soft bottom, mesohaline (5.0 ppt–18 ppt) 

communities throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico and similar to previous reports from Lake 

Borgne. 

According to the results of the benthic survey, the relative risk that dredging will adversely affect 

foraging habitat for Gulf sturgeon would be low. Many authors report that Gulf sturgeon feed 

primarily on species such as brachiopods, lancelets, haustorid amphipods and the callianassid L. 

louisianensis, all species associated with sandy, polyhaline habitats. This habitat is absent from 

the study area. However, Mason and Clugston (1993) report gulf sturgeon prey may also include 

brackish water amphipods such as Cerapus sp. and Corophium tuberculatum, chironomid and 

ceratopogonid fly larvae, mysid shrimp, polychaetes and tubificid oligochaetes. These species 

are most closely associated with muddy, mesohaline habitats similar to the Lake Borgne borrow 

areas and therefore some portion of sturgeon foraging habitat may be potentially impacted by the 

dredging. Nevertheless, this habitat is also the single most common type present in the 

immediate area and large areas of Mississippi Sound. Because of the existing great spatial extent 

of this habitat in comparison to the limited extent of disturbance connected to dredging, the 

potential impacts the ability of Gulf sturgeon to successfully forage would be low. A Biological 

Opinion provided by the NMFS supports this conclusion (See Attachment to this Appendix). 

Bucket Dredge Operations (Floatation access) 

During bucket dredge operations, the dredge operator would induce Gulf sturgeon to leave the 

immediate work area prior to any bucket dredging work regardless of water depth. The bucket 

will be dropped into the water and retrieved empty one time. After the bucket has been dropped 

and retrieved, a one-minute no dredging period must be observed. During this no dredging 

period, personnel should carefully observe the work area in an effort to visually detect Gulf 

sturgeon. If Gulf sturgeon are sighted, no dredging should be initiated until they have left the 

work area. If the water turbidity makes such visual sighting impossible, dredging work may 

proceed after the one-minute no dredging period. If more than fifteen minutes elapses with no 

dredging, then the empty bucket drop/retrieval process shall be performed again prior to 

dredging. 

In 1991, when Gulf sturgeon were first being proposed for threatened species status, a Biological 

Assessment on this species (USACE, 1991) was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 22

(USFWS). Gulf sturgeon were formally listed as a threatened species by the USFWS on 

September 30, 1991. A Biological Assessment was completed in 2001, (USACE, 2001) that 

addressed the species’ new classification. More recently a draft Biological Assessment was 

prepared in 2006 that addressed the impacts of USACE operations and maintenance activities 

across the coast. 

Use of the MRGO and its bar channel by Gulf sturgeon would most likely be during migration to 

and from their winter habitats and during their marine feeding period. Due to the small amount 

of recent and confirmed occurrences of Gulf sturgeon in the project area, the CEMVN foresees 

little impact to Gulf sturgeon populations through operations and maintenance activities in the 

MRGO, including the proposed action. Even so, as a precaution, the CEMVN has funded a 

study to investigate the presence of Gulf sturgeon in the MRGO and its disposal areas through 

the USACE ERDC office in Vicksburg, MS. This is a three-year study involving telemetry of 

sonic tagged sturgeon in the MRGO and its surrounding marshlands, netting operations in the 

shallow open water disposal areas used for the maintenance of the channel, and characterization 

of habitat types in sampled areas. Although this study is yet unpublished, information obtained 

to date during the study has been incorporated into this Biological Assessment 

A Biological Assessment was prepared on March 14, 1991, to address the impacts of river 

engineering works in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, respectively, on Gulf and pallid 

sturgeon. A Draft Biological Assessment was also prepared in 2006 to examine the impacts of 

CEMVN navigational projects on Gulf sturgeon. Impacts were anticipated to be avoided by 

limiting dredging activities to summer months (April through October). Similar time windows 

for dredging activities would be employed for the proposed action as necessary. 

5.2 MAMMALS 

5.2.1 West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus)

Sightings of the West Indian manatee in Louisiana have occurred in the Amite, Blind, 

Tchefuncte, and Tickfaw Rivers, MRGO, and in canals within the adjacent coastal marshes of 

Louisiana. However, there is no known population thriving in the State. On July 9, 2001, a 

manatee was observed passing safely through the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock 

and into the Mississippi River. Should any manatees be encountered during the proposed 

activities, an on-board observer would notify the proper personnel, and harmful activities (e.g., 

dredging) would be temporarily suspended until the animal(s) moves out of the area of 

operations. Any disturbance to the manatee would only be temporary during construction 

activities, and would result in temporary displacement. The manatees would likely move and 

relocate to other nearby areas for foraging or resting purposes. 

Because the West Indian manatee may occur in the project vicinity, the Contractor shall instruct 

all personnel associated with the project of the potential presence of manatees in the area, and the 

need to avoid collisions with these animals. All construction personnel shall be advised that 

there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees, which are 

protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. The Contractor shall be held responsible for any manatee harmed, harassed, or killed as a 

result of construction activities not conducted in accordance with these specifications. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 23

a. Special Operating Conditions If Manatees Are Present in the Project Area 

 (1) If a manatee(s) is sighted within 100 yards (91 m) of the project area, all appropriate 

precautions shall be implemented by the Contractor to ensure protection of the manatee. These 

precautions shall include the operation of all moving equipment no closer than 50 ft (15.2 m) of a 

manatee. If a manatee is closer than 50 ft (15.2 m) to moving equipment or the project area, the 

equipment will be shut down and all construction activities will cease to ensure protection of the 

manatee. 

Construction activities will not resume until the manatee has departed and the 50-foot (15.2 m) 

buffer has been re-established. 

(2) If a manatee(s) is sighted in the project area, all vessels associated with the project shall 

operate at "no wake/idle" speeds at all times while in waters where the draft of the vessel 

provides less than a four-foot (1.2 m) clearance from the bottom, and vessels will follow routes 

of deep water whenever possible. Boats used to transport personnel shall be shallow-draft 

vessels, preferably of the light-displacement category, where navigational safety permits. 

(3) If siltation barriers are used, they will be made of material in which manatees cannot become 

entangled, are properly secured, and are regularly monitored to avoid manatee entrapment. 

(4) Manatee Signs. Prior to commencement of construction, each vessel involved in 

construction activities shall display at the vessel control station or in a prominent location, 

visible to all employees operating the vessel, a temporary sign at least 8-1/2" x 11" (21.6 x 

27.9 cm) reading, "CAUTION: MANATEE HABITAT/IDLE SPEED IS REQUIRED IN 

CONSTRUCTION AREA." In the absence of a vessel, a temporary 3' x 4' (0.9 x 1.2 m) sign 

reading "CAUTION: MANATEE AREA" will be posted adjacent to the issued construction 

permit. A second temporary sign measuring 8-1/2" x 11" (21.6 x 27.9 cm) reading "CAUTION: 

MANATEE HABITAT. EQUIPMENT MUST BE SHUTDOWN IMMEDIATELY IF A 

MANATEE COMES WITHIN 50 FEET OF OPERATION" will be posted at the dredge 

operator control station and at a location prominently adjacent to the issued construction permit. 

The Contractor shall remove the signs upon completion of construction. 

b. Manatee Sighting Reports 

Any sightings of manatees, or collisions with a manatee, will be reported immediately to the 

Corps of Engineers. The point of contact within the CEMVN will be Edward Creef, (504) 862-

2521, FAX (504) 862-2317. 

5.4 REPTILES 

5.4.1 Green Sea Turtle 

Due to the lack of extensive seagrass beds in coastal Louisiana and the low incidence of 

sightings and strandings, the proposed action would not impact the green sea turtle populations. 

5.4.2 Hawksbill Sea Turtle 

Due to its rarity along the Louisiana coast, the proposed action would not impact hawksbill sea 

turtle populations are likely to be. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 24

5.4.3 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 

Although Kemp's Ridley sea turtles have been found in Lake Borgne, potential adverse projectinduced impacts are not likely to affect Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle populations. Kemp’s Ridley 

sea turtles concentrate near the mouths of rivers and in areas of low salinity with high turbidity to 

forage for prey, including shrimp. The proposed wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline 

protection features would provide more suitable inshore habitat (characterized by low salinity, 

and high turbidity and organic content, where shrimp and blue crabs are abundant) utilized by 

this species when foraging. 

5.4.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle 

Leatherback sea turtles occur mostly in continental shelf waters more than 164 ft (50 m) in 

depth. There are no known nesting records for this species reported for Louisiana. Hence, the 

proposed action would have no impact on populations of the leatherback sea turtle. 

5.4.5 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

The population decline of the loggerhead sea turtle can be attributed to egg and nestling 

predation by mammals and birds. The only loggerhead sea turtle nesting sites observed in 

Louisiana were on the Chandeleur Islands. The proposed action would have no impacts on 

existing barrier habitats. Hence, the proposed action would not affect loggerhead sea turtle 

populations. 

6.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS 

The proposed action, wetland creation and nourishment and shoreline protection of the Lake 

Borgne and MRGO land bridge, would not be located within suitable habitat for bald eagle, 

brown pelican, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, Louisiana black bear, gopher tortoise, inflated 

heelsplitter mussel, Louisiana quillwort, red-cockaded woodpecker, and ringed sawback turtle, 

nor will it indirectly affect areas inhabited by those species. Hence, the proposed action would 

have no effect on those species. 

6.1 FISH 

Potential project-induced impacts to the Gulf sturgeon would primarily involve changes to Lake 

Borgne water bottoms during dredging operations for borrow material and floatation access, and 

creation of shoreline protection features. However, none of the proposed actions would result in 

permanent alterations of Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. Impacts to the amphipods, polychaetes, 

lancelets, gastropods, isopods, brachiopods and shrimp that serve as prey would be localized to 

the dredging or placement footprints. These prey items would be expected to recolonize rapidly. 

Additionally, dredging windows (from April to October) would be observed to minimize 

potentially harmful activities during times when Gulf sturgeon would be relatively more likely to 

be present. Specifically, there are three primary constituent elements that could be impacted by 

the proposed action (Constituents 1, 5 and 6). A brief synopsis of the seven elements are 

presented below: 

Primary constituent element #1: Abundant prey items within riverine habitats for larval and 

juvenile life stages, and within estuarine and marine habitats for juvenile, sub-adult, and adult 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 25

life stages. The proposed action would not occur within a riverine system or spawning area, but 

could affect foraging habitat for adults in Lake Borgne. These impacts area expected to be 

temporary and localized, so that populations of Gulf sturgeon would not be adversely impacted. 

Primary constituent element #2: Riverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for egg 

deposition and development, such as limestone outcrops and cut limestone banks, bedrock, large 

gravel or cobble beds, marl, soapstone, or hard clay. The proposed action would not occur 

within a riverine system or spawning area. 

Primary constituent element #3: Riverine aggregation areas, also referred to as resting, holding 

and staging areas, used by adult, sub-adult, and/or juveniles, generally, but not always, located in 

holes below normal riverbend depths, believed necessary for minimizing energy expenditures 

during freshwater residency and possibly for osmoregulatory functions. The proposed action 

would not occur within a riverine system or near any potential resting, holding, or staging areas. 

Primary constituent element #4: A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, 

seasonality, and rate-of-change of freshwater discharge over time) necessary for normal 

behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages in the riverine environment, including migration, 

breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization, resting, and staging; and necessary for 

maintaining spawning sites in suitable condition for egg attachment, egg sheltering, resting, and 

larvae staging. The proposed action would not occur within a riverine system. Additionally, the 

proposed action would not impact the flow or flushing of water through a riverine system. 

Primary constituent element #5: Water quality, including temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, 

turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, 

growth, and viability of all life stages. The proposed action would result in a temporary and 

localized increase in turbidity and water temperature, and decrease in dissolved oxygen in the 

project area associated with dredging activities. However, adults and subadults are not greatly 

affected by changes in dissolved oxygen, or high temperatures (Collins et al., 2000, in USACE 

2006). Furthermore, any increases in turbidity and temperature and any decrease in dissolved 

oxygen would be localized and temporary, and would be moderated with the movement of the 

tides, with conditions returning rapidly to ambient following construction. 

Primary constituent element #6: Sediment quality, including texture and other chemical 

characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages. The 

proposed action would result in localized sediment disturbance at the proposed action and 

borrow areas, but any sediments disturbed from the dredging of the access channel would either 

be used beneficially to create wetlands, or returned to their original location upon project 

completion. Additionally, benthic prey items, primarily invertebrates and lancelets, would 

recolonize rapidly. 

Primary constituent element #7: Safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary for 

passage within and between riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats (e.g., a river unobstructed by 

a permanent structure, or a dammed river that still allows for passage). The proposed action 

would not close any naturally occurring waterways, so would not impede migratory pathways. 

Although the proposed action would involve activities in the critical habitat of the Gulf sturgeon, 

the CEMVN believes that the scope of activities constitute a Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

(NLAA) determination for the species and its critical habitat in Lake Borgne. A Biological 

Opinion provided by the NMFS supports this conclusion (See Attachment to this Appendix). 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A – 26

6.2 MAMMALS 

The West Indian manatee is known to occur periodically in the coastal waters of Louisiana. If a 

manatee were to stray into the project area, it may be attracted to noise from proposed wetland 

creation and nourishment and shoreline protection construction activities. Consequently, an onboard observer would be present to alert the proper personnel, and harmful activities (e.g., 

dredging) would be temporarily suspended until the animal can move to safety. Should a 

manatee be sighted within any work areas, the USFWS’s Lafayette, Louisiana, Field Office 

would be contacted immediately. Therefore, the proposed action would not adversely affect the 

West Indian manatee. 

6.3 REPTILES 

The proposed action would not adversely affect green, hawksbill, Kemp’s Ridley, leatherback, or 

loggerhead sea turtle populations. Most of those species are either rare along the Louisiana Gulf 

coast or feed in nearby waters. A Biological Opinion provided by the NMFS supports this 

conclusion for potential impacts to sea turtles (See Attachment to this Appendix). 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A –27 

7.0 LITERATURE CITED

Ackerman, B.B. 1995. Aerial surveys of manatees: a 

summary and progress report. Pages 13-33 in

T.J. O’Shea, B.B. Ackerman, and H.F. Percival 

(eds.). Population Biology of the Florida 

Manatee. National Biological Service, 

Information and Technology Report No. 1. 

Washington, D.C. 

Anderson, D. R. 1997. Corridor use, feeding ecology, and 

habitat relationships of black bears in a 

fragmented landscape in Louisiana. M. S. Thesis, 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 

124 pp. 

Bailey, R.M., and F.B. Cross. 1954. River sturgeons of the 

American genus Scaphirhynchus: characters, 

distribution, and synonymy. Papers of the 

Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 

39:169-208. 

Beausoleil, R. A. 1999. Population and spatial ecology of 

the Louisiana black bear in a fragmented 

bottomland forest. M. S. Thesis, University of 

Tennessee, Knoxville. 122 pp. 

Boschung, H (ed.). 1976. Endangered and threatened 

plants and animals of Alabama. Bulletin 

Alabama Museum of Natural History. Number 2. 

University of Alabama. Page 57. 

Bowles, M.L., M.M. DeMauro, N. Pavlovic, and R.D. 

Hiebert. 1990. Effects of anthropogenic 

disturbances on endangered and threatened plants 

at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. 

Natural Areas Journal 10: 187-200. 

Bramblett, R.G. 1996. Habitat and movements of pallid 

and shovelnose sturgeon in the Yellowstone and 

Missouri Rivers, Montana and North Dakota. 

Ph.D. Dissertation. Montana State University, 

Bozeman. 210pp. 

Caldwell, D.K.A., A. Carr, and T.R. Heller, Jr. 1955. 

Natural history notes on the Atlantic loggerhead 

turtle, Caretta caretta caretta. Quart. J. Fla. 

Acad. Sci. 18(4): 292-302. 

Carlson, D.M., W.L. Pflieger, L. Trial, and P.S. Haverland. 

1985. Distribution, biology, and hybridization of 

Scaphirhynchus albus and Scaphirhynchus 

platorynchus in the Missouri and Mississippi 

River. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 14:51-

59. 

Carr, A. 1980. Some problems of sea turtle ecology. 

American Zoologist 20: 489-498. 

Carr, A. 1983. All the way down upon the Suwannee 

River. Audubon Magazine. Pages 80-101. 

Carr, A.F. 1952. Handbook of turtles – the turtles of the 

United States, Canada, Baja California. 

Comstock Publishing Association, New York. 

Carr, A.F. and H. Hirth. 1962. The ecology and migrations 

of sea turtles, five comparative features of green 

turtle nesting colonies. Am. Mus. Noviates. 2091: 

1-42. 

Clugston, J.P., A.M. Foster, and S.H. Carr. 1995. Gulf 

sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in the 

Suwannee River, Florida, USA. Proc. of 

International Symposium on Sturgeons. 

Moscow, Russia. Editors: A.D. Gershanovich 

and T.I.J. Smith. Sept. 6-11, 1993. 370 pp. 

Coker, R.E. 1930. Studies of common fishes of the 

Mississippi River at Keokuk. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries Document 

1972:141-225. 

Constant, G.C., W.E. Kelso, D.A. Rutherford, and C.F. 

Bryan. 1997. Habitat, movement and 

reproductive status of pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus albus) in the Mississippi and 

Atchafalaya Rivers. Report prepared for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 

New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Conzelmann, P.J. and B.T. Vogl. 1996. Caernarvon 

freshwater diversion contaminants monitoring 

study, 1990-1994. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta, GA. LFO-EC-96-02. 

Collins, M. R.; Rogers, S. G.; Smith, T. I. J.; Moser, M. L. 

2000. Primary factors affecting surgeon 

populations in the southeastern United States: 

fishing mortality and degradation of essential 

habitats. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3): 917-

928. 

Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. 

Museum of Natural History, University of 

Kansas, Public Education Series 3, Lawrence. 

315pp. 

Cuthbert, F.J., J.L.D. Smith, C.L. Jolls, B. Scholtens, and 

L. Wemmer. 1998. Conservation of biodiversity 

in coastal systems of Michigan. Unpublished 

report. U.S. Forest Service Experiment Station, 

St. Paul, Minnesota. 28 pp. 

Dobie, J.L., L. H. Ogren, and J.F. Fitzpatrick. 1961. Food 

notes and records of the Atlantic Ridley turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempi) from Louisiana. Copeia 

1961: 109-110. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A –28 

Duffy, W.G., C.R. Berry, and K.D. Keenlyne. 1996. 

Biology of the pallid sturgeon with an annotated 

bibliography through 1994. Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research Unit, Technical Bulletin 5. 

South Dakota State University, Brookings. 

Dundee, H.A. and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The Amphibians 

and Reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State 

University Press, Baton Rouge. 

Elowe, K.D., and W.E. Dodge. 1989. Factors affecting 

black bear reproductive success and cub survival. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53(4):962-968. 

Emmons, S. 1990. Personal communication regarding 

Federally listed endangered species occurrence 

on Shell Keys NWR. USFWS. November 13. 

Ernst, L.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United 

States. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 

Kentucky. 347 pp. 

Fogle, N.E. 1963. Report of fisheries investigations during 

the fifth year of impoundment of Oahe Reservoir, 

South Dakota. South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks. D.J. Project F-1-R-12, 

Job 10-11-12. 35pp. 

Forbes, S.A., and R.E. Richardson. 1905. On a new 

shovelnose sturgeon from the Mississippi River. 

Bulletin of the Illinois State Laboratory of 

Natural History 7:37-44. 

Foster, A.M. 1993. Movement of Gulf sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in the Suwannee 

River, Florida. Master Thesis, University of 

Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 131 pp. 

Fox, D. A.; Hightower, J. E.; Parauka, F. M. 2000. Gulf 

sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in the 

Choctawhatchee River system, Alabama-Florida. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

129: 811-826. 

Fox, D., Hightower, J. and F. Parauka. 2002. Estuarine 

and nearshore marine habitat use by gulf sturgeon 

from the Choctawhatchee River System, Florida. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 28, 111-

126. 

Frazier, J.G. 1980. Marine turtles and problems in coastal 

management. Pp. 2395-2422 in B.L. Edge (ed.). 

Coastal Zone 80: Proc. of the second symp. on 

coastal and ocean management. Vol. III. 

American Society of Civil Engineers, N.Y. 

Fremling, C.R., J.L. Rasmussen, R.E. Sparks, S.P. Cobb, 

C.F. Bryan, and T.O. Claflin. 1989. Mississippi 

River fisheries: a case history. Pages 309-351 in

D.P. Dodge, editor. Proceedings of the 

International Large River Symposium. Can. 

Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106pp. 

Fritts, T.H., W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGehee. 1983. The 

distribution and abundance of marine turtles in 

the Gulf of Mexico and nearby Atlantic waters. 

Journal of Herpetology 17(4): 327-344. 

Fuller, D.A. 1978. Appendix A: The habitats, distribution, 

and incidental capture of sea turtles in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Prepared as a working paper on sea 

turtles for the Task Force developing the Draft 

Shrimp Management Plan of the U.S. Gulf of 

Mexico. Center for Wetland Resources, LSU, 

Baton Rouge. 32 pp. LSU-CFI-86-28. 

Fuller, D.A. and A.M. Tappan. 1986. The occurrence of sea 

turtles in Louisiana coastal waters. LSU Center 

for Wetland Resources, Coastal Fisheries 

Institute. LSU-CFI-86-28.46 pages. 

Gardner, B. 1999. Pallid sturgeon above Fort Peck 

Reservoir 1996-1998 in S. Krentz, editor. Pallid 

Sturgeon Recovery Update, Issue No. 10. 

Gerrard, J. M. and G. Bortolotti. 1988. The bald eagle -- 

Haunts and Habits of a Wilderness Monarch. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and 

London. 177 pp. 

Gilbert, C. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and 

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and 

invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight) – Atlantic and 

shortnose sturgeons. US Fish and Wildlife 

Service Biological Report 82 (11.122). US Army 

Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 

Gilbraith, D.M., M.J. Schwalbach, and C.R. Berry. 1988. 

Preliminary report on the status of the pallid 

sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus, a candidate 

endangered species. Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries Science, South Dakota State University, 

Brookings. 76pp. 

Gosselink, J.G., J.M. Coleman, R.E. Stewart, Jr. Coastal 

Louisiana. In USGS: Status and Trends of the 

Nation’s Biological Resources. 58 pp. Currently 

available at 

http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/cg138.h

tm. 

Graham, K. 1997. Missouri Department of Conservation 

successfully spawns pallid sturgeon in M. Dryer, 

editor. Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Update, Issue 

No. 9. 

Graham, K. 1999. Pallid Sturgeon Reintroduction in 

Missouri in S. Krentz, editor. Pallid Sturgeon 

Recovery Update, Issue No. 10. 

Guidry, M. 1994. Location map of brown pelican colony 

on North Grand Gossier Island, Breton NWR, 

Louisiana. June 17. USFWS, Southeast 

Louisiana Refuges. Fax to Lorna Patrick, 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A –29 

USFWS, Ecological Services, Panama City, 

Florida. 

Gunter, G. 1981. Status of turtles on the Mississippi Coast. 

Gulf Res. Rep. 7: 89-92. 

Haig, S. M. 1992. Piping plover. Pages 1-18 in Poole, P. 

Stellenhim, and E. Gill, eds. The birds of North 

America, No. 2. A. The Academy of Natural 

Sciences. The American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, D.C. 

Haig, S. M., and L. W. Oring. 1988. Genetic 

differentiation of piping plovers across North 

America. Auk 105:260-267. 

Harris, J.E. 2003. Distribution of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) in relation to 

environmental parameters and the distribution of 

benthic invertebrates in the Suwannee River 

estuary, Florida. PhD. Thesis, University of 

Florida, Gainsville, FL. Available on-line at 

http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0001162/harris_j.pdf. 

Hartman, D.S. 1979. Ecology and behavior of the manatee 

(Trichechus manatus) in Florida. American 

Society of Mammalogists Special Publication No. 

5. 153 pp. 

Held, J.W. 1969. Some early summer foods of the 

shovelnose sturgeon in the Missouri River. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

98:514-517. 

Hendrickson, J.R. 1980. The ecological strategies of sea 

turtles. American Zoologist 20: 597-608. 

Hess, T. 2001. Brown pelican coastal survey and 

observations. Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries, Rockefeller Refuge. 6 pp. 

Hildebrand, H.H. 1981. A historical review of the status of 

sea turtle populations in the western Gulf of 

Mexico. Pp. 447-453 in K. A. Bjomdal (ed.) 

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, 

Washington, D.C. 

Hirth, H.F. 1971. Synopsis of the biological data on the 

green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linneaus 

1758). FAD Fisheries Synopsis No. 85. 

Hirth, H.F. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and 

reproductive biology of sea turtles. American 

Zoologist 20: 507-523. 

Huff, J.A. 1975. Life history of the Gulf of Mexico 

sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in 

Suwannee River, Florida. Mar. Res. Publ. No. 

16. 32 pp. 

Hughes, G.R. 1972. The olive Ridley sea-turtle 

(Lepidochelys olivacea) in south-east Africa. 

Biol. Cons. 4(2): 128-134. 

Hurley, K.L. 1996. Habitat use, selection, and movements 

of middle Mississippi River pallid sturgeon and 

validity of pallid sturgeon age estimates from 

pectoral fin rays. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois 

University at Carbondale. 82pp. 

Husar, S.L. 1977. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus 

manatus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Wildlife Resource Report No. 7: 1-22. 

Jenkins, Jill A. and Clint Jeske. 2003. Unpubl. DRAFT 

Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion Biomonitoring 

Study: Interim Final Report on Freshwater 

Fisheries and Eagles: Prediversion. U.S. 

Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research 

Center, Lafayette, Louisiana. 

Johnson, J.H. 1976. Feasibility of using historic disposal 

areas, upper Mississippi River, to evaluate effects 

of dredged material disposal in community 

structure of benthic organisms. Miscellaneous 

Paper Y-76-3. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Johnson, W.C. 1993. Divergent response of riparian 

vegetation to flow regulations on the Missouri 

and Platte Rivers. Pages 426-431 in L.W. Hesse, 

C.B. Stalnaker, N.G. Benson, and J.R. Zuboy, 

editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on 

Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the 

Mississippi River Ecosystem. Biological Report 

19. National Biological Survey, USDI, 

Washington DC. 

Kallemeyn, L.W. 1983. Status of the pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus albus). Fisheries 8(1): 3-9. 

Keenlyne, K.D. 1989. A report on the pallid sturgeon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, South 

Dakota. 20pp. 

Keenlyne, K.D. 1995. Recent North American studies on 

pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus (Forbes 

and Richardson). Pages 225-234 in A.D. 

Gerschanovich and T.I.J. Smith, editors. 

Proceedings of the International Symposium on 

Sturgeons, September 6-11, 1993. VNIRO Publ., 

Moscow, Russia. 

Keenlyne, K.D., and L.G. Jenkins. 1993. Age at sexual 

maturity of the pallid sturgeon. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society. 122:393-396. 

Keenlyne, K.D., L.K. Graham, and B.C. Reed. 1994. 

Hybridization between the pallid and shovelnose 

sturgeons. Proc. South Dakota Academy of 

Science 73:59-66. 

Keenlyne, E.M. Grossman, and L.G. Jenkins. 1992. 

Fecundity of the pallid sturgeon. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society 121:139-140. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A –30 

Kilpatrick, K. 1999. Pallid sturgeon spawned at 

Natchitoches NFH, Louisiana, during 1998 in S. 

Krentz, editor. Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Update, 

Issue No. 10. 

King, F.W. 1981. Historical review of the decline of the 

green turtle and the hawksbill. Pp. 183-188 in

K.A. Bjomdal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of 

Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C. 

Kynard, B., E. Henyey, and M. Horgan. 1998. Studies on 

pallid sturgeon: Turners Falls, Massachusetts: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resource 

Div., Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center. 

Lambert, A., and B. Ratcliff. 1979. A survey of piping 

plovers in Michigan. Report submitted to the 

State of Michigan, Department of Natural 

Resources, September 1979. 36 pp. 

Landry, A. 1986. Stranding and natural history of sea 

turtles in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Presented 

at Seventh Annual Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

Information Transfer Meeting. Session IV. D. 

Sea turtle problems in the Gulf of Mexico, 5 

November, 1986. 

MacIvor, L. H. 1990. Population dynamics, breeding 

ecology and management of piping plover on 

outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis, 

University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 

Marchinton, F.B. 1995. Movement ecology of black bears 

in a fragmented bottomland hardwood habitat in 

Louisiana. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee, 

Knoxville. 107 pp. 

Mason, W.T. Jr., and J.P. Clugston. 1993. Foods of the 

Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, Florida. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

122: 378-385. 

Mayden, R.L., and B.R. Kuhajda. 1997. Threatened fishes 

of the world: Scaphirhynchus albus (Forbes and 

Richardson 1905) (Acipenseridae). 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:420-421. 

McDowall, R.M. 1988. Diadromy in fishes migrations 

between freshwater and marine environments. 

Truder Press and Croom Helm. 308 pp. 

McNease, L., and T. Joanen. 1984. The brown pelican 

restocking program in Louisiana. Proc. 

 Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies 38: 165-173. 

Modde, T.C., and J.C. Schmulbach. 1977. Food and 

feeding behavior of the shovelnose sturgeon in 

the unchannelized Missouri River. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 106(6):602-

608. 

Moyle, P.B., and J.J. Cech. 1982. Fishes: An introduction 

to ichthyology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 

New Jersey. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for 

Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan for 

Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, 

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/gree

n.html 

Nelson, D.A. 1986. Life history and environmental 

requirements of loggerhead sea turtles. - 

Technical Report EL-86-2, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg. 40 pp. 

Odenkirk, J.S. 1989. Movements of Gulf of Mexico 

sturgeon in the Apalachicola River, Florida. 

Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeastern Assoc. Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies 43: 230-238. 

O’Shea, T.J. 1988. The past, present, and future of 

manatees in the southeastern United States: 

realities, misunderstandings, and enigmas. Pages 

184-204 in Odum, R.R., K.A. Riddleberger, and 

J.C. Ozier (eds.). Proceedings of the Third 

Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Symposium. Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources. Social Circle, Georgia. 

O’Shea, T.J., B.B. Ackerman, and H.F. Percival (eds.). 

1992. Interim report of the technical workshop 

on manatee population biology. Manatee 

Population Research Report No. 10. Florida 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 

Gainesville, Florida. 83 pp. 

Pace, R. M., III, D. R. Anderson, and S. Shively. 2000. 

Sources and patterns of black bear mortality in 

Louisiana. Proceedings of the Annual 

Conference of the Southeastern Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In Press. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A –31 

Palmer, R. S. 1967. Piping plover. In Stout, G. D., ed. The 

shorebirds of North America. Viking Press, New 

York. 

Parauka, F.M., W.J. Troxel, F.A. Chapman, and L.G. 

McBay. 1991. Hormone-induced ovulation and 

artificial spawning of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi. Prog. FishCulturist 53(2): 113-117. 

Patterson, M. E. 1988. Piping plover breeding biology and 

reproductive success on Assateague Island. M.S. 

Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 131 pp. 

Pelton. M.R. 1982. Black Bear. Pages 504-514 in J.A. 

Chapman and G.A. Feldhammer (eds.). Wild 

Mammals of North America: Biology, 

Management and Economics. The Johns 

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

Prater, A.J., J.H. Marchant, and J. Vuorinen. 1977. Guide 

to identification and aging of holarctic waders. 

British Trust for Ornithology Guide #17. Maund 

and Irvine Ltd., Tring, Herts, England. 168 pp. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1971. The leatherback or leathery turtle, 

Dermochetys coriacea. IUCN Monograph, 

Marine Turtle Series (1): 1-39. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. and R. Marquez. 1973. Kemp's Ridley 

turtle or Atlantic Ridley. IUCN Monograph No. 

2. Marine Turtle Series. 30 pp. 

Rabalais, S.C. and N.N. Rabalais. 1980. The occurrence of 

sea turtles on the south Texas coast. Contrib. 

Mar. Sci. 23: 123-129. 

Raithel, C. 1984. The piping plover in Rhode Island. 

Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program, 

Providence. Unpublished report, 13 pp. 

Ray, G.L. PhD. 2006. Characterization of Potential Gulf 

Sturgeon Prey Availability in Lake Borgne, 

Louisiana. A Report to the U.S. Army Engineer 

District, New Orleans, LA. 45 pp. 

Rebel, T.P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the 

West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. 

Univ. Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida. 250 

pp. 

Reed, B.C., and M.S. Ewing. 1993. Status and distribution 

of pallid sturgeon at the Old River Control 

Complex, Louisiana. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife 

and Fisheries, Lake Charles, Louisiana. 54pp + 

appendices. 

Renaud, M. L. 1995. Movements and submergence 

patterns of Kemp's Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys 

kempii). Journal of Herpetology 79(3): 370-374. 

Reynolds, J.E. III and J.R. Wilcox. 1987. People, power 

plants, and manatees. Sea Frontiers 33(4):263-

269. 

Rogers, L.L. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures 

on survival, growth, and reproductive success of 

black bears. Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 

41:431-438. 

Rogers, L.L., and A.W. Allen. 1987. Habitat suitability 

index models: black bear, upper Great Lakes 

region. Biological Report 82(1.144). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 54 pp. 

Russell, R. 1983. The piping plover in the Great Lakes 

 region. American Birds 37:951-955. 

Schmulbach, J.C., G. Gould, and C.L. Groen. 1975. 

Relative abundance and distribution of fishes in 

the Missouri River, Gavins Point Dam to Rulo, 

Nebraska. Proceedings South Dakota Academy 

of Science 54:194-222. 

Sheehan, R.J., R.C. Heidinger, K.L. Hurley, P.S. Wills, and 

M.A. Schmidt. 1998. Middle Mississippi River 

Pallid Sturgeon Habitat Use Project: Year 3 

Annual Progress Report, December 1998. 

Fisheries Research Laboratory and Department of 

Zoology, Southern Illinois University at 

Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois. 

Smith, P.W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. University of 

Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. 314pp. 

Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive success, life history 

patterns, and behavioral variation in a population 

of piping plovers subjected to human 

disturbances. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tufts 

University, Boston, Massachusetts. 

Taylor, D.F. 1971. A radio-telemetry study of the black 

bear with notes on its history and present status in 

Louisiana. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 87 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. Biological 

Assessment for the Proposed Threatened Species 

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi). 

New Orleans, Louisiana. 8 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Biological 

Assessment: Impacts of Navigational Channel 

Dredging on the Gulf Sturgeon. Done by Remsa 

Inc. Newport News, Virginia. 27 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. Draft Biological 

Assessment: Impacts of USACE Navigational 

Projects on the Gulf Sturgeon in Louisiana. New 

Orleans, Louisiana 43 pp. 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A –32 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Determination of 

endangered and threatened status for the piping 

plover. Federal Register 50(238): 50720-50734. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Atlantic coast 

piping plover recovery plan. Newton Corner, 

Massachusetts. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989a. Individual species 

accounts for Federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. Red Book. Region 4. 

Atlanta, Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989b. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 and 

17.12. 34 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989c. Southeastern status 

bald eagle recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 41 

pp. with appendices A-J. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Report to Congress: 

Endangered and threatened species recovery 

program. U.S. Dept. Interior. Washington, D.C. 

406 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants. 50CFR 17.11 and 

17.12. U.S. Dept. Interior, Washington, D.C. 37 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Pallid sturgeon 

recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, 

Bismarck, North Dakota. 55pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine 

Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon 

Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Individual species 

accounts for Federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. Red Book. Region 4. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Louisiana black 

bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) Recovery Plan. 

Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 52 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) Atlantic coast population 

revised recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery 

Team, Hadley, Massachusetts. 245 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery plan for 

Houghton’s goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii A. 

Gray). Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. vii+58 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Federal Register 

64: 36454-36464. U.S. Dept. Interior, 

Washington, D.C. 11pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus), Great Lakes population, 

Revised Recovery Plan. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 

99 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Biological opinion 

on the operation of the Missouri River main stem 

reservoir system, operation and maintenance of 

the Missouri River bank stabilization and 

navigation project, and operation of the Kansas 

River reservoir system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado and Region 

3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Draft 

environmental assessment for the proposal to 

relocate female Louisiana black bears to the Red 

River Complex of East-Central Louisiana. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Lafayette, Louisiana. 

60 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Final 

determination of critical habitat for wintering 

piping plovers. Federal Register 66(132):36038-

36040. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001c. Florida manatee 

recovery plan. Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 144 pp. + 

Appendices. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery plan for 

the Great Lakes piping plover (Charadrius 

melodus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort 

Snelling, Minnesota. viii+121 pp. 

Viosca, P., Jr. 1961. Turtles, tame and truculent. La. 

Conserv. 13: 5-8. 

Vladykov, V.D., and J.R. Greely. 1963. Oder 

Acipenseroidei. In fishes of the western North 

Atlantic. Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine 

Research 1(3): 24-58. 

Wagner, R.O. 1995. Movement patterns of black bears in 

south central Louisiana. M. S. Thesis, Louisiana 

State University, Baton Rouge. 

Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for 

gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). Florida 

Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR8, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, St. Petersburg, FL. 

Weaver, K.M. 1999. The ecology and management of the 

Louisiana black bear in the Tensas River Basin if 

Louisiana. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of 

Tennessee, Knoxville. 327 pp. 

Weaver, K.M., D.K. Tabberer, L.V. Moore, Jr., G. 

Chandler, J.C. Posey, and M.R. Pelton. 1992. 

Bottomland hardwood forest management for 
Appendix A Biological Assessment 

FEIS June 2009 

 A –33 

black bears in Louisiana. Proceedings of the 

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies 44:342-350. 

Wigginton, J. 1990. Memorandum regarding Federally 

listed endangered species occurrences on 

Southeast Louisiana Refuges. USFWS. 

December 10. 7 pp. 

Wilcox, L. E. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the 

piping plover. Auk 79:129-152. 

Wooley, C.M., and E.J. Crateau. 1985. Movement, 

microhabitat, exploitation and management of 

Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Apalachicola River, 

Florida. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. Pages 590-

605. 

Zwinenberg, A.J. 1977. Kemp's Ridley, Lepidochelys

kempi (Gar-man 1880), undoubtedly the most 

endangered marine turtle today (with notes on the 

current status of Lepidochelys olivacea). Bull. 

Maryland Herp.Soc. 13: 170-192. 
Mrs. Elizabeth Wiggins, Chief

Environmental Planning and Compliance Branch

New Orleans District Corps ofEngineers

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, LA 70160-0267

Dear Mrs. Wiggins:The enclosed document constitutes the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) biological

opinion based on our review ofthe proposed actions stated in the New Orleans District ofthe

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (NOCOE) letter dated January 3, 2008. The proposed action is

the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) and Lake Borgne Wetland Creation and ShorelineProtection Project in Lake Borgne, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. NMFS initiated formal

consultation on March 13, 2008, in accordance with section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act

(ESA) of 1973 as amended.

It is NMFS’ biological opinion that this project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify Gulf

sturgeon critical habitat. Conservation recommendations have been provided to avoid adverseeffects ofthis and similar actions on Gulfsturgeon and its critical habitat.We look forward to further cooperation with you on other NOCOE projects to ensure theconservation and recovery of our threatened and endangered marine species. If you have anyquestions, please contact Ms. Karla Reece at (727) 824-5312 or by e-mail at

karla.reece@noaa.gov.

Sincerely,

Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D.

Regional Administrator

EnclosureFile: 1514-22.f.1 LARef: F/SERJ2008 00026
Number F/SERJ2008/00026)

Consulting Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service (NIvIFS), Southeast Regional Office,

Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida

Approved by: hi44 C./AA

Ro . Crabtree, Ph.D., Regional AdministratorNMFS, Southeast Regional Office

St. Petersburg, Florida

JUN 26 2008 Date Issued:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 CONSULTATION HISTORY 2

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION AREA 33 STATUS OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 44 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 9

5 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON GULF STURGEON CRITICAL HABITAT 116 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 157 DESTRUCTION OR ADVERSE MODIFICATION ANALYSIS 16

8 CONCLUSION 17

9 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 17

10 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1711 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION 17

12 LITERATURE CITED 18
species; Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult with the appropriate Secretary on

any such action. NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (LJSFWS) share responsibilities

for administering the ESA: ifthe subject species is cited in 50 CFR 222.23(a) or 227.4 thefederal agency shall contact NMFS, otherwise the federal agency shall contact USFWS (50 CFR

402.01).Fonnal consultation is required when a federal action agency determines that a proposed action

“may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. Consultation is concluded after NMFS

issues a biological opinion (opinion) that identifies whether a proposed action is likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify critical

habitat. The opinion states the amount or extent ofincidental take ofthe listed species that may

occur, develops measures (i.e., reasonable and prudent measures) to reduce the effect oftake,

and recommends conservation measures to further conserve the species. Notably, no incidentaldestruction or adverse modification of critical habitat can be authorized, and thus there are no

reasonable and prudent measures, only reasonable and prudent alternatives that must avoid

destruction and adverse modification.This document represents NMFS’ opinion based on our review ofimpacts associated with

wetland creation and shoreline protection along Lake Borgne and the Mississippi River Gulf

Outlet (MRGO). The New Orleans District ofthe U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (NOCOE) is

the permitting authority. This opinion analyzes project effects on Gulfsturgeon and Gulf

sturgeon critical habitat in accordance with section 7 ofthe ESA.

This opinion is based on project information provided by the NOCOE and other sources of

information including published literature, and summary reports provided by the NOCOE.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

1 CONSULTATION HISTORY

NMFS received a request from the NOCOE on January 8, 2008, for ESA section 7 consultation

on the project; additional information was requested via e-mail and telephone on February 13,2008, and received February 22 and March 12, 2008. NOCOE determined that the proposed

actions are “not likely to adversely affect” protected species and are “not likely to result in the

destruction or adverse modification” of Gulfsturgeon critical habitat, and requested concurrence.
along the northern bank ofthe MRGO. These shoreline protection features would protect .a totalof 1,110 acres of adjacent wetlands from degradation and wave erosion. A total of 9,700,000cubic yards of borrow material would be removed from approximately 1,850 acres of Lake

Borgne water bottoms to achieve the proposed wetland creation. The FRD would cover 39.5

acres ofLake Borgne water bottoms. A total of 95.6 acres of Lake Borgne water bottoms would

be dredged as flotation channels for construction equipment. Material dredged for these

channels would be placed on a total of 61.7 acres of Lake Borgne water bottoms and would be

used beneficially to create wetlands between the FRD and the shoreline or would be temporarily

stockpiled adjacent to the flotation channels and returned to the channel following construction.

A total of 22.7 acres would be dredged as access channels for the movement of vessels and

pipeline to and from wetland creation areas and flotation channels. This material would be

temporarily stockpiled adjacent to the channel on approximately 24 acres of water bottoms andreturned to the channel following completion of construction.

11.1POEC1

PA EI

/1

W1REAT

• 3.

qç P.

....MR • .“

=“

0

CAL NIW.Z$

I —

as

a.

84 YOU

$TkO E4 ..

..

- j - • -: :

4 -. - - - -

9 9 a4

) BE ‘ ?9UTLPT

Figure 1. Wetland creation and shoreline protection along Lake Borgne and the MRGO.
3.1 Listed Species that May Occur in the Action AreaThe following endangered (E) and threatened (T) marine mammal, sea turtle, and fish species,

and designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction ofNMFS, may occur in or near the actionarea:Common Name Scientific Name Status

Sea Turtles

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas’ E/TLoggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T

FishesGulfsturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T

Critical HabitatGulfsturgeon, Unit 8

3.1.1 Sea Turtles

There are five species ofsea turtles (green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, andloggerhead) that can possibly be found in or near the action area. According to the NOAA

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, there have been no confirmed sea turtle strandings between

1998 and 2002 in the parish adjacent to the action area. Because ofthe inaccessibility ofthe

action area and the lack ofsurveyable beaches, the absence ofrecorded strandings is notindicative ofsea turtle distribution in the action area.

Breakwater construction and bucket or hydraulic dredging is not known to take sea turtles; sea

turtles are highly mobile and will likely avoid the area due to project activity and noise. Normal

behavior patterns of sea turtles are not expected to be significantly disrupted by the construction

and dredging activity as the project area is not known to serve as a feeding, breeding, migratory,

1Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding population that is listed as

endangered.

4
Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles are the most likely species to occur in the project area

and are generalist carnivores, typically preying on benthic mollusks and crustaceans in the

nearshore environment. Both species ofsea turtles can be found foraging in shallow sand andmud habitats and at high reliefrock or reefhabitats (which do not occur in the project area).NMFS believes any habitat and food availability effects ofthe project on turtles will be

insignificant since the area impacted is relatively small in comparison to available foraging

habitat. Thus, sea turtles will not be discussed further in this opinion.

3.1.2 FishesNMFS and the USFWS listed the Gulfsturgeon as a threatened species on September 30, 1991

(56 CFR 49653). The present range ofthe Gulfsturgeon extends from Lake Pontchartrain and

the Pearl River system in Louisiana and Mississippi east to the Suwannee River in Florida. The

Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish; adults spawn in freshwater then migrate to feed and grow

in estuarine/marine habitats. After spawning in the upper river reaches, both adult and subadult

Gulfsturgeon migrate from the estuaries, bays, and the Gulf ofMexico to the coastal rivers inearly spring (i.e., March through May) when river water temperatures range from 16° to 23°C(Huff 1975, Can 1983, Wooley and Crateau 1985, Odenkirk 1989, Clugston et al. 1995, Foster

and Clugston 1997, Fox and Hightower 1998, Sulak and Clugston 1999, Fox et al. 2000).Generally, fall downstream migration from the river into the estuary/Gulf ofMexico begins in

September (at water temperatures around 23°C) and continues through November (Huff 1975,

Wooley and Crateau 1985, Foster and Clugston 1997).The project will be conducted between May and September. Given that the dredging activitieswill occur while sturgeon are upriver, it is unlikely that Gulf sturgeon would enter the project

area during the proposed action. Furthermore, the proposed action will utilize hydraulic or

bucket dredges which are not known to take Gulfsturgeon. Sturgeon are highly mobile and if

they happen to be in the vicinity, will likely avoid the construction area due to project activity

and noise. Normal behavior patterns of Gulfsturgeon are not expected to be significantlydisrupted by the dredging or disposal activities as they are not likely to be utilizing the project

area for migration, they are not likely to forage in the area given the substrate composition, and

their spawning habitat is known to occur in freshwater. Therefore, given that sturgeon are not

likely to be in the project area, coupled with the use of dredges that are not known to take

sturgeon, NMFS believes the chance of a Gulfsturgeon being affected by the proposed action is

discountable. Gulfsturgeon will not be considered further in this opinion.In summary, NMFS concludes that green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead

sea turtles; and Gulfsturgeon are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action.
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation ofthe species. The term“conservation” is defined in Section 3(3) ofthe ESA as the use of all methods and proceduresthat are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which listingunder the ESA is no longer necessary.

Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes areas within the major river systems, which support the

seven currently reproducing subpopulations (USFWS et al. 1995), and associated estuarine and

marine habitats. Gulfsturgeon use the rivers for spawning, larval and juvenile feeding, adultresting and staging, and to move between the areas that support these components. Gulf

sturgeon use the lower riverine, estuarine, and marine environment during winter months

primarily for feeding and, more rarely, for inter-river migrations. Estuaries and bays adjacent to

the riverine units provide unobstructed passage ofsturgeon from feeding areas to spawning

grounds.Fourteen areas (units) are designated as Gulfsturgeon critical habitat. The project is located inUnit 8. Critical habitat units encompass a total of 2,783 river kilometers (km) and 6,042 km2of

estuarine and marine habitats, and include portions ofthe following Gulf ofMexico rivers,

tributaries, and estuarine, and marine areas:

Unit 1 Pearl and Bogue Chitto Rivers in Louisiana and Mississippi;Unit 2 Pascagoula, Leaf, Bowie, Big Black Creek, and Chickasawhay Rivers in

Mississippi;

Unit 3 Escambia, Conecuh, and Sepulga Rivers in Alabama and Florida;Unit 4 Yellow, Blaclcwater, and Shoal Rivers in Alabama and Florida;Unit 5 Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers in Florida and Alabama;Unit 6 Apalachicola and Brothers Rivers in Florida;

Unit 7 Suwannee and Withlacoochee River in Florida;Unit 8 Lake Pontchartrain (east of causeway), Lake Catherine, Little Lake, the

Rigolets, Lake Borgne, Pascagoula Bay, and Mississippi Sound systems in

Louisiana and Mississippi, and sections ofthe state waters within the Gulf of

Mexico;

Unit 9 Pensacola Bay system in Florida;

Unit 10 Santa Rosa Sound in Florida;Unit 11 Nearshore Gulf ofMexico in Florida;Unit 12 Choctawhatchee Bay system in Florida;Unit 13 Apalachicola Bay system in Gulf and Franklin Counties, Florida, and

Unit 14 Suwannee Sound in Florida.
(1) Abundant food items, such as detritus, aquatic insects, worms, andlor molluscs, within

riverine habitats for larval and juvenile life stages; and abundant prey items, such as

amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, gastropods, ghost shrimp, isopods, molluscs andlor

crustaceans, within estuarine and marine habitats and substrates for subadult and adult life

stages;(2) Riverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for egg deposition and development,such as limestone outcrops and cut limestone banks, bedrock, large gravel or cobble beds,

marl, soapstone, or hard clay;

(3) Riverine aggregation areas, also referred to as resting, holding, and staging areas, used byadult, subadult, andlorjuveniles, generally, but not always, located in holes below normal

riverbed depths, believed necessary for minimizing energy expenditures during fresh waterresidency and possibly for osmoregulatory functions;

(4) A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonality, and rate-of-changeof fresh water discharge over time) necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of alllife stages in the riverine environment, including migration, breeding site selection,courtship, egg fertilization, resting, and staging, and for maintaining spawning sites in

suitable condition for egg attachment, egg sheltering, resting, and larval staging;(5) Water quality, including temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content,

and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of alllife stages;(6) Sediment quality, including texture and other chemical characteristics, necessary for

normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages; and

(7) Safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary for passage within and between

riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats (e.g., an unobstructed river or a dammed river that

still allows for passage).

As stated in the final rule designating Gulfsturgeon critical habitat, the following activities, among

others, when authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency, may destroy or adversely

modif’ critical habitat:

(1) Actions that would appreciably reduce the abundance ofriverine prey for larval and

juvenile sturgeon, or of estuarine and marine prey forjuvenile and adult Gulfsturgeon,
(3) Actions that would appreciably reduce the suitability of Gulfsturgeon riverine

aggregation areas, also referred to as resting, holding, and staging areas, used by adult,subadult, andlor juveniles, believed necessary for minimizing energy expenditures and

possibly for osmoregulatory functions, such as dredged material disposal upstream or directly

within such areas; and other land uses that cause excessive sedimentation;

(4) Actions that would alter the flow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration,seasonality, and rate-of-change offresh water discharge over time) of a riverine critical

habitat unit such that it is appreciably impaired for the purposes of Gulfsturgeon migration,resting, staging, breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization, egg deposition, and egg

development, such as impoundment; water diversion; and dam operations;

(5) Actions that would alter water quality within a designated critical habitat unit, including

temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical

characteristics, such that it is appreciably impaired for normal Gulf sturgeon behavior,

reproduction, growth, or viability, such as dredging, dredged material disposal,

channelization, impoundment, in-stream mining, water diversion, dam operations, land usesthat cause excessive turbidity, and release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated

effluents into surface water or connected groundwater via point sources or dispersed nonpoint sources;

(6) Actions that would alter sediment quality within a designated critical habitat unit such

that it is appreciably impaired for normal Gulfsturgeon behavior, reproduction, growth, or

viability, such as dredged material disposal, channelization, impoundment, in-stream mining,

land uses that cause excessive sedimentation, and release of chemical or biological pollutants

that accumulate in sediments; and

(7) Actions that would obstruct migratory pathways within and between adjacent riverine,estuarine, and marine critical habitat units, such as dams, dredging, point-source-pollutantdischarges, and other physical or chemical alterations of channels and passes that restrictGulfsturgeon movement (68 FR 13399).

Within Unit 8, PCEs potentially affected by the project include water quality, sediment quality,

migratory pathways, and prey abundance. NMFS expects the effects ofthe proposed action will

have only insignificant effects on migratory pathways, water quality, and sediment quality PCEs.

The project is not located in an area considered a migratory pathway. Water quality impacts

from sediment disturbance as a result of dredging and wetland creation are expected to be

temporary and minimal, with suspended particles settling out within a short time frame without
The proposed action will directly impact the benthos by the placement of FRD structures that

will permanently remove sandy substrate; substrate modification can impact prey availability and

abundance. Therefore, the potential project impacts relative to Gulfsturgeon preyavailability/abundance are presented in the Effects ofthe Action section (Section 5).

4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

This section is an analysis ofthe effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to thecurrent status ofthe Gulf sturgeon and its designated critical habitat within the action area. The

environmental baseline is a “snapshot” ofthe action area at a specified point in time and includes state,

tribal, local, and private actions already affecting the critical habitat that will occur contemporaneouslywith the consultation in progress. Unrelated federal actions affecting the species and its critical habitat

that have completed formal or informal consultation are also part ofthe environmental baseline, as are

federal and other actions within the action area that may benefit the species and its critical habitat.

4.1 Status of Critical Habitat Within the Action Area

Ofthe fourteen units designated as Gulfsturgeon critical habitat, Unit 8 will be affected by the

proposed project. Unit 8 (Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Catherine, Little Lake, the Rigolets, Lake

Borgne, Pascagoula Bay, and Mississippi Sound) enconipasses Lake Pontchartrain east ofthe

Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, all of Little Lake, The Rigolets, Lake St. Catherine, and Lake

Borgne, including Heron Bay, and the Mississippi Sound. Critical habitat follows the shorelines

around the perimeters of each included lake. The Mississippi Sound includes adjacent open baysincluding Pascagoula Bay, Point aux Chenes Bay, Grand Bay, Sandy Bay, and barrier island

passes, including Ship Island Pass, Dog Keys Pass, Horn Island Pass, and Petit Bois Pass. The

northern boundary ofthe Mississippi Sound is the shoreline ofthe mainland between Heron BayPoint, Mississippi, and Point aux Pins, Alabama. Critical habitat excludes St. Louis Bay, north

ofthe raifroad bridge across its mouth; Biloxi Bay, north ofthe U.S. Highway 90 bridge; and

Back Bay ofBiloxi. The southern boundary follows along the broken shoreline of Lake Borgne

created by low swamp islands from Malheureux Point to Isle au Pitre. From the northeast pointofIsle au Pitre, the boundary continues in a straight north-northeast line to the point one nautical

mile (nmi) seaward ofthe western most extremity of Cat Island (30°13 1N, 89°10’W). The

southern boundary continues one nmi offshore ofthe barrier islands and offshore ofthe 72COLREGS lines at barrier island passes (defined at 33 CFR 80.815 c)), (d) and (e)) to the eastern

boundary. Between Cat Island and Ship Island there is no 72 COLREGS line. NMFS has

therefore defmed that section ofthe unit southern boundary as one nmi offshore of a straight line

drawn from the southern tip of Cat Island to the western tip of Ship Island. The eastern

boundary is the line of longitude 88° 1 8.8’W from its intersection with the shore (Point aux Pins)

to its intersection with the southern boundary. The lateral extent ofUnit 8 is the MHW line on
been documented within one nmi offthe barrier islands ofMississippi Sound. Substrate in this

unit range from sand to silt, all ofwhich contain known Gulfsturgeon prey items, including

lancelets (Menzel 1971, Abele and Kim 1986, American Fisheries Society 1989, Heise etal.1999, Ross et al. 2001, and Rogillio et al.2002).

4.2 Factors Affecting Critical Habitat within the Action Area

The April 2003 joint designation of Gulfsturgeon critical habitat by NMFS and USFWS will

benefit the species, primarily through the ESA section 7 consultation process. When critical

habitat is designated, other federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS on actions they

carry out, fund, or authorize, to ensure that their actions will not destroy or adversely modifycritical habitat. In this way, a critical habitat designation will protect physical and biological

features that are necessary for the conservation of the species. Designation of critical habitat

may also enhance awareness within federal agencies and the general public ofthe importance of

Gulfsturgeon habitat and the need for special management considerations. Numerous

nationwide COE permits exist for wetland mitigation throughout Lake Borgne. Furthermore,

federal Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act minimize and mitigate for losses of wetlandsand preserve valuable Gulfsturgeon habitat.

4.2.1 Federal ActionsFederal agencies that consult on potential impacts to Gulfsturgeon critical habitat include the

COE, the Department of Defense (DOD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC). Dredging and dredged material disposal and military activities, including trainingexercises and ordnance detonation, have the potential to impact designated critical habitat. In2003, NMFS conpleted a regional biological opinion on hopper dredging in the Gulf of Mexico

that includes maintenance dredging in Gulfsturgeon critical habitat Units 8-14 and concludedthat when existing navigation channels within designated critical habitat are dredged to only their

current depth (i.e., maintenance-dredged), without improvements (e.g., deepening or widening),the project will not destroy or adversely modify Gulfsturgeon critical habitat. While numerous

formal consultations have been conducted on potential impacts to the species, NMFS hasconducted 36 formal consultations on potential impacts to Gulfsturgeon critical habitat since the

April 18, 2003, final rule designating Gulfsturgeon critical habitat.Unit 8 is by far the largest ofthe 14 critical habitat units, by area. Ofthe consultations

conducted by NMFS on impacts to designated Gulfsturgeon critical habitat 16 ofthe 36 have

been for projects within Unit 8. Meanwhile, USFWS has yet to conduct a formal consultation to

10
Federally-regulated stormwater and industrial discharges and chemically-treated discharges from

sewage treatment systems may impact Gulfsturgeon critical habitat. NMFS continues to consult

with EPA to minimize the effects ofthese activities on both listed species and designated criticalhabitat. In addition, other federally-permitted construction activities, such as beach restoration,have the potential to impact Gulfsturgeon critical habitat.

Actions impacting wetlands abutting Gulfsturgeon critical habitat throughout Lake Borgne areregulated, managed, and mitigated via numerous COE nationwide permits. Furthermore, federal

EFH consultation requirements pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and

Conservation Act minimize and mitigate for losses ofwetlands and preserve valuable Gulf

sturgeon habitat.

4.2.2 State or Private ActionsA number of activities that may indirectly affect Gulf sturgeon critical habitat include discharges

from wastewater systems, dredging, ocean pumping and disposal, and aquaculture facilities. The

impacts from these activities are difficult to measure. However, where possible, conservation

actions are being implemented through the ESA section 7 process, ESA section 10 permitting,and state permitting programs to monitor or study impacts from these sources.Increasing coastal development and ongoing beach erosion will result in increased demands by

coastal communities, especially beach resort towns, for periodic privately-funded or federallysponsored beach renourishment projects. These activities may affect Gulfsturgeon critical

habitat by burying nearshore habitats that serve as foraging areas.

4.2.3 Conservation and Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental BaselineFederal EFH consultation requirements pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act minimize and mitigate for losses ofwetlands, and preserve valuable

foraging and developmental habitat for Gulf sturgeon.

5 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON GULF STURGEON CRITICAL HABITATAs discussed in Section 3, the PCE within critical habitat Unit 8 that may be adversely affected

by the proposed project is abundant prey items. Potential impacts to the PCE are analyzedbelow. This biological opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction or

adverse modification” of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02, which has been invalidated by severalfederal District and Circuit courts. Instead, we have relied upon the statutory provisions ofthe

ESA to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat.
sturgeon:

(1) Gulfsturgeon sub-populations using affected critical habitat;(2) Mean generation time;(3) Foraging method;(4) Prey items;

(5) Benthic community structure;(6) Recovery of benthic biota; and(7) Potential Gulfsturgeon prey in action area.

The importance ofindividual factors and the consequence of project impacts on each factor arehighly site and fact specific. Consideration ofproject effects on the seven factors demonstratesthe persistence and resilience ofthe prey resource with regard to current and projected demand.

That is, numerous variables depicting adequacy of Gulfsturgeon prey are analyzed to determine

the likelihood of appropriate and abundant prey following a project to ensure that the action isnot likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification ofthe PCE.

5.1.1 Gulf Sturgeon Sub-populations Using Affected Critical Habitat

Overall, Gulfsturgeon critical habitat Unit 8 provides juvenile, subadult, and adult feeding,

resting, and passage habitat for Gulfsturgeon from the Pascagoula and the Pearl Rivers. Theproject area is located about 22 mi south ofthe Pearl River and approximately 72 mi southwest

ofthe Pascagoula River. The current population estimate (1996) for the Pearl River Gulf

sturgeon sub-population is 292 (Morrow Ct al. 1999). The estimated number offish in the

Pascagoula River sub-population is 234 (Ross et al. 2002). Rogillio (1993) reported 177 Gulf

sturgeon caught in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin from October 1991 to September 1992; two

were confirmed as caught in Lake Borgne. From 1988 to 1999, the Louisiana Department of

Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) captured 60 Gulfsturgeon, via various methods, throughout theLake Pontchartrain Basin. In 2002, LDWF reported capture of a Gulfsturgeon in a cove west ofAlligator Point, Lake Borgne. Although there has been extensive effort to locate Gulf sturgeon

in Lake Borgne, none ofthe captures can be confirmed as located near the project site.Therefore, the number of Gulfsturgeon that would currently utilize the project area and that

would be affected by an impacted prey base is presumably few, but likely to increase as speciesrecovery occurs.

5.1.2 Mean Generation Time

Mean generation time (mean period elapsing between the birth ofthe parents and the birth ofthe

offspring) is a useful tool to estimate the period oftime for a population to increase in size.

12
p

p

p

many threats have been reduced with the protection afforded via section 7 ofthe ESA.

5.1.3 Foraging Method

Gulfsturgeon possess a highly protrusible mouth that extends downward to vacuum up

sediments containing their prey (i.e., infaunal macroinvertebrates). This suction feeding requiresan expandable mouth cavity and a relatively narrow mouth through which to funnel water andfood items (Westneat 2001). Success ofsuction feeding relies on the ability ofthe predator’s

mouth to protrude into the proximity of prey (Westneat 2001); the suction tube ofthe sturgeon’smouth must be able to maintain contact with the benthos their prey inhabit. Findeis (1997)

described sturgeon as exhibiting evolutionary traits adapted for cruising the benthos in search of

prey. Notably, their caudal fin morphology has presumably been adapted for benthic cruising;

the hypochordal lobe is often reduced to allow sweeping ofthe tail while close to the substrate

(Findeis 1997).

Research supports that Gulfsturgeon are typically found foraging in depths greater than 1 meter.

Lower energy areas, where water depth is greater than 1 to 2 meters, would likely assist foraging

success given their feeding biology and the dissipation ofwave energy. The protrusible mouth

ofthese suction feeders must make contact with the benthos in order to vacuum prey out ofthe

sediments while benthic cruising. The slightly deeper depths (2 to 4 meters) the sturgeon seem

to prefer would have less wave energy at the substrate compared to the shallower swash zone.Downward cycloidal movement of waves dissipates energy through the water column (i.e., wave

energy is exponentially dissipated with depth). A sturgeon attempting to forage in a high-energy,shallow-water environment (i.e., the swash zone) would likely be challenged to retain positionand maintain contact with the benthos. Therefore, Gulfsturgeon foraging success would likely

be greater in the slightly deeper, lower energy areas compared to the high-energy swash zone.

As benthic cruisers, sturgeon forage extensively in an area, presumably until preferred prey is

depleted/reduced, then relocate and resume foraging. Tracking observations by Sulak and

Clugston (1999), Fox et al. (2002), and Edwards et al. (2003) support that individual Gulf

sturgeon move over an area until they encounter suitable prey type and density, at which time

they forage for extended periods oftime. Individual Gulfsturgeon often remain in localized

areas (less than one square kilometer) for extended periods oftime (greater than two weeks) and

then move rapidly to another area where localized movements occurred again (Fox et al. 2002).

While the exact amount of benthic area required to sustain Gulfsturgeon health and growth is

unknown (and likely dependent on fish size and reproductive status), Gulfsturgeon have been

known to travel long distances (greater than 161 kilometers) during their winter feeding period.

This supports the likelihood that any Gulf sturgeon in the project area will find appropriate and

13
and caddis flies), worms (oligochaete), and bivalves (Huff 1975, Mason and Clugston 1993);

adults forage sparingly in freshwater and depend almost entirely on estuarine and marine prey for

their growth (Gu et al. 2001). Both adult and subadult Gulfsturgeon are known to lose up to 30percent oftheir total body weight while in freshwater, and subsequently compensate the loss

during winter feeding in marine areas (Carr 1983, Wooley and Crateau 1985, Clugston et al.

1995, Morrow et al. 1998, Heise et al. 1999, Sulak and Clugston 1999, Ross et al. 2000).

Therefore, once Gulfsturgeon leave the river after having spent at least six months in the river

fasting, it is presumed that they immediately begin feeding. Upon exiting the rivers, Gulf

sturgeon concentrate around the mouths oftheir natal rivers in lakes and bays. These areas are

very important for the Gulfsturgeon as they offer the first foraging opportunity for the Gulf

sturgeon exiting the rivers.

Few data have been collected on the food habits of Gulfsturgeon; their threatened status limits

sampling efforts and gastric lavaging has only recently become successful. Gulfsturgeon have

been described as opportunistic and indiscriminate benthivores; their guts generally containbenthic marine invertebrates including amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, gastropods, shrimp,

isopods, mollusks, and crustaceans (Huff 1975, Mason and Clugston 1993, Carr et al. 1996, Foxet al. 2000, Fox et al. 2002). During the early fall and winter, immediately followingdownstream migration, Gulf sturgeon are most often located in depths less than 20 feet in sandy

areas that support burrowing macroinvertebrates, where the fish are presumably foraging (Craftet al. 2001, Ross et al. 2001, Fox et al. 2002, Parauka et al. 2001). Generally, Gulfsturgeon preyare burrowing species (e.g., annelids, polychaetes, and oligochaetes, amphipods, isopods, andlancelets) that feed on detritus and/or suspended particles, and inhabit sandy substrate.5.1.5 Benthic Community Structure

In most areas, community structure ofthe benthos is unlcnown. Without a comprehensive

benthic survey, availability of Gulfsturgeon prey remains undeterminable. While the absolutebiomass of benthic meio- and macrofauna is not totally dependent upon sediment grain size,

community structure and faunal size directly correlate to benthic substrate (Parsons et al. 1984).Ifsediment type is not changed as a result of dredging, recolonization can be expected with the

same species returning to the disturbed area (Stickney 1984). NOCOE reported that boring logs

of depth-integrated composites indicate that the sediments ofthe proposed dredging areas are

relatively homogenous through the action depth and consist primarily of poorly sorted sandymud or very fine mud (i.e., clay).

Mud is defined, per the Wentworth scale, as a combination ofsilt (materials between 1/16 and

1/256 mm diameter) and clay (materials <1/256 mm diameter). Because sediments which differ

in grain size differ in numerous properties ofsignificance for organisms, sediment type is the

14
nutrients through the sediment grains, and gases and large particles of detritus are readily trapped

in spaces between sediment grains. Sediment in muddy-sand areas is more compacted, provides

less porosity and fewer interstitial spaces, and thereby provides appropriate habitat for organismssuch as polychaetes, bivalves, and gastropods. Conversely, sandy substrate has more porosityand interstitial spaces and provides appropriate habitat for soft-bodied organisms such as

amphipods and isopods. Generally, meio- and macrofaunal species found in sand habitats aresoft-bodied and move through interstitial spaces; fauna in muddy sediments are usually stockier(heavier-bodied) species (McIntyre 1969). Muddy-substrate meio- and macrofauna live near thesediment surface (often in the upper centimeter) and may inhabit anaerobic areas, while sandysubstrate meiofauna can often be found in abundance to depths greater than 10 cm. Therefore,

many burrowing species that are deposit feeders prefer sandy substrates.

5.1.6 Potential Gulf Sturgeon Prey in the Action Area

Because the project area is composed ofsubstrates that do not generally support gulfsturgeon

prey items, the area is not expected to contain high numbers ofsturgeon prey taxa or high

densities. The NOCOE (2007) confirmed this by sampling the borrow areas where they foundthat the bottom substrates contain limited quantities of potential prey items (amphipods,

oligochaetes, and polychaetes) ofthe Gulfsturgeon.5.1.7 Recovery of Benthic Biota

Rate and success of benthic recovery resulting from removal ofmaterials during maintenance

dredging and the accompanying temporary storage of dredged material is a function ofsediment

texture, depth, time of year, and habitat type. The materials that will be removed (dredged) andtemporarily stored adjacent to the dredged areas from the project area are homogenous withthose that will remain in the channel and storage areas and, therefore, no alteration of habitat

composition is occurring. The area will remain a shallow-water neritic zone that can support

sublittoral benthic biota. Therefore, because similar habitat, in terms of both sedimentcomposition and depth, will be present pre- and post-dredging and storage, NMFS concludes that

the benthic biota in the project dredge and fill areas will have the ability to recover andrecolonize. Sediment composition of approximately 40 acres will be permanently modified bythe construction of FRDs. These structures will permanently bury existing substrates with rock

structures no longer able to support aquatic organisms that might include Gulfsturgeon prey.6 CUMULATIVE EFFECTSESA section 7 regulations require NMFS to consider cumulative effects in formulating their

biological opinions (50 CFR 402.14). Cumulative effects include the effects offuture state,

15
this, both NMFS and the FWS determined that the areas affected by these actions contained thephysical and biological characteristics essential for the conservation of Gulfsturgeon. Based on

this determination the action area, as well as other areas in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, were

designated critical habitat for Gulfsturgeon on April 18, 2003 (68 FR 13370, March 19, 2003).

Many ofthe future actions affecting the critical habitat involve some degree of federal

authorization (e.g., through MMS or COE) and will require consultation under section 7 oftheESA. Therefore, NMFS will monitor and consult on actions that may cause future degradationof Gulfsturgeon critical habitat.

7 DESTRUCTION OR ADVERSE MODIFICATION ANALYSISThis section analyzes the effects ofthis action relative to the ecological function of designatedcritical habitat; that is, within Unit 8 the PCEs continuing to provide subadult and adult feeding,

resting, and passage habitat for Gulfsturgeon (68 FR 13395). Tn the following analysis we

demonstrate that while prey habitat will be temporarily modified with some lost permanently,

Unit 8 will continue to serve its intended conservation role for Gulfsturgeon.

Access channel dredging and temporary storage ofthis material will result in the temporary loss

of approximately 2054 acres with FRD construction resulting in the permanent loss of

approximately 40 acres of Gulfsturgeon critical habitat Unit 8. This represents a temporary

reduction ofless than 0.0114 percent and the permanent loss of 0.00022 percent ofthe total

designated habitat in Unit 8, respectively. As discussed above, Gulfsturgeon are opportunistic

feeders that forage over large distances, and thus will be able to locate prey throughout portions

of Unit 8 unaffected by this action. Given that sturgeon forage opportunistically while benthic

cruising, they can easily locate prey and fulfill nutritional requirements in available sandy areasadjacent to those impacted. Thus, the temporary reduction of benthic prey availability in the

project area as a result ofthe proposed dredging and temporary stockpiling of dredged materials

adjacent to the floatation channels, or the permanent reduction from the construction of FRDs, is

not expected to reduce critical habitat Unit 8’s ability to support the Gulfsturgeon’s conservation

in the short or long term. NMFS based this determination upon consideration ofthe current

population estimates, the ability ofthe benthic community to recover given the similarity of

materials pre- and post-dredging, the species foraging method, the availability ofprey items

adjacent to the project locations, and the time period between the action and the 10- to 30-year

period needed for an increase in population size.

Tn addition, the proposed action will not interfere with actions or tasks identified in the Gulf

sturgeon recovery plan (IJSFWS et al. 1995). NMFS concludes that the direct and indirecteffects ofthe Lake Borgne project will not impact the ecological function ofUnit 8, and that it

will continue to serve its intended conservation role for Gulfsturgeon.

16
variability. NMFS does not expect measurable impacts to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat as a

result ofimpacts to water quality, migratory pathways, sediment quality, or abundance of prey

items related to this project. NMFS concludes the action, as proposed, is not likely to destroy or

adversely modify designated Gulfsturgeon critical habitat.

9 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed action will incidentally take any species and no take

is being authorized. However, ifsuch a take occurs, the NOCOE shall immediately notify

NMFS by e-mail (takerepoanmfsser(noaa.gov), phone (727) 824-5312), or fax (727) 824-

5309.

10 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)( 1) ofthe ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authority to further the

purposes ofthe ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species to help implement

recovery plans or to develop information. NMFS believes NOCOE should implement the

following conservation recommendation.

1. Gather data describing recovery rates of Gulfsturgeon prey species in response to

recolonization ofmuddy-sand substrate that would assist in future assessments ofimpacts

to Gulfsturgeon prey items.

In order for NMFS to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or

benefiting listed species or their habitats, NMFS requests notification ofthe implementation of

any conservation recommendations.

11 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION

This concludes formal consultation on the MRGO and Lake Borgne, Louisiana, Wetland

Creation and Shoreline Protection Project. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation offormalconsultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the

action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if(1) the amount or extent oftaking

specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects ofthe

action may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously

considered, (3) the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to
p

AFS (American Fisheries Society). 1989. Common and scientific names of aquatic

invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Special

Publication 17, Bethesda, Maryland. 77 pp.

Carr, A. 1983. All the way down upon the Suwannee River. Audubon Magazine 85: 78-101.

Carr, S.H., F. Tatman, and F.A. Chapman. 1996. Observations on the natural history ofthe Gulf

of Mexico sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Vladykov 1955 in the Suwannee River,

southeastern United States. Ecology ofFreshwater Fish 5: 169-174.

Clugston, J.P., A.M. Foster, and S.H. Carr. 1995. Gulfsturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi,

in the Suwannee River, Florida. Pp. 2 15-224 In: A.D. Gershanovich and T.I.J. Smith,

eds. Proceedings ofInternational Symposium on Sturgeons. Moscow, Russia.

September 6-11, 1993. 3’7Opp.

Craft, N.M., B. Russell, and S. Travis. 2001. Identification of Gulfsturgeon spawning habitats

and migratory patterns in the Yellow and Escambia River systems. Final Report to the

Florida Marine Research Institute, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 19 pp.

Edwards, R.E., K.J. Sulak, M.T. Randall, and C.B. Grimes. 2003. Movements of Gulfsturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) in nearshore habitat as determined by acoustic telemetry.Gulf of Mexico Science 21: 59-70.

Findeis, E. K. 1997. Osteology and phylogenetic interrelationships ofsturgeons (Acipenserids).

Environmental Biology ofFishes 48: 73-126.

Foster, A.M. and J.P. Clugston. 1997. Seasonal migration of Gulfsturgeon in the Suwannee

River, Florida. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 126: 302-308.

Fox, D.A. and J.E. Hightower. 1998. Gulfsturgeon estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use

in Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida. Annual Report for 1998 to the National Marine

Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Panama City, Florida. 29 pp.

Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Parauka. 2000. Gulfsturgeon spawning, migration, and

habitat in the Choctawhatchee River System, Alabama-Florida. Transactions oftheAmerican Fisheries Society 129: 811-826.

Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Parauka. 2002. Estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use

by Gulfsturgeon from the Choctawhatchee River system, Florida. American Fisheries

Society Symposium 28: 111-126

18
Huff, J.A. 1975. Life history ofthe Gulf ofMexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in

the Suwannee River, Florida. Marine Resources Publication No. 16. 32 pp.

Mason, W.T., Jr., and J.P. Clugston. 1993. Foods ofthe Gulfsturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus

desotoi in the Suwannee River, Florida. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society

122: 378-385.

McIntyre, A.D. 1969. Ecology ofmarine meiobenthos. Biological Review 44: 245-290.

Menzel, R.W. 1971. Checklist ofthe marine fauna and flora ofthe Apalachee Bay and the St.

George Sound area. Third Edition. Department of Oceanography, Florida State

University, Tallahassee, Florida. 126 pp.

Morgan, E. 1970. The effect of environmental factors on the distribution ofthe amphipod

Pectenogammarus planicrurus, with particular reference to grain size. Journal oftheMarine Biological Association ofthe United Kingdom 50: 769-785.

Morrow, J.V. Jr., K.J. Killgore, J.P. Kirk, and H.E. Rogillio. 1999. Recommended

enhancements to the Gulfsturgeon recovery and management plan based on Pearl River

studies. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 1117-1121.

Morrow, J.V. Jr., K.J. Killgore, J.P. Kirk, and H.E. Rogillio. 1998. Distribution and population

attributes of Gulf Sturgeon in the lower Pearl River System, Louisiana. Proceedings of

the Annual Conference ofthe Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

50: 79-90.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the shortnose sturgeon recovery team for the

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pp.

NOCOE (New Orleans District Corps of Engineers). 2007. Characterization ofBenthic Habitats

Associated with Potential Borrow Sites and Access Channels in Lake Borgne, Louisiana.

Odenkirk, J.S. 1989. Movements of Gulf ofMexico sturgeon in the Apalachicola River,

Florida. Proceedings ofthe Annual Conference ofthe Southeastern Association ofFish

and Wildlife Agencies 43: 230-238.

Parauka, F.M., S.K. Alam, and D.A. Fox. 2001. Movement and habitat use ofsubadult Gulf

sturgeon in Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida. Proceedings ofthe Annual Conference oftheSoutheastern Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies 55: 280-297.

19
Rogillio, H.E., E.A. Rabalais, J.S. Forester, C.N. Doolittle, W.J. Granger, and J.P. Kirk. 2001.

Status, movement and habitat use study of Gulfsturgeon in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin,

Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 43 pp.

Ross, S.T., R.J. Heise, M.A. Dugo, B.R. Kreiser, B.R. Bowen, and W.T. Slack. 2002.

Movement, spawning sites, habitat use, and genetic structure ofthe Gulfsturgeon

(Aczpenser oxyrinchus desotoi) in the Pascagoula drainage ofMississippi: year VI.

Department ofBiological Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, and MississippiMuseum ofNatural Science. Funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Project No. E-i,

Segment 17.

Ross, S.T., R.J. Heise, W.T. Slack, J.A. Ewing, III, and M. Dugo. 2000. Movement and habitat

use ofthe Gulfsturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi in the Pascagoula drainage ofMississippi: year IV. Mississippi Department ofWildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, andMississippi Museum ofNatural Science. Funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Project No. E-i, Segment 15. 58 pp.

Simpfendorfer, C. 2003. Abundance, movement and habitat use ofthe smalltooth sawfish.

Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report Number 929.

Stickney, R.R. 1984. Estuarine ecology ofthe southeastern United States and Gulf ofMexico.

Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 310 pp.

Sulak, K. J. and J.P. Clugston. 1999. Recent advances in life history of Gulf ofMexico sturgeon

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi in the Suwannee River, Florida, U.S.A.: a synopsis.

Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 116-128.

USFWS, GSMFC, and NMFS. 1995. U.S. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan. Atlanta,

Georgia. 170 pp.

Westneat, M.W. 2001. Ingestion in fish. Encyclopedia of Life Science 12: 1-6.Wooley, C.M. and E.J. Crateau. 1985. Movement, microhabitat, exploitation, and management

of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 5: 590-605.

20
04/02/2009 11:47 FAX 3372914149 US F1sh&W11d11fe Serv1ce ~001

USFWS
 

Louisiana Field Office 

u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services Fax (337) 291-3139 

646 Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400 Office (337) 291-3100 

Lafayette, LA 70506 Email: lafayette@fws. gov 

FAXFORM 

_T_o_:-uD:..s.(----:..-1<'.:....!../_..(l_t,, Fr_om_:_D t .,~\ J 

Fax: Pages: (incl. cover) 

Phone: Date: 

Re: cc: 

DUrgent DForReview D Please Comment D Please Reply 

Comments: 

Louisiana Black Bear Scientific Name: Ursus americanus luteolus 

Family: Ursidae Status: Threatened - Federal 

Register: January 7, 1992 

DESCRIPTION: The LouisianaBlackBear is one ofsixteen recognized subspecies ofllie American black bear U. Americanus. The 

Louisiana Black Bear historical range includes Louisiana. Southern Mississippi and Eastern Texas. The Louisiana Black Bear is 

distinguished from other black bears by possessing a skull that is longer, more narrow, and flat, and by possessing proportion8tcly large 

molar teeth. Black bears arc huge., bulky mammals with long bled hair. Although weight varies considerably, luge males may weigh 

more than 600 pounds. Black bears are making a comeback in the lower Mississippi River Valley, due largely to the.efforts of state and 

federal agencies, conservation organizations, universities, timber compllJlies. farmers and other private landowners. 
US Fish&Wildlife Service 04/P2/2009 11:47 FAX 3372914149 

RECEIVED 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

ORLE ANS DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAR , 82

• 

P.O. BOX &0267 

NEW PRLEANS. LOUISIANA 70160.0267 

REP YTO FISH & WLDL. SERV 

ATT PmONOFLAFAYETTE. LA. 

Planning, Programs, and 

Project Management Division 

Environmental Planning 

and Compliance Branch 

Mr. James F. Boggs 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

646 Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400 

Lafayette, Louisiana 70506 

Dear Mr. Boggs: 

The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, New Orleans District (USACE MVN) published a notice of 

availability (Federal Register on October 31, 2008 [Volume 73, Number 212]) ofthe draft 

environmental impact statement (DBIS) for the Mississippi River - Gulf Outlet (MRGO), 

Louisiana, and Lake Borgne - Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection Project. The 

Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) would construct shoreline protection features along the Lake 

Borgne shoreline and restore and nourish wetlands in the MRGO - Lake Borgne estuarine 

complex. The TSP would initially create, nourish, and protect a total of 3,867 acres ofwetlands 

with a net total of2,162 acres ofwetlands and a value of 1,189 average annual habitat units 

(AAHUs) over the SO-year period of analysis with a total estimated cost of $62,400,000 inclusive 

of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and 

supeTVlSlon. 

The USACE MVN has closely coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the study process regarding potential 

project-induced impacts to threatened and endangered species and its critical habitat. This 

coordination is documented in the DEIS. 

The NMFS initiated formal consultation regarding potential project-induced impacts to Gulf 

sturgeon critical habitat on March 13, 2008, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended. By letter dated June 27, 2008 the NMFS issued their 

biological opinion that this project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify Gulf sturgeon. 

critical habitat. The ESA - section 7 consultation biological opinion was included as an appendix 

to the draft EIS. 

The USACE MVN is now preparing to release for review the final EIS for this project. There 

are no new issues or potential ~pacts. to threatened or endangered species. The USACE MVN 

requests concurrence with it's detennination that implementation ofthe TSP for this project is 

not likely to destroy or adversely modify Gulf sturgeon or its critical habitat. In addition, the 

proposed action would not destroy or modify any other threatened or endangered species or its 

critical habitat. 
1

Ken Duffy

From: Kelly Shotts [Kelly.Shotts@noaa.gov]

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:42 AM

To: William.P.Klein.Jr@usace.army.mil

Cc: Ken Duffy; Richard Hartman; Eric Hawk

Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Any word on Final concurrence regarding Threatened & Endangered Species]]

[Fwd: Any word on 

Final concur...

Hello Bill,

Richard Hartman forwarded your email regarding the MRGO-Lake Borgne Wetland Creation and 

Shoreline Protection project to me. I looked the project up in our database and confirmed

that one of my colleagues completed the biological opinion for this project on June 27, 

2008, as 

your letter stated. Because nothing has changed since the biological 

opinion was issued, there is no need to consult further. Unless there are changes to the 

project or to the status of listed species/designated critical habitat in the project 

area, the biological opinion you have in hand is sufficient. My colleague that worked on 

this project is out of town until the middle of next week. If you would like to discuss 

this further, you can contact us at 727-824-5312.

Thanks!

Kelly

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection

FEIS June 2009 

 

APPENDIX B 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Letter 





Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection

FEIS June 2009 

 

APPENDIX C 

NOAA Fisheries Service Coordination Letter 





Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection

FEIS June 2009 

 

APPENDIX D 

404(b)(1) Water Quality Report 













































Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection

FEIS June 2009 

 

APPENDIX E 

Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 1

LOUISIANA COASTAL RESOURCES PROGRAM 

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO), LOUISIANA, AND LAKE BORGNE 

WETLAND CREATION AND SHORELINE PROTECTION 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

EIS #06-12 

INTRODUCTION 

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et. seq. requires that 

“each federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall 

conduct or support those activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, 

consistent with approved state management programs.” In accordance with Section 307, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District (CEMVN) has prepared a Consistency 

Determination for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), Louisiana, and Lake Borgne 

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection project. Coastal Use Guidelines were written in 

order to implement the policies and goals of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program, and 

serve as a set of performance standards for evaluating projects. Compliance with the Louisiana 

Coastal Resources Program, and therefore, Section 307, requires compliance with applicable 

Coastal Use Guidelines. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The CEMVN proposes to repair, construct and provide measures and structures necessary to 

protect, restore or increase wetlands, to prevent saltwater intrusion and storm surge in the 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel and the Lake Borgne estuarine 

complex. Construction of the MRGO, in synergistic combination with other natural and manmade factors, has caused significant land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat 

modification, adverse impacts to wildlife and fisheries and other environmental resources. 

Without action, critical landscape components of this estuarine complex, such as the land bridge 

between Lake Borgne and the MRGO, would continue to degrade, resulting in increased 

hydrologic connectivity between the two water bodies. 

In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused additional widespread damage to this estuarine 

system. 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 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. Section 2304 in Title II, Chapter 3 of the “Emergency Supplemental 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 2

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. 

Recent analysis indicates that tropical storm intensity, storm surge, and flood stages will 

continue to increase throughout southeastern Louisiana. The restoration and protection of the 

Lake Borgne estuarine complex, especially the critical land bridge, is vital to prevent the 

exposure of the hurricane protection system levees in St. Bernard and Orleans Parishes from the 

full effects of storm-driven waves and storm surge in Lake Borgne. The land bridge also serves 

to protect navigation interests, both commercial and recreational, in the GIWW and in the 

MRGO channel. 

Wetland loss throughout the project area is projected to continue at the same or accelerated 

rates. About 9,850 acres of emergent wetlands in the Lake Borgne and MRGO estuarine 

complex are projected to be lost in the project area over the 50-year period of analysis, likely 

resulting in more numerous and larger breaches in the land bridge between Lake Borgne and the 

MRGO. Environmental impacts from the degradation of this land bridge would include 

disruption of natural littoral flows, increased tidal prism, increased hydraulic flushing, increased 

salinities, degradation and loss of wetlands that provides important 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 interand intra-specific competition between resident and migratory fish and wildlife species for 

decreasing wetland resources. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action would create 1,250 acres and nourish 1,400 acres of brackish marsh in the 

Golden Triangle; and create 425 acres and nourish 270 acres of saline marsh west of Shell 

Beach. The proposed action also includes four shoreline protection features located along the 

Lake Borgne shoreline in the vicinity of Bayou Bienvenue (16,230 lf) to protect 186 acres; in 

the vicinity of Bayou Dupre (17,650 lf) to protect 142 acres; and west of Shell Beach (15,400 lf) 

to protect 194 acres. Approximately 49,280 linear feet of shoreline protection features would 

protect a total of 522 acres of adjacent wetlands from degradation and wave erosion. The 

proposed action would require a total 9.7 million cubic yards of borrow for wetland creation and 

nourishment that would be removed from approximately 1,850 acres of Lake Borgne water 

bottoms. The proposed action would place a total of 208,650 square yards of geotextile fabric 

and 423,200 tons of rock along the Lake Borgne shoreline. A total of 118.3 acres of Lake 

Borgne water bottoms 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. The proposed action would provide a net benefit of 2,162 acres and 1,189 Average 

Annual Habitat Units. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Progra

FEIS 

E – 3

Figure E-1 Features of the Proposed Action. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 4

GUIDELINES 

1. GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO ALL USES 

Guideline 1.1 The guidelines must be read in their entirety. Any proposed use may be 

subject to the requirements of more than one guideline or section of guidelines and all 

applicable guidelines must be complied with. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 1.2 Conformance with applicable water and air quality laws, standards and 

regulations, and with those other laws, standards and regulations which have been 

incorporated into the coastal resources program shall be deemed in conformance with the 

program except to the extent that these guidelines would impose additional requirements. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 1.3 The guidelines include both general provisions applicable to all uses and 

specific provisions applicable only to certain types of uses. The general guidelines apply in 

all situations. The specific guidelines apply only to the situations they address. Specific and 

general guidelines should be interpreted to be consistent with each other. In the event 

there is an inconsistency, the specific should prevail. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 1.4 These guidelines are not intended to nor shall they be interpreted so as to 

result in an involuntary acquisition or taking of property. 

Response: No involuntary acquisition would be required for the proposed action. Oyster leases 

that are anticipated to be impacted would be acquired through the Louisiana Department of 

Natural Resources oyster lease acquisition program.

Guideline 1.5 No use or activity shall be carried out or conducted in such a manner as to 

constitute a violation of the terms of a grant or donation of any lands or water-bottoms to 

the State or any subdivision thereof. Revocations of such grants and donations shall be 

avoided. 

Response: No violations or revocations of such grants or donations are expected. 

Guideline 1.6 Information regarding the following general factors shall be utilized by the 

permitting authority in evaluating whether the proposed use is in compliance with the 

guidelines. 

a) type, nature and location of use. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

b) elevation, soil and water conditions and flood and storm hazard characteristics of 

site. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

c) techniques and materials used in construction, operation and maintenance of use. 

Response: Acknowledged. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 5

d) existing drainage patterns and water regimes of surrounding area including flow, 

circulation, quality, quantity and salinity; and impacts on them. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

e) availability of feasible alternative sites or methods – for implementing the use. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

f) designation of the area for certain uses as part of a local program. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

g) economic need for use and extent of impacts of use on economy of locality. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

h) extent of resulting public and private benefits. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

i) extent of coastal water dependency of the use. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

j) existence of necessary infrastructure to support the use and public costs resulting 

from use. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

k) extent of impacts on existing and traditional uses of the area and on future uses for 

which the area is suited. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

l) proximity to, and extent of impacts on important natural features such as beaches, 

barrier islands, tidal passes, wildlife and aquatic habitats, and forest lands. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

m) the extent to which regional, state and national interests are served including the 

national interest in resources and the siting of facilities in the coastal zones as identified in 

the coastal resources program. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

n) proximity to, and extent of impacts on, special areas, particular areas, or other 

areas of particular concern of the state program or local programs. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

o) likelihood of, and extent of impacts of, resulting secondary impacts and cumulative 

impacts. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

p) proximity to and extent of impacts on public lands or works, or historic, 

recreational or cultural resources. 

Response: Acknowledged. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 6

q) extent of impacts on navigation, fishing, public access, and recreational 

opportunities. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

r) extent of compatibility with natural and cultural setting. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

s) extent of long term benefits or adverse impacts. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 1.7 It is the policy of the coastal resources program to avoid the following 

adverse impacts. To this end, all uses and activities shall be planned, sited, designed, 

constructed, operated and maintained to avoid to the maximum extent practicable 

significant: 

a) reductions in the natural supply of sediment and nutrients to the coastal system by 

alterations of freshwater flow. 

Response: The proposed action would not alter freshwater flows as the project area is located in 

a brackish and saline dominated estuarine system. Rather, the proposed action would provide 

approximately 49,280 linear feet of shoreline protection to the critical land bridge separating 

Lake Borgne from the MRGO channel, as well as increase the emergent wetlands in the land 

bridge by 1,675 acres, and nourish 1,670 additional acres. The proposed action would maintain 

existing flows and hydrology in the area and reduce interior marsh loss by reducing waveinduced shoreline erosion. 

b) adverse economic impacts on the locality of the use and affected governmental 

bodies. 

Response: The proposed action is not expected to have any adverse economic impacts on the 

locality of the use or on nearby governmental bodies. No industries, jobs, or other economic 

activities would be adversely impacted by the wetland creation and nourishment or shoreline 

protection features. 

c) detrimental discharges of inorganic nutrient compounds into coastal waters. 

Response: There would be a temporary increase in the concentration of inorganic nutrient 

compounds near the borrow sites due to resuspension of sediments during dredging operations. 

Any affects are expected to be minor and would occur only during actual dredging and 

construction operations. 

d) alterations in the natural concentration of oxygen in coastal waters. 

Response: There would be a temporary decrease in the dissolved oxygen concentrations during 

actual construction operations, as well as for a short time thereafter. Any effects are expected to 

be minor and would occur only during actual dredging activities. Dissolved oxygen levels 

would return to ambient levels following construction operations. 

e) destruction or adverse alterations of streams, wetland, tidal passes, inshore waters 

and water bottoms, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and other natural biologically 

valuable areas or protective coastal features. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 7

Response: The proposed shoreline protection features would prevent interior marshes in the 

land bridge from being exposed to wind-driven wave erosion in Lake Borgne. Wetland creation 

in the Golden Triangle and at Shell Beach would increase the acreage of wetlands in the natural 

land bridge between Lake Borgne and MRGO and prevent the increased hydrologic 

connectivity between these two water bodies as well as prevent the continued rapid breakup of 

adjacent marshes. Approximately 9.7 million cubic yards of material would be dredged in four 

separate designated areas within Lake Borgne a minimum of 3,000 feet from the shoreline. An 

area of up to 1,070 acres of water bottom would be dredged to provide material for emergent 

wetland creation in Golden Triangle; two areas of up to 230 acres each and one of up to 320 

acres would be dredged to provide material for emergent wetland creation at designated areas at 

Shell Beach. Impacts associated with dredging access and floatation channels are unavoidable 

and would result in a brief variation in bottom topography. 

f) adverse disruption of existing social patterns. 

Response: The area is remote, accessible only via boat or aircraft, and uninhabited. During 

construction of restoration features the project area would be unavailable for use. However, any 

disruptions would be short-term and are not expected to adversely disrupt existing social 

patterns. 

g) alterations of the natural temperature regime of coastal waters. 

Response: There would be a temporary and localized increase in water temperatures associated 

with increased turbidity during construction activities. However temperatures would return to 

ambient levels following completion of construction. 

h) detrimental changes in existing salinity regimes. 

Response: The proposed action would not alter salinity regimes in or around the project area. 

i) detrimental changes in littoral and sediment transport processes. 

Response: Shoreline protection features may reduce the amount of material that gets deposited 

onto adjacent marshes during storm events from resuspension of lake bottom sediments and 

transported over existing marshes. However the protection afforded to the shoreline and interior 

emergent wetlands from the rock dikes would outweigh this impact. Additionally, shoreline 

protection features would potentially accrete sediments between the dike and the shoreline by 

reducing water movement there, allowing sediments to settle out of suspension. Overall, the 

shoreline protection and wetland creation in the land bridge would prevent the increase in tidal 

exchange and tidal scouring between Lake Borgne and the MRGO channel that would occur if 

the land bridge were allowed to continue to degrade. 

j) adverse effects of cumulative impacts. 

Response: There would be no adverse cumulative impacts from the proposed action. To the 

contrary, cumulative impacts would primarily be beneficial, and would be associated with 

incremental impacts of similar wetland and protection features. Cumulative impacts would be 

the synergistic effect with the additive combination of impacts and benefits for overall net acres 

created, nourished, and protected by other Federal, state, local, and private restoration efforts 

including: CWPPRA 33,690 acres; State 2,543 acres; Mitigation Civil Works 4,990 acres; 

Mitigation Regulatory Permits 6,411 acres; Vegetation 535 acres; Section 204/1135, Beneficial 

Use 226 acres; WRDA 16,000 acres for a total of 64,410 acres. The CWPPRA PO-30 project 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 8

has been authorized for construction, and portions of the original CWPPRA PO-32 project are 

currently under construction as part of the HPS authority. Both of those projects would 

construct shoreline protection features 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. The 

proposed action would work synergistically with those projects, and other shoreline protection 

projects along the MRGO channel installed as Operations and Maintenance to provide more 

complete protection for the land bridge. The more complete protection of the land bridge would 

help to prevent the increased water exchange between Lake Borgne and the MRGO channel 

expected with the No Action Alternative. The synergy among similar projects in the area would 

result in greater benefits to the land bridge than the sum of the components individually. 

k) detrimental discharges of suspended solids into coastal waters, including turbidity 

resulting from dredging. 

Response: There would be a temporary increase in turbidity and suspended solids during 

construction (dredging and placement) of project features. However, any effects would be 

temporary and conditions would return to ambient following completion of construction 

activities. 

l) reductions or blockage of water flow or natural circulation patterns within or into 

an estuarine system or a wetland forest. 

Response: Temporary reductions in water flows into emergent wetland creation sites would 

result from construction of retention dikes. However, retention dikes would be constructed of in 

situ material, which would be allowed to degrade following construction and dewatering 

thereby reestablishing hydrologic connectivity. Shoreline protection features would be 

constructed to permit ingress and egress of flows and aquatic organisms. 

m) discharges of pathogens or toxic substances into coastal waters. 

Response: There are no known toxic or pathogenic substance levels that are expected to 

significantly increase due to implementing the proposed action. 

n) adverse alteration or destruction of archaeological, historical, or other cultural 

resources. 

Response: Adverse alteration or destruction of these resources is not expected to occur. A 

cultural resource survey of the project area was conducted during the summer of 2007. All 

archaeological, historical, or other cultural resources sites identified would be avoided by 

modifying the design of the proposed action features. 

o) fostering of detrimental secondary impacts in undisturbed or biologically highly 

productive wetland areas. 

Response: Wetland loss throughout the project area is projected to continue at the same or 

accelerated rates. About 9,850 acres of emergent wetlands in the Lake Borgne and MRGO 

estuarine complex are projected to be lost in the project area over the 50-year period of analysis. 

Shoreline erosion, increased tidal exchange and tidal scouring, and interior emergent wetland 

fragmentation and loss have altered the biological productivity of the project area. No 

detrimental secondary impacts from the proposed action are expected; rather, the proposed 

action would increase the emergent wetland acreage and moderate impacts attributed to 

shoreline erosion, subsidence, and natural and man-made processes. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 9

p) adverse alteration or destruction of unique or valuable habitats, critical habitat for 

endangered species, important wildlife or fishery breeding or nursery areas, designated 

wildlife management or sanctuary areas, or forestlands. 

Response: Although the proposed action would involve activities within the critical habitat of 

the Gulf sturgeon, the CEMVN believes that the scope of activities constitutes a Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect (NLAA) determination for the species and its critical habitat. This 

determination has been coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. A Biological Opinion issued on June 26, 2008 by the NMFS 

supports this conclusion for Gulf sturgeon, sea turtles, and Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. The 

proposed action would impact up to 1,850 acres of Lake Borgne water bottoms that would be 

dredged for borrow, 118.3 acres dredged for floatation access, and 82.7 acres would be covered 

by placement of floatation disposal, and 39.5 acres covered by placement of rock dike. 

However, the proposed action would create, nourish and protect a total of 3,867 acres of 

brackish and saline wetlands, provide protection for the land bridge between Lake Borgne and 

the MRGO, and increase the quantity and quality of available habitats for terrestrial and aquatic 

organisms to utilize. 

q) adverse alteration or destruction of public parks, shoreline access points, public 

works, designated recreation areas, scenic rivers, or other areas of public use and concern. 

Response: The proposed action would not adversely alter or destroy any areas of public use or 

concern. Rather, the proposed action would create, nourish, and protect a total of 3,867 acres of 

wetlands within the Lake Borgne estuarine complex, especially the critical land bridge that 

separates Lake Borgne and the MRGO. The project area includes Bayou Bienvenue, which is 

designated as a scenic bayou under the Louisiana Natural and Scenic River System. The scenic 

value of this bayou would be temporarily impacted during and immediately after construction, 

but the increased wetland area would provide protection to the scenic value of Bayou 

Bienvenue. Shoreline protection features would limit shoreline access to the shores of Lake 

Borgne in the project area, but access to the area would still be available by foot, and aquatic 

organism access features (fish dips) would be included in the shoreline protection features 

approximately every 1,000 feet. The increased wetland acreage over time would make the area 

more attractive for public use. 

r) adverse disruptions of coastal wildlife and fishery migratory patterns. 

Response: The proposed action would not disrupt coastal wildlife or fishery migratory 

patterns. Dredging activities for borrow and floatation access would alter Lake Borgne water 

bottom topography. There would be temporary, but minor disruptions to coastal fish and 

wildlife during construction activities. However, any such impacts would be minimally 

disruptive since most fish and wildlife in the area are mobile and would move to adjacent 

undisturbed areas during construction activities. No natural waterways would be closed as a 

result of the proposed actions. Fish dips (aquatic organism access features) would be located 

about every 1,000 feet in the shoreline protection features. The creation, nourishment and 

protection of 3,867 acres of brackish and saline marsh would provide important and essential 

fish and wildlife habitat, used for shelter, nesting, feeding, roosting, cover, nursery, and other 

life requirements; especially transitional habitat between estuarine and marine environments. 

This would reduce local inter- and intra-specific competition between resident and migratory 

fish and wildlife species for decreasing wetland resources. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 10

s) land loss, erosion and subsidence. 

Response: The proposed action would create, nourish, and protect 3,867 acres of wetlands in 

the Lake Borgne estuarine complex. Project features would stabilize Lake Borgne shorelines, 

which are presently experiencing erosion rates ranging between –7 feet per year and –21.5 feet 

per year. The introduction of sediments into open water and fragmented emergent wetland 

areas is expected to reduce background loss rates in those areas by 50 percent (from 0.65 

percent per year for brackish marsh and 1.02 feet per year for saline marsh to 0.325 percent per 

year, and 0.51 percent per year, respectively). Overall, the proposed action would result in a net 

benefit of 2,162 acres of wetlands over the 50-year period of analysis. 

t) increases in the potential for flood, hurricane or other storm damage, or increases 

in the likelihood that damage will occur from such hazards. 

Response: The proposed action is not expected to increase the potential for flood, hurricane, or 

other storm damage, or increase the likelihood of damage from such hazards. Rather, wetland 

creation, nourishment and shoreline protection would protect the important Lake Borgne and 

MRGO land bridge and increase wetland acreage in the project area. The proposed action 

would help reduce storm surges to adjacent inhabited areas to some minimal extent, but would 

prevent an increase in storm surges that would be expected under the No Action Alternative, 

which projects a loss of about 9,850 acres over the 50-year period of analysis. 

u) reductions in the long-term biological productivity of the coastal ecosystem. 

Response: Since construction of the MRGO (1958-1968) the continued shoreline erosion, 

increased tidal exchange and tidal scouring, and interior emergent wetland fragmentation and 

loss have all adversely impacted the long-term biological productivity of the project area. The 

proposed action would increase the emergent wetland acreage in the project area and moderate 

impacts attributed to shoreline erosion, subsidence, and natural and man-made processes 

through the creation, nourishment, and protection of 3,867 acres of wetlands thereby increasing 

the long-term biological productivity in the Lake Borgne estuarine complex over the 50-year 

period of analysis. 

Guideline 1.8 In those guidelines in which the modifier "maximum extent practicable" is 

used, the proposed use is in compliance with the guideline if the standard modified by the 

term is complied with. If the modified standard is not complied with, the use will be in 

compliance with the guideline if the permitting authority finds, after a systematic 

consideration of all pertinent information regarding the use, the site and the impacts of 

the use as set forth in guideline 1.6, and a balancing of their relative significance, that the 

benefits resulting from the proposed use would clearly outweigh the adverse impacts 

resulting from non compliance with the modified standard and there are no feasible and 

practical alternative locations, methods and practices for the use that are in compliance 

with the modified standard and: 

a) significant public benefits will result from the use, or; 

b) the use would serve important regional, state or national interests, including the 

national interest in resources and the siting of facilities in the coastal zone identified in the 

coastal resources program, or; 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 11

c) the use is coastal water dependent. 

The systematic consideration process shall also result in a determination of those 

conditions necessary for the use to be in compliance with the guideline. Those conditions 

shall assure that the use is carried out utilizing those locations, methods and practices 

which maximize conformance to the modified standard; are technically, economically, 

environmentally, socially and legally feasible and practical and minimize or offset those 

adverse impacts listed in guideline 1.7 and in the guideline at issue. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 1.9 Uses shall to the maximum extent practicable be designed and carried out 

to permit multiple concurrent uses which are appropriate for the location and to avoid 

unnecessary conflicts with other uses of the vicinity. 

Response: Generally, the project area would only be unavailable for use during construction 

activities. The project area would again be available for multiple uses following actual 

construction operations. Natural waterways would not be closed. 

Guideline 1.10 These guidelines are not intended to be, nor shall they be, interpreted to 

allow expansion of governmental authority beyond that established by La. R.S. 49:213.1 

through 213.21, as amended; nor shall these guidelines be interpreted so as to require 

permits for specific uses legally commenced or established prior to the effective date of the 

coastal use permit program nor to normal maintenance or repair of such uses. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

2. GUIDELINES FOR LEVEES 

Guideline 2.1 The leveeing of unmodified or biologically productive wetlands shall be 

avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: Retention dikes will be constructed to contain the dredged sediments at an initial 

elevation of +3.2 feet NAVD88 to allow dewatering and initial consolidation of the slurry to a 

target elevation of +0.5 to +1.5 feet NAVD88. The emergent wetlands impacted by this activity 

have experienced a decline in productivity due to interior fragmentation and loss. The proposed 

activity would create additional emergent wetlands. The retention dikes would be designed to 

degrade over time to restore hydrologic connectivity. Any disruptions from construction 

activities would be temporary and minor. Additionally, dikes would only be constructed where 

necessary to prevent the dredged slurry from flowing into Lake Borgne or natural bayous, so 

that the dredged slurry could nourish fragmented emergent wetlands adjacent to the wetland 

creation sites. This process would create 1,675 acres of emergent wetlands, and nourish an 

additional 1,670 acres. 

Guideline 2.2 Levees shall be planned and sited to avoid segmentation of wetland areas 

and systems to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: The proposed action includes retention dikes to facilitate emergent wetland creation 

and renourishment. This would decrease fragmentation of the emergent wetlands, and would 

not increase segmentation, as retention dikes would only be constructed as required to prevent 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 12

the dredged slurry from escaping the emergent wetland creation and nourishment sites. 

Retention dikes would be constructed of in situ materials and would be designed to naturally 

degrade over time. 

Guideline 2.3 Levees constructed for the purpose of developing or otherwise changing the 

use of a wetland area shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: The proposed action would not change the use of the wetlands. 

Guideline 2.4 Hurricane and flood protection levees shall be located at the non 

wetland/wetland interface or landward to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: The proposed action would not construct hurricane or flood protection levees. 

Guideline 2.5 Impoundment levees shall only be constructed in wetland areas as part of 

approved water or marsh management projects or to prevent release of pollutants. 

Response: The proposed action would not construct impoundment levees. Rather, containment 

dikes would be constructed from in situ material from within the emergent wetland creation site 

to facilitate stacking of dredged material to an elevation conducive for the establishment of 

wetland vegetation. These dikes would naturally degrade to restore hydrologic connectivity 

between natural water bodies and the created emergent wetlands. 

Guideline 2.6 Hurricane or flood protection levee systems shall be designed, built and 

thereafter operated and maintained utilizing best practical techniques to minimize 

disruptions of existing hydrologic patterns, and the interchange of water, beneficial 

nutrients and aquatic organisms between enclosed wetlands and those outside the levee 

system. 

Response: The proposed action would not construct hurricane or flood protection levees. 

3. GUIDELINES FOR LINEAR FACILITIES 

Guideline 3.1 Linear use alignments shall be planned to avoid adverse impacts on areas of 

high biological productivity or irreplaceable resource areas. 

Response: Wetland loss throughout the project area is projected to continue at the same or 

accelerated rates. About 9,850 acres of emergent wetlands are projected to be lost in the project 

area over the 50-year period of analysis likely resulting in an increase in the number and sizes 

of breaches in the land bridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO. The proposed action 

would construct temporary containment dikes from in situ material to facilitate stacking of 

dredged material to an elevation conducive for the establishment of wetland vegetation in 

wetland creation sites. Following dewatering and consolidation of dredged material, 

containment dikes would naturally degrade to restore hydrologic connectivity between natural 

water bodies and the created emergent wetlands. The proposed action would also construct 

49,280 linear feet of shoreline protection. No natural waterways would be closed as a result of 

the proposed actions. Fish dips (aquatic organism access features) would be located about 

every 1,000 feet in the shoreline protection features to permit ingress and egress of aquatic 

organisms. The proposed action would create, nourish, and protect a total of 3,867 acres of 

brackish and saline wetlands. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 13

Guideline 3.2 Linear facilities involving the use of dredging or filling shall be avoided in 

wetland and estuarine areas to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: Wetland loss throughout the project area is projected to continue at the same or 

accelerated rates. About 9,850 acres of emergent wetlands are projected to be lost in the project 

area over the 50-year period of analysis likely resulting in an increase in the number and sizes 

of breaches in the land bridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO. The proposed action 

would use linear features, including temporary containment dikes, and rock shoreline protection 

features to create, nourish, and protect a total of 3,867 acres of brackish and saline wetlands. 

Without this action, the critical Lake Borgne and MRGO land bridge would continue to 

degrade. 

Guideline 3.3 Linear facilities involving dredging shall be of the minimum practical size 

and length. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 3.4 To the maximum extent practicable, pipelines shall be installed through the 

"push ditch" method and the ditch backfilled. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 3.5 Existing corridors, rights of way, canals, and streams shall be utilized to the 

maximum extent practicable for linear facilities. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 3.6 Linear facilities and alignments shall be, to the maximum extent 

practicable, designed and constructed to permit multiple uses consistent with the nature of 

the facility. 

Response: While disruption to multiple uses of the project area may occur during construction, 

multiple uses of the area would be restored following construction. 

Guideline 3.7 Linear facilities involving dredging shall not traverse or adversely affect 

any barrier island. 

Response: The proposed action does not occur on or near any barrier islands.

Guideline 3.8 Linear facilities involving dredging shall not traverse beaches, tidal passes, 

protective reefs or other natural gulf shoreline unless no other alternative exists. If a 

beach, tidal pass, reef or other natural gulf shoreline must be traversed for a non 

navigation canal, they shall be restored at least to their natural condition immediately 

upon completion of construction. Tidal passes shall not be permanently widened or 

deepened except when necessary to conduct the use. The best available restoration 

techniques which improve the traversed area's ability to serve as a shoreline shall be used. 

Response: The proposed action would not traverse beaches, tidal passes, protective reefs, or 

other natural gulf shorelines. 

Guideline 3.9 Linear facilities shall be planned, designed, located and built using the best 

practical techniques to minimize disruption of natural hydrologic and sediment transport 

patterns, sheet flow, and water quality, and to minimize adverse impacts on wetlands. 

Response: Acknowledged. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 14

Guideline 3.10 Linear facilities shall be planned, designed, and built using the best 

practical techniques to prevent bank slumping and erosion, saltwater intrusion, and to 

minimize the potential for inland movement of storm generated surges. Consideration 

shall be given to the use of locks in navigation canals and channels which connect more 

saline areas with fresher areas. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 3.11 All non navigation canals, channels and ditches which connect more saline 

areas with fresher areas shall be plugged at all waterway crossings and at intervals 

between crossings in order to compartmentalize them. The plugs shall be properly 

maintained. 

Response: The proposed action would not construct any channels or canals that would affect 

salinity patterns. 

Guideline 3.12 The multiple use of existing canals, directional drilling and other practical 

techniques shall be utilized to the maximum extent practicable to minimize the number 

and size of access canals, to minimize changes of natural systems and to minimize adverse 

impacts on natural areas and wildlife and fisheries habitat. 

Response: The proposed action would minimize the size and number of floatation access 

channels to the maximum extent practicable. Contract specifications would limit the width of 

access and floatation channels to 80 feet bottom width. Material dredged from the access 

channels would be used to the maximum extent practicable to create emergent wetlands, and 

any excess material would be stockpiled adjacent to the channel and returned to the channel 

after construction. 

Guideline 3.13 All pipelines shall be constructed in accordance with parts 191, 192, and 

195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as amended, and in conformance with 

the Commissioner of Conservation's Pipeline Safety Rules and Regulations and those 

safety requirements established by La. R. S. 45:408, whichever would require higher 

standards. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 3.14 Areas dredged for linear facilities shall be backfilled or otherwise restored 

to the pre existing conditions upon cessation of use for navigation purposes to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Response: The proposed action would minimize the size and number of access channels to the 

maximum extent practicable. Contract specifications would limit the width of access and 

floatation channels to 80 feet bottom width. Material dredged from the access channels would 

be used to the maximum extent practicable to create emergent wetlands, and any excess 

material would be stockpiled adjacent to the channel and returned to the channel after 

construction. 

Guideline 3.15 The best practical techniques for site restoration and re-vegetation shall be 

utilized for all linear facilities. 

Response: Acknowledged. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 15

Guideline 3.16 Confined and dead end canals shall be avoided to the maximum extent 

practicable. Approved canals must be designed and constructed using the best practical 

techniques to avoid water stagnation and eutrophication. 

Response: The proposed action would not construct confined or dead end canals. 

4. GUIDELINES FOR DREDGED MATERIAL DEPOSITION 

Guideline 4.1 Spoil shall be deposited utilizing the best practical techniques to avoid 

disruption of water movement, flow, circulation and quality. 

Response: Approximately 9.7 million cubic yards of water bottom would be dredged from four 

borrow sites in Lake Borgne and placed in open waters and fragmented emergent wetlands to 

create and nourish 3,345 acres of emergent wetlands. The initial elevation for sediment 

placement would be +3.2 feet NAVD88, with a final target elevation of +0.5 to +1.5 feet 

NAVD88 after dewatering and initial consolidation. 

Guideline 4.2 Spoil shall be used beneficially to the maximum extent practicable to 

improve productivity or create new habitat, reduce or compensate for environmental 

damage done by dredging activities, or prevent environmental damage. Otherwise, 

existing spoil disposal areas or upland disposal shall be utilized to the maximum extent 

practicable rather than creating new disposal areas. 

Response: Approximately 9.7 million cubic yards of Lake Borgne water bottoms would be 

dredged from four borrow sites and placed in open waters and fragmented emergent wetlands to 

create and nourish 3,345 acres of emergent wetlands. The initial elevation for sediment 

placement would be +3.2 feet NAVD88, with a final target elevation of +0.5 to +1.5 feet 

NAVD88 after dewatering and initial consolidation. 

Guideline 4.3 Spoil shall not be disposed of in a manner which could result in the 

impounding or draining of wetlands or the creation of development sites unless the spoil 

deposition is part of an approved levee or land surface alteration project. 

Response: The proposed action would not impound or drain wetlands. Temporary retention 

dikes would be utilized to retain dredged material to create additional emergent wetlands. 

Retention dikes would naturally degrade and restore hydrologic connectivity between natural 

waterbodies and the new emergent wetlands. 

Guideline 4.4 Spoil shall not be disposed of on marsh, known oyster or clam reef s or in 

areas of submersed vegetation to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: The proposed action would place hydraulically dredged material into areas of 

shallow open water and fragmented emergent wetlands. This would cover existing vegetation 

in these sites. However, the additional material would provide a platform on which emergent 

vegetation would establish, such that an additional 1,675 acres of emergent wetlands would be 

created, and dredged material would be allowed to flow on and around existing vegetation to 

nourish an additional 1,670 acres of emergent wetlands. Floatation channels would be required 

to construct the shoreline protection project features. Any material not used for subsequent 

emergent wetland creation would be backfilled into these channels. The proposed action would 

avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, existing oyster leases and state oyster seed grounds. 

If oyster leases would be impacted, they would be acquired through the Louisiana Department 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 16

of Natural Resources oyster lease acquisition program. There is no submersed vegetation in the 

project area. 

Guideline 4.5 Spoil shall not be disposed of in such a manner as to create a hindrance to 

navigation or fishing, or hinder timber growth. 

Response: The proposed action would not create a hindrance to navigation or hinder timber 

growth. The project area would be unavailable for fishing activities during construction. 

However, there are alternative fishing areas nearby, and fishing access would be restored after 

construction. Additionally, the increase in wetland acreage would provide increased fishing 

opportunities by improving the quality of essential fish habitat, including emergent wetlands 

and marsh edge. 

Guideline 4.6 Spoil disposal areas shall be designed and constructed and maintained using 

the best practical techniques to retain the spoil at the site, reduce turbidity, and reduce 

shoreline erosion when appropriate. 

Response: Retention dikes would be constructed of in situ material to retain dredged material 

on the site, and sediment curtains would be employed, as necessary, to reduce increases in 

turbidity resulting from dredging activities. The proposed action would also reduce shoreline 

erosion through the placement of foreshore rock dikes. 

Guideline 4.7 The alienation of state owned property shall not result from spoil deposition 

activities without the consent of the Department of Natural Resources. 

Response: The proposed action would not result in the alienation of state owned property. 

5. GUIDELINES FOR SHORELINE MODIFICATION 

Guideline 5.1 Non structural methods of shoreline protection shall be utilized to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Response: The proposed action would create, nourish and protect a total of 3,867 acres of 

wetlands. Approximately 49,280 linear feet of foreshore rock dike shoreline protection would 

be installed. The rock dikes would be constructed at about the 1.5 to 2.0-foot depth contour to 

an elevation of +4.0 feet NAVD88, with a crown width of 4 feet, and side slopes of 1V on 2H. 

Approximately 423,200 tons of rock and 208,650 square yards of geotextile reinforcement 

separator fabric would be used to construct the shoreline protection feature which would protect 

approximately 522 acres. 

Guideline 5.2 Shoreline modification structures shall be designed and built using best 

practical techniques to minimize adverse environmental impacts. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 5.3 Shoreline modification structures shall be lighted or marked in accordance 

with U.S. Coast Guard regulations, not interfere with navigation, and should foster 

fishing, other recreational opportunities, and public access. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 5.4 Shoreline modification structures shall be built using best practical 

materials and techniques to avoid the introduction of pollutants and toxic substances into 

coastal waters. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 17

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 5.5 Piers and docks and other harbor structures shall be designed and built 

using best practical techniques to avoid obstruction of water circulation. 

Response: The proposed action would not construct any piers, docks, or other harbor 

structures. 

Guideline 5.6 Marinas, and similar commercial and recreational developments shall to 

the maximum extent practicable not be located so as to result in adverse impacts on open 

productive oyster beds, or submersed grass beds. 

Response: The proposed action would not construct any marinas or similar commercial or 

recreational developments. 

Guideline 5.7 Neglected or abandoned shoreline modification structures, piers, docks, 

mooring and other harbor structures shall be removed at the owner's expense, when 

appropriate. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 5.8 Shoreline stabilization structures shall not be built for the purpose of 

creating fill areas for development unless part of an approved surface alteration use. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 5.9 Jetties, groins, breakwaters and similar structures shall be planned, 

designed and constructed so as to avoid to the maximum extent practicable downstream 

land loss and erosion. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

6. GUIDELINES FOR SURFACE ALTERATIONS 

Guideline 6.1 Industrial, commercial, urban, residential, and recreational uses are 

necessary to provide adequate economic growth and development. To this end, such uses 

will be encouraged in those areas of the coastal zone that are suitable for development. 

Those uses shall be consistent with the other guidelines and shall, to the maximum extent 

practicable, take place only: 

a) on lands five feet or more above sea level or within fast lands; or 

b) on lands which have foundation conditions sufficiently stable to support the use, and 

where flood and storm hazards are minimal or where protection from these hazards can 

be reasonably well achieved, and where the public safety would not be unreasonably 

endangered; and 

1) the land is already in high intensity of development use, or 

2) there is adequate supporting infrastructure, or 

3) the vicinity has a tradition of use for similar habitation or development 

Response: Acknowledged. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 18

Guideline 6.2 Public and private works projects such as levees, drainage improvements, 

roads, airports, ports, and public utilities are necessary to protect and support needed 

development and shall be encouraged. Such projects shall, to the maximum extent 

practicable, take place only when: 

a) they protect or serve those areas suitable for development pursuant to Guideline 

6.1; and 

b) they are consistent with the other guidelines; and 

c) they are consistent with all relevant adopted state, local and regional plans. 

Response: Not applicable. 

Guideline 6.3 BLANK (Deleted by Louisiana Department of Natural Resources) 

Guideline 6.4 To the maximum extent practicable wetland areas shall not be drained or 

filled. Any approved drain or fill project shall be designed and constructed using best 

practical techniques to minimize present and future property damage and adverse 

environmental impacts. 

Response: No wetlands would be filled for development purposes as a result of the proposed 

action. Rather, the proposed action would create, nourish and protect 3,867 acres of wetlands 

within the critical Lake Borgne and MRGO land bridge. This action would help protect the 

integrity of the land bridge separating these two water bodies and help to prevent the potential 

increase in tidal surge and flood damages to nearby communities that would be expected with 

no action. 

Guideline 6.5 Coastal water dependent uses shall be given special consideration in 

permitting because of their reduced choice of alternatives. 

Response: Not applicable. 

Guideline 6.6 Areas modified by surface alteration activities shall, to the maximum extent 

practicable, be re-vegetated, refilled, cleaned and restored to their predevelopment 

condition upon termination of the use 

Response: About 9,850 acres of emergent wetlands in the Lake Borgne and MRGO estuarine 

complex are projected to be lost in the project area over the 50-year period of analysis likely 

resulting in an increase in the number and sizes of breaches in the land bridge between Lake 

Borgne and the MRGO. The proposed action would utilize dredged material and shoreline 

protection features to create, nourish and protect a total of 3,867 acres of emergent brackish and 

saline marsh. Marsh creation areas would naturally revegetate within about 9 to 12 months 

following construction. 

Guideline 6.7 Site clearing shall to the maximum extent practicable be limited to those 

areas immediately required for physical development. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 6.8 Surface alterations shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be located 

away from critical wildlife areas and vegetation areas. Alterations in wildlife preserves 

and management areas shall be conducted in strict accord with the requirements of the 

wildlife management body. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 19

Response: Some features of the proposed action (e.g., the Golden Triangle marsh creation) 

would occur on the Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed action has been 

coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed action would increase the 

emergent wetland habitat within and near the Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, 

increasing the fish and wildlife habitat quality therein. 

Guideline 6.9 Surface alterations which have high adverse impacts on natural functions 

shall not occur, to the maximum extent practicable, on barrier islands and beaches, 

isolated cheniers, isolated natural ridges or levees,' or in wildlife and aquatic species 

breeding or spawning areas, or in important migratory routes. 

Response: The proposed action has been coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service to minimize impacts to threatened and endangered 

species and their critical habitat. Although the proposed action would involve activities in the 

critical habitat of the Gulf sturgeon, the CEMVN believes that the scope of activities constitute 

a Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) determination for the species and its critical habitat. 

No critical breeding or spawning areas would be impacted. Some water bottoms which have 

been identified as critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon would be dredged for borrow material for 

emergent wetland creation. However, the benthic organisms upon which Gulf sturgeon feed 

would quickly reestablish, and dredging windows would be used to minimize the potential to 

affect individuals. A Biological Opinion issued by the NMFS on June 26, 2008, supports this 

conclusion for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. 

Guideline 6.10 The creation of low dissolved oxygen conditions in the water or traps for 

heavy metals shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: Borrow areas within Lake Borgne would be designed so as not to create low 

dissolved oxygen conditions in the water or traps for heavy metals. The proposed action would, 

however, temporarily create low dissolved oxygen conditions in the immediate vicinity of 

hydraulic and bucket dredging activities. These conditions would be due to the increased 

turbidity associated with dredging and construction activities. However, any such conditions 

would be of short duration, and would return to ambient conditions after construction activities 

were completed. The borrow sites are located in the relatively high-energy estuarine bay of 

Lake Borgne, and borrow pit design incorporating more gentle side slopes would minimize the 

potential for stratification of waters within the borrow sites, reducing the incidence of hypoxia. 

Guideline 6.11 Surface mining and shell dredging shall be carried out utilizing the best 

practical techniques to minimize adverse environmental impacts. 

Response: Not applicable. 

Guideline 6.12 The creation of underwater obstructions which adversely affect fishing or 

navigation shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: Acknowledged. Any material excavated for floatation access would be either 

placed for beneficial use for emergent wetland creation, or would be stockpiled for subsequent 

backfilling. Rock dike features would be build to an elevation of +4.0 feet NAVD88, so would 

not present underwater hazards. 

Guideline 6.13 Surface alteration sites and facilities shall be designed, constructed, and 

operated using the best practical techniques to prevent the release of pollutants or toxic 

substances into the environment and minimize other adverse impacts. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 20

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 6.14 To the maximum extent practicable only material that is free of 

contaminants and compatible with the environmental setting shall be used as fill. 

Response: Material for emergent wetland creation features and for beneficial use in shoreline 

protection features would come from the water bottoms of Lake Borgne, and are expected to be 

free of contaminants. A Phase I ESA survey for HTRW indicated a low probability of 

contamination for these sediments. 

7. GUIDELINES FOR HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENT 

TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS 

Guideline 7.1 The controlled diversion of sediment laden waters to initiate new cycles of 

marsh building and sediment nourishment shall be encouraged and utilized whenever 

such diversion will enhance the viability and productivity of the outfall area. Such 

diversions shall incorporate a plan for monitoring and reduction and/or amelioration of 

the effects of pollutants present in the freshwater source. 

Response: The proposed action does not include the controlled diversion of sediment-laden 

water. 

Guideline 7.2 Sediment deposition systems may be used to offset land loss, to create or 

restore wetland areas or enhance building characteristics of a development site. Such 

systems shall only be utilized as part of an approved plan. Sediment from these systems 

shall only be discharged in the area that the proposed use is to be accomplished. 

Response: The proposed action would place hydraulically dredged material into areas of 

shallow open water and fragmented wetlands. This would provide a platform on which 

emergent vegetation would establish, such that an additional 1,675 acres of wetlands would be 

created, and dredged material would be allowed to flow on and around existing vegetation to 

nourish an additional 1,670 acres of wetlands. Retention dikes would be constructed, as needed, 

to prevent the dredged material from impacting areas outside of the project area. Retention 

dikes would naturally degrade thereby reestablishing hydrologic connectivity. 

Guideline 7.3 Undesirable deposition of sediments in sensitive habitat or navigation areas 

shall be avoided through the use of the best preventive techniques. 

Response: Acknowledged. 

Guideline 7.4 The diversion of freshwater through siphons and controlled conduits and 

channels, and overland flow to offset saltwater intrusion and to introduce nutrients into 

wetlands shall be encouraged and utilized whenever such diversion will enhance the 

viability and productivity of the outfall area. Such diversions shall incorporate a plan for 

monitoring and reduction and/or amelioration of the effects of pollutants present in the 

freshwater source. 

Response: The proposed action does not include such diversions. 

Guideline 7.5 Water or marsh management plans shall result in an overall benefit to the 

productivity of the area. 

Response: Acknowledged. 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 21

Guideline 7.6 Water control structures shall be assessed separately based on their 

individual merits and impacts and in relation to their overall water or marsh management 

plan of which they are a part. 

Response: The proposed action does not include water control structures. 

Guideline 7.7 Weirs and similar water control structures shall be designed and built using 

the best practical techniques to prevent "cut arounds," permit tidal exchange in tidal 

areas, and minimize obstruction of the migration of aquatic organisms. 

Response: The proposed action does not include water control structures.

Guideline 7.8 Impoundments which prevent normal tidal exchange and/or the migration 

of aquatic organisms shall not be constructed in brackish and saline areas to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Response: Construction of temporary retention dikes would be necessary for the construction 

of wetland creation features. However, they would degrade (naturally or mechanically, if 

necessary) and restore normal tidal exchange and allow ingress and egress of aquatic organisms. 

Shoreline protection features would be designed with fish dips, located about every 1,000 feet, 

to allow intertidal exchange and aquatic organism ingress and egress. 

Guideline 7.9 Withdrawal of surface and ground water shall not result in saltwater 

intrusion or land subsidence to the maximum extent practicable. 

Response: Not applicable. 

8. GUIDELINES FOR DISPOSAL OF WASTES 

Response: The proposed action would not involve the disposal of wastes and, therefore, these 

guidelines are not applicable. 

9. GUIDELINES FOR USES THAT RESULT IN THE 

ALTERATION OF WATERS DRAINING INTO 

COASTAL WATERS 

Response: The proposed action would not involve the alterations of waters draining into 

coastal waters and, therefore, these guidelines are not applicable. 

10. GUIDELINES FOR OIL, GAS, AND OTHER 

MINERAL ACTIVITIES 

Response: The proposed action would not involve oil, gas, and other mineral activities and, 

therefore, these guidelines are not applicable. 

OTHER STATE POLICIES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROGRAM 

Section 213.8A of Act 361 directs the Secretary of DOTD, in developing the LCRP, to include 

all applicable legal and management provisions that affect the coastal zone or are necessary to 

achieve the purposes of Act 361 or to implement the guidelines effectively. It states: 
Appendix E Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Consistency Determination 

FEIS June 2009 

 E – 22

The Secretary shall develop the overall state coastal management program consisting of all 

applicable constitutional provisions, laws and regulations of this state which affect the coastal 

zone in accordance with the provisions of this Part and shall include within the program such 

other applicable constitutional or statutory provisions, or other regulatory or management 

programs or activities as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of this Part or necessary to 

implement the guidelines hereinafter set forth. 

The constitutional provisions and other statutory provisions, regulations, and management and 

regulatory programs incorporated into the LCRP are identified and described in Appendix 1. A 

description of how these other authorities are integrated into the LCRP and coordinated during 

program implementation is presented in Chapter IV. Since all of these policies are incorporated 

into the LCRP, federal agencies must ensure that their proposed actions are consistent with 

these policies as well as the coastal use guidelines (CZMA, Section 307). 

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 

The proposed wetland creation, nourishment and shoreline protection in the land bridge 

separating Lake Borgne from the MRGO channel, would create and nourish a total of 

1,675 acres and 1,670 acres of emergent wetlands, respectively, as well as provide critical 

protection to 49,280 linear feet of shoreline in Lake Borgne and the MRGO. The proposed 

action would address interior wetland loss due to natural and man-made influences by 

introducing 9.7 million cubic yards of material dredged from the water bottoms of Lake Borgne. 

This would provide a platform upon which emergent wetland vegetation would become 

established, and create and nourish 3,345 acres of brackish and saline marsh. The proposed 

action would also provide protection to critical reaches of Lake Borgne shorelines from wind 

and wake-induced erosive forces. Together these features would help to prevent the continued 

degradation of the land bridge separating Lake Borgne and the MRGO channel. No natural 

waterways would be closed as a result of implementing the proposed action. 

Material dredged for floatation access would be used to create additional wetlands to the 

maximum extent practicable. Salinities and area hydrology would not be impacted by the 

proposed action. The amount and quality of habitat available for wildlife and fishery species, 

and essential fish habitat, would increase with the proposed action. Any adverse impacts, such 

as increased turbidity during construction, would be temporary and localized, and those 

parameters would largely return to pre-construction conditions shortly after the completion of 

construction activities. 

Based on this evaluation, and the findings of the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (#EIS 06-12), the USACE, New Orleans District, has determined that the proposed 

is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the State of Louisiana's Coastal 

Resources Program. 

PREPARER 

This document was prepared by Kenneth C. Duffy, Ph.D., Senior Project Manager, BEM 

Systems, Inc., for Dr. William P. Klein, Jr., Environmental Analysis Branch, Planning Division, 

of the New Orleans District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection

FEIS June 2009 

 

APPENDIX F 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Act Report 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET, 

LOUISIANA 

AND LAKE BORGNE - WETLAND CREATION AND 

SHORELINE PROTECTION 

PROJECT 

DRAFT 

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 

LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 

MAY 2007 
MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET, 

LOUISIANA 

AND LAKE BORGNE - WETLAND CREATION AND 

SHORELINE PROTECTION 

PROJECT 

DRAFT 

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT

SUBMITTED TO 

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

PREPARED BY 

CATHERINE BREAUX, FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 

LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 

MAY 2007 
i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Report on the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Mississippi RiverGulf Outlet (MRGO), Louisiana, and Lake Borgne – Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection 

Plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as directed by Congress (Chapter 3, under 

division B, of title I of Public Law 109-148 (119 stat. 2762) under the heading “Operation and 

Maintenance,” as amended by Section 2304 of Public Law 109-234 (120 stat. 418)), is developing 

a plan to repair, construct or provide measures or structures necessary to protect, restore or 

increase wetlands, to prevent saltwater intrusion or storm surge. Specifically, the proposed 

action would create and nourish wetlands and provide shoreline protection along Lake Borgne 

and the MRGO. This document constitutes the report of the Secretary of the Interior as required 

by Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 

661 et seq.). The Service is coordinating with National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) and Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). Their comments will be forwarded under a 

separate cover. 

The 76-mile long MRGO is located south and east of New Orleans. The channel begins 9.4 miles 

out in the Gulf of Mexico where it is authorized to a depth of 38 feet and a bottom width of 600 

feet. These dimensions extend from mile -9.4 to mile 0 (bar channel). The authorized dimensions 

for the remaining 66 miles of the MRGO are a depth of 36 feet and a bottom width of 500 feet. 

From mile 0 to mile 23, it extends through the shallow waters of Breton Sound. This section of 

the MRGO is often referred to as the Sound Reach. From mile 23 to mile 60, the MRGO extends 

further to the north and west, through coastal wetlands. This section of the MRGO is often 

referred to as the Inland Reach. At mile 60 the MRGO connects with the GIWW, and the two run 

contiguously westward for six miles to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC), also called the 

Industrial Canal, in New Orleans. This section of the MRGO is often referred to as the GIWW 

Reach. 

Ten alternative plans with various combinations of wetland creation and nourishment and 

shoreline protection features were developed and evaluated. Specifications of each feature were 

different between plans because of the constraint to remain within a set budget. In other words, 

features within a plan were adjusted to maximize the use of funds available. 

The Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) includes 1,250 acres of marsh creation and 1,400 acres of 

marsh nourishment of brackish marsh in the Golden Triangle as well as 425 acres of marsh 

creation and 270 acres of marsh nourishment of saline marsh west of Shell Beach. This plan 

includes four shoreline protection features located on the Lake Borgne shoreline in the vicinity of 

Bayou Bienvenue, in the vicinity of Bayou Dupre, and west of Shell Beach, and along the 

southern shoreline of the MRGO channel in the vicinity of Mile 45-47. This plan would create, 

nourish and protect a total of 2,275 acres and 1,314 AAHUs compared to the future without this 

project. 
ii 

The Tentatively Selected Plan will benefit the fish and wildlife resources of the Lake Borgne and 

MRGO area by creating and nourishing brackish and saline marsh and by providing shoreline 

protection of the critical marsh between the MRGO and Lake Borgne. The Service does not 

object to the construction of the proposed project, provided that the following fish and wildlife 

conservation measures are implemented concurrently with project implementation: 

1. The Service and NMFS should be provided an opportunity to review and submit 

recommendations on the draft plans and specifications on the MRGO and Lake Borgne 

wetland creation and shoreline protection addressed in this report. 

2. Coordination should continue with the Service and NMFS on detailed contract specifications 

to avoid and minimize potential impacts to manatees and Gulf sturgeon. 

3. If the proposed project has not been constructed within 1 year or if changes are made to the 

proposed project, the USACE should re-initiate Endangered Species Act consultation with the 

Service. 

4. Material dredged for floatation should be used to create marsh to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

5. The created and nourished wetlands and shoreline protection should be monitored over the 

project life to help evaluate the effectiveness of these features. 

6. Dredged material borrow pits should be carefully designed and located to minimize anoxia 

problems, induced shoreline erosion, and excessive disturbance to area water bottoms. Wave 

refraction/diffraction models should be used to ensure the borrow pits are sited at a sufficient 

distance from adjacent shorelines such that they do not accelerate erosion of those shorelines. 

Provided that the above recommendations are included in the feasibility report and related 

authorizing documents, the Service will support further planning and implementation of the TSP. 
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................i 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA .............................................................................................. 1 

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 2 

Description of Habitats ............................................................................................................... 2 

Fisheries Resources..................................................................................................................... 5 

Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................. 6 

Wildlife Resources...................................................................................................................... 7 

Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................... 9 

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 10 

DESCRIPTION OF TENATIVELY SELECTED PLAN............................................................ 11 

Alternatives Considered............................................................................................................ 11 

Tentatively Selected Plan.......................................................................................................... 12 

PROJECT IMPACTS ................................................................................................................... 15 

Wildlife Resources.................................................................................................................... 16 

Fisheries Resources................................................................................................................... 16 

Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................................... 17 

Threatened and Endangered species ......................................................................................... 17 

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES .......................................................... 18 

SERVICE POSITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 19 

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 20 

 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. MRGO and Lake Borgne marsh creation and shoreline protection summary of 

alternative plans analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . 13

Figure 1. The Project Area for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Deep Draft De-authorization... 2 
iv 

Figure 2. Features of the Tentatively Selected Plan of the MRGO and Lake Borgne marsh 

creation and shoreline protection project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

14 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO) is a 76-mile long man-made waterway authorized 

by the River and Harbor Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-455) and the Water Resources Development Acts 

of 1976, 1986, and 1996. The channel provides for deep-draft navigation from the Gulf of 

Mexico to the tidewater port facilities in New Orleans, Louisiana. Construction of the deep-draft 

channel was initiated in 1958, opened to traffic in 1963, and enlarged to the authorized 

dimensions (36 feet deep and 500 feet wide) by 1968. The channel was dredged through the 

shallow bays, coastal marshes and cypress swamps of Plaquemines, St. Bernard and eastern 

Orleans Parishes, Louisiana. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as directed by 

Congress (Chapter 3, under division B, of title I of Public Law 109-148 (119 stat. 2762) under 

the heading “Operation and Maintenance,” as amended by Section 2304 of Public Law 109-234 

(120 stat. 418)), is developing a plan to repair, construct or provide measures or structures 

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

Specifically, the proposed action would create and nourish wetlands and provide shoreline 

protection along Lake Borgne and the MRGO. 

This report contains a description of the existing fish and wildlife resources of the project area, 

discusses future with- and without-project habitat conditions, identifies fish and wildlife-related 

impacts of the proposed project, and provides recommendations for the Tentatively Selected Plan 

(TSP). This document constitutes the report of the Secretary of the Interior as required by 

Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 

et seq.). 

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 

The 76-mile long MRGO is located south and east of New Orleans (figure 1). The channel 

begins 9.4 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico where it is authorized to a depth of 38 feet and a 

bottom width of 600 feet. These dimensions extend from mile -9.4 to mile 0 (bar channel). The 

authorized dimensions for the remaining 66 miles of the MRGO are a depth of 36 feet and a 

bottom width of 500 feet. From mile 0 to mile 23, it extends through the shallow waters of 

Breton Sound. This section of the MRGO is often referred to as the Sound Reach. From mile 23 

to mile 60, the MRGO extends further to the north and west, through coastal wetlands. This 

section of the MRGO is often referred to as the Inland Reach. At mile 60 the MRGO connects 

with the GIWW, and the two run contiguously westward for six miles to the Inner Harbor 

Navigation Canal (IHNC), also called the Industrial Canal, in New Orleans. This section of the 

MRGO is often referred to as the GIWW Reach. 
2 

Figure 1. The Project Area for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Deep Draft Deauthorization. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 

Description of Habitats 

The MRGO traverses wetlands and marshes in Plaquemines, St. Bernard and eastern Orleans 

Parishes. Construction of the channel has altered circulation patterns along its length between 

Breton Sound and Lake Borgne, resulting in steep increases in salinity along its route. Prior to 

construction of the MRGO channel, the Bayou La Loutre ridge provided a basin hydrologic 

boundary that limited the flow of saline water from the Breton Sound into Lake Borgne. 
3 

Previously, tidal flow into Lake Borgne was dominated by flow from the Mississippi Sound. 

After MRGO construction the dominant tidal flow into Lake Borgne switched to Breton Sound. 

The MRGO is a deep channel that provides a more direct flow of more saline, higher density 

water inland and allows any freshwater surpluses to exit at low tide and be replaced by the 

inflow of more saline water at high tide. In addition, spoil from dredging the MRGO channel 

was deposited in a continuous strip along the channel’s southwestern side, interrupting the 

circulation patterns of the natural waterways that transected the length of the channel. Recent 

salinity data from LDEQ monitoring stations, where available, indicate that the influence of the 

channel in these areas remains today. The salinity gradient along the channel appears to be 

primarily determined by the distance from the more saline source waters. 

Changes in vegetation communities in the project area were observed after completion of the 

MRGO. Prior to construction of the MRGO, the freshwater wetlands had survived “eat-outs”, 

hurricanes, droughts, subsidence, and construction of trenasses for access of duck hunters and 

trappers as long as the fresh water sheet flow hydrologic regime remained relatively intact, but 

construction of the MRGO altered the salinity and hydrologic regime beyond their tolerance. 

The MRGO changed regional hydrology and affected the flow, type, direction, and salinity of the 

water in addition to changing the tidal amplitude and duration. The MRGO channel was 

primarily responsible for the large increase in artificial water bodies (canals and impoundments) 

between 1956 (1,748 acres) and 1978 (11,123 acres). Until the MRGO was constructed, the only 

brackish water source to the Central Wetlands (figure 1) area was Lake Borgne. 

Habitat maps from 1956 imagery showed that the project area consisted of 49.2% open water, 

38.2% non-fresh marsh, 4.4% fresh marsh, 3.0% swamp, 2.6% forest, and 0.1% shrub/scrub 

habitat. By 1978, habitat maps showed water had increased to 54.6% and shrub/scrub habitat 

had increased to 3.5% largely due to construction of the MRGO channel and adjacent dredge 

material retention-hurricane protection area. Fresh marsh and swamp had virtually disappeared 

(89 acres and 390 acres, respectively) and non-fresh marsh had decreased to 36.4%. Vegetation 

sampling, pre- and post-construction, revealed that species composition at one site in the Central 

Wetlands area between the MRGO and the Bayou La Loutre natural levee ridge decreased from 

eight prominent species (Spartina patens, Distichlis spicata, Alternanthera philoxeroides, 

Spartina cynosuroides, Scirpus robustus, Spartina alterniflora, Saggitaria lancifolia, Polygonum 

punctatum) to two species (Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora) between 1959 and 1967 as 

salinities increased (Fruge’ 1980, Coastal Environments, Inc. 1982:29). Local inhabitants 

reported that the sawgrass marshes in this area were replaced by wiregrass and that wiregrass 

began to grow on exposed areas as the baldcypress trees died. 

Habitat maps prepared from1988/90 imagery showed that water area increased to 57% (260,614 

ac) and fresh marsh increased to 1% (4632 acres) from 1978-1988, primarily as a result of 

conversion of shrub/scrub habitat on impounded areas of the MRGO retention area. Non-fresh 

marsh habitat (brackish and saline marshes) continued to decrease (33.1%) as a result of 

subsidence and erosion along the northeast side of the MRGO channel. Only 86 acres of cypress 
4 

swamp remained by 1988. Overall, the rate of land loss decreased from a rate of 1113 acres/year 

between 1956 and 1978 to 922 acres/year between 1978 and 1990. 

By the year 2000, the submerged aquatic vegetation in Lake Pontchartrain had diminished by 75 

percent. Direct armoring of much of the shoreline, reduced water clarity, increased nutrients and 

shrimp trawling in shallow areas were probably the cause (Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 

2006). Common species were Potomogeton and bushy pondweed. 

Before Hurricane Katrina, the Coast 2050 report (LCWCR and WCRA 1999) predicted that 

between 2000 and 2050, 45,400 acres of marsh could be lost in the Pontchartrain Basin. It is 

likely that Hurricane Katrina deposited a measurable amount of sediment throughout the 

Pontchartrain Basin area (Turner 2006). Regardless of that, the Pontchartrain Basin apparently 

lost 12,160 acres of wetlands between fall 2004 and October 2005. Habitat analysis indicates 

that over 640 acres each of forested wetlands and fresh marsh was converted to open water. 

About 2,560 acres of intermediate marsh, 3,840 acres of brackish marsh, and 4,480 acres of 

saline marsh also became open water (USGS-NWRC-BRPO 2002). Thus, the total amount of 

marsh lost as a result of Hurricane Katrina was over one third the total predicted wetland losses 

in this basin for the next 50 years. The storm surge and strong winds from Hurricane Katrina also 

severely damaged the Chandeleur and Breton Islands and adjacent seagrass beds according to the 

U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 

On going Corps studies and draft congressional legislation suggest the possible de-authorization 

of the MRGO in the foreseeable future (about five years). The MRGO channel would likely be 

closed at the south side of the Bayou La Loutre ridge with the installation of a total closure 

structure. This elimination of the direct connection with the Gulf of Mexico is anticipated to 

decrease salinities in the proposed action area by approximately 2 ppt, which is not expected to 

result in significant habitat shifts. The closure will also preclude navigation of the channel from 

the Gulf of Mexico to the New Orleans East area. Some smaller vessels will likely still use the 

MRGO channel in the vicinity of the proposed action area, but the primary contributor (deepdraft and shallow-draft vessel traffic) of bankline erosion will be eliminated. It is anticipated 

that while the vessel-induced wave erosion in the future will be less than what occurred in the 

past decades, the waves produced by the shallower draft vessels will continue to cause some 

shoreline erosion. With the impending de-authorization of the MRGO channel there will be no 

associated maintenance dredging. Therefore, there would be no new marsh created from 

beneficial use of dredged material. 

The current marsh habitat types are expected to remain, for the most part, as they currently are. 

Existing wetlands would continue to convert to open water habitats and the associated loss of 

flora and fauna species would persist. More than 9,800 acres are expected to be lost in the 

proposed action area from shoreline erosion and interior wetland loss due to subsidence and 

interior marsh loss. If the critical landbridge between Lake Borgne and MRGO is not restored 

or protected, the continued erosion of the Lake Borgne shoreline and the MRGO channel 
5 

shoreline will result in the coalescence of these two water bodies, and increased salinities may be 

expected in the surrounding area. 

Fisheries Resources 

Lake Pontchartrain was studied by Thompson and Fitzhugh (1985) who described it as having a 

strong freshwater component before MRGO with freshwater fish comprising 33 percent of the 

species, marine fishes 30 percent and estuarine-marine species 20 percent. However, estuarinemarine species dominated the lake in numbers of individuals. Prior to the construction of the 

MRGO, data sampling from 1959 to 1961 (El-Sayed 1961) characterized the fish in this marsh 

being dominated by the economically important estuarine-marine species of spot, Atlantic 

croaker, anchovy, and sea trout (Rounsefell 1964). The relative abundance patterns of fish 

species reflected a gradient of increasing salinity from the low salinity waters of Lake Borgne to 

the higher salinity waters of Breton Sound. 

With the construction of the MRGO came a trend of the emergence of predominately marine 

species. Estuarine fishes still remained dominant in the area, along with a few freshwater fishes 

that are likely to be found in marine conditions. Fontenot and Rogillio (1970) sampled Lake 

Borgne and the Biloxi Marshes from 1960-1968. They reported an overall increase in salinity in 

the early 1960’s. Of the 22 species of freshwater fish caught early in the study, 10 species 

disappeared by the end of the study. Ecological affinities were evenly distributed with 32 

percent freshwater, 29 percent estuarine-marine and 29 percent marine. The six important sport 

fish in the area, spotted sea trout, Atlantic croaker, black drum, red drum, spot and Gulf 

sheepshead, were not influenced by the increased salinity. While studying Lake Pontchartrain, 

Thompson and Fitzhugh (1985) found that species diversity declined dramatically after MRGO 

construction. 

Commercial shrimp landing data compiled by NMFS in the vicinity of Lake Borgne and outer 

areas toward Breton and Chandeleur Sounds (Mark Schexnayder, LSU, personal 

communication) show that the reported white shrimp landings exceeded brown shrimp landings 

throughout most years prior to the construction of MRGO (1956 to 1963). Blue crabs were most 

abundant in the open, low salinity waters (Roundsfell 1964) of Lake Borgne and became 

progressively less abundant as salinity increased toward Breton Sound. Rounsefell (1964) 

predicted that blue crab densities would decline in the project area as a result of increasing 

salinity. After construction of the MRGO, commercial shrimp landings data for the combined 

areas of Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne showed that white shrimp landings declined 

abruptly from 1963 to 1965 and remained below pre-construction landings in most years until 

1984 (NMFS web site). At the same time, reported landings of brown shrimp increased and 

exceeded white shrimp landings in nearly every year from 1967 through the 1980s. NMFS 

annual shrimp landings data from 1988 to the present illustrate a continuing trend of brown 

shrimp landings exceeding those of white shrimp in the combined areas of Lake Pontchartrain 

and Lake Borgne, as well as in the outer areas toward Breton and Chandeleur Sounds. 
6 

Pre-MRGO, much of lake Pontchartrain bottom was disturbed by dredging for Rangia clams. 

Large clams were generally found only near the edges of the lake where dredging did not occur. 

Shell dredging ceased in 1990 and the benthos was expected to improve. However, the dead 

zone that has developed due to high salinity from MRGO entering the lake adversely affected 

benthos. There are no large Rangia clams in the 1/6 of the lake often affected by the dead zone 

in the spring and summer. Other sessile benthic organisms are probably killed or stressed during 

the hypoxic events. Benthic species along the MRGO, generally considered as pioneer species 

due to frequent disturbance (vessel traffic and dredging), were taken less frequently in 1978 than 

in 1953-54, suggesting possible deterioration of these communities. 

In evaluating pre- and post-construction of the MRGO oyster abundance and harvest, it was 

found that there is no readily available quantitative data on oyster occurrence or harvest 

identified for the study area. 

Fishery abundance and distribution should remain similar to the current status though it is 

expected to decline dramatically at some point in the future as wetland loss of coastal Louisiana 

continues. Future impacts to fisheries resources would be related primarily to a substantial 

decrease in the quality and diversity of habitat that would reduce the area’s ability to support the 

resource. As wetlands continue to decline throughout coastal Louisiana so continues the 

degradation and eventual loss of important fisheries habitat used for spawning, nursery, foraging, 

shelter, and other life requirements. A minor benefit in the future, assuming deauthorization of 

the MRGO, is there would be no loss of benthos or turbidity associated with maintenance 

dredging of that channel. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; P.L. 104-297) set forth a new mandate for NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other federal 

agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act support one of the nation’s overall 

marine resource management goals- maintaining sustainable fisheries. Essential to achieving 

this goal is the maintenance of suitable marine fishery habitat quality and quantity. Detailed 

information on Federally managed fisheries and their EFH is provided in the 1999 generic 

amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the Gulf of Mexico prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico FMC (GMFMC). The generic FMP subsequently was updated and revised in 2005 and 

became effective in January 2006 (70 FR 76216). NMFS administers EFH regulations. 

Categories of EFH in the project area includes the estuarine waters and substrates of the MRGO 

channel cut and adjacent water bottoms from the Gulf of Mexico to Mile 60. Substrates include 

mud bottoms, some of which have been dredged and re-deposited. It also includes the eastern 

half of Lake Pontchartrain. Estuarine categories include estuarine emergent wetlands, mangrove 
7 

wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and estuarine water column, mud, sand and shell water 

bottoms. Marine areas include water column, non-vegetated bottoms, and continental shelf 

features. 

EFH has been designated in the project area for Gulf stone crab, brown shrimp, white shrimp, 

red drum, blacktip shark, and bonnethead shark. Coastal wetlands also provide nursery and 

foraging habitat that supports economically important marine fishery species such as spotted 

seatrout, sand seatrout, southern flounder, Atlantic croaker, spot, gulf menhaden, striped mullet, 

white mullet, silversides, killifish, kingfish, pompano, scaled sardines, anchovies, and blue crab. 

 Some of these species serve as prey for other fish species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act by the GMFMC (e.g., mackerels, snappers, and groupers) and highly migratory species 

managed by NMFS (e.g., billfishes and sharks). These wetlands also produce nutrients and 

detritus, important components of the aquatic food web, which contribute to the overall 

productivity of the Pontchartrain basin estuary and nearshore Gulf of Mexico. 

As mentioned under Description of Habitats above, Hurricane Katrina caused the apparent loss 

of 12,160 acres of wetlands in the Pontchartrain Basin. The storm surge and strong winds from 

Hurricane Katrina also severely damaged the Chandeleur and Breton Islands and adjacent 

seagrass beds, all valuable EFH. 

Under future without project (FWOP) conditions, there would be no loss of benthos or turbidity 

associated with maintenance dredging of the MRGO. Some wave erosion from small boat traffic 

is expected to continue. The reduced wave erosion will still result in the loss of some wetlands, 

valuable to EFH, and marsh would not be created with maintenance dredging of the channel. 

EFH is not expected to change much in this area in the future. 

Wildlife Resources 

Prior to construction of the MRGO, the interior fresh to intermediate wetlands had high value for 

furbearing animals and waterfowl. Kerlin (1979) described the pre-MRGO wetlands of St. 

Bernard Parish, south of Lake Borgne, as being “second only to the marshes of the lower 

Mississippi River Delta in importance to waterfowl in southeastern Louisiana.” Approximately 

250,000 waterfowl wintered in these marshes. 

One of the most damaging aspects of project-induced losses of intermediate marsh was the 

elimination of valuable waterfowl wintering habitat. The marshes south of Lake Borgne were 

among the most important waterfowl wintering areas in Louisiana prior to project construction. 

These marshes were of particular importance to lesser snow geese, mallard, green-winged teal, 

and lesser scaup. According to biologists of the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission 

(LWFC, predecessor to the LDWF), that area is now of greatly reduced value to the above 

species, with the exception of lesser scaup, due to reduced habitat quality brought about by 

salinity intrusion and associated marsh deterioration. Between 1969 and 1978, wildlife surveys 

recorded less than 20,000 annual wintering waterfowl in an area that had previously supported 

250,000 individuals. 
8 

Currently avian inhabitants of the study area include nine species of wading birds, more than five 

species of seabirds, four species of shorebirds, six species of songbirds, and several raptor 

species. The areas north and south of the MRGO are used as wintering habitat for low to 

moderate numbers of dabbling and diving ducks. Only the eastern Lake Borgne-Biloxi marshes 

support high numbers of diving ducks in winter. The number of ducks using these areas has 

been steady to decreasing over the past 10 to 20 years, except in the wetlands around Lake Lery 

and Caernarvon where populations have been steady to increasing in abundance (LCWCR and 

WCRA 1999). 

Through the year 2050 (LCWCR and WCRA 1999), half of the dabbling duck species 

abundance in the marshes north of the Bayou La Loutre ridge are projected to remain steady 

while the other half are projected to decrease in abundance. Over half (54%) of the diving ducks 

will remain steady in abundance and 46% will decrease by the year 2050 in this area. South of 

the Bayou La Loutre ridge, 38% of dabbling and diving ducks are projected to increase in 

abundance and 62% will decrease by the year 2050. 

Game mammals of these marshes and few remaining forested wetlands in the inland area include 

swamp rabbit, raccoon, and fox/gray squirrels. Non-game mammals include opossum, ninebanded armadillo, and several species of bats, rodents, and insectivores. Furbearers, supported 

in large numbers in this area, included muskrat, mink, nutria, river otter, and raccoons which 

were staples of the Louisiana fur industry. The most productive muskrat marshes, based on 

harvest records (USFWS 1960, Wicker et al. 1982), were in the marshes south of Bayou 

Bienvenue, near Proctor Point, between Lake Borgne and the Bayou St. Malo ridge and east of 

the Violet Canal. Mink catches were good in the marshes south of Bayou Bienvenue. Nutria 

harvests were average in the Bayou Bienvenue marshes. During the 1956-1960 season, fur 

harvests included 640,000 muskrats, 15,000 nutria, 1000 river otter, 800 raccoon and 600 mink. 

After construction of the MRGO, wildlife surveys showed a noticeable decline in the 

productivity of these wetlands. Canals and dredged material not only physically destroyed the 

wetlands and disrupted natural drainage patterns, but they also provided access to the vast 

marshes for hunting, trapping, and fishing. Biologists also noted that the elevated MRGO spoil 

areas constituted additional habitat for deer, rabbits and other mammals and feeding and nesting 

areas for birds (Valentine 1984). Kerlin (1979) report noted “available records also indicate a 

drastic decline in fur production in St. Bernard Parish. This decline is also largely attributed to 

saltwater intrusion and a corresponding reduction in carrying capacity for fur animals such as 

muskrat and nutria. 

According to the Coast 2050 report (LCWCR and WCRA 1999), furbearing animals in the area 

north of the Bayou La Loutre ridge (nutria, muskrat, mink, otter and raccoon) inhabit the 

marshes and upland habitats in low numbers. They have decreased in abundance over the past 

10 to 20 years, and this trend is projected to continue through the year 2050. South of the Bayou 

La Loutre ridge, furbearing animals (mink, otter, and raccoon) are low in abundance in open 

water, moderate in salt marsh and high in brackish marsh habitat. Their abundance has ranged 

from steady to decreasing over the past 10 to 20 years but is expected to remain steady through 

the year 2050. 
9 

Alligators prefer fresh to low salinity marshes. North of the Bayou La Loutre ridge they are 

present in low numbers and have decreased in abundance over the last 10 to 20 years (LCWCR 

and WCRA, 1999). This trend is projected to continue through 2050. South of the Bayou La 

Loutre ridge, alligators are present in moderate to low numbers but have increased in abundance 

over the past 10 to 20 years. Projections show half of the population presently remaining steady, 

but are expected to increase in abundance through 2050. 

Wildlife populations are directly related to the amount of wetlands present. As the wetlands of 

coastal Louisiana continues to decline over time, it is expected that wildlife populations would 

decrease, but some may remain steady. In the future some marsh loss would be prevented from 

reduced vessel erosion in the MRGO, which would have a slight positive effect on wildlife. 

However, the loss of future beneficial use of dredged material may cause a minor future negative 

impact to wildlife. The potential reduction of salinity above a closure on the MRGO would 

benefit wildlife. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Federally listed threatened (T) and endangered (E) species and/or their designated critical habitat 

occurring in the study area include the brown pelican (E), bald eagle (T), Gulf sturgeon (T), and 

West Indian manatee (E). 

Brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) are common breeding residents of Breton Island and 

forage in the waters of Breton and Chandeleur Sounds. During the 2006 survey, post-Hurricane 

Katrina, no brown pelican nests were found on West Breton Island (Hess and Linscombe 

unpublished). The nearest nest observed in 2006 was on Pelican Point, Baptiste Collete and 

North Island. However, brown pelicans may forage in the shallow estuarine waters of the 

MRGO and Lake Borgne and use sand pits and offshore sand bars as resting and roosting areas. 

 Major threats to this species include chemical pollutants, colony site erosion, disease, and 

human disturbance. In the future, with the de-authorization of the MRGO, beneficial use of 

dredged material would not continue on Breton Island. As that island continues to erodes, less 

nesting opportunities would be available for brown pelicans. 

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest in Louisiana from October through mid-May. 

Eagles typically nest in bald cypress trees near fresh to intermediate marshes or open water in the 

southeastern parishes. Although no nests are known to occur within the study area, unknown 

nest sites may potentially exist near by because eagles may have constructed new nests in 

hurricane-damaged areas since Hurricane Katrina, and because eagles may build more than one 

nest in their breeding territory. Major threats to this species include habitat alteration, human 

disturbance, and environmental contaminants (i.e., organochlorine pesticides and lead). 

The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) is an anadromous fish that occurs in many 

rivers, streams, and estuarine waters along the northern Gulf coast between the Mississippi River 

and the Suwannee River, Florida. In Louisiana, Gulf sturgeon have been reported at Rigolets 

Pass, rivers and lakes of the Lake Pontchartrain basin, and adjacent estuarine areas. Spawning 

occurs in coastal rivers between late winter and early spring (i.e., March to May). Adults and 
10 

sub-adults may be found in those rivers and streams until November, and in estuarine or marine 

waters during the remainder of the year. Sturgeon less than two years old appear to remain in 

riverine habitats and estuarine areas throughout the year, rather than migrate to marine waters. 

On March 19, 2003, the Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS published a final rule in the 

Federal Register (Volume 68, No. 53) designating critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon in 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Designated critical habitat near the project area 

include Lake Pontchartrain east of the Causeway and Lake Borgne. The potential exists for Gulf 

sturgeon to be within the MRGO through access from Breton Sound, Lake Borgne, and the 

GIWW. Habitat alterations such as those caused by water control structures that limit and 

prevent spawning, poor water quality, and over-fishing have negatively affected this species. 

West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus) have been occasionally observed along the 

Louisiana Gulf coast during the summer months. The manatee has declined in numbers due to 

collisions with boats and barges, entrapment in flood control structures, poaching, habitat loss, 

and pollution. Cold weather and outbreaks of red tide may also adversely affect these animals. 

Manatees have been sighted within the MRGO, and are known to travel long distances up coastal 

waterways from the Gulf of Mexico. On July 9, 2001, a manatee was observed passing safely 

through the IHNC Lock and into the Mississippi River. Manatees are usually within Louisiana 

coastal waterways only during the warm weather/warm water months. 

Endangered and threatened sea turtles forage in the nearshore waters, bays and sounds of 

Louisiana. NMFS is responsible for aquatic marine threatened or endangered species (including 

the Gulf sturgeon). Eric Hawk (727/824-5312) in St. Petersburg, Florida, should be contacted 

for information concerning those marine species. 

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 

Evaluation of project-related impacts on fish and wildlife resources for the MRGO and Lake 

Borgne wetland creation and shoreline protection study was conducted using the Wetland Value 

Assessment (WVA) methodology developed for the evaluation of proposed coastal wetland 

projects. The WVA is similar to the Service’s Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), in that 

habitat quality and quantity are measured for baseline conditions and predicted for FWOP and 

future with project (FWP) conditions. Instead of the species-based approach of HEP, each WVA 

model utilizes an assemblage of variables considered important to the suitability of that habitat 

type for supporting a diversity of fish and wildlife species. The WVA models operate under the 

assumption that optimal conditions for fish and wildlife habitat within a given coastal wetland 

type can be characterized, and that existing or predicted conditions can be compared to optimum 

conditions to provide an index of habitat quality. Habitat quality is estimated and expressed 

through the use of a mathematical model developed specifically for each wetland type. Separate 

models were used for brackish marsh and saline marsh in this studies evaluation. The WVA 

models assess the suitability of each habitat type for providing resting, foraging, breeding, and 

nursery habitat to a diverse assemblage of fish and wildlife species. This standardized, multispecies, habitat-based methodology facilitates the assessment of project-induced impacts on fish 

and wildlife resources. As with HEP, the WVA allows a numeric comparison of each future 
11 

condition and provides a quantitative estimate of project-related impacts to fish and wildlife 

resources. Results are annualized over the project life to determine the Average Annual Habitat 

Units (AAHUs) available for each habitat type. 

The change (increase or decrease) in AAHUs for each FWP scenario, compared to FWOP 

conditions, provides a measure of anticipated impacts. A net gain in AAHUs indicates that the 

project is beneficial to the habitat being evaluated; a net loss of AAHUs indicates that the project 

is damaging to that habitat type. 

Using the WVA methodology, impact assessments were conducted by the interagency Habitat 

Evaluation Team (HET) based on wetland loss data, knowledge of the area, and experience with 

similar projects. 

DESCRIPTION OF TENATIVELY SELECTED PLAN 

Alternatives Considered 

Alternatives were developed as a combination of features that would accomplish, to the 

maximum extent practicable, the Congressional mandate to repair, construct or provide measures 

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

storm surge in the MRGO area. 

The primary problems in the area include wetlands loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, 

and storm surge threats. Features were identified as solutions that, when properly combined, 

could potentially address the problems in the proposed action area. The features included 

wetland creation and nourishment (via dedicated dredging and placement of borrow material), 

shoreline protection (use rock, articulated concrete mats (ACM) to protect shorelines within the 

critical landbridge separating Lake Borgne and the MRGO channel), surge barriers or wave 

breaks in Lake Borgne (a series of offshore terrace-like structures to reduce wind-driven waves 

before they reach shorelines), ridge restoration (restore degraded and critical geomorphic 

features, such as the Bayou La Loutre ridge), vegetative plantings (plant marsh vegetation to 

create intertidal emergent wetland habitat and to help stabilize existing shorelines), freshwater 

diversion (divert Mississippi River water into the proposed action area via the Violet Canal or 

another suitable location to mediate saltwater intrusion impacts) and saltwater barriers (construct 

a structure within the MRGO to limit saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico into the 

proposed action area. 

Based on initial screening, wetland creation and shoreline protection features were retained to 

create alternative plans. There were several screening criterion but the primary screening 

criterion was whether or not the feature would meet the legislative authority, which specified 

that features must restore or protect wetlands, reduce storm surge, or reduce saltwater intrusion. 

The level of protection the features provided to the landbridge between Lake Borgne and the 

MRGO channel was also of critical importance. 
12 

Ten alternative plans with various combinations of wetland creation and nourishment and 

shoreline protection features were developed and evaluated. Specifications of each feature 

differed between plans because of the constraint to remain within a set budget. In other words 

features within a plan were adjusted to maximize the use of funds available. Initial evaluation of 

these alternative plans examined how well the combination of features would protect the critical 

landbridge and complement existing projects, as well as meet the other sorting criteria. 

Three plans (summarized in Table 1) best met these criteria and were carried over for detailed 

analysis and from which a tentatively selected plan was selected. Plan 2 includes 1,500 acres of 

marsh creation and 1,350 acres of marsh nourishment in brackish marsh in the Golden Triangle. 

It also includes five shoreline protection features located on the Lake Borgne shoreline in the 

Golden Triangle area, in the vicinity of Bayou Bienvenue, in the vicinity of Bayou dupre, and 

west of Shell Beach, and along the southern shoreline of the MRGO channel in the vicinity of 

Mile 45-47. This plan would create, nourish and protect a total of 2,111 acres of brackish and 

saline marshes and 1,307 AAHUs compared to the future without this project. 

Plan 3 includes 1,400 acres of wetland creation and 1,350 acres of marsh nourishment in the 

Golden Triangle in brackish marsh. It also includes 500 acres of marsh creation and 420 acres of 

marsh nourishment of saline marsh west of Shell Beach. This plan includes two shoreline 

protection features located on the Lake Borgne shoreline in the vicinity of Bayou Bienvenue and 

west of Shell Beach. This plan would create, nourish and protect a total of 2,274 acres and 

1,487 AAHUs compared to the future without this project. 

Tentatively Selected Plan 

Of the three alternative plans carried over for detailed analysis, Plan 10 best meets the selection 

criteria established in the planning objectives and is the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP). The 

TSP (Table 1 and Figure 2) includes 1,250 acres of marsh creation and 1,400 acres of marsh 

nourishment of brackish marsh in the Golden Triangle as well as 425 acres of marsh creation and 

270 acres of marsh nourishment of saline marsh west of Shell Beach. This plan includes four 

shoreline protection features located on the Lake Borgne shoreline in the vicinity of Bayou 

Bienvenue, in the vicinity of Bayou Dupre, west of Shell Beach, and along the southern 

shoreline of the MRGO channel in the vicinity of Mile 45-47. This plan would create, nourish 

and protect a total of 2,275 acres and 1,314 AAHUs compared to the future without this project. 

Table 1. MRGO and Lake Borgne marsh creation and shoreline 

protection summary of alternative plans analysis. 

Plan 2 

Wetland Creation Acres Created Acres Nourished Net Acres AAHUs 
13 

Golden Triangle 1,500 1,350 1,685 1,182 

Shoreline Protection Length Net Acres AAHUs 

Golden Triangle 17,700 105 31 

Bayou Bienvenue 16,230 78 23 

Bayou Dupre 16,700 106 32 

West of Shell Beach 15,400 175 48 

MRGO ACM (south) 10,840 67 22 

Total 14.6 miles 2,111 1,307 

 

Plan 3 

Wetland Creation Acres Created Acres Nourished Net Acres AAHUs 

Golden Triangle 1,400 1,350 1,542 1,084 

Shell Beach 500 420 479 332 

Shoreline Protection Length Net Acres AAHUs 

Bayou Bienvenue 16,230 78 23 

West of Shell Beach 15,400 175 48 

Total 6.0 miles 2,274 1,487 

 

Plan 10-Tentatively Selected Plan 

Wetland Creation Acres Created Acres Nourished Net Acres AAHUs 

Golden Triangle 1,250 1,400 1,495 946 

Shell Beach 425 270 397 260 

Shoreline Protection Length Net Acres AAHUs 

Bayou Bienvenue 16,230 78 24 

Bayou Dupre 16,700 81 24 

West of Shell Beach 15,800 141 39 

MRGO Rock (north) 23,800 83 21 

Total 13.7 miles 2,275 1,314 
14 

Figure 2. Features of the Tentatively Selected Plan of the MRGO and Lake Borgne marsh 

creation and shoreline protection project. 

In the Golden Triangle area, borrow material would be used to convert approximately 1,250 

acres of shallow open water areas to brackish marsh, as well as nourish an estimated 1,400 acres 

of fragmented brackish marsh. In the area west of Shell Beach, borrow material would be used 

to convert approximately 425 acres of shallow open water areas to saline marsh, as well as 

nourish an estimated 270 acres of broken up saline marsh. Dredged material would be placed 

directly into open water areas and the effluent allowed to flow over the adjacent wetlands for 

marsh re-nourishment. Upon dewatering and consolidation, borrow material final elevation 

would be between +0.22 feet and +1.22 feet NAVD88. 

Shoreline protection in the vicinity of Bayou Bienvenue will provide approximately 16,230 

linear feet of foreshore rock dike to control shoreline erosion of brackish marshes from Bayou 

Bienvenue to the western end of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act 

(CWPPRA) PO-30 Lake Borgne Shoreline Protection project, which has been authorized for 

construction. 

Shoreline protection in the Vicinity of Bayou Dupre will provide for approximately 16,700 linear 

feet of foreshore rock dike to control shoreline erosion of brackish marshes extending eastward 

from the eastern end of the CWPPRA PO-30 Lake Borgne Shoreline Protection project. 
15 

Shoreline protection west of Shell Beach will provide for approximately 15,800 linear feet of 

foreshore rock dike to control shoreline erosion of saline marshes extending westward from the 

western end of the CWPPRA PO-32 Lake Borgne Shoreline Protection project, which has been 

authorized for construction. 

Shoreline protection along the MRGO north bank will provide for approximately 23,800 linear 

feet of foreshore rock dike on the northern bankline of the MRGO channel to control shoreline 

erosion of saline marshes from channel mile 40 to mile 44.5. 

The rock dikes will be placed along the -0.72 to -1.22 feet NAVD88 contour and constructed to 

an elevation of +3.22 feet NAVD88, with 1V on 2H side slopes, and a 4-foot crown width. Fish 

dips every 1,000 feet will be constructed to allow ingress and egress of aquatic organisms. 

Because of the need for readily accessible and suitable borrow material, and the fact that 

Congress has prohibited the dredging of the MRGO, Lake Borgne water bottoms (near the 

shoreline and a maximum depth of -20 feet NAVD88) were determined to be the most suitable 

and readily available source of borrow for wetland creation and nourishment. 

PROJECT IMPACTS 

Project-related wetland impacts may occur either directly through construction and/or indirectly 

through hydrologic alterations. Net impacts, expressed in AAHUs, reflect the net effect of both 

direct and indirect benefits/impacts on emergent marsh, SAV, and shallow open-water 

components of the habitat. While conducting the WVAs, the HET assumed baseline land loss 

rates in the Golden Triangle (Figure 1) and the central wetlands to be reduced slightly (around 

10%) because of the expected reduction in salinity from the MRGO deauthorization and closure 

and a 75% reduction in shoreline erosion rate along the MRGO without vessel traffic. 

Project-induced direct impacts to coastal vegetation resources in the proposed action area would 

primarily result from construction activities related to placement of fill material for wetland 

creation and nourishment. Shoreline protection features would be constructed just offshore, so 

as to avoid potential adverse impacts to existing vegetation resources near the shoreline and 

would therefore have no direct impact on existing vegetation. 

Approximately 2,650 acres of shallow open water and fragmented brackish marsh and 

approximately 520 acres of shallow open water and fragmented saline marsh would be directly 

impacted by placement of approximately 9,700,000 cy of borrow material for wetland creation 

and nourishment. Compared to the FWOP conditions, the TSP would create, nourish and protect 

a net 2,275 acres with a value of 1314 AAHUs (Table 1) after the 50 year project life. 

Borrow material taken from Lake Borgne would be placed directly into open water and on top of 

existing fragmented marsh, which would cover any existing emergent vegetation. However, 

based on previous experience in marsh creation, it is anticipated that vegetation would recolonize the area within five years. Furthermore, existing emergent vegetation would serve as 
16 

source for re-vegetation. Nourishment would introduce sediments to the broken marsh of the 

project footprint thus providing better quality substrate for existing vegetation and for vegetative 

reestablishment. 

Foreshore rock protection is proposed within the southern lobes of Lake Borgne and along the 

northern bankline of the MRGO (mile 40-44.5). These features would work cooperatively with 

each other and the connecting CWPPRA PO-30 and PO-32 projects to reduce wind, wave, and 

storm driven erosion along both sides of the landbridge. There would be no significant impact to 

vegetation as the placement of the material is in front of existing marsh. Furthermore, material 

excavated for required flotation dredging would be placed landward of the proposed dike for 

wetland creation to the maximum extent practicable. 

Compared to the FWOP conditions, this action would delay the conversion of brackish and 

saline marsh to open water habitats, create EFH, restore the Golden Triangle, maintain the 

critical landbridge between Lake Borgne and the MRGO, protect interior marshes, and decrease 

erosion in Lake Borgne caused by tidal surge and wind driven waves as well as decrease erosion 

in the MRGO channel. 

Wildlife Resources 

During implementation of the TSP, construction activities may disrupt or displace wildlife 

resources. However, this impact would be localized and temporary, and most wildlife species 

would move to an area with more favorable conditions and return after construction is 

completed. No permanent displacement would be expected from the construction of the 

permanent foreshore protection features. Any loss of habitat would be offset by the creation and 

nourishment of 1,495 acres of brackish marsh at the Golden Triangle and 397 acres at Shell 

beach. Furthermore, there would be 12.6 miles of protected shoreline that would enhance and 

protect interior marshes and marsh edge. 

The creation, restoration, and protection of wetlands resulting from this project will be a benefit 

to wildlife resources. An increase in wetland acreage would provide increased nesting, broodrearing, and foraging habitat for resident and migrant avian species and wintering habitat for 

waterfowl. The approximately 2,275 more acres of brackish and saline marsh habitat that would 

be available in 50 years compared to the FWOP, would also be beneficial to furbearers, game 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. However, the long-term sustainability of wildlife resources 

is not expected to change as a result of this project. 

Fisheries Resources 

Impacts to fisheries would generally be associated with construction activities and would be 

temporary and include injury or mortality due to burial or increased turbidity. Sessile and slowmoving aquatic organisms are more likely to be covered by borrow material. Increased turbidity 

caused by construction activities would temporarily displace fishery organisms. After 

construction activities cease, displaced fishery species would return to the proposed action area. 
17 

All shoreline protection features would incorporate fish dips and allow historical channels to 

remain open for all organisms’ ingress and egress. These access features would allow movement 

of fisheries to wetlands protected within the proposed shoreline protection reaches, and minimize 

the impact of shoreline protection features on aquatic organism access to the Lake Borgne and 

MRGO channel shorelines. The foreshore protection may act as a submerged structure for some 

fish to utilize. 

The wetland creation, nourishment and protection of this project would prevent the further loss 

of 2,275 acres of brackish and saline marsh, thus benefiting fisheries resources. These wetlands 

would provide a habitat for foraging, breeding, spawning, and cover for a variety of larval, 

juvenile and adult fishes. More nutrients and detritus would be added to the food web, thereby 

increasing fish productivity and providing a benefit to local fisheries. However, the long-tem 

sustainability of local fisheries is not expected to change as a result of this project. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Impacts to EFH would result from construction activities by converting some existing EFH and 

shallow open water areas to emergent wetlands. Increases in turbidity as a result of construction 

would be localized and temporary. Placement of rock foreshore protection would directly 

impact existing EFH along 13.7 miles of Lake Borgne and the MRGO channel combined, which 

would be unavailable for fishery species. However, the loss of this EFH in isolated areas would 

be offset by the increases in a higher-quality EFH in the newly created and nourished emergent 

wetland sites. 

The creation/nourishment of these wetlands would improve the quality of some categories of 

EFH by re-establishing marsh communities. Shoreline protection features would prevent the 

erosion of interior emergent wetlands and provide areas of protected lake water. They would 

also prevent the conversion of wetland habitat, including inner marsh and marsh edge, to less 

productive EFH categories, like open water. Additionally, essential vegetated intertidal habitats 

used by fish for spawning, nursery, forage, cover, and other life requirements would be 

improved. 

Threatened and Endangered species 

Bald eagle may forage in the proposed action area but are not likely to be found nesting in the 

project footprint. Though, it is possible that unknown nest sites may potentially exist near by 

because eagles may have constructed new nests in hurricane-damaged areas since Hurricane 

Katrina, and because eagles may build more than one nest in their breeding territory. Any bald 

eagle that might occur in the project area during construction and maintenance could temporarily 

be displaced to nearby suitable habitat. In addition, habitat restoration that may occur due to the 

proposed action may benefit bald eagles by enhancing nearby feeding habitat. 

Brown pelicans forage in the waters of Breton and Chandeleur Sounds, and Lake Borgne. 

Preserving existing marsh and creating additional wetlands would potentially enhance suitable 
18 

feeding and/or loafing habitat for pelicans by enhancing the stability of those areas and the 

aquatic life upon which pelicans feed. 

The Gulf sturgeon should not be impacted by an increase in brackish and saline marsh other than 

to potentially benefit their food source. However, impacts to the Lake Borgne water bottom 

through the mining of material from the borrow areas for the wetland creation features would 

temporarily reduce some feeding habitat for Gulf sturgeon. Nevertheless, this total area 

impacted would be small in comparison to the total habitat available, and prey items would be 

anticipated to recolonize the borrow areas after construction. There is the potential for mortality 

or injury resulting from incidental interaction between gulf sturgeon and dredging activities in 

Lake Borgne. Therefore, construction practices should be employed (e.g., dropping the empty 

bucket of a dredge to scare off any Gulf sturgeon prior to dredging activities) to minimize the 

likelihood of impacts to individuals. 

While rare, the potential exists for the manatee to occur in the proposed action area. The 

disturbance to that species would only be temporary during project construction, and would 

result in temporary displacement. The manatees would likely move to another area for foraging 

or resting purposes, and there would be an abundance of available areas to which the animals 

may relocate. 

The USACE is responsible for determining whether the selected alternative is likely (or not 

likely) to adversely affect any listed species and/or critical habitat, and for requesting the 

Service’s concurrence with that determination. If the USACE determines, and the Service 

concurs, that the selected alternative is likely to adversely affect listed species and/or critical 

habitat, a request for formal consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act should be submitted to the Service. That request should also include the USACEs 

rationale supporting their determination. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES 

Coastal marshes are considered by the Service to be aquatic resources of national importance due 

to their increasing scarcity and high habitat value for fish and wildlife within Federal trusteeship 

(i.e., migratory waterfowl, wading birds, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and interjurisdictional fisheries). Because of the Services’ close coordination with the 

USACE on this project, and because the project is expected to have an overall benefit to the 

marshes of the Pontchartrain basin, the Service has no conservation measures to offer at this 

time. 
19 

SERVICE POSITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Tentatively Selected Plan will benefit the fish and wildlife resources of the Lake Borgne and 

MRGO area by creating and nourishing brackish and saline marsh and by providing shoreline 

protection of the critical marsh between the MRGO and Lake Borgne. The Service does not 

object to the construction of the proposed project, provided that the following fish and wildlife 

conservation measures are implemented concurrently with project implementation: 

1. The Service and NMFS should be provided an opportunity to review and submit 

recommendations on the draft plans and specifications on the MRGO and Lake Borgne 

wetland creation and shoreline protection addressed in this report. 

2. Coordination should continue with the Service and NMFS on detailed contract specifications 

to avoid and minimize potential impacts to manatees and Gulf sturgeon. 

3. If the proposed project has not been constructed within 1 year or if changes are made to the 

proposed project, the USACE should re-initiate Endangered Species Act consultation with 

the Service. 

4. Material dredged for floatation should be used to create marsh to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

5. The created and nourished wetlands and shoreline protection should be monitored over the 

project life to help evaluate the effectiveness of these features. 

6. Dredged material borrow pits should be carefully designed and located to minimize anoxia 

problems and excessive disturbance to area water bottoms. 

Provided that the above recommendations are included in the feasibility report and related 

authorizing documents, the Service will support further planning and implementation of the TSP. 
20 

LITERATURE CITED 

Coastal Environments, Inc. 1982. St. Bernard Parish: A Study in Wetland Management. A 

Report Prepared for the St. Bernard Parish Police Jury. 132 pp. 

El-Sayed, S. 1961. Hydrological and Biological Studies of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet 

Project: A Summary Report. Department of Oceanography and Meteorology, Texas A & 

M University, College Station, Tx. 

Fontenot, B.J., Jr., and H.E. Rogillo. 1970. A Study of Estuarine Sportfishes in the Biloxi 

Marsh Complex. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana. 172 pp. 

Fruge, David. 1980. Personal communication regarding unpublished reports from the files, St. 

Bernard Parish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, La. Reported in Wicker, K.M., G.C. 

Castile, III, D.J. Davis, S.M. Gagliano, D.W. Roberts, D.S. Sabins, R.A. Weinstein. 

1982. St. Bernard Parish a Study in Wetland Management. Prepared for the St. Bernard 

Parish Police Jury Chalmette, La. 

Hess, T. and J. Linscombe. Unpublished 2006. Brown Pelican Survey and Observations. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Rockefeller Refuge. 3 pp. 

Kerlin, C.W. 1979. Letter to Jack A. Stephens, Director-Secretary St. Bernard Parish Planning 

Commission regarding the impact of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet MR-GO on St. 

Bernard Parish’s wetlands and water bodies (31 May). In: Report of the Environmental 

Subcommittee to the MR-GO Technical Committee, March 16, 2000. 20 pp. 

Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, 2006. Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan for the 

Lake Pontchartrain Basin. 

http://www.saveourlake.org/pdfs/JL/CHMP_final_%2022706.pdf 142pp. 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority. 1999. Coast 2050: Toward a sustainable coastal 

Louisiana, The appendices. Appendix C—Region 1 Supplemental Information. 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 128 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service web site http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

Rounsefell, G. 1964. Preconstruction Study of the Fisheries of the Estuarine Areas Traversed 

by the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Project. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, 

Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Bulletin, 63 (2): 373-393. 
21 

Shaffer, Gary. 2002. Personal communication with K. Wicker on 9/13/02. Professor, Biology 

Dept., Southeaster Louisiana University, Hammond, La. 

Tate, J.N., A.R. Carrillo, R.C. Berger, and B.J. Thibodeaux, 2002. Salinity changes in 

Pontchartrain Basin Estuary, Louisiana, Resulting from Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet 

partial closure with width reduction, Final Report. USACOE Coastal and Hydraulic 

Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. 

Thompson, B.A., and G.R. Fitzhugh. 1985. Synthesis and Analysis of Lake Pontchartrain 

Environments, Influencing Factors and Trends. Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality, Office of Water Resources. Interagency Agreement No. 64003-83-05, 

contribution LSU-CFI-84-28. 

Turner, R.E., J.J. Baustian, E.M. Swenson, J.S. Spicer. 2006. Wetland Sedimentation from 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science Vol. 314. no. 5798, pp. 449 - 452 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1960. Preliminary Report of 

Marsh Vegetation Study Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Navigation Project, Orleans and 

St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. Prepared for Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 

region 4, Atlanta, Ga. Prepared by Branch of River Basin Studies, Vicksburg, MS. 

U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, Baton Rouge Production Office. 

2002. Digital Data depicting marsh zones for 1949, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1997, and 2001. 

Valentine, J.M., Jr. 1984. Cajun Country Marshes. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildl. 

Serv. U.S. gov’t. Printing Off., Washington, D.C. 

Wicker, K.M., G.J. Castillle, III, D.J. Davis, S.M. Gagliano, D.W. Roberts, D.S. Sabins and R.A. 

Weinstein. 1982. St. Bernard Parish: A Study in Wetland Management, La. Dept. of 

Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, La. 132 pp. 

Wiltenmuth, K. S. 2000. Salinity Characteristics and Trends for Lake Pontchartrain: A 

Comparison with the Barataria – Terrebonne Estuary System (BTES). Unpub. Master 

Thesis, Southeastern La. Univ., Hammond, La. 182 pp. 









Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection

FEIS June 2009 

 

APPENDIX G 

State Historic Preservation Officer Coordination Letter 





NEW 

• DEPARTMENT 

ORLEANS DISTRICT, 

OF 

CORPS 

THE 

OF 

ARMY 

ENGINEERS 

• 

P.O. BOX 60267 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70160-0267 

January 8, 2008 

Planning, Programs, and 

Project Management Division 

Environmental Planning 

And Compliance Branch 

Attn: CEMVN-PM-RN 

Lonnie L. Martin, Chairman 

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 

P.O. Box 661
 

Charenton, La. 70523
 

Dear Chairman Martin: 

This letter is in regard to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District (MVN) Lake 

Borgne Bank Stabilization and Marsh Creation Project, Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. R. C. 

Goodwin and Associates (Goodwin) completed terrestrial and marine inventories and is the 

subject of the enclosed management summaries. Both reports are summarized below. 

During the terrestrial phase survey at total on nine sites and one locus were revisited and 

reassessed for National Register eligibility. These sites are: 160R23, Locus GT-06, 16SB84, 

16SB39, 16SB40, 16SB43, 16SB148, 16SB149, 16SB152 and 16SB154. 

160R23, Spanish Fishing Village was utilized from during at least the Mississippian period 

through the Protohistoric period. 234 artifacts were noted, mostly from a surface context. The 

1% of artifacts recovered from shovel testing came from a disturbed context. Given that there is 

no evidence of intact cultural deposits Goodwin proposed that the site did not meet National 

Register criteria. MVN agrees with this National Register evaluation. 

Locus GT-06, another eroded shell deposit does not meet the criteria for site definition and as 

such was also proposed to be not eligible to the National Register. MVN agrees with this 

National Register evaluation. 

16SB84, Battery Bienvenue, was evaluated by an architectural historian. Goodwin found that 

the parapet wall in good condition though the loss of caps from the top of the wall was 

increasing the chance of continued erosion. Goodwin also found the Officer's Quarters in ruins 

and the magazine missing its roof and in poor condition. Goodwin recommends a National 

Register evaluation as eligible under criterion A. 

16SB 39, Shell Beach Bayou when originally recorded was composed of six discrete shell 

mounds. A previous inventory collected human remains from mounds A, D and E. They also 

record that mounds A and B have been substantially affected by ongoing erosion and damage 

from Hurricane Katrina and that mound F has subsided into Lake Borgne. The presence of 

intact deposits and human remains caused Goodwin to recommend a National Register 

determination of Eligible. MVN agrees with the eligible determination. 
• • 

165B40, Dupre 5ite, has almost completely subsided into Lake Borgne with exposed shell 

located only along the beach ridge and in marsh grasses immediately behind the beach. The 

seemingly lack of intact cultural deposits caused Goodwin to recommend a determination of not 

eligible. MVN agrees with a determination of not eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

At 165B43 Goodwin excavated 13 shovel tests with only one of the test containing artifacts. 

The lack of intact deposits caused Goodwin to recommend that site 165B43 be considered not 

eligible to the National Register. MVN agrees with this National Register determination. 

165B148 is described by Goodwin as an eroded shell beach surrounded by inundated marsh. 

Once again the lack of intact cultural deposits caused Goodwin to recommend a National 

Register determination of not eligible. MVN agrees with this recommendation. 

165B149 has mostly eroded into Lake Borgne with a remnant of approximately 10 meters in 

diameter on a slightly elevated landform surrounded by inundated marsh grass. The lack of 

intact cultural deposits caused Goodwin to recommend a National Register determination of not 

eligible. MVN agrees with the recommendation. 

165B152 has mostly eroded or subsided into Lake Borgne. The lack of intact cultural deposits 

caused Goodwin to make a recommendation of not eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. MVN agrees with this evaluation. 

165B154 extends 540 meters along a modern canal and has a width of 28 meters. Portions of 

the site are covered by material dredged out of the canal. Human remains have been noted at 

165B154. Because there is the potential for intact cultural deposits beneath the dredged 

material Goodwin recommended that the site be considered eligible to the National Register. 

Because the potential for intact cultural deposits may not prove to be the case, MVN 

recommends that 165B154 remain unevaluated for National Register eligibility. 

During the marine portion of the inventory Goodwin surveyed 12 blocks composed of borrow 

pits, flotation channels and the rock dike. An anomaly cluster in Block 5, M190-M194 was 

identified as potential cultural resources. This cluster was not evaluated for National Register 

eligibility provided that the anomaly cluster will be avoided by ali construction activities. 

On December 18,h the Corps visited the project area with representatives from the Chitimacha 

Tribe. The purpose of this visit was to insure that all construction activities will avoid impacts to 

those sites which contain human remains. Any human remains collected from these sites will 

be reinterred after completion of the project. In addition to sites with human remains all National 

Register eligible sites will be avoided by the project. 
• • REPLY TO
 

ATTENTION OF
 

Therefore we request your concurrence with a determination of no historic properties affected 

(36CFR Part 800.4(d)(1). If you require additional information please contact Gary DeMarcay at 

504-862-2039. Once a draft report is completed it will be sent to your office for your review. 

The copy of the report and a copy of this letter have been sent to Ms. Kimberly Walden for her 

review. 

Sincerely, 

Elizabeth Wiggins 

Chief, Environmental Planning 

And Compliance Branch 

L 

EJICIOS 

CEMVN·PM-RN 

l,~IGGINS YJ CEMVN·PM-R 
• • .­ r~ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

P.O. BOX 60267 

·~l NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70160·0267

June 3, 2008 

Planning, Programs, and 

Project Management Division 

Environmental Planning 

And Compliance Branch 

Attn: CEMVN-PM-RN 

Lonnie L Martin, Chairman 

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 

P.O. Box 661 

Charenton, LA 77351 

Dear Chairman Martin: 

Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft report titled: Phase I Cultural Resources 

survey and Marine Remote Sensing Investigation of the Proposed Lake Borgne Bank 

Stabilization and Marsh Creation Project, Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. This 

report was prepared for the New Orleans District, U.S, Army Corps of Engineers by R. 

Christopher Goodwin and Associates. 

Thank you for your help with this project. If you have any questions or require additional 

information, Please contact Gary DeMarcay at (504)862-2039. Or he can be reached bye-mail 

at gary,b,demarcay@usace.army.mil 

Sincerely, 

Elizabeth Wiggens 

Chief, Environmental Planning 

And Compliance Branch 

Enclosure 
• • 

NOIl.N311V :to 0J.A'd3~

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Wetland Creation and Shoreline Protection

FEIS June 2009 

 

APPENDIX H 

Responses to Comments 

Appendix H 

FEIS H – 1 

Letter #01: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

NMFS01-1: A copy was shipped directly to temail was received. The announcement appeRegister on October 31, 2009, which marked t45-day public review period. Final EIS will hthe cover. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 2 

Letter #2: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

NMFS02-1: The proposed construction ac#11 will not be placing material from the flcreate wetlands in the project area. Even if deposited in the proposed Golden Triangle the construction of the features proposed in construction of this project will consider thwetland creation fill will be limited to the t
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 3 

Letter #2: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 4 

Letter #3: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

NMFS03-1: Concur that Table 2-7 EFH be reproject implementation will result in a converproductive and increasingly more common camarsh, a more productive category of EFH. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 5 

Letter #4: Louisiana Department of Environmental Qualit

LDEQ04-1: A Louisiana Pollutant Discharge application is not needed because the dischargmaterial are covered under the 404 permitting LDEQ04-2: Project does not discharge into asystem. LDEQ04-3: A Stormwater General Permit wLDEQ. LDEQ04-4: All precautions shall be observe

source pollution from construction activities. LDEQ04-5: The proposed work is being conArmy Corps of Engineers. Necessary permits for. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 6 

Letter #4: Louisiana Department of Environmental Qualit

LDEQ04-6: All precautions shall be observe

groundwater of the region. LDEQ04-7: The project does not include watLDEQ04-8: The project does not include renremodeling. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 7 

Letter #5: Anthony Fernandez 

AAFERN05-1: The soils in the project area dstrength necessary for the construction of ridg

of 10 ft to 13 ft above sea level. While such rstructure and habitat, the soil preparation to be mass of sediment required would exceed the abudget. AAFERN05-2: The authorized total closure oBayou La Loutre ridge would remove a direct project area with the Gulf of Mexico. This is salinity reductions in the project area of up to likely result in a shift of some saline marsh grbrackish marsh species. Additionally, the authViolet, Louisiana, would further freshen the wSince the plans for that diversion have not beeabsolute reduction in salinity cannot be predicAAFERN05-3: The Shell Beach marsh creataccording to the existing budget, while balancentire project area. To expand the Shell Beach would require a reduction in the protection or planned for other areas within the project bounthe shoreline protection features planned for thwill reduce the erosion rate of the Lake Borgnprotect not only the newly created wetlands, bwetlands in that area. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 8 

Letter #6: United States Department of the Interior 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 9 

Letter #6: United States Department of the Interior 

USDOI06-1: A Public Lands section will be describe impacts to the Bayou Sauvage NWRUSDOI06-2: As per the recommendation, coJack Bohannan at the BSNWR and Kenneth Linitiated to ensure the success of the proposed feature on the Refuge. USDOI06-3: A Special Use Permit will be rerefuge manager for construction activities to bRefuge. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 10 

Letter #7: FEMA 

FEMA07: Coordination with the Floodplain Bernard and Orleans Parishes has been initiatecompliance with the Parishes' Flood Damage and any other Parish regulations/requirements
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 11 

Letter #8: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

Office of Coastal Restoration and Management 

LDNR08: Acknowledged. A 15-day extensioperiod was granted. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 12 

Letter #9: United States Environmental Protection Agenc
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 13 

Letter #9: United States Environmental Protection Agenc

USEPA09-1: Acknowledged. The project wifrom the water bottoms of Lake Borgne. Whinew sediments from the Mississippi River woprocesses that formed the marshes in the projematerial from the Mississippi River is more corequire a reduction in the benefits for the projepumping costs for using material from Lake Bwould cost $18 million to create and nourish 2pumping costs from the Mississippi River wouhigher, requiring $196.4 million to create and area. Given the funding limitations, and the nrestoration on other areas of the land bridge to complete restoration, this would result in a po2,407 acres (975 ha) that could be created on t(243 acres [98 ha] versus 2,650 acres [1,074 hUSEPA09-2: The material being dredged is bdegraded wetlands, as well as nourish existing timeframe in which this is being done would gnatural renourishment processes of resuspensithe existing wetlands adjacent to the shorelinecannot outpace the natural subsidence in the pevidenced by the continued loss of wetland acarea. USEPA09-3: Borrow sites would be designed (lack of dissolved oxygen) formation. Borrow shaped with large surface areas (230 to 1,070 relatively shallow depths (10 to 20 feet [3.0 to existing depth), and would gradually transition bottoms to project depth (side slopes between horizontal and 1 v : 3 h). Additionally, the auinclude funding for monitoring purposes. Howmonitoring of the borrow areas would provide for future coastal restoration work, alternate soshould be sought for this effort. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 14 

Letter #10: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisherie

LDWF10-1: The project features have been dto minimize impacts to public oyster seed grouborrow areas are located within the boundarieseed grounds, and access and floatation channto avoid public oyster seed grounds. Additionbucket dredge to excavate the access and floatpreclude the cost-effective use of excavated sefor wetland creation. Sediments from the acceneed to be placed in hopper dredges and storefloatation channels were completed, then doubshallow open water using a hydraulic pumpoufrom the floatation channel will be used benefwetland habitat between the shoreline and the where possible. In areas where the -2.0 ft depto the shoreline to allow enough room for the dredged material from the flotation channel, mstockpiled for return to the flotation channel aThis will minimize navigation hazards of havishallower water adjacent to the flotation chann
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 15 

Letter #10: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisherie

LDWF10-2: While all efforts will be made to public oyster seed grounds, if any are anticiparequested from LDWF for potential impacts. LDWF10-3: The area identified for potential with a relatively low cut depth of 10-20 ft belobottom, to reduce the potential incidence of hybalance between depth and area based on voluneeds. Reducing the cut to no more than 12 ft increase in the area of water bottom impactedoyster resources to a greater extent. LDWF10-4: The project features have been ldredging large areas of leased water bottoms agrounds. Additionally, segregating shell from would increase project costs beyond the authoproduction rate of the hydraulic dredge would 

the separation process, and the shell that was rrequire double-handling for removal from the placement on the public oyster seed grounds. 
Appendix H 

FEIS H – 16 

. 

Letter #11: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

Office of Coastal Restoration and Management 

LDNR11-1: Acknowledged.