The Louisiana 

Regional Restoration 

Planning Program

FINAL 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

January 2007 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of the Interior 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................. i

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ ES-1

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. ES-1

2.0 Purpose and Need for Action.................................................................................................. ES-2

3.0 Alternatives............................................................................................................................... ES-4

4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... ES-7

5.0 Environmental Consequences................................................................................................ ES-9

6.0 Coordination with Other Programs, Regulatory Authorities ............................................. ES-12

7.0 RRP Program Development Process ................................................................................... ES-12

8.0 NEPA Requirements ..............................................................................................................ES-12

9.0 Reader’s Guide to Document................................................................................................ ES-13

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...................................................... 1

1.0 Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 Legal Mandates and Authorities............................................................................. 2

1.1.2 NRDA Trustees ...................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Setting .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 3

1.3.2 Need....................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action............................................................................................. 4

1.4.1 Regional Restoration Planning Program................................................................ 4

1.4.2 Benefits of the Proposed Action............................................................................. 7

1.5 Programmatic NEPA Process ................................................................................................ 8

1.5.1 NEPA Requirements .............................................................................................. 9

1.5.2 Reader’s Guide to Document............................................................................... 10

2.0 Affected Environment.................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 Description of the Affected Environment .............................................................................. 12

2.1.1 Physical Environment........................................................................................... 12

2.1.1.1 Geology................................................................................................ 12

2.1.1.2 Geography ........................................................................................... 13

2.1.1.3 Soils ..................................................................................................... 15

2.1.1.4 Sediment Quality.................................................................................. 16

2.1.1.5 Water Resources ................................................................................. 17

2.1.1.5.1 Ground Water Resources.................................................... 17

2.1.1.5.2 Ground Water Quality.......................................................... 18

2.1.1.5.3 Surface Water Resources ................................................... 18

2.1.1.5.4 Surface Water Quality ......................................................... 20

2.1.1.6 Climate................................................................................................. 22

2.1.1.7 Air Quality ............................................................................................ 23

2.1.1.8 Noise.................................................................................................... 24

2.1.2 Biological Resources............................................................................................ 25

2.1.2.1 Nekton.................................................................................................. 25

2.1.2.2 Benthos................................................................................................ 27

2.1.2.3 Wildlife ................................................................................................. 28

2.1.2.4 Habitat Types and Associated Biota.................................................... 33

2.1.2.4.1 Marsh (Salt, Brackish/Intermediate, Fresh, and 

Flotant) ................................................................................ 33

2.1.2.4.1.1 Salt Marsh ...................................................... 33

2.1.2.4.1.2 Brackish/Intermediate Marsh.......................... 44

2.1.2.4.1.3 Tidal Freshwater Marsh.................................. 45

2.1.2.4.1.4 Floating or Flotant Marsh ............................... 45
ii 

2.1.2.4.2 Wetland Forest (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed)........... 45

2.1.2.4.3 Wetland Shrub/Scrub (Evergreen, Deciduous, and 

Mixed).................................................................................. 45

2.1.2.4.4 Upland Forest (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed) ............ 46

2.1.2.4.5 Upland Shrub/Scrub (Evergreen, Deciduous, and 

Mixed).................................................................................. 46

2.1.2.4.6 Dense Pine Thicket ............................................................. 47

2.1.2.4.7 Agriculture-Cropland-Grassland .......................................... 47

2.1.2.4.8 Wetland Barren.................................................................... 47

2.1.2.4.9 Upland Barren ..................................................................... 47

2.1.2.4.10Open Water ......................................................................... 47

2.1.2.4.11Marine/Estuarine Shore....................................................... 47

2.1.2.4.12Freshwater Shore ................................................................ 48

2.1.2.4.13Marine/Estuarine and Freshwater Benthic (SoftSedimentary) ....................................................................... 48

2.1.2.4.14Marine/Estuarine Encrusting Community 

(Natural/Artificial Substrates)............................................... 48

2.1.2.4.15Living Reefs......................................................................... 49

2.1.2.4.16Marine/Estuarine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation............... 49

2.1.2.4.17Freshwater Submerged Aquatic Vegetation........................ 49

2.1.2.4.18Mangrove Swamp................................................................ 49

2.1.2.4.19Batture ................................................................................. 50

2.1.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................. 50

2.1.2.6 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................... 50

2.1.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 51

2.1.4 Population ............................................................................................................ 53

2.1.5 Infrastructure and Public Services ....................................................................... 53

2.1.6 Industry................................................................................................................. 55

2.1.6.1 Commercial Fisheries and Aquaculture............................................... 55

2.1.6.2 Forestry................................................................................................ 56

2.1.6.3 Agriculture............................................................................................ 57

2.1.6.4 Oil and Gas.......................................................................................... 58

2.1.6.5 Tourism................................................................................................ 59

2.1.7 Land Management and Ownership ...................................................................... 60

2.1.7.1 Parks.................................................................................................... 60

2.1.7.2 Refuges................................................................................................ 60

2.1.7.3 Forests................................................................................................. 61

2.1.7.4 Large Private Land Holdings................................................................ 61

2.1.7.5 Tribal Lands ......................................................................................... 61

2.1.8 Recreation and Tourism....................................................................................... 62

2.1.8.1 Parks, Wildlife Management Areas/Refuges, and Forests .................. 62

2.1.8.2 Natural and Scenic River Systems ...................................................... 63

2.1.8.3 Hunting................................................................................................. 63

2.1.8.4 Fishing ................................................................................................. 64

2.1.8.5 Bird Watching....................................................................................... 65

2.1.8.6 Boating................................................................................................. 65

2.1.9 Federal Facilities .................................................................................................. 65

3.0 Affected Program ......................................................................................................................... 67

3.1 Trust Resources and Services ............................................................................................. 67

3.2 Trustee Jurisdictions............................................................................................................. 68

3.2.1 Federal Trustee Jurisdictions ............................................................................... 68

3.2.1.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.............................. 68

3.2.1.2 Department of the Interior.................................................................... 68

3.2.1.3 Federal Land Managing Agencies ....................................................... 69

3.2.2 State Trustee Jurisdictions................................................................................... 69

3.2.2.1 Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor .......... 70
iii 

3.2.2.2 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.................................. 70

3.2.2.3 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources....................................... 70

3.2.2.4 Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries................................... 70

3.2.2.5 Indian Tribes ........................................................................................ 71

3.2.3 Responsible Party Liability ................................................................................... 71

3.2.3.1 Responsible Parties............................................................................. 71

3.2.3.2 Non-Viable Responsible Parties .......................................................... 72

3.2.3.3 Excluded Incidents............................................................................... 72

3.2.4 NRDA Process ..................................................................................................... 72

3.2.4.1 Preassessment Phase......................................................................... 75

3.2.4.2 Restoration Planning Phase ................................................................ 75

3.2.4.2.1 Injury Assessment ............................................................... 75

3.2.4.2.2 Restoration Selection .......................................................... 76

3.2.4.2.2.1 Developing Restoration Alternatives .............. 76

3.2.4.2.2.2 Scaling Restoration Actions ........................... 76

3.2.4.2.2.3 Selecting a Preferred Restoration 

Alternative ...................................................... 76

3.2.4.2.2.4 Developing a Restoration Plan....................... 77

3.2.4.3 Restoration Implementation Phase...................................................... 77

3.2.4.3.1 Restoration Monitoring ........................................................ 77

3.2.4.3.2 Corrective Action ................................................................. 78

4.0 Proposed Action: Regional Restoration Planning Program .................................................... 79

4.1 RRP Program Introduction ................................................................................................... 79

4.2 RRP Program Components.................................................................................................. 81

4.2.1 Regional Restoration Plans.................................................................................. 81

4.2.1.1 RRP Revisions..................................................................................... 83

4.2.2 Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services ............................................... 84

4.2.2.1 Coastal................................................................................................. 84

4.2.2.1.1 Herbaceous Wetlands ......................................................... 84

4.2.2.1.2 Forested Wetlands .............................................................. 84

4.2.2.1.3 Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ........................................ 84

4.2.2.1.4 Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs).......................................... 85

4.2.2.1.5 Water Column Organisms ................................................... 85

4.2.2.2 Inland ................................................................................................... 85

4.2.2.2.1 Herbaceous Wetlands ......................................................... 85

4.2.2.2.2 Forested Wetlands .............................................................. 85

4.2.2.2.3 Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ........................................ 85

4.2.2.2.4 Upland Vegetation ............................................................... 86

4.2.2.2.5 Water Column Organisms ................................................... 86

4.2.2.3 Statewide ............................................................................................. 86

4.2.2.3.1 Birds .................................................................................... 86

4.2.2.3.2 Wildlife ................................................................................. 86

4.2.2.3.3 Recreational Resource Services ......................................... 86

4.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resource Services ................................................. 86

4.2.3 Restoration Types ................................................................................................ 87

4.2.3.1 Creation/Enhancement of Habitat........................................................ 87

4.2.3.1.1 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Herbaceous 

Wetlands.............................................................................. 87

4.2.3.1.2 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Forested 

Wetlands.............................................................................. 87

4.2.3.1.3 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ........................................ 88

4.2.3.1.4 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Oyster Reefs (and 

Other Reefs) ........................................................................ 88

4.2.3.1.5 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Submerged 

Aquatic Vegetation .............................................................. 88
iv 

4.2.3.1.6 Creation/Enhancement of Inland Herbaceous 

Wetlands.............................................................................. 88

4.2.3.1.7 Creation/Enhancement of Inland Forested Wetlands.......... 88

4.2.3.1.8 Creation/Enhancement of Inland 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ........................................ 89

4.2.3.1.9 Creation/Enhancement of Inland Upland Vegetation .......... 89

4.2.3.2 Physical Protection of Habitat.............................................................. 89

4.2.3.2.1 Physical Protection of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands ........ 89

4.2.3.2.2 Physical Protection of Coastal Forested Wetlands.............. 89

4.2.3.2.3 Physical Protection of Coastal 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ........................................ 89

4.2.3.2.4 Physical Protection of Inland Herbaceous Wetlands........... 90

4.2.3.2.5 Physical Protection of Inland Forested Wetlands ................ 90

4.2.3.2.6 Physical Protection of Inland 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ........................................ 90

4.2.3.2.7 Physical Protection of Inland Upland Vegetation................. 90

4.2.3.3 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Resources and Services .................... 90

4.2.3.3.1 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Herbaceous 

Wetlands.............................................................................. 90

4.2.3.3.2 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Forested 

Wetlands.............................................................................. 91

4.2.3.3.3 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ........................................ 91

4.2.3.3.4 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Oyster Reefs 

(and Other Reefs)................................................................ 91

4.2.3.3.5 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Herbaceous 

Wetlands.............................................................................. 91

4.2.3.3.6 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Forested 

Wetlands.............................................................................. 91

4.2.3.3.7 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds ........................................ 92

4.2.3.3.8 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Upland 

Vegetation ........................................................................... 92

4.2.3.4 Stocking of Fauna................................................................................ 92

4.2.3.4.1 Stocking Coastal Water Column Organisms ....................... 92

4.2.3.4.2 Stocking Oysters (and Other Reef Organisms) ................... 92

4.2.3.4.3 Stocking Inland Water Column Organisms.......................... 92

4.2.3.4.4 Stocking Birds...................................................................... 92

4.2.3.4.5 Stocking Wildlife .................................................................. 92

4.2.3.5 Physical Protection of Fauna ............................................................... 92

4.2.3.5.1 Physical Protection of Birds................................................. 93

4.2.3.5.2 Physical Protection of Wildlife ............................................. 93

4.2.3.6 Restoration of Recreational Resource Services .................................. 93

4.2.3.7 Restoration of Cultural Resource Services.......................................... 93

4.2.4 Relationship of Trust Resources and Services to Restoration 

Types/Projects ..................................................................................................... 93

4.2.4.1 Nexus Analysis .................................................................................... 93

4.2.4.1.1 Resource-to-Resource ........................................................ 95

4.2.4.1.2 Service-to-Resource............................................................ 96

4.2.4.1.3 Service-to-Service ............................................................... 99

4.2.4.1.4 Dissimilar Services ............................................................ 100

4.2.4.1.5 Restoration Type Selection Criteria................................... 101

4.2.4.2 Project Selection Screening Criteria .................................................. 102

4.2.4.3 Special Circumstances ...................................................................... 104

4.2.5 Environmental Impacts of Restoration Type Implementation............................. 105

4.2.5.1 Coastal Restoration Techniques........................................................ 105
v 

4.2.5.1.1 Vegetative Planting............................................................ 105

4.2.5.1.2 Vegetative Protection ........................................................ 106

4.2.5.1.3 Hydrologic Restoration ...................................................... 107

4.2.5.1.4 Marsh Management........................................................... 108

4.2.5.1.5 Dredge and Fill .................................................................. 108

4.2.5.1.6 Shoreline Protection .......................................................... 109

4.2.5.1.7 Faunal Stocking................................................................. 110

4.2.5.1.8 Sediment Diversion ........................................................... 110

4.2.5.1.9 Freshwater Diversion......................................................... 111

4.2.5.1.10Outfall Management .......................................................... 112

4.2.5.1.11Nutrient and Sediment Trapping........................................ 112

4.2.5.2 Inland Restoration Techniques .......................................................... 113

4.2.5.2.1 Vegetative Planting............................................................ 113

4.2.5.2.2 Vegetative Protection ........................................................ 114

4.2.5.2.3 Hydrologic Restoration ...................................................... 115

4.2.5.2.4 Silvicultural Techniques..................................................... 115

4.2.5.2.5 Land/Substrate Recontouring and Rehabilitation .............. 116

4.2.5.2.6 Resource Enhancement .................................................... 117

4.2.5.2.7 Faunal Stocking................................................................. 117

4.2.6 Settlement Alternatives ...................................................................................... 118

4.2.6.1 Existing Settlement Alternatives ........................................................ 119

4.2.6.1.1 Single Incident - RP-Implemented Restoration 

Project ............................................................................... 119

4.2.6.1.2 Single Incident - Trustee-Implemented Restoration 

Project ............................................................................... 119

4.2.6.2 Additional Settlement Alternatives ..................................................... 119

4.2.6.2.1 RP CO-OP......................................................................... 119

4.2.6.2.2 RP/Fund CO-OP................................................................ 120

4.2.6.2.3 Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement [RESERVED] ....... 120

4.2.6.2.4 Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement/Fund CO-OP 

[RESERVED]..................................................................... 120

4.2.7 Restoration Project Performance Criteria .......................................................... 120

4.2.8 Restoration Project Monitoring Requirements ................................................... 121

4.3 RRP Program Management Structure................................................................................ 122

4.3.1 Authorized or Approving Officials....................................................................... 125

4.3.2 Trustee Council .................................................................................................. 125

4.3.3 NRDA Case Teams............................................................................................ 125

4.3.4 RRP Program Project Monitoring Team............................................................. 126

4.3.5 Regional Field Staff............................................................................................ 126

4.3.6 RRP Program Administration and Coordination................................................. 126

4.4 RRP Program Case Implementation Process .................................................................... 126

4.4.1 Preassessment Phase ....................................................................................... 128

4.4.1.1 Preassessment Case Selection Screening........................................ 128

4.4.1.2 Case Assessment Selection Screening............................................. 128

4.4.2 Restoration Planning Phase............................................................................... 129

4.4.2.1 Settlement Alternatives...................................................................... 129

4.4.2.1.1 Cash Settlements (Trustee-Implemented Restoration 

Project) .............................................................................. 129

4.4.2.1.2 RP-Implemented Restoration Project Settlement.............. 129

4.4.2.2 Restoration Project Selection............................................................. 129

4.4.2.3 Settlement Requirements .................................................................. 130

4.4.2.3.1 Restoration Projects/Alternatives ...................................... 130

4.4.2.3.2 Monitoring.......................................................................... 130

4.4.2.3.3 Operation and Maintenance .............................................. 130

4.4.2.3.4 Corrective Actions/Project Adjustments ............................ 130

4.4.2.3.5 Contingencies.................................................................... 131
vi 

4.4.2.3.6 Assessment Costs............................................................. 131

4.4.2.4 Settlement Calculation....................................................................... 131

4.4.2.4.1 RP-Implemented Restoration Project ................................ 131

4.4.2.4.2 Cash Settlement - Project-Specific Cash Settlement ........ 131

4.4.2.4.3 Cash Settlement - Non-Project-Specific Cash 

Settlement [RESERVED]................................................... 132

4.4.3 Restoration Implementation Phase .................................................................... 132

4.5 Sources of Restoration Funding......................................................................................... 132

4.6 Use of the RRP Program and RRPs .................................................................................. 132

5.0 Regional Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 134

5.1 Definition of RRP Regional Boundaries.............................................................................. 135

5.1.1 Region 1............................................................................................................. 135

5.1.2 Region 2............................................................................................................. 135

5.1.3 Region 3............................................................................................................. 135

5.1.4 Region 4............................................................................................................. 135

5.1.5 Region 5............................................................................................................. 136

5.1.6 Region 6............................................................................................................. 136

5.1.7 Region 7............................................................................................................. 136

5.1.8 Region 8............................................................................................................. 137

5.1.9 Region 9............................................................................................................. 137

6.0 Alternatives................................................................................................................................. 138

6.1 No Action Alternative.......................................................................................................... 138

6.1.1 Summary............................................................................................................ 138

6.1.2 Overview of the NRDA Process ......................................................................... 139

6.2 RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative......................................................... 139

6.2.1 Summary............................................................................................................ 139

6.2.2 Overview of Program Components .................................................................... 140

6.3 Other Programmatic Alternative Considered...................................................................... 142

6.4 Evaluation of Alternatives................................................................................................... 142

6.4.1 RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative ........................................ 142

6.4.2 Summary of Benefits.......................................................................................... 143

7.0 Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................. 144

7.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts................................................................................................. 144

7.1.1 Beneficial Impacts .............................................................................................. 144

7.1.1.1 Direct.................................................................................................. 145

7.1.1.2 Indirect ............................................................................................... 145

7.1.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts ..................................... 145

7.1.3 Economic and Social Impacts ............................................................................ 146

7.2 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................ 146

7.3 Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity .................................................................... 146

7.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments........................................................................ 146

8.0 Coordination with Other Programs, Regulatory Authorities ................................................. 148

8.1 Overview............................................................................................................................. 148

8.2 Program Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations...................................... 148

8.2.1 Program Compliance with Federal Laws ........................................................... 148

8.2.2 Program Compliance with Federal Regulations and Federal Executive 

Orders ................................................................................................................ 153

8.2.3 Program Compliance with State Laws ............................................................... 155

8.2.4 Program Compliance with State Regulations..................................................... 158

8.3 Program Coordination and Compatibility with Existing Federal, State, and Joint 

Federal-State Programs ..................................................................................................... 159

9.0 RRP Program Development Process ....................................................................................... 162

9.1 RRP Program Workgroup Meetings................................................................................... 162

9.2 Informal Scoping................................................................................................................. 162

9.3 Formal Scoping .................................................................................................................. 162

9.4 Development of the FPEIS................................................................................................. 163
vii 

10.0 References.................................................................................................................................. 164

11.0 List of Preparers......................................................................................................................... 171

12.0 List of Agencies.......................................................................................................................... 172

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, and DEFINITIONS .................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT, 

AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION ...................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C: NRDA RESTORATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ......................................... C-1

APPENDIX D: NRDA PRELIMINARY WORKSHEET............................................................................ D-1

APPENDIX E: COMPLIANCE STATUS OF LOUISIANA REGIONAL RESTORATION 

PROGRAM WITH RELEVANT FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS 

AND PROGRAMS ...........................................................................................................E-1

APPENDIX F: ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

CONSULTATIONS ..........................................................................................................F-1

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

APPENDIX H: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PEOPLE RECEIVING COPIES 

OF THE FPEIS................................................................................................................ H-1
viii 

List of Figures 

Figure 3.1: NRDA Process (adopted from NOAA 1996a)......................................................73

Figure 3.2: NRDA Process Implementation (modified from PRD 2001)................................74

Figure 4.1: NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program..........................................82

Figure 4.2: Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services ............................94

Figure 4.3: Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services...............................95

Figure 4.4: RRP Program Management Framework ...........................................................123

Figure 4.5: RRP Program Management Framework - Administrative .................................124

Figure 4.6: RRP Program Case Implementation Process ...................................................127

Figure 5.1: Regional Boundaries for the RRP Program.......................................................134
ix 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1: Status of NRDA for Incidents in the State (1990 – 2004)......................................5

Table 1.2: NEPA Requirements .............................................................................................9

Table 2.1: Louisiana Aquifers...............................................................................................19

Table 2.2: Louisiana Air Quality -NAAQS.............................................................................24

Table 2.3: Common Vegetation of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats .......................34

Table 2.4: Common Mammals of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats .........................34

Table 2.5: Common Reptiles and Amphibians of Louisiana and their Associated 

Habitats ...............................................................................................................35

Table 2.6: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Waterfowls 

and Waterbirds ....................................................................................................36

Table 2.7: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Fowl......................36

Table 2.8: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats – Colonial 

Nesting Wading Birds..........................................................................................37

Table 2.9: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats – Raptors................38

Table 2.10: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - NonPasserine Land Birds ..........................................................................................38

Table 2.11: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Seabirds and 

Gulls ....................................................................................................................39

Table 2.12: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Passerine 

Birds ....................................................................................................................39

Table 2.13: Common Fish and Shellfish of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats ............41

Table 2.14: Threatened and Endangered Species of Louisiana and their Associated 

Habitats ...............................................................................................................43

Table 2.15: Key for Habitat Type Abbreviations in Tables 2.3 through 2.14. .........................44

Table 2.16: Major Federal Landholdings in Louisiana............................................................66

Table 4.1: Potential Performance Criteria by Restoration Type .........................................121

Table 4.2: Potential Monitoring Requirements by Restoration Type ..................................122
ES - 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This document is both a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) 

and a description of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program (RRP 

Program) (40 CFR 1506.41

). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

require agencies to prepare EISs concurrently with and integrated with environmental 

impact analyses and related surveys and studies required under other environmental 

review laws to the fullest extent possible (40 CFR 1502.25(a)). The proposed action is 

to establish and implement the RRP Program. The FPEIS was developed pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] 

4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

1500). 

1.0 Introduction 

Federal and Louisiana natural resource trustees have developed a statewide RRP 

Program to assist the natural resource trustees in carrying out their Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment (NRDA) responsibilities for discharges or substantial threats of 

discharges of oil (referred to as an “incident”). The RRP Program is described in this 

FPEIS and further defined in individual Regional Restoration Plans (RRPs) that will be 

prepared for each of nine regions in the State of Louisiana (state). The goals of this 

statewide Program are to: 1) expedite and reduce the cost of the NRDA process; 2) 

provide for consistency and predictability by describing in detail the NRDA process, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

injuries to trust resources and services resulting from incidents in Louisiana. The RRP 

Program is established to address incidents under OPA and OSPRA. The RRP 

Program does not address injuries from releases of hazardous substances under the 

Comprehensive, Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

(42 USC 9601 et seq.) injuries to park system resources pursued by the National Park 

Service (NPS) under the Park System Resources Protection Act (16 USC 19[jj] et seq.), 

or physical injuries to resources under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC 

1431 et seq.) should a sanctuary be designated in the state. 

The development of the RRP Program has been a coordinated effort between state and 

federal natural resource agencies, local governments, and the public. The RRP 

Program is jointly administered and used by the trustees to assist in carrying out their 

natural resource trust mandates under OPA and OSPRA. 

Legal Mandates and Authorities 

The RRP Program is required to be established in accordance with La. Rev. Stat. 

30:2480.1, which states that: 

 

1 40 CFR 1506.4 - Combining documents. Any environmental document in compliance with NEPA may be combined 

with any other agency document to reduce duplication and paperwork. 
ES - 2 

“To assist in making the natural resource damage assessment process more 

efficient, the Regional Restoration Planning Program encompassing the entire 

geographic area of the state, is established in the office of the oil spill 

coordinator. The office of the oil spill coordinator shall develop and implement 

the program in coordination with the state natural resource trustees.” 

Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of OPA provide the necessary direction for 

developing RRPs. These guidelines and requirements are contained in 15 CFR 990. 

NRDA Trustees 

Under OPA (33 USC 2706[b]) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 

300.600), certain federal and state agencies and tribal authorities are designated natural 

resource trustees for trust resources and services injured by an incident. Additional 

authority was granted to the state trustees under Louisiana’s OSPRA (La. Rev. Stat. 

30:2451 et seq.). As a designated trustee, each trustee is authorized to act on behalf of 

the public under state and/or federal law to assess and recover natural resource 

damages, and to plan and implement actions to restore trust resources and services 

injured or lost as the result of an incident. 

The federally designated natural resource trustees include: the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (USDOC)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. 

Department of the Interior (USDOI), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. 

Department of Energy (USDOE), U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD), and the 

federally recognized tribes. On the state level, the natural resource trustees include: 

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinators Office, Office of the Governor (LOSCO), Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ), and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 

Setting 

Louisiana is bordered by Texas to the west, Arkansas to the north, Mississippi to the 

east, and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. The Louisiana RRP Program encompasses 

the state and state and federal waters extending offshore Louisiana, from the shoreline 

determined by the U.S. Supreme Court (United States v. Louisiana, 452 U.S. 726 

[1981]), which is codified at 43 USC 1301(b) to the boundaries of the federal/Louisiana 

territorial seas and the extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

2.0 Purpose and Need for Action 

Louisiana’s economy traditionally has been based on the state’s natural resources. Both 

renewable (e.g., fishing, forest products) and non-renewable (e.g., oil, natural gas) 

resources are important, and the industries associated with each have co-existed for 

years. Louisiana, and in particular its coastal and wetland regions, is of significant value 

to the nation - contributing greatly to the nation’s fisheries, wild fur, and hide harvest, 

providing wintering grounds for migratory bird populations, and buffering the destructive 

impacts of hurricanes, storms, and floods. At the same time, 18% of the nation’s oil 

production and 24% of the gas production comes from coastal Louisiana (Louisiana 

Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). 

Although Louisiana’s oil and gas industry tries to avoid adverse impacts on renewable 

natural resources, injuries do occur as a result of incidents. Between 1991 and 2001, 
ES - 3 

Louisiana had 18.73% of the total incidents in the nation and 20.9% of the volume of 

discharges of petroleum products (U.S. Coast Guard [USCG] 2003). The cumulative 

impacts of these incidents on fish, wildlife, and the environment can be significant and 

adversely affect the industries and communities depending on natural resources for 

commerce and recreation. 

The high spill probability, both in frequency and magnitude, and wide expanse of fragile 

and sensitive resources that could be impacted present a true challenge to the federal 

and Louisiana trustees when it comes to restoring trust resources and services held in 

public trust. 

Purpose of the Proposed Action/Regional Restoration Planning Program 

The objective of the Louisiana RRP Program including RRPs is to establish an 

institutional framework and procedures that will enable the trustees to select and 

implement projects that compensate the public and environment for losses of trust 

resources and services from incidents in an efficient and predictable manner. In 

addition, the RRP Program seeks to provide increased flexibility to the trustees and the 

Responsible Parties (RPs) relative to the mechanisms through which NRDA cases are 

settled. The use of RRPs will help expedite the assessment, settlement, and/or 

restoration implementation, while potentially minimizing associated costs. In addition, 

development of RRPs requires the examination of restoration alternatives across an 

entire region and may facilitate linkages with other regional or watershed objectives. 

The benefits of comprehensive, region-wide planning will accrue not only to the parties 

involved in the assessments, but also to the communities depending on natural 

resources for commerce and recreation. 

Specifically, the RRP Program described in the document identifies the statewide RRP 

Program structure, the decision-making process, and the criteria that are used to select 

the restoration project(s) that may be implemented to restore the trust resources and 

services injured by a given incident. 

As part of the RRP Program development, the trustees: 1) conducted a nexus analysis2

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

trust resources and services”; 2) developed restoration type screening criteria to assist 

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

services injured during a given incident; and 3) developed screening criteria to select the 

most appropriate restoration project(s) during a given incident. 

To further streamline the NRDA process, the trustees conducted an analysis of the 

environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the restoration types 

identified in the RRP Program by evaluating the impacts of the restoration techniques 

commonly used to implement the restoration types. The document provides an 

environmental analysis of the RRP Program restoration types. The discussion is 

necessarily broad and generalized to the technique on which the analysis has been 

performed, but provides the starting point for assessing site-specific impacts necessary 

to allow tiering from this document to subsequent environmental documentation under 

NEPA concerning the environmental impacts of implementing certain restoration types. 

 

2

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

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

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

trust resources and services” affected by the incident. 
ES - 4 

The environmental impacts of specific restoration projects will be addressed specifically 

in subsequent NEPA documents when the projects are known. 

There will be circumstances in which the trustees may do restoration planning outside of 

the context of the RRP Program due to the specific conditions of the incident. 

Additionally, there may be cases in which restoration types and the attending analysis 

from the RRP Program, as well as restoration projects from the RRPs, will be used to 

address certain injuries from an incident; and restoration planning outside of the context 

of the RRP Program will be carried out for other injuries from the incident. 

The state was divided into nine planning regions and an RRP will be prepared for each 

region. The RRPs will be consistent with this FPEIS but also will identify the trust 

resources and services that could potentially be impacted by an incident and the 

restoration alternatives that have been identified to date for implementation within a 

given region. 

The RRP Program is jointly administered and used by the state and federal trustees to 

assist in carrying out their natural resource trust mandates under OPA and OSPRA. 

The first RRP will be done for Region 2. 

3.0 Alternatives 

The “No Action Alternative” is to continue to carry out NRDAs in the state using the 

NRDA process and current practices below. The “RRP Program/Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative” is the Louisiana RRP Program and its components are described 

in relation to the NRDA process and the goals and objectives of establishing the RRP 

Program. 

The NRDA process as described by implementing regulations and guidance both under 

OPA and OSPRA does not change as a result of the RRP Program. The trustees are 

further institutionalizing an existing process, as well as identifying ways to expedite and 

further define the specific steps of that process, expressly within the requirements of the 

OPA and OSPRA NRDA regulations. 

No Action Alternative 

Both state and federal NRDA regulations provide for a step-by-step process for trustees 

to determine injuries, assess damages, and develop and implement restoration projects 

that compensate the public for injuries to trust resources and services impacted by an 

incident. 

The “No Action Alternative” is defined as continuing to implement the NRDA process 

without the institution of the RRP Program. The “No Action Alternative” was used as a 

basis for comparison with the RRP Program. The following are the major phases of the 

NRDA process: 

♦ Preassessment Phase; 

♦ Restoration Planning Phase; and 

♦ Restoration Implementation Phase. 
ES - 5 

The description below of the NRDA process is intended to provide the context for the 

comparison of the “No Action Alternative” and the “RRP Program/Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative.” 

Preassessment Phase – The purpose of the Preassessment Phase is to 

determine if trustees have the jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA, and, 

if so, whether it is appropriate to do so. 

Restoration Planning Phase – The purpose of the Restoration Planning Phase 

is to evaluate potential injuries to trust resources and services and use that 

information to determine the need for and scale of restoration actions. The 

Restoration Planning Phase provides the link between injury and restoration. 

The Restoration Planning Phase has two basic components: injury assessment 

and restoration selection. 

Restoration Implementation Phase – The Restoration Implementation Phase 

occurs after the Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (DARP) is presented 

to the RP(s) to implement or fund the trustees’ costs of implementing the DARP, 

therefore providing the opportunity for settlement of the damage claim without 

litigation. Should the RP(s) decide to decline to settle the claim, trustees are 

authorized to bring a civil action for damages in court or to present the claim3

 to 

the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) or the state Oil Spill 

Contingency Fund (OSCF) for such damages. If the RP(s) chooses to implement 

the restoration actions detailed in the DARP, then the trustees provide project 

oversight that is funded by the RP(s). Otherwise the trustees will implement the 

project. 

RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The RRP Program defines, expands, and/or refines several important components 

beyond the existing NRDA process. The following are the major components: 

♦ Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services; 

♦ Restoration Types (including nexus analysis and environmental consequences 

analysis of implementation); 

♦ Settlement Alternatives; 

♦ Screening Criteria; and 

♦ Regional Boundaries of the RRPs. 

The descriptions below of the RRP Program components are programmatic and are not 

intended to define the case-specific actions or outcomes that may be implemented under 

the RRP Program. 

Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services – The RRP Program defines 

those trust resources and services in Louisiana that are likely to be or are anticipated 

to be injured (i.e., at-risk) by incidents as “potentially injured trust resources and 

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

services” will facilitate the development of the RRPs and assist in the coordination of 

response activities by informing agency personnel who are participating in the 

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

 

3 In the absence of a viable RP (e.g., where the RP is unknown, bankrupt or is not responsible due to a valid defense) 

or when a viable RP fails to respond to a demand letter after 90 days, the trustees have the option of going to the 

OSLTF and/or OSCF to seek monies to implement the restoration actions required for that case. 
ES - 6 

greatest concern to the trustees. The “potentially injured trust resources and 

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

♦ Coastal 

♦ Herbaceous Wetlands 

♦ Forested Wetlands 

♦ Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

♦ Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

♦ Water Column Organisms 

♦ Inland 

♦ Herbaceous Wetlands 

♦ Forested Wetlands 

♦ Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

♦ Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

♦ Water Column Organisms 

♦ Statewide 

♦ Birds 

♦ Wildlife 

♦ Recreational Resource Services 

♦ Cultural Resource Services 

Restoration Types – The RRP Program identifies restoration types that are 

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

trust resources and services” in the RRP Program. These restoration type 

categories are: 

♦ Creation / Enhancement of Habitat; 

♦ Physical Protection of Habitat; 

♦ Acquisition / Legal Protection of Resources and Services; 

♦ Stocking of Fauna; 

♦ Physical Protection of Fauna; 

♦ Restoration of Recreation Resource Services; and 

♦ Restoration of Cultural Resource Services. 

The RRP Program describes the specific restoration type(s) in each restoration type 

category that is appropriate for the restoration of injuries to each of the identified 

“potentially injured trust resources and services” in the RRP Program. This 

determination of the range of appropriate restoration types is based on a nexus 

analysis. The trustees have also conducted an environmental consequences 

analysis by evaluating impacts of implementation of restoration techniques on the 

restoration types. Carrying out both analyses in the FPEIS will result in both 

technical process and NEPA compliance efficiencies at the case level during the 

Restoration Planning Phase. The trustees will be able to use relevant analysis and 

information from the FPEIS and RRPs to produce the incident(s)-specific DARPs and 

environmental assessments. 

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

determining which of the various restoration types identified is most appropriate to 

restore the trust resources and services injured during a given incident. It is 

anticipated that the criteria will also provide a level of predictability to the public and 

affected parties regarding restoration project selection. Furthermore, projects in 
ES - 7 

each RRP will be classified by restoration type to facilitate the selection of specific 

restoration projects based on the type of trust resources and services injured. This 

approach will streamline the process of evaluating and selecting preferred 

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

Settlement Alternatives – The RRP Program describes a number of additional case 

settlement alternatives to assist the trustees and RPs in negotiations to resolve RP 

liabilities for incidents. These additional settlement alternatives generally represent 

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

the two options: RP-implemented restoration or RP cash settlement and trusteeimplemented restoration. These settlement alternatives also may provide 

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

pooling settlements to implement larger projects than could otherwise be 

accomplished by using individual settlements, and, potentially, facilitating 

implementation of more ecologically significant projects. 

Screening Criteria – In order to improve the consistency, predictability, and 

accountability of the NRDA decision-making process, the trustees identified and 

defined project selection and other screening criteria to be used in implementing the 

RRP Program. These criteria are for: 

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

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

resources and services in a case; and 

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

Regional Boundaries of the RRPs – The RRP Program established nine regions 

for which regional plans will be developed. There are four coastal regions based on 

the Coast 2050 Plan (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998) regions 

and five inland regions based on LDEQ’s defined watersheds. For each region, an 

individual RRP will be produced. Each RRP will identify the trust resources and 

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

alternatives that have been identified to date for implementation within that region. 

The first RRP will be done for Region 2. Establishing regions also provides an 

administrative tool to, among other things, facilitate tracking of cases, settlement 

accounting, restoration, and monitoring. 

4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives 

In evaluating the programmatic aspects of the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative” verses the “No Action Alternative,” a comparative analysis has been done 

determining the relative programmatic consequences of implementing the RRP Program 

or not. 

RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

As described above, it is anticipated that the RRP Program will: 

♦ Expedite and potentially reduce the cost of the NRDA process; 

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

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

♦ Increase restoration of lost trust resources and services. 
ES - 8 

To expedite and make the NRDA process more cost-effective, the RRP Program intends 

to shorten the Restoration Planning Phase of the NRDA process through the 

development of individual RRPs, which will identify appropriate restoration projects 

subjected to public review prior to incidents occurring. In addition, the RRP Program 

helps to inform the selection of restoration projects by identifying in advance the types of 

restoration that may be suitable to restore those trust resources and services likely to be 

or anticipated to be injured by incidents in Louisiana. Further, through the development 

of a FPEIS for the RRP Program and tiering the RRPs and case-specific DARPs from 

the information and analysis provided in the FPEIS, the NEPA process for the NRDA 

cases will be streamlined significantly. It is also anticipated that model documents 

(including DARPs, consent decrees, Notices of Intent [NOIs]) will be developed under 

this Program, to provide more efficiencies and lower the costs of carrying out NRDAs. 

Although the RRP Program requires upfront costs to identify restoration projects in 

advance and develop planning documents, economies of scale will allow overall 

implementation costs to be lower. 

Consistent application of the RRP Program project selection criteria will enhance the 

predictability, consistency, and accountability of the decision-making process. Flexibility 

will be increased through the introduction of additional settlement alternatives. 

It is anticipated that describing the NRDA process in greater detail will enable the public 

and affected entities to participate more fully in restoration planning for incidents. First, 

the RRP Program identifies trust resources and services that are likely to be or are 

anticipated to be injured from an incident and what restoration type is appropriate to 

restore the trust resources and services that were injured or lost. It also provides the 

rationale for how those decisions were made. The public and affected parties will have 

an opportunity to review the restoration alternatives that have been identified to date for 

implementation by restoration type in a specific region to restore trust resources and 

services injured in that region prior to an incident occurring. By describing in detail each 

step and the criteria used in the NRDA process, the public and affected parties will 

understand the trustees’ roles and rationale for their decisions, thereby improving the 

ability of interested parties to participate in the process. 

Finally, by streamlining the NRDA process and making it more efficient the costs to both 

the trustees and RPs will be lowered, restoration of injured trust resources and services 

will be increased, and, most importantly, the public will be made whole more quickly. 

Summary of Benefits 

The RRP Program, including the RRPs, is intended to benefit the public, industry, and 

natural resource trustees by: 

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

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

♦ Reducing the cost of restoration planning and implementation; 

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

larger, more ecologically significant restoration projects; 

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

process, thereby increasing the understanding of that process by the public and 

industry; 
ES - 9 

♦ Improving coordination between restoration activities under the NRDA mandates and 

other restoration efforts in the state; 

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

by incidents for which there is no viable RP; 

♦ Maximizing opportunities for partnering among RPs, trustees, and other public and 

private restoration efforts; and 

♦ Increasing opportunity for public participation in the NRDA process through preincident planning. 

The trustees will periodically review the implementation of the RRP Program in the 

context of the benefits described above, in order to identify opportunities for 

improvement. In addition, the trustees are committed to identifying, developing, and 

using innovative operational tools and methods that will achieve the intended benefits of 

the RRP Program. 

5.0 Environmental Consequences 

The description of environmental consequences of the “No Action Alternative” compared 

to the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” was based on the 

description of the programmatic benefits described above and was necessarily 

generalized. The exact manner in which the implementation of the “RRP 

Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will affect the environment will be 

determined largely by the implementation of the Program as it applies to specific cases. 

This analysis does not attempt to distinguish between all possibilities as to how the 

trustees may implement the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” as it 

applies to specific cases. Instead this analysis simply assesses likely impacts at a 

statewide scale. 

Under OPA and OSPRA, the selection of restoration projects to be implemented as part 

of a specific case is subject to NEPA and all other relevant laws and regulations. This is 

the case whether the “No Action Alternative” or the RRP Program is selected. 

The number of cases and speed of their resolution through implementation of restoration 

will determine the actual beneficial impact of the RRP Program. On a statewide, 

landscape scale, substantial impacts cannot be expected for a number of years, but 

locally, landscape impacts may be evident sooner. In a geographic sense, the impact of 

the RRP Program can be expected to be most prominent and most quickly realized in 

Region 2, which is the region with the highest frequencies of incidents. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts 

The environmental resource impacts and socioeconomic impacts are presented below 

on a programmatic level. The major differences between the impacts of the “No Action 

Alternative” and the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” are ones of 

degree or proportion. Therefore, the beneficial environmental impacts and lack of 

potentially significant adverse environmental impacts and economic and social impacts 

are similar. 

Beneficial Impacts 

Compared to the “No Action Alternative,” it is anticipated that the amount of 

restoration accomplished under the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative” will be greater, accomplished more quickly, and generally at a larger 

scale, with more public participation, and at a lower cost to the trustees and RPs. 
ES - 10 

The “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will also improve 

coordination with other restoration efforts in the state and maximize opportunities 

for partnering. Therefore the trustees expect that the beneficial impacts of the 

“RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will be greater than those 

of the “No Action Alternative.”

Direct 

Both alternatives share the goal of making the public and the environment 

whole for injuries to trust resources and services from incidents. 

Restoration actions taken by the trustees to return injured trust resources 

and services to baseline and compensate the public for interim losses will 

have long-term and significant beneficial impacts on both the physical 

environment and biological resources impacted by incidents. Whether 

restoration occurs at the site of the incident or off-site, restoration under 

NRDA is required to create, protect, or enhance trust resources and 

services, and therefore it serves to directly benefit those types of trust 

resources and services that are the focus of restoration actions. 

Restoration of trust resources and services that are of cultural value or 

support economic activities, such as recreation, tourism, and commercial 

fishing will also be impacted in a beneficial way by the restoration of those 

trust resources and services on which they depend. 

Indirect 

The restoration of trust resources and services injured by incidents will 

have foreseeable indirect beneficial impacts to the other parts of the 

physical environment, biological resources, cultural resources, or related 

economic activities. For example, when addressing an injury related to 

one type of service flow from a resource by restoring that resource, 

usually all service flows related to that resource are restored or 

enhanced. 

Potentially Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts 

At a programmatic level, it is anticipated that under the “RRP 

Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” there will be more restoration of 

injured trust resources and services and restoration will be accomplished more 

quickly. Therefore, there appears to be less of a potential for significant adverse 

environmental impacts under the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative” as compared to the “No Action Alternative.” Under implementation of 

either alternative, mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce any 

potentially significant adverse impacts to a less than significant level as individual 

restoration project(s) are reviewed and implemented. The project(s) will be 

scaled in such a way that the net benefits of the project compensate for injury(s) 

resulting from the incident(s) and collateral injury(s) (if any) from the 

implementation of the compensation project(s). Specific analysis of 

environmental impacts, their significance, and the availability and choice of 

specific mitigation measures will be developed and presented in future second or 

third tier environmental documents prepared, as necessary, prior to the 

implementation of specific restoration projects. 
ES - 11 

Economic and Social Impacts 

Both alternatives result in beneficial socioeconomic impacts to the public and the 

industries and communities that depend on the state’s resources for commerce 

and recreation as a result of the restoration of trust resources and services on 

which they depend. At the same time, under “RRP Program/Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative,” RPs for incidents will have a predictable and efficient way 

of resolving their liabilities. By implementing restoration more quickly, the time 

between an incident and full recovery of lost trust resources and services will be 

reduced, thereby reducing the RPs’ liability. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The restoration of trust resources and services injured by incidents will contribute to 

avoidance or mitigation of the adverse environmental impact to those trust resources 

and services and other parts of the physical environment, biological resources, natural 

resources with cultural value, and related economic activities. Both alternatives will 

contribute to the cumulative beneficial impacts of restoration efforts that have previously 

been constructed and are being constructed under separate federal and state authorities 

and by local and private entities. 

Compared to the “No Action Alternative,” it is anticipated that the amount of restoration 

accomplished and therefore the cumulative beneficial impacts under the “RRP 

Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will be significantly greater, will be 

accomplished more quickly, and generally will be at a larger scale. At the same time, 

the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will also improve coordination 

with other restoration efforts in the state and maximize opportunities for partnering, 

which will also have a cumulative beneficial impact. 

Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity 

At a programmatic level under both alternatives, overall benefits to long-term productivity 

related to the state’s physical environment, biological resources, natural resources with 

cultural value, and resource-dependent industries outweigh the limited short-term 

adverse impacts. Under the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative,” it is 

anticipated that the overall long-term productivity will be greater than under the “No 

Action Alternative.” 

Both alternatives may have short-term construction related impacts as a result of 

implementing restoration projects. However, these impacts would usually be minor and 

would cease when construction is complete. Avoidance and mitigation measures will be 

implemented to lessen the adverse impacts of any construction activities. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

As part of implementation, irreversible commitments of resources could result from 

restoration actions that involve construction or land conversion under either of the 

alternatives. Committed resources could include construction materials, labor and 

energy necessary for construction, and operation and maintenance. Potential land 

conversion would commit habitat, agriculture, or other land uses to other uses; however, 

in many cases these land conversions could be undone if there were any unanticipated 

adverse impacts. Avoidance and mitigation measures will be implemented to lessen the 

adverse impacts of any construction or land conversion activities to lessen impacts 

under either alternative. 
ES - 12 

6.0 Coordination with Other Programs, Regulatory Authorities 

As a cooperative interagency effort, the RRP Program is required to comply with various 

state and federal environmental laws and regulations. In addition to laws and 

regulations, the trustees must also consider existing environmental programs or plans in 

developing and implementing the RRP Program. Through coordination with other 

established programs, the trustees can ensure that the RRP Program does not duplicate 

other efforts, but instead leads to more effective and cost-efficient NRDA procedures. 

This, in turn, will add to the overall effort to protect, enhance, and restore the trust 

resources and services of Louisiana. 

7.0 RRP Program Development Process 

The RRP Program development process included a series of RRP Program Workgroup 

planning meetings, informal scoping meetings, and formal scoping meetings to develop 

the RRP Program/FPEIS. 

Formal scoping for the RRP Program and FPEIS and formal solicitation for appropriate 

restoration projects for potential inclusion in the RRPs began on June 19, 2001. This 

date marked the publication and distribution of the Public Review Document (PRD) and 

publication of the NOI to develop a FPEIS. As part of the NOI, an Administrative Record 

(AR) was established. The AR is maintained at NOAA in Silver Spring, Maryland and 

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

NOAA/Damage Assessment Center Headquarters 

1305 East West Highway, Suite 10218 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

(301) 713-3038 

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

150 Third Street, Suite 405 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 

(225) 219-5800 

Based on input from the public and further consideration by the RRP Program 

Workgroup, the RRP Program/Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(DPEIS) was completed and released for public review pursuant to NEPA on May 9, 

2003. A 60 day comment period ending on July 9, 2003 was provided, and two public 

meetings to receive comments were held on June 23, 2003. 

A summary of public comments provided at the public meeting, written comments on the 

RRP Program/DPEIS, a summary of the written comments, and responses to the 

comments are provided in Appendix G, Public Comments and Responses. Based on 

input from the public during the public comment period and further consideration by the 

RRP Program Workgroup, the RRP Program/FPEIS was finalized. 

8.0 NEPA Requirements 

To comply with NEPA, this document includes a description of the purpose and need for 

action, the affected environment and program, and the proposed Program action, 

alternatives, and their environmental consequences. To assist NEPA reviewers, the 

following provides a list of the NEPA requirements typically covered in a FPEIS and the 

chapters and pages in this document where these requirements are addressed. 
ES - 13 

Location 

NEPA Requirement Chapter 

Number 

Page 

Numbers

Purpose and Need (40 CFR 1502.13) 1.0 1-11 

Affected Environment and Program (40 CFR 1502.15) 2.0 and 3.0 12-78 

Proposed Action (40 CFR 1502.14) 4.0 79-133 

Regional Boundaries 5.0 134-137 

Alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14) 6.0 138-143 

Environmental Consequences (40 CFR 1502.16) 7.0 144-147 

Coordination/Consultation (40 CFR 1502.25 and 1506.2 [d]) 8.0 148-161 

RRP Program Development Process (40 CFR 1502.10 [i]) – 

Scoping 9.0 162-163 

References 10.0 164-170 

List of Preparers (40 CFR 1502.17) 11.0 171 

List of Agencies (40 CFR 1502.10[i]) 12.0 172 

List of Agencies, Organizations, and People Receiving 

Copies of the FPEIS App. H H1-H7 

9.0 Reader’s Guide to Document 

The following is a guide to this document: 

Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need (40 CFR 1502.13), includes an introduction to the 

RRP Program and its goals, including the legal mandates and authorities under which it 

was developed, as well as an identification of the natural resource trustees and their 

mandates. The setting is defined. Then the purpose and need for the establishment 

and implementation of the RRP Program and the purpose of the proposed action is 

described, including its goals and potential benefits. The NEPA requirements typically 

covered in a FPEIS and the chapters and pages in this document where these 

requirements are addressed are identified. The environmental setting also is defined. 

Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, provides a summary description of the 

environment that is likely to be affected. 

Chapter 3.0, Affected Program (40 CFR 1502.15), provides a summary description of 

the affected program and the NRDA process, including a definition of trust resources 

and services, the natural resource trustee jurisdictions, and RP liability. 

Chapter 4.0, Proposed Action: Regional Restoration Planning Program (40 CFR 

1502.14), reiterates the goals of the RRP Program and describes the specific legal 

authorities under state and federal law for establishing it. A detailed description of the 
ES - 14 

RRP Program is provided, including the components, management structure, case 

implementation process, sources of restoration funding, and use of the RRP Program. 

Chapter 5.0, Regional Boundaries, provides a description of the boundaries for the 

nine RRPs that will be developed as part of the RRP Program. 

Chapter 6.0, Alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14), provides summary descriptions of the “No 

Action Alternative,” “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative,” and other 

alternatives considered as part of the development of the RRP Program. An evaluation 

of the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” and summary of benefits is 

also provided. 

Chapter 7.0, Environmental Consequences (40 CFR 1502.16), describes for both the 

“No Action Alternative” and “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative“ the 

direct and indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, and short-term uses vs. long-term 

productivity. 

Chapter 8.0, Coordination with Other Programs, Regulatory Authorities (40 CFR 

1502.25 and 1506.2 [d]), describes compliance with federal and state laws and 

coordination and compatibility with existing federal, state and joint federal – state 

programs. 

Chapter 9.0, RRP Program Development Process (40 CFR 1502.10 [i]), describes the 

development process including RRP Program Workgroup meetings, informal scoping, 

and formal scoping notice(s) and meetings that were conducted to develop the RRP 

Program and FPEIS. 

Chapter 10.0, References, Chapter 11.0, List of Preparers (40 CFR 1502.17) and

Chapter 12.0, List of Agencies (40 CFR 1502.10[i]) are self-explanatory. 

There are eight appendices (40 CFR 1502.18): Appendix A - Acronyms and 

Definitions; Appendix B - Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish 

Habitat; Appendix C - NRDA Restoration Project Information Sheet; Appendix D - 

NRDA Preliminary Worksheet; and Appendix E - Compliance; Appendix F - 

Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations; Appendix G - 

Public Comments and Responses; and Appendix H - List of Agencies, 

Organizations, and People Receiving Copies of the FPEIS.
1

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

1.0 Purpose and Need 

This document is both a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) 

and a description of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program (RRP 

Program) (40 CFR 1506.44

). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

require agencies to prepare EISs concurrently with and integrated with environmental 

impact analyses and related surveys and studies required under other environmental 

review laws to the fullest extent possible (40 CFR 1502.25(a)). The proposed action is to 

establish and implement the RRP Program. The FPEIS was developed pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 

et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 et 

seq.). 

1.1 Introduction 

Federal and Louisiana natural resource trustees have developed the Louisiana RRP 

Program to assist the natural resource trustees in carrying out their Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment (NRDA) responsibilities for discharges or substantial threats of 

discharges of oil (referred to as an “incident”). The RRP Program is described in this 

FPEIS and further defined in individual Regional Restoration Plans (RRPs) that will be 

prepared for each of nine regions in the State of Louisiana (state). The goals of this 

statewide Program are to: 1) expedite and reduce the cost of the NRDA process; 2) 

provide for consistency and predictability by describing in detail the NRDA process, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

injuries to trust resources and services resulting from incidents in Louisiana. The RRP 

Program is established to address incidents under OPA and OSPRA. The RRP Program 

does not address injuries from releases of hazardous substances under the 

Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

(42 USC 9601 et seq.) injuries to park system resources pursued by the National Park 

Service (NPS) under Park System Resources Protection Act (16 USC 19[jj] et seq.), or 

physical injuries to trust resources and services under the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act (16 USC 1431 et seq.) should a sanctuary be designated in the state. 

The development of the RRP Program has been a coordinated effort between state and 

federal natural resource agencies, local governments, and the public. The RRP Program 

is jointly administered and used by the trustees to assist in carrying out their natural 

resource trust mandates under OPA and OSPRA. 

 

4

 40 CFR 1506.4 - Combining documents. Any environmental document in compliance with NEPA may be combined 

with any other agency document to reduce duplication and paperwork. 
2

1.1.1 Legal Mandates and Authorities 

The RRP Program is required to be established in accordance with La. Rev. Stat. 

30:2480.1, which states that: 

“To assist in making the natural resource damage assessment process more 

efficient, the Regional Restoration Planning Program encompassing the entire 

geographic area of the state, is established in the office of the oil spill 

coordinator. The office of the oil spill coordinator shall develop and implement 

the program in coordination with the state natural resource trustees.” 

Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of OPA provide the necessary direction for 

developing RRPs. These guidelines and requirements are contained in 15 CFR 990 et 

seq. 

The OPA regulations were promulgated by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), 

acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and 

became effective February 5, 1996. State regulations for the NRDA process under 

OSPRA were promulgated by the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the 

Governor (LOSCO) in March 1999, and can be found at La. Admin. Code 43:XXIX, 

Chap. 1. 

1.1.2 NRDA Trustees 

Under OPA (33 USC 2706[b]) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 

300.600), certain federal and state agencies and tribal authorities are designated natural 

resource trustees for trust resources and services injured by an incident. Additional 

authority was granted to the state trustees under Louisiana’s OSPRA (La. Rev. Stat. 

30:2451 et seq.) As a designated trustee, each trustee is authorized to act on behalf of 

the public under state and/or federal law to assess and recover natural resource 

damages, and to plan and implement actions to restore trust resources and services 

injured or lost as the result of an incident. 

The federally designated natural resource trustees include: USDOC/NOAA, U.S. 

Department of the Interior (USDOI), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. 

Department of Energy (USDOE), U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD), and the 

federally recognized tribes. On the state level, the trustees include: LOSCO, Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ), and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 

Under the mandates of OPA, responsibility for natural resources is delegated to the 

federal, state, and Tribal trustees. At 33 USC 2706(c), those responsibilities are defined 

as follows: 

(1) Federal Trustees: The Federal officials designated under subsection (b)(2) - 

(A) shall assess natural resource damages under section 1002(b)(2)(A) 

for the natural resources under their trusteeship; 

(B) may, upon request of reimbursement from a State or Indian tribe and 

at the Federal officials’ discretion, assess damages for the natural 

resources under the State’s or tribe’s trusteeship; and 

(C) shall develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, 

replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent, of the natural resources 

under their trusteeship. 
3

(2) Tribal Trustees: The Tribal officials designated under subsection (b)(4) – 

(A) Shall assess natural resource damages under section 2702 (b)(2)(A) 

of this title for the purposes of this Act for the natural resources under 

their trusteeship; 

(B) Shall develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, 

replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent, of the natural resources 

under their trusteeship. 

(3) State Trustees: The State and local officials designated under subsection 

(b)(3) – 

(A) shall assess natural resource damages under section 1002(b)(2)(A) 

for the purposes of this Act for the natural resources under their 

trusteeship; and 

(B) shall develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, 

replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent, of the natural resources 

under their trusteeship.” 

Based on the legislative mandates of Louisiana’s OSPRA, responsibility for natural 

resources is assigned to the state natural resource trustees. At La. Rev. Stat. 

30:2480(A), those responsibilities are defined as follows: 

“In any action to recover natural resources damages, the coordinator, in 

consultation with any other state trustees, shall make the determination whether 

to assess natural resource damages and the amount of damages. This 

assessment will be in accordance with the procedures and plans contained in the 

oil spill contingency plan of the state, and such determination shall create a 

rebuttable presumption for the amount of such damages.” 

1.2 Setting 

Louisiana is bordered by Texas to the west, Arkansas to the north, Mississippi to the 

east, and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. The Louisiana RRP Program encompasses 

the state and state and federal waters extending offshore Louisiana, from the shoreline 

determined by the U.S. Supreme Court (United States v. Louisiana, 452 U.S. 726 

[1981]), which is codified at 43 USC 1301(b), to the boundaries of the federal/Louisiana 

territorial seas and the extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action 

1.3.1 Background 

Louisiana’s economy traditionally has been based on the state’s natural resources. Both 

renewable (e.g., fishing, forest products) and non-renewable (e.g., oil, natural gas) 

resources are important, and the industries associated with each have co-existed for 

years. Louisiana, and in particular its coastal and wetland regions, is of significant value 

to the nation - contributing greatly to the nation’s fisheries, wild fur, and hide harvest, 

providing wintering grounds for migratory bird populations, and buffering the destructive 

impacts of hurricanes, storms, and floods. At the same time, 18% of the nation’s oil 

production and 24% of the gas production comes from coastal Louisiana (Louisiana 

Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). 

The exploration, production, transportation, and storage of large volumes of oil occurring 

within the state resulted in the recognition that Louisiana has a higher exposure to oil 
4

spills than any other state. Louisiana’s natural resources are susceptible to oil spill injury 

from a variety of sources. Among them are shipping, land-based oil fields, oil platforms 

in state waters, oil storage facilities, oil terminals/ports, crude or refined oil pipelines, oil 

refineries, abandoned vessels, pits, reservoirs, and other industries using oil in their 

operations. In the coastal regions alone, Louisiana is crisscrossed by 1,570 miles of oil 

and gas pipelines (Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1998, 

16 USC 3951 et seq., Pub. L. No. 101-646 [1990]). It is estimated that approximately 

250,000 oil and/or gas wells exist in Louisiana. In 1996 an inventory identified 

approximately 800 abandoned vessels/barges, of which roughly 200 were characterized 

as posing a potential pollution problem. Beginning in 1992, a total of approximately 

25,000 abandoned facilities, pits, sumps, or reservoirs in the Louisiana coastal area have 

been inventoried and are being evaluated to determine if the sites pose a risk to human 

health and safety, environment, and wildlife habitat through actual or potential discharge 

of oil. 

Although Louisiana’s oil and gas industry tries to avoid adverse impacts on renewable 

natural resources, injuries do occur as a result of incidents. Between 1991 and 2001, 

Louisiana had 18.73% of the total incidents in the nation and 20.9% of the volume of 

discharges of petroleum products (U.S. Coast Guard [USCG] 2003). The cumulative 

impacts of these incidents on fish, wildlife, and the environment can be significant and 

adversely affect the industries and communities depending on natural resources for 

commerce and recreation. 

1.3.2 Need 

The high spill probability, both in frequency and magnitude, and wide expanse of fragile 

and sensitive resources that could be impacted present a true challenge to the federal 

and Louisiana trustees when it comes to restoring trust resources and services held in 

public trust. Since the enactment of OPA, a total of 31 incidents have resulted in the 

initiation of the NRDA process in the state (as of December 2004). Table 1.1, Status of 

NRDA for Incidents in the State (1990 – 2004), provides summary information for these 

incidents and the status of the NRDA cases. 

1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action 

1.4.1 Regional Restoration Planning Program 

The objective of the Louisiana RRP Program including RRPs is to establish an 

institutional framework and procedures that will enable the trustees to select and 

implement projects that compensate the public and environment for losses of trust 

resources and services from incidents in an efficient and predictable manner. In 

addition, the RRP Program seeks to provide increased flexibility to the trustees and the 

Responsible Parties (RPs) relative to the mechanisms through which NRDA cases are 

settled. The use of RRPs will help expedite the assessment, settlement, and/or 

restoration implementation, while potentially minimizing associated costs. In addition, 

development of RRPs requires the examination of restoration alternatives across an 

entire region and may facilitate linkages with other regional or watershed objectives. The 

benefits of comprehensive, region-wide planning will accrue not only to the parties 

involved in the assessments, but also to the communities depending on natural 

resources for commerce and recreation. 

Specifically, the RRP Program described in this document identifies the statewide RRP 

Program structure, the decision-making process, and the criteria that are used to select 
5

Table 1.1: Status of NRDA for Incidents in the State (1990 – 2004) 

Location Parish Date of 

Incident 

Amount 

(bbls) 

Type of Habitat 

Injured 

Type of 

Incident 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Restoration 

Project 

Raphael Pass Plaquemines 09/21/04 500 Brackish Marsh Tank Failure To Be 

Determined 

To Be 

Determined 

Multiple 

Incidents Plaquemines 09/16/04 unknown Brackish Marsh Multiple 

Incidents 

To Be 

Determined 

To Be 

Determined 

Weeks Island Iberia 09/02/04 ~600 Forested 

Wetland 

Pipeline 

Rupture 

To Be 

Determined 

To Be 

Determined 

Bayou Perot Lafourche 08/22/04 ~20 Intermediate 

Marsh 

Pipeline 

Rupture 

To Be 

Determined 

To Be 

Determined 

Lapice Oil 

Field St. James 08/09/04 unknown Forested 

Wetland 

Pipeline 

Rupture 

To Be 

Determined 

To Be 

Determined 

Lake Arthur Vermillion 07/03/04 ~40 Fresh Swamp Pipeline 

Rupture 

Determined Not 

to Proceed 

Determined Not 

to Proceed 

Bastian Bay Plaquemines 06/16/04 ~25 Brackish Marsh Tank Overflow Determined Not 

to Proceed 

Determined Not 

to Proceed 

Potash Plaquemines 04/23/04 ~50 Brackish Marsh Pipeline 

Rupture 

To Be 

Determined 

To Be 

Determined 

Alpine Jefferson 02/29/04 ~20 Fresh Marsh Well Blowout To Be 

Determined 

To Be 

Determined 

General 

Maritime 

Management 

Genmar 

Plaquemines 02/19/04 ~520 Mississippi River Vessel 

Collision 

Determined Not 

to Proceed 

Determined Not 

to Proceed 

Mendicant 

Island Jefferson 12/02/03 ~400 Salt Marsh Pipeline 

Rupture 

To Be 

Determined 

To Be 

Determined 

Lake 

Washington Plaquemines 03/02/03 995 Salt Marsh Pipeline 

Rupture 

To be 

Determined 

To be 

Determined 

Terrebonne 

Bay Terrebonne 01/30/03 160 Salt Marsh Pipeline 

Rupture 

To be 

Determined 

To be 

Determined 

Duck Lake St. Martin 12/04/02 1,000 Cypress Tupelo 

Swamp 

Pipeline 

Rupture 

To be 

Determined 

To be 

Determined 

North Pass Plaquemines 09/23/02 Unknown Brackish Marsh Storage Tank 

Rupture Crevasse Splay To be Determined 

Magnolia Field Plaquemines 08/11/02 ~500 Brackish Marsh Storage Tank 

Rupture 

Determined Not 

to Proceed 

Determined Not 

to Proceed 

East Lake 

Palourde Assumption Unknown Unknown Cypress Tupelo 

Swamp 

Pipeline 

Rupture 

To be 

Determined 

To be 

Determined 

Little Lake Lafourche 04/06/02 ~1,800 Intermediate 

Marsh 

Pipeline 

Rupture 

To be 

Determined 

To be 

Determined 

Mosquito Bay St. Mary 04/05/01 1,000 Salt Marsh Pipeline 

Rupture 

To be 

Determined 

To be 

Determined 

Crevasse Splay 4.7 Acres of 

Marsh Mississippi 

River Plaquemines 11/28/00 13,500 River Bank and 

Levee 

Vessel 

Grounding Public Use 

Enhancement Public Dock 

Four Bayou 

Pass 

Plaquemines & 

Jefferson 11/24/99 850 

Water Column 

and Barrier 

Islands 

Pipeline 

Rupture 

Acquisition & 

Enhancement 

2.8 Acres of 

Chenier OakHackberry 

Habitat 
6

Table 1.1: Status of NRDA for Incidents in the State (1990 – 2004) (continued) 

Location Parish Date of 

Incident 

Amount 

(bbls) 

Type of Habitat 

Injured 

Type of 

Incident 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Restoration 

Project 

Lake Grande 

Ecaille Plaquemines 09/22/98 500-1,500 Brackish Marsh Well 

Blowout 

To be 

Determined 

To be 

Determined 

Cravens Vernon 08/08/97 13,000 – 

19,000 Forest Well 

Blowout 

To be 

Determined 

To be 

Determined 

Freshwater 

City Vermillion 06/21/97 2,000 Salt Marsh Pipeline 

Rupture Planting 

2.0 Acres of 

California 

Bulrush 

Lake Barre Terrebonne 05/17/97 6,561 Salt Marsh Pipeline 

Rupture Planting 18.6 Acres of 

Marsh 

Attakapas St. Mary 11/26/96 4,762 Wetlands Well 

Blowout Planting 

30 Acres 

Forested 

Wetlands 

Mitigation Bank 

33 Acres 

Forested 

Wetlands Blind River St. James 05/24/96 11,308 Wetlands Pipeline 

Rupture Public Use 

Enhancement 

Addition to 

Educational 

Center 

Dixon Bay Plaquemines 01/12/95 250-2,500 Brackish Marsh Well 

Blowout Crevasse Splay 5 Acres Marsh

Paradis St. Charles 01/15/93 ~ 800 Fresh Marsh/ 

Flotant 

Leak in SWD 

System 

Raking of 

Biological litter 

1.6 Acres 

Primary 

Restoration 

Timbalier Bay Lafourche & 

Terrebonne 09/29/92 2,285 Salt Marsh Well 

Blowout Marsh Creation 21.7 Acres 

Marsh 

Lake Salvador St. Charles 02/04/91 55 Open Water Well Shoreline 

Protection 

835 feet 

breakwater 

pilings 

the restoration project(s) that may be implemented to restore the trust resources and 

services injured by a given incident. 

As part of the RRP Program development, the trustees: 1) conducted a nexus analysis5

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

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

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

services injured during a given incident; and 3) developed screening criteria to select the 

most appropriate restoration project(s) during a given incident. 

To further streamline the NRDA process, the trustees conducted an analysis of the 

environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the restoration types 

identified in the RRP Program by evaluating the impacts of the restoration techniques 

commonly used to implement the restoration types. This document provides an 

environmental analysis of the RRP Program restoration types. The discussion is 

necessarily broad and generalized to the technique on which the analysis has been 

 

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

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

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

trust resources and services” affected by the incident. 
7

performed, but provides the starting point for assessing site-specific impacts necessary 

to allow tiering from this document to subsequent environmental documentation under 

NEPA concerning the environmental impacts of implementing certain restoration types. 

The environmental impacts of specific restoration projects will be addressed specifically 

in subsequent NEPA documents when the projects are known. 

There will be circumstances in which the trustees may do restoration planning outside of 

the context of the RRP Program due to the specific conditions of the incident. 

Additionally, there may be cases in which restoration types and the attending analysis 

from the RRP Program, as well as restoration projects from the RRPs, will be used to 

address certain injuries from an incident; and restoration planning outside of the context 

of the RRP Program will be carried out for other injuries from the incident. 

The state will be divided into nine planning regions and an RRP will be prepared for each 

region. The RRPs will be consistent with this FPEIS but also will identify the trust 

resources and services that could potentially be impacted by an incident and the 

restoration alternatives that have been identified to date for implementation within a 

given region. 

The RRP Program is jointly administered and used by the state and federal trustees to 

assist in carrying out their natural resource trust mandates under OPA and OSPRA. 

The first RRP will be done for Region 2. 

1.4.2 Benefits of the Proposed Action 

The RRP Program, including the RRPs, is intended to benefit the public, industry, and 

natural resource trustees by: 

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

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

♦ Reducing the cost of restoration planning and implementation; 

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

larger, more ecologically significant restoration projects; 

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

process, thereby increasing the understanding of that process by the public and 

industry; 

♦ Improving coordination between restoration activities under the NRDA mandates and 

other restoration efforts in the state; 

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

by incidents for which there is no viable RP; 

♦ Maximizing opportunities for partnering among RPs, trustees, and other public and 

private restoration efforts; and 

♦ Increasing opportunity for public participation in the NRDA process through preincident planning. 

The trustees will periodically review the implementation of the RRP Program in the 

context of the benefits described above, in order to identify opportunities for 

improvement. In addition, the trustees are committed to identifying, developing, and 

using innovative operational tools and methods that will achieve the intended benefits of 

the RRP Program. 
8

1.5 Programmatic NEPA Process 

As stated above, this document is both a FPEIS and the Louisiana RRP Program (40 

CFR 1506.4). The proposed action was to establish and implement the RRP Program. 

Under 40 CFR 1500.4(i) and (k)6

 and 40 CFR 1502.207, the trustees will tier both the 

identified NRDA program and environmental analyses (see Chapter 4.0, Proposed 

Action: Regional Restoration Planning Program) for specific incidents by preparing this 

FPEIS on the RRP Program and referencing the appropriate parts of the FPEIS in 

subsequent documents (i.e., RRPs and Damage Assessment and Restoration Plans 

[DARPs]). Tiering is defined by 40 CFR 1508.28 as: 

“Tiering refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental 

impact statements (such as national program or policy statements) with 

subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or 

basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) 

incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on 

the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared. Tiering is 

appropriate when the sequence of statements or analyses is: 

(a) From a program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement to a 

program, plan, or policy statement or analysis of lesser scope or to a sitespecific statement or analysis. 

(b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action at an 

early stage (such as need and site selection) to a supplement (which is 

preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such as 

environmental mitigation). Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it 

helps the lead agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision 

and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.”

The purpose of tiering is to avoid repetition of the analyses of the same issues and focus 

on actual issues ripe for decision-making at each level of environmental review. 

Therefore this document describes the environmental impacts of establishing and 

implementing the RRP Program as a whole. The environmental consequences analysis 

is necessarily generalized. The exact manner in which the RRP Program will affect the 

environment will be determined largely by the implementation of the Program as it 

applies to specific incidents. This analysis cannot and does not attempt to distinguish 

between all possibilities as to how the trustees may implement the RRP Program as it 

 

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

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

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

requirements (Sec. 1502.25). 

7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for different stages of actions. (Sec. 1508.28). 
9

applies to specific incidents. Instead this analysis simply assesses likely impacts of 

implementing the RRP Program at a statewide scale. 

The RRPs that the trustees develop for specific regions will be tiered from the 

information in this document by both reference and incorporation of information relevant 

to the specific region. The items that follow can be tiered from this document to sitespecific and more detailed analyses: general descriptions of the physical and biological 

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

settlement alternatives; general description of the RRP Program; general descriptions of 

environmental consequences and impacts; descriptions of potentially injured trust 

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

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

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

specific incident are subject to NEPA requirements. Therefore, the trustees will 

reference and/or incorporate appropriate information and analyses from both the FPEIS 

and RRPs when preparing the DARP/Environmental Assessment (EA) for a specific 

incident or incidents. 

1.5.1 NEPA Requirements 

To comply with NEPA, this document includes a description of the purpose and need for 

action, the affected environment and program, and the proposed Program action, 

alternatives, and their environmental consequences. To assist NEPA reviewers, Table 

1.2, NEPA Requirements, lists the NEPA requirements typically covered in a FPEIS and 

the chapters and pages in this document where these requirements are addressed. 

Table 1.2: NEPA Requirements 

Location 

NEPA Requirement Chapter 

Number 

Page 

Numbers

Purpose and Need (40 CFR 1502.13) 1.0 1-11 

Affected Environment and Program (40 CFR 1502.15) 2.0 and 3.0 12-78 

Proposed Action (40 CFR 1502.14) 4.0 79-133 

Regional Boundaries 5.0 134-137 

Alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14) 6.0 138-143 

Environmental Consequences (40 CFR 1502.16) 7.0 144-147 

Coordination/Consultation (40 CFR 1502.25 and 1506.2 [d]) 8.0 148-161 

RRP Program Development Process (40 CFR 1502.10 [i]) - 

Scoping 9.0 162-163 

References 10.0 164-170 

List of Preparers (40 CFR 1502.17) 11.0 171 

List of Agencies (40 CFR 1502.10[i]) 12.0 172 

List of Agencies, Organizations, and People Receiving 

Copies of the FPEIS App. H H1-H7 
10

1.5.2 Reader’s Guide to Document 

The following is a guide to this document: 

Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need (40 CFR 1502.13), includes an introduction to the RRP 

Program and its goals, including the legal mandates and authorities under which it was 

developed, as well as an identification of the natural resource trustees and their 

mandates. The setting is defined. Then the purpose and need for the establishment 

and implementation of the RRP Program and the purpose of the proposed action is 

described, including its goals and potential benefits. The NEPA requirements typically 

covered in a FPEIS and the chapters and pages in this document where these 

requirements are addressed are identified. The environmental setting also is defined. 

Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment (40 CFR 1502.15), provides a summary description 

of the environment that is likely to be affected. 

Chapter 3.0, Affected Program (40 CFR 1502.15), of the affected program and the 

NRDA process, including; a definition of trust resources and services, the natural 

resource trustee jurisdictions, and RP liability. 

Chapter 4.0, Proposed Action: Regional Restoration Planning Program (40 CFR 

1502.14), reiterates the goals of the RRP Program and describes the specific legal 

authorities under state and federal law for establishing it. A detailed description of the 

RRP Program is provided, including the components, management structure, case 

implementation process, sources of restoration funding, and use of the RRP Program. 

Chapter 5.0, Regional Boundaries, provides a description of the boundaries for the 

nine RRPs that will be developed as part of the RRP Program. 

Chapter 6.0, Alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14), provides summary descriptions of the “No 

Action Alternative,” “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative,” and other 

alternatives considered as part of the development of the RRP Program. An evaluation 

of the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” and summary of benefits is 

also provided. 

Chapter 7.0, Environmental Consequences (40 CFR 1502.16), describes for both the 

“No Action Alternative” and “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” the 

following: direct and indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, and short-term uses vs. longterm productivity. 

Chapter 8.0, Coordination with Other Programs, Regulatory Authorities (40 CFR 

1502.25 and 1506.2 [d]), describes compliance with federal and state laws and 

coordination and compatibility with existing federal, state and joint federal – state 

programs. 

Chapter 9.0, RRP Program Development Process (40 CFR 1502.10 [i]), describes the 

development process including RRP Program Workgroup meetings, informal scoping, 

and formal scoping notice(s) and meetings that were conducted to develop the RRP 

Program and FPEIS. 
11

Chapter 10.0, References, Chapter 11.0, List of Preparers (40 CFR 1502.17) and 

Chapter 12.0, List of Agencies are self-explanatory. 

There are eight appendices (40 CFR 1502.18): Appendix A - Acronyms and 

Definitions; Appendix B - Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish 

Habitat, Appendix C – NRDA Restoration Project Information Sheet, Appendix D - 

NRDA Preliminary Worksheet, Appendix E - Compliance, Appendix F - Endangered 

Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations, Appendix G - Public 

Comments and Responses, and Appendix H - List of Agencies, Organizations, and 

People Receiving Copies of the FPEIS. 
12

2.0 Affected Environment 

This section is intended to describe the affected environment in the state that may be 

impacted by the implementation of the RRP Program. 

2.1 Description of the Affected Environment 

2.1.1 Physical Environment 

2.1.1.1 Geology 

Most of Louisiana was formed by Mississippi River sediment deposits. As sea-level rose 

and fell over this low-lying region, the Mississippi River was carrying vast sediment loads 

and sedimentary rocks from the core of the North American continent and depositing it 

on the rim of the Gulf of Mexico. Organic matter from highly productive marine waters 

has been deeply buried under the whole state and far offshore, and through various 

processes has turned into petroleum. Massive salt deposits, formed by evaporation of 

sea water during historic dry periods, provide a stable confining layer for the underlying 

petroleum. 

The oldest surface rocks are the Paleocene formations found in the Sabine Uplift of 

northwest Louisiana (Regions 7 and 9), which date back over 54 million years and are 

composed of a thick series of non-marine sands, silty sands, clays, and gravels with 

some thick deposits of lignite. North central Louisiana (Region 8) is typified by Eocene 

(54 to 38 mya) non-marine and marine medium to very fine grained sands, silts, and silty 

clays, which lie on top of elevated salt-domes. Oligocene (38 to 26 mya) and Miocene 

(26 to 5 mya) formations are apparent, but not dominant, in Regions 7 and 8 and are 

typified by tan to reddish brown silt with some clay and minor amounts of very fine sand. 

Approximately 25% of the state's surface is occupied by deposits associated with 

Pleistocene (1.6 to 0.01 mya) terraces (mostly Regions 5 and 7); these also consist of 

sand, gravel, and mud, but underlie raised, flat surfaces with varying degrees of tilt and 

dissection depending on their relative ages. These surfaces are remnants of preexisting 

floodplains, and form trends along the major rivers in north Louisiana and coast-parallel 

belts in south Louisiana. Holocene (0.01 mya to present) alluvial sediments of the 

Mississippi, Red, Ouachita, and other rivers and smaller tributaries, together with coastal 

marsh deposits, occupy about 55% of Louisiana’s surface. The alluvial sediments 

(mostly Regions 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9) consist of sandy and gravelly channel deposits 

mantled by sandy to muddy natural levee deposits, with organic-rich muddy backswamp 

deposits in between; coastal marsh deposits (Regions 1 through 4) are chiefly finegrained clay, silt, and organic matter. 

The coastal region of Louisiana has been formed over the last 7,500 years and is the 

result of seven discrete and consecutive delta lobes. If left in its natural state, the 

Mississippi River would have shifted most of its flow to the Atchafalaya River course 

beginning in the 1950s. Since the turn of the last century, however, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) has held the Mississippi River in its present course to ease 

navigation and commerce, avoid the tremendous cost of moving industrial and other 

operations that depend on its present location, and prevent flooding. This containment 

of the river has created the current dilemma of high rates of erosion in the coastal 

regions of the state. If the river were allowed to shift its course naturally, and to flood, its 

sediment could replenish the wetlands and coastal marshes that are now deteriorating, 

restore the land as it subsides, and provide nutrients vital to coastal fisheries and 

vegetation. As it is, the river is held in an overextended course that has reached the 
13

edge of the continent shelf, and most of its sediment now accumulates there and farther 

out in the Gulf. 

2.1.1.2 Geography 

Louisiana is comprised of two primary geographic regions, the lowlands and the 

uplands. Much of the landscape of south Louisiana was formed during the Holocene 

(0.01 mya to present) epoch. The lowlands of Louisiana can be subdivided into three 

major divisions: the Mississippi and Red River alluvial plain, the deltaic plain, and the 

chenier plain. 

The Mississippi River Basin drains 41% of the contiguous United States and a portion of 

Canada, transporting water and sediment over an area of 1.2 million square miles. The 

Mississippi River alluvial plain (width of 25 to 90 miles) is comprised of numerous 

landforms, created by successive river course switching. The Mississippi River is a 

classic example of a fluvially dominated, meandering river. Ridge and swale topography 

and abandoned channels in the form of oxbow lakes and chutes are common features. 

Natural levees were created with overbank flooding and stand as low, broad ridges 

(typically 15 feet higher than the backswamp) on the landscape. Crevasse splays, 

created by a break in a levee bank, form higher ground. Urban areas, infrastructure, 

industry, and agriculture typically develop on these higher grounds. Ridges and hills of 

Pleistocene–aged materials outcrop in northern Louisiana and have elevations 45 to 70 

feet higher than the surrounding Holocene-aged alluvial plain. 

The Red River, once a major tributary of the Mississippi River, has a similar alluvial plain 

(width of two to ten miles) created by the occupance of several river courses. Presently, 

the Red River is a tributary of the Atchafalaya River. Extensive alluvial ridges, natural 

levees, terraces, and remnant impounded tributaries (raft lakes) are visible features on 

the present-day landscape (Johnson and Yodis 1998). 

The Mississippi River deltaic system is composed of six deltas that were deposited over 

the last 7,500 years when sea levels rose and reached its present level following the 

advance and retreat of Pleistocene-aged inland glaciers (Mac et al. 1998). The result of 

the building and subsequent abandonment of these delta lobes by the river was the 

construction of a modern deltaic coastal plain with a total area of 28,000 square 

kilometers (10,811 square miles) (Coleman 1976). The most recent deltaic cycle (~last 

500 years) has formed the Modern Birdfoot, or Balize delta (Mac et al. 1998). The 

deltaic cycle consists of a constructional phase (Scruton 1960) of broad coastal marsh 

(sub-delta) formation and a destructional phase (Scruton 1960) with river abandonment 

of sediment reworking, subsidence, flooding, and sinking. Coastal headlands, barrier 

islands, and shoals form at the mouths of former distributaries. Prodelta clay, 

distributary mouth sand bars, and mudlumps are other deltaic deposits associated with 

the Balize delta. The Atchafalaya River is diverting a portion (~30%) of the Mississippi 

River’s water and sediment discharge. The new Atchafalaya River delta is beginning its 

expansion phase (Van Heerden and Roberts 1980; Wells et al. 1982). 

The chenier plain is located to the west of the Mississippi River deltaic plain and is 

characterized by marsh that is segmented by long, narrow coast-parallel sand and shell 

ridges. The low ridges support a natural vegetation cover of live oaks. Chenier 

shoreline morphology reflects a depositional history quite different than that of the 

Mississippi River deltaic plain. During western occupation of Mississippi River deltaic 

lobes, fine-grained sediments were transported by longshore currents and deposited as 
14

mudflats on the coast of southwest Louisiana. Conversely, sediment influx ceased with 

eastern occupation of Mississippi River deltaic lobes. Existing coarser sediments in the 

mudflats were reworked by wave action, forming sand and shell beaches. Subsequent 

re-occupation and abandonment of deltaic lobes has created the topographic features 

visible on the landscape today. As a result of differential subsidence of the chenier 

ridges, river patterns in the chenier plain differ from those of the deltaic plain. 

Subsidence and the associated ponding of rivers have formed a series of lagoonal lakes 

north of the cheniers. 

Louisiana comprises the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in North America, having 

approximately 3,800 square miles of marsh and 800 square miles of swamp. The state’s 

wetlands support an extremely productive commercial fishery and oil and gas industry, 

as well as provide over-wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. 

The state is losing 25 to 30 square miles of marsh each year due to the combined 

effects of levee construction, subsidence, and associated hydrologic changes (Coast 

2050 2002). Coast 2050: Towards a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana is a “jointly 

developed Federal, State, and Local plan to address Louisiana’s massive coastal land 

loss problem and provide for a sustainable coastal ecosystem by the year 2050” 

(Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the 

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). Coast 2050 is an integrated, 

multiple use approach to ecosystem management and is supported by federal, state, 

and local agencies mandated to address coastal erosion. “The goals of 2050 are to 

create and sustain marsh by accumulating sediment and organic matter; to maintain 

habitat diversity by varying salinities and protecting key land forms; and to maintain the 

exchange of energy and organisms.” (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 

1998). 

The uplands of Louisiana are comprised of two geomorphic regions, the Tertiary hills 

and the Pleistocene coastwise terraces. The hilly topography of upland Louisiana 

originated with sediment deposition in coastal environments throughout the Tertiary 

period. Lithified layers of sandstone, siltstone, and shale outcrop in belts parallel to the 

coast (generally west to east) and erode with stream and river incision. Upland ridges 

resistant to weathering are typically asymmetrical with north-facing steep cliffs and 

escarpments (~150 to 535 feet) and gentle south-facing slopes and are termed wolds (or 

cuestas). Easily eroded rock formations form lowlands and are termed vales. With the 

exception of salt domes, the oldest rocks, Eocene (38 to 54 mya) and Pleistocene in 

age, are located in the Tertiary hills. The hilly topography of north Louisiana is bisected 

by the Red River and Ouachita River alluvial plains. 

The Pleistocene coastwise terraces of Louisiana are, in general, situated between the 

Holocene alluvial and marsh deposits of southern Louisiana and the hilly upland region 

of northwestern Louisiana. Terraces formed during the Pleistocene, as episodic events 

of continental glaciation caused the Mississippi River to deposit sediments in floodplain 

and deltaic environments. Terraces lie in a step-like configuration parallel to the 

coastline as a result of uplift and subsidence in north and south Louisiana, respectively. 

Termed complex landforms, terraces are flat to gently sloping (40 to 350 feet) and 

composed of multiple surface levels of various ages, depositional environments, 

sedimentary sequences, and glacial or interglacial origin (Johnson and Yodis 1998). 
15

Loess deposits, fine unconsolidated wind-blown sediments, located in upland regions 

are Pleistocene in age and of Mississippi River origin. During continental glaciation and 

resulting lower water levels, prevailing winds transported silt glacial outwash deposits 

onto adjacent uplands. The Mississippi River is flanked by loess deposits some 30 to 60 

miles wide that thin and fine with increasing outward distance. 

Pimple mounds are round to elliptical shaped topographic features unique to the 

landscape west of the Mississippi River alluvial plain. Located on Pleistocene terrace 

complexes, mounds are typically two to three feet in elevation, 50 feet in diameter, and 

composed of coarser grained sediments than surrounding deposits. The origin of pimple 

mounds is unknown. 

Salt domes are both surface and subsurface features created by the process of salt 

penetrating overlying sediments during conditions of high pressure and temperature at 

great depth. The salt layer in Louisiana dates to the Jurassic period (140 to 208 mya) 

and corresponding lower stands in sea levels. Four to eight miles of Cenozoic 

(Holocene and Pleistocene) deposits overlie the salt deposit. Topographic depressions 

(lakes), though rare, are surface features often associated with salt domes. 

Depressions form when the rate of ground water dissolution is greater than the rate of 

uplift, causing overlying strata to collapse. Salt domes are located in both interior basins 

and in coastal/offshore (collapse faults) regions of Louisiana. Salt domes in coastal 

areas are typically wooded and may have elevations approximating 157 feet and 

diameters approximating two miles. 

2.1.1.3 Soils 

Soil formation and development, or pedogenesis, is largely the dynamic and natural 

transformation of surface deposits via physical, chemical, and biological processes. The 

principal pedogenic factors are parent material, climate, topography, organisms, and 

time. To a lesser extent, human activities influence this process. 

Seven general soil regions have been identified in Louisiana. Soil profiles exhibiting 

similar characteristics are termed soil series. Soil associations are defined as groups of 

soil series occurring together in any geomorphic setting. The seven soil regions of 

Louisiana, as described by Johnson and Yodis (1998), are: 1) Tertiary Upland soils; 2) 

Pleistocene Terrace soils; 3) Flatwoods soils; 4) Coastal Prairie soils; 5) Loess soils; 6) 

Alluvial soils; and 7) Gulf Coast Marsh soils. 

The soils of the Tertiary Uplands have developed on Tertiary bedrock, ranging in age 

from about two to 65 million years. Highly weathered and oxidized, the soils have a 

distinctive red-yellow coloration. Soil characteristics include the following: low amounts 

of organic matter and a thin, grayish-brown surface soil, red, yellow, or brown subsoil, 

sandy, acidic, and low in fertility. The soils are typically used for tree farming, livestock 

grazing, and growing leguminous crops such as peanuts and field peas. 

The Pleistocene Terrace soils have developed on upland and intermediate terrace 

complexes and on Tertiary-aged rock of the Red and Ouachita River alluvial plains. The 

soils have formed on alluvium 10,000 to two million years in age and are deeply 

dissected to gently undulating. Soils typically support forest, cropland, or pasture. A 

fragipan, defined as a dense and firm subsoil layer that is high in silt content and has a 

polygonal structure, is common. Low in permeability, excessive surface wetness is 

common. 
16

Flatwood soils have developed on the prairie terrace complex of southeast Louisiana 

and the intermediate complex of southwest Louisiana in nearly flat and poorly drained 

mixed longleaf pine and hardwood forests. The soil is characterized by high acidity, low 

fertility, and poor drainage. Flatwood soils primarily support the lumber industry and the 

commercial production of strawberries. 

The soils of the Coastal Prairie have developed on the prairie terrace complex of 

southwest Louisiana. The soil is characterized by a well developed profile, dark organic 

horizons, and a subsurface claypan horizon (an impermeable layer that restricts the 

downward movement of water). Prairie soils (primarily Crowley series) are used for rice 

production. 

Loess deposits of sufficient thickness for profile development are of Mississippi River 

origin and Pleistocene in age. Soils are tan-colored and vary in calcium carbonate 

concentration and fertility. Loess soils support sweet potatoes, soybeans, and other 

crops. Common soil series are the Memphis, Calhoun, and Loring. 

Alluvial soils include those of Mississippi River, Red River, and Ouachita River origin. 

Common soil associations of the Mississippi River alluvial plain include Commerce, 

Mhoon, and Sharkey. Commerce soils have developed on natural levee crests and 

backslopes, consist of silt and sandy loams, are well drained, and are generally used for 

the production of commercial crops. Soils of the Mhoon association have formed on 

lower positions of the backslope, are silty clays, and are poorly drained. Soils of the 

Sharkey association have formed in the backswamp, consist of clays, are poorly 

drained, and frequently flood. Both the Mhoon and Sharkey series have a high content 

of decomposing organic material. In addition, sand has formed point bar, chute, and 

crevasse splay deposits. 

Soils of the coastal marsh of Louisiana primarily consist of organic matter (30 to 85%) 

and river silts and clays. Soils are characterized by a black and brown to gray color, are 

poorly drained, range in thickness from two to 12 feet, and are located on elevations of 

less than five feet. Muck soils are decomposed and black-colored; conversely, peat 

soils have not decomposed due to anoxic conditions and are brown in color. Common 

series are the Allemands, Kenner, Scatlake, Bancker, and Creole. 

2.1.1.4 Sediment Quality 

Sediment quality is defined as the suitability of the habitat for supporting designated 

uses, including, but not limited to, benthic fauna and aquatic plants. In aquatic 

ecosystems, sediments can serve both as reservoirs and as potential sources of 

chemical substances to the water column (MacDonald and Ingersoll 2000), which may 

impair the quality of the sediment as habitat through direct toxicity to benthic fauna and 

aquatic plants or through sub-lethal effects, altering benthic invertebrate community 

structure (Chapman 1989). In the absence of disturbance and with sufficient 

sedimentation, contaminants may become sequestered in a reduced environment below 

the biotic zone. If those conditions were met, contaminants might pose little risk to the 

environment or to people. Although storm events, flowing water, and other factors can 

potentially re-mobilize contaminated sediments, consideration has been limited to 

surficial sediments only for the purposes of the present discussion. 
17

Aquatic sediments are essential in maintaining the structure (assemblage of organisms) 

and function (processes) of aquatic ecosystems. The importance of sediment quality is 

the role that sediments play in supporting community productivity. The productivity of 

green plants, algae, and bacteria build the foundation of food webs upon which higher 

aquatic organisms depend. Sediments provide essential habitats for epibenthic (live on 

sediments) and infaunal (live in sediments) invertebrates and demersal fish, which 

represent important food sources for amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals. In 

addition, many fish and amphibian species utilize sediments at stages in their life cycles 

for the purposes of spawning, incubation, refuge, and over-wintering. 

Adverse alterations to sediments can have a significant effect throughout the food web. 

Changes to community structure at the producer and first-order consumer level may very 

likely change the stability of higher-order consumer groups due to changes in food 

availabilities. Further, compounds that biomagnify may be passed up the food web to 

higher-order consumers, causing lethal and/or sub-lethal effects on these organisms 

including birds, fish, and mammals. 

2.1.1.5 Water Resources 

2.1.1.5.1 Ground Water Resources 

Louisiana’s ground water supply is contained within permeable geologic formations or 

parts of formations, termed aquifers. Louisiana’s water supply is primarily held in 13 

major aquifers and aquifer systems composed of sand and gravel and confined by clay 

and silt. An aquifer system is a group of two or more aquifers that act as a wateryielding hydraulic unit of regional extent. Much of the ground water in Louisiana is 

pumped or withdrawn for household, industrial, and agricultural use. Typically, ground 

water in Louisiana moves in a southerly direction and towards stream valleys (Stuart et 

al. 1994). Pumping in urbanized and industrialized areas results in the formation of 

cones of depression, thus altering regional ground water flow patterns (Stuart et al. 

1994). 

Aquifers are classified as artesian or water-table. Artesian aquifers, or confined 

aquifers, are confined by overlaying and underlying impermeable formations that restrict 

water movement into or out of an aquifer (Stuart et al. 1994). Water-table aquifers, or 

unconfined aquifers, are those in which the water is not confined by low permeability 

units (Stuart et al. 1994). The water level in an artesian aquifer will rise above the top of 

the aquifer and may rise above the land surface. In a water-table aquifer, the upper 

surface of the aquifer rises to a level of static hydraulic pressure as there are no 

confining beds between the zone of saturation and the surface. 

The addition of water to ground water is termed recharge. Recharge areas are defined 

as areas where the aquifer is at or near the land surface and water moves rapidly into 

the aquifer. Ground water moves very slowly through all but the most porous of 

formations, generally at a rate of only a few feet per year (Stuart et al. 1994). Recharge 

rates of aquifers vary from year to year due to changes in weather patterns and usage. 

Louisiana’s annual rainfall is enough to replenish some of the water drawn from the 

state’s aquifers. Discharge from an aquifer occurs both naturally and artificially by man’s 

withdrawal. Due to extreme drought conditions experienced in the recent past, along 

with increased demand, some freshwater users have experienced shortages. Ground 

water quantity issues are currently being studied under legislative mandate in an attempt 

to resolve shortages and protect aquifers. 
18

Louisiana’s 13 major aquifers and aquifer systems are described in Table 2.1, Louisiana 

Aquifers (Stuart et al. 1994). 

2.1.1.5.2 Ground Water Quality 

Much of Louisiana’s ground water is suitable for use with little or no treatment; however, 

water quality is susceptible to both natural and human induced contamination. Water is 

defined as fresh if it has a dissolved chloride concentration of 250 milligrams/liter or less 

(Stuart et al. 1994). Many of the state’s aquifers contain saltwater, defined as water 

having chloride levels of 250 milligrams/liter or greater (Stuart et al. 1994). The zone of 

transition between salt and freshwater is termed a saltwater wedge. Coastward, the 

aquifer is completely salty. Landward, the top of the aquifer becomes increasingly fresh 

until fresh throughout. Saltwater may be present in inland aquifers, which dip towards 

the coast and/or Mississippi River valley. Saltwater encroachment laterally or vertically 

into the freshwater lens can be a result of pumping. Freshwater in the coastal parishes 

of Terrebonne, Lafourche, Assumption, Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Charles, 

St. Bernard, and St. James is limited; thereby requiring large amounts of water to be 

withdrawn from surface water sources for public-supply purposes (Lovelace 1991). 

Saltwater encroachment has occurred into aquifers in south Baton Rouge and into the 

Chicot aquifer system of southwestern Louisiana (Stuart et al. 1994). 

Ground water quality is affected by naturally occurring inorganic properties or 

constituents that, above established U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

levels, may pose a health risk. Properties or constituents of concern in Louisiana 

include the following: pH, color, hardness, calcium and magnesium, sodium, sulfate, 

chloride, fluoride, dissolved solids, nitrogen and nitrate plus nitrite, and iron and 

manganese (Stuart et al. 1994). High iron concentrations are of particular concern to 

users of the Chicot, Cockfield , and Sparta aquifers (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 

1998). Also, iron and chloride are problematic in localized areas of the Mississippi River 

alluvial aquifer. High color is objectionable to users in the New Orleans area and to 

some areas that withdraw water from the Sparta, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifer 

systems (Stuart et al. 1994). Throughout the state, high sodium concentrations in 

ground water resources is problematic for agricultural industries. 

Of recent concern, is human-induced contamination of ground water supplies. Only 

within the last 20 years was it realized that ground water reserves might be affected by 

surficial activities. In Louisiana, primary concerns are contamination from: 1) surface 

disposal of agricultural chemicals and petroleum products; 2) hazardous waste sites 

around the state; and 3) surface wastes and saltwater through abandoned wells (Stuart 

et al. 1994). Industrial wastes, landfills, septic tanks, animal wastes, and leaking 

underground storage tanks are additional sources of potential contamination. 

2.1.1.5.3 Surface Water Resources 

Louisiana’s abundant water bodies, although difficult to enumerate, are estimated to 

comprise approximately 7% of the total surface area of the state (LDEQ 2000). The 

USEPA estimates the state to contain 66,294 miles of rivers and streams, 1,078,031 

acres (1,684 square miles) of lakes and reservoirs, 5,882,070 acres (9,191 square 

miles) of fresh and tidal wetlands, and 4,899,840 acres (7,656 square miles) of 

estuaries. 
Table 2.1: Louisiana Aquifers

Aquifer Location Sediments Recharge Use Descriptio

Cockfield northeast Louisiana very fine to fine sand

rainfall on outcrop area; leakage from overlying alluvial aquifer; leakage from underlying aquifers 

~600 million gal/day; primarily public supply 

water movement is eastward and southward 

Sparta north and north- central Louisiana 

very fine to medium sand; interbedded with thin layers of clay and lignite 

rainfall on outcrop area and water moving downward through terrace deposits; leakage from overlying Cockfield and underlying CarrizoWilcox aquifers 

~64 million gal/day; primarily industry and public supply 

recharge towards east and south and Monroe

aquifer makes unsuitable for irrigation 

CarrizoWilcox northwest Louisiana; both sides of Red River fine to medium sand, silt, clay, and lignite rainfall on surficial sediments ~13 million gal/day; public, domestic, and small farm supply aquifer discharges into Red and Sabine RiveChicot Aquifer 

System 

southwest Louisiana coarse sand and gravel 

primarily in northern part of aquifer; rainfall in Allen and Beauregard Parishes; leakage form overlying and underlying areas 

 ~690 million gal/day; primarily agriculture 

ground water movement towards coast and precharge and southern area; harder in centrasubdivision: 220 ft sand, 500 ft sand, 700 ft sunit 

Evangeline southwest Louisiana 

fine to medium sand; 

sand units separated by clay

rainfall in Vernon, Avoyelles, and Rapides Parishes; leakage from Chicot aquifer; leakage from underlying aquifers 

~14 million gal/day; primarily public supply 

water generally moves southward; seepage itowards west and into Atchafalaya River towaprovides water for irrigation 

Jasper Aquifer 

System 

southwest Louisiana 

fine to medium sand; extensive clay layers separate from overlying and underlying aquifers 

rainfall in Vernon and Natchitoches Parishes 

~46 million gal/day; primarily public supply 

comprised of the Williamson Creek (upper) a(lower) aquifer; ground water movement towapumping centers; water from Carnahan BayoWilliamson Creek 

Catahoula 

western edge of Louisiana in a northeasterly direction across the state 

fine to medium sand; forms sandstone 

rainfall on outcrop area and percolating through overlying alluvial and terrace deposits 

~3 million gal/day; primarily public supply 

limited use as a source of freshwater; divided saltwater under Red River Valley and Little R

Chicot Equivalent southeast Louisiana fine to coarse sand and gravel 

along Louisiana-Mississippi state line; rainfall or leakage from surficial sands; leakage from underlying aquifers 

~88 million gal/day; primarily industry 

principal sands are 400 ft and 600 ft Baton RGonzales-New Orleans; 1,200 ft New Orleangenerally moves southward3. saltwater move

fault into 600 ft sand; 1,200 ft sand in New O

saline; upper Ponchatoula is least developed 

Evangeline Equivalent southeast Louisiana fine to medium sand 

in south-central and southwest Mississippi; rainfall on surficial sands 

~68 million gal/day; primarily public use 

comprised of 800 ft sand, 1,000 ft sand, 1,20sand of the Baton Rouge area; lower Pontcha

Abita; Covington; and Slidell aquifers; water g

Jasper Equivalent southeast Louisiana fine to coarse sand 

in southwestern Mississippi; rainfall on surficial sands; leakage from overlying aquifers 

~112 million gal/day; primarily industry and public use 

principal aquifers are 2,000 ft sand, 2,400 ft s

Rouge area; Tchefuncta; Hammond; Amite; a

Mississippi River Alluvial 

follows the river's course from northeastern to southcentral Louisiana 

sand and gravel; fine grained in upper part grading to coarse in lower part; confined by overlying fine sand, silt, and clay (0 to 150 ft thick) 

rainfall on aquifer surface and underlying aquifers; leakage from underlying aquifers; locally from Mississippi River near pumping centers 

~284 million gal/day; primarily irrigation 

in southern Louisiana joins with alluvium of thalluvial aquifer; water generally moves southwand withdrawal from wells; requires treatmenuse; saltwater from underlying aquifers, oil an

unflushed saltwater; threats include impropermisuse of agricultural chemicals; no detectio

Red River Alluvial Red River Valley 

clay, silt, and fine sand grading to coarse sand and gravel 

rainfall on fine-grained surficial sediments; leakage from underlying aquifers 

~4 million gal/day; primarily aquaculture 

small amount of water pumped because trea

Upland Terrace 

discontinuous band along northwestern edge of Red River Valley and western edge of Mississippi River Valley 

clay, silt, and fine sand grading to coarse sand and gravel 

rainfall on fine-grained surficial sediments; leakage from underlying aquifers 

~22 million gal/day; primarily public supply and industry 

not extensively used for freshwater due to po

19
 20 

The Mississippi River, the longest river on the North American continent, is Louisiana’s 

most important surface water resource. The Mississippi River system in Louisiana is the 

terminus for the largest capacity inland waterway system in the world (Louisiana 

Department of Transportation and Development [LDOTD] 2002). The river serves as a 

navigation artery of great importance (in conjunction with the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway 

[GIWW]) and supplies water for the cities and industries that have developed along its 

banks. The Mississippi River drainage basin is the fourth largest in the world, draining 

41% of the continental United States. The basin encompasses greater than 1.2 million 

square miles, includes all or parts of 31 states, and three Canadian provinces. Other 

important rivers in the state include the Red, Atchafalaya, Ouachita, Sabine, Calcasieu, 

Mermentau, Vermilion, Pearl, and Black. 

The state’s numerous bayous comprise a drainage network and often act as 

distributaries, rather than tributaries, and serve as drainage outlets. Bayous Teche, 

Macon, Lafourche, and Boeuf are the largest. 

Louisiana’s lacustrine resources include lagoons, oxbow lakes, and raft lakes. 

Barataria, Timbalier, and Terrebonne Bays and Lakes Pontchartrain, Maurepas, and 

Salvador are typical of lagoonal lakes on the deltaic plain. Oxbow lakes form when 

meander bends are cutoff from a river’s course and are located throughout Louisiana’s 

Mississippi River alluvial plain. False River is one such example. Remnant impounded 

tributaries are termed raft lakes in the Red River alluvial plain. Caddo, Bistineau, and 

Black Lakes are such examples. 

Numerous natural and manmade reservoirs are located in central and north Louisiana, 

of which Toledo Bend is the largest. This 186,000-acre lake (1,200 miles of shoreline) 

was created by damming the Sabine River on the Louisiana-Texas border. 

2.1.1.5.4 Surface Water Quality 

Water quality data for the state are routinely collected by LDEQ for monitoring and 

evaluation purposes. The 2004 Water Quality Inventory Integrated Report (Section 

305(b) and 303(d)) Part I (LDEQ 2004) indicates the overall support of the 481 regulated 

subsegments covering all water body types in Louisiana. Of the 463 subsegments with 

a designated use of Primary Contact Recreation, 336 (72.6%) are fully supporting, 111 

(23.9%) are not supporting, and 16 (3.5%) have insufficient data. Of the 479 

subsegments with a designated use of Secondary Contact Recreation, 427 (89.1%) are 

fully supporting, 30 (6.3%) are not supporting, and 22 (4.6%) have insufficient data. Of 

the 481 subsegments with a designated use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation, 150 

(31.2%) are fully supporting, 315 (65.5%) are not supporting, and 16 (3.3%) have 

insufficient data. 

 

The 2004 Water Quality Inventory Integrated Report (Section 305(b) and 303(d)) Part III 

(LDEQ 2004) indicates how each type of water body supports its designated uses. The 

following is the status of Louisiana’s 354 named regulatory rivers and streams as of 

2004. Of the 340 rivers with a designated use of Primary Contact Recreation, 227 

(66.8% or 6,252 miles) are fully supporting, 102 (30% or 3,048 miles) are not supporting, 

3 (0.9% or 14 miles) have insufficient data, and 8 (2.3% or 54 miles) are not assessed. 

Of the 352 rivers with a designated use of Secondary Contact Recreation, 309 (87.8% or 

8,758 miles) are fully supporting, 28 (8% or 568 miles) are not supporting, 6 (1.7% or 

139 miles) have insufficient data, and 9 (2.5% or 64 miles) are not assessed. Of the 354 

rivers with a designated use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation, 95 (26.8% or 2,789 miles) 
 21 

are fully supporting, 248 (70.1% or 6,547 miles) are not supporting, 5 (1.4 % or 138 

miles) have insufficient data, and 6 (1.7 % or 40 miles) are not assessed. Of the 24 

rivers with a designated use of Drinking Water Supply, 17 (70.8% or 870 miles) are fully 

supporting, and 7 (29.2% or 441 miles) are not supporting. Of the 61 rivers with a 

designated use of Outstanding Natural Resource, 36 (59% or 1,115 miles) are fully 

supporting, 19 (31.1% or 417 miles) are not supporting, 2 (3.3 % or 8 miles) have 

insufficient data, and 4 (6.6% or 47 miles) are not assessed. Of the 32 rivers with a 

designated use of Shellfish Propagation, 11 (34.4% or 182 miles) are fully supporting, 17 

(53.1% or 234 miles) are not supporting, and 4 (12.5% or 131 miles) have insufficient 

data. Of the 60 rivers with a designated use of Agriculture, 55 (91.7% or 2,007 miles) 

are fully supporting, and 5 (8.3 % or 34 miles) are not assessed. Of the 5 rivers with a 

designated use of Limited Aquatic Life/Wildlife, 2 (40% or 55 miles) are fully supporting, 

1 (20% or 13 miles) is not supporting, and 2 (40% or 14 miles) have insufficient data. 

Most Louisiana rivers have low dissolved oxygen (4,143 miles) as the suspected cause 

of impairment. Fecal coliforms (3,265 miles) are the second most cited suspected cause 

of impairment. Nitrate/nitrite (2,484 miles) is the next largest cause of impairment. 

Other suspected causes of river impairment include turbidity (2,208 miles), total 

phosphorus (2,127 miles), total suspended solids (2,067 miles), mercury (1,600 miles), 

total dissolved solids (1,338 miles), and sedimentation/siltation (1,313 miles). Sources 

of river impairment include unknown sources (3,947 miles), natural conditions (2,319 

miles), irrigated crop production (2,192 miles), non-irrigated crop production (1,834 

miles), septic systems (1,707 miles), atmospheric deposition (1,385 miles), and 

municipal sewerage discharge (708 miles). 

The following is the status of Louisiana’s 65 named regulatory lakes and reservoirs as of 

2004. Of the 65 lakes with a designated use of Primary Contact Recreation, 54 (83% or 

625,599 acres) are fully supporting, 7 (10.8% or 30,430 acres) are not supporting, and 4 

(6.2% or 4,255 acres) are not assessed. Of the 65 lakes with a designated use of 

Secondary Contact Recreation, 59 (90.8% or 629,089 acres) are fully supporting, 2 

(3.1% or 26,940 acres) are not supporting, and 4 (6.1% or 4,255 acres) are not 

assessed. Of the 65 lakes with a designated use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation, 17 

(26.2% or 78,890 acres) are fully supporting, 45 (69.2% or 579,110 acres) are not 

supporting, and 3 (4.6% or 2,284 acres) are not assessed. Of the 10 lakes with a 

designated use of Drinking Water Supply, 9 (90% or 249,027 acres) are fully supporting 

and 1 (10% or 2,690 acres) was not supporting. Of the 16 lakes with a designated use 

of Agriculture, 15 (93.8% or 425,672 acres) are fully supporting, and 1 (6.2% or 326 

acres) is not assessed. 

Most Louisiana lakes have non-native aquatic plants (319,163 acres) as the primary 

suspected cause of impairment. Mercury (249,261 acres, reported primarily due to fish 

consumption advisories) is also cited as a suspected cause of impairment. Turbidity 

(189,824 acres) was the next most frequently cited cause of impairment. Other 

suspected causes of lake impairment include low dissolved oxygen (178,593 acres), 

sedimentation/siltation (164,346 acres), total suspended solids (156,343 acres), total 

dissolved solids (136,212 acres), chlorides (132,839 acres), and nitrate/nitrite and total 

phosphorus (126,032 acres). Sources of lake impairment include unknown sources 

(410,166 acres), atmospheric deposition (246,939 acres), natural conditions (144,616 

acres), non-irrigated crop production (101,460 acres), irrigated crop production (84,048 

acres), and drought related impacts (74,900 acres). 
 22 

The following is the status of Louisiana’s 52 evaluated estuary subsegments as of 2004. 

Of the 52 estuaries with a designated use of Primary Contact Recreation, 49 (94.2% or 

4,104 square miles) are fully supporting, 2 (3.9% or 759 square miles) are not 

supporting, and 1 (1.9% or 91 square miles) has insufficient data. Of the 52 estuaries 

with a designated use of Secondary Contact Recreation, 51 (98.1% or 4,754 square 

miles) are fully supporting, and 1 (1.9% or 200 square miles) has insufficient data. Of 

the 52 estuaries with a designated use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation, 34 (65.4% or 

3,049 square miles) are fully supporting, and 18 (34.6% or 1,905 square miles) are not 

supporting. Of the 40 estuaries with a designated use of Shellfish Propagation, 31 

(77.5% or 3,305 square miles) are fully supporting, and 9 (22.5% or 963 square miles) 

are not supporting. 

Most Louisiana estuaries have mercury (1,657 square miles, reported primarily due to 

fish consumption advisories) as the main suspected cause of impairment. Fecal 

coliforms (1,613 square miles) are also a cause of impairment. Other suspected causes 

of estuarine impairment include turbidity (624 square miles), low dissolved oxygen (299 

square miles), and nitrate/nitrite and total phosphorus (297 square miles). Sources of 

estuary impairment include unknown sources (2,179 square miles), atmospheric 

deposition (1,657 square miles), and irrigated and non-irrigated crop production (193 

square miles). 

The following is the status of Louisiana’s 10 evaluated wetland areas as of 2004. Of the 

6 wetlands with a designated use of Primary Contact Recreation, 6 (100% or 1,025,280 

acres) are fully supporting. Of the 10 wetlands with a designated use of Secondary 

Contact Recreation, 8 (80% or 1,032,320 acres) are fully supporting, and 2 (20% or 

3,968 acres) are not assessed. Of the 10 wetlands with a designated use of Fish and 

Wildlife Propagation, 4 (40% or 543,360 acres) are fully supporting, 4 (40% or 488,960 

acres) are not supporting, and 2 (20% or 3,968 acres) are not assessed. One wetland 

has a designated use of Drinking Water Supply, and this one (100% or 464,000 acres) is 

fully supporting. 

Most Louisiana wetlands have mercury (394,880 acres, reported primarily due to fish 

consumption advisories) as the main suspected cause of impairment. Low dissolved 

oxygen (282,240 acres) is also cited as a suspected cause of impairment. Sources of 

wetland impairment include unknown sources and atmospheric deposition (394,880 

acres), non-irrigated crop production (282,240 acres), petroleum/natural gas production 

activities (195,840 acres), and natural conditions (86,400 acres). 

A pattern of suspected causes and their sources of impairment is noticed when the data 

is looked at across all the water body types. The most frequently cited causes and 

sources of impairment for all the water bodies are: fecal coliforms from septic tanks and 

municipal sewage systems; low dissolved oxygen from sewage, agriculture, or natural 

causes; sediment related problems such as turbidity, suspended solids, and siltation 

from agricultural or natural causes; and mercury (related to fish consumption advisories) 

from atmospheric deposition. 

2.1.1.6 Climate 

The climate of Louisiana is classified as subtropical and is governed by various 

terrestrial and atmospheric controls. Situated along the northern Gulf of Mexico between 

29° and 33° north latitude, Louisiana’s climate and temperature pattern are strongly 

influenced by seasonal changes in atmospheric circulation. During the summer months, 
 23 

prevailing southerly and southeasterly winds, associated with the Bermuda High, 

transport warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico across the coast and deep into the 

continental United States. This maritime tropical air mass significantly influences 

temperature and humidity across the state. Summer temperatures range between 85°F 

and 95°F during the afternoons and 65°F to 75°F during the early mornings and humid 

conditions prevail with occasional periods of hot and dry weather. During the months 

between September and May, variable weather conditions prevail as arctic and polar air 

masses associated with extratropical cyclones aperiodically inundate the state and 

produce cooler and drier conditions. Maritime polar and continental polar air masses 

can cause large and rather sudden drops in temperature. The average January 

temperatures for Louisiana range from 55°F to 60°F in the afternoons and near freezing 

to 40°F during the early morning hours. 

Climate patterns differ across the state. Northern Louisiana records larger annual 

temperature variations and lower average annual rainfall than southern Louisiana 

because it is further from the influences of the Gulf of Mexico. In central and north 

Louisiana, freezing temperatures (32°F or lower) are recorded on 30 to 40 days during 

an average year. South Louisiana experiences lower annual temperature variations due 

to its proximity to the temperature-moderating Gulf of Mexico. Freezing temperatures 

are recorded ten to 35 days during an average year. Louisiana’s coastal parishes and 

areas along the Mississippi River, south of New Orleans, do not record freezing 

temperatures in every year. During the summer, daytime highs rarely exceed 100°F in 

the costal parishes. 

Precipitation in Louisiana is largely due to convectional activity and extratropical storms 

during the summer and winter months, respectively. Summer precipitation is most 

common during the mid-afternoon. Winter precipitation is associated with extratropical 

storms and cold front passages. Rainfall in Louisiana varies and generally decreases 

from the southeast (62 to 66 inches per year) to the northwest (48 inches per year) 

regions of the state. Central Louisiana is a region of transition, having characteristics of 

both the northern and southern regions of the state. 

Louisiana is susceptible to tropical waves, tropical depressions, tropical storms, and 

hurricanes due to its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. Historical data from 1901 to 1995 

indicate that 25 hurricanes and 30 tropical storms have made landfall along the 

Louisiana coastline (Johnson and Yodis 1998). These weather events can produce 

significant amounts of precipitation over a very short period of time and are often 

accompanied by strong winds, tornadoes, and storm surge along the coastal areas. 

2.1.1.7 Air Quality 

The LDEQ maintains a statewide monitoring network that consists of 44 air-monitoring 

stations. The data collected are used to determine compliance with national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) and track trends in air quality. The USEPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards set NAAQS for six principal pollutants considered 

harmful to public health and the environment. Termed criteria pollutants, the six are 

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), particulate <10 

micrometers (PM-10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volatile organic compounds, many of 

which are hazardous air pollutants, are not listed as criteria air pollutants but are 

measured at selected sites throughout Louisiana. Units of measure for the standards 

are parts per million (ppm) by volume, milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3

), and 
 24 

micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m3). See Table 2.2, Louisiana Air Quality – 

NAAQS, for NAAQS (LDEQ 1997). 

The Clean Air Act establishes two types of national air quality standards, primary and 

secondary. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of 

sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary 

standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased 

visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. A geographic area that 

meets or exceeds primary standards is classified as an attainment area. Areas that 

violate NAAQS for one or more of the six criteria pollutants are classified as 

nonattainment areas. See Table 2.2, Louisiana Air Quality – NAAQS, for NAAQS. 

Louisiana violates the one-hour average ozone primary and secondary standards (0.12 

ppm; 235 μg/m3

) in the five parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, 

Livingston, and West Baton Rouge (LDEQ 1997). Collectively, these parishes are called 

the Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area (LDEQ 1997). Louisiana is in attainment for the 

remaining five criteria pollutants (Oubre, personal communication 2002). 

Table 2.2: Louisiana Air Quality -NAAQS 

Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Value* Standard Type 

8-hour Average 9 ppm (10mg/m3) Primary Carbon Monoxide (CO)

1-hour Average 35 ppm (40 mg/m3

) Primary 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3

) Primary & Secondary 

1-hour Average 0.12 ppm (235 μg/m3) Primary & Secondary Ozone (O3)

8-hour Average** 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3

) Primary & Secondary 

Lead (Pb) Quarterly Average 1.5 μg/m3

 Primary & Secondary 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 μg/m3 Primary & Secondary Particulate < 10 micrometers 

(PM-10) 24-hour Average 150 μg/m3

 Primary & Secondary 

Annual Arithmetic Mean** 15 μg/m3 Primary & Secondary Particulate < 2.5 micrometers 

(PM-2.5) 24-hour Average** 65 μg/m3

 Primary & Secondary 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3) Primary 

24-hour Average 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) ) Primary 

3-hour Average 0.50 ppm (1300 μg/m3

) Secondary 

* Parenthetical value is an approximate equivalent concentration 

** The 8-hour average ozone standard and the PM-2.5 standards are included only for the purpose of providing 

information. A May 1999 Federal Court ruling blocked USEPA's authority to implement these standards, as proposed 

in July 1997. The USEPA and USDOJ have appealed the court's decision and are seeking to have it overturned. 

2.1.1.8 Noise 

The LDEQ was given the authority to govern the regulation of noise pollution by USEPA. 

However, inaction in the development of a program may occur when a mandate by the 

federal government is not funded. Due to the lack of funding provided to LDEQ by 

USEPA to date, there are no regulations or programs for the administration of noisepollution related activities. Therefore, no data exists at the state-level relative to this 

subject and noise pollution is subject to local ordinances (LaCoure, personal 

communication 2002). 
 25 

2.1.2 Biological Resources 

2.1.2.1 Nekton 

Louisiana’s diversity of fresh and saltwater environments, in the form of bayous, rivers, 

streams, oxbows, ponds, marshes, swamps, lakes, and coastline, provide essential 

habitat for many species of fresh and saltwater fish, estuarine-marine invertebrates, and 

marine mammals. There are more than 500 nektonic species that live in Louisiana’s 

waters (Douglas 1974). The larger rivers of the state (Mississippi, Atchafalaya, Red, 

Ouachita, Sabine, Pearl, and Black), along with numerous smaller tributaries (Amite, 

Boeuf, Chitto, Calcasieu, Comite, Tangipahoa, and Tickfaw), together with thousands of 

small ponds, creeks, and streams, provide habitat for the freshwater fish of Louisiana. In 

conjunction with these freshwater systems, Louisiana has 7,721 miles of shoreline and 

extensive estuaries, sounds, lagoons, and brackish bayous (NOAA 1975; Farrow et al. 

1992; Census Bureau 1994). Coastal waters and waterways provide habitat for many 

species of fish, invertebrates, and mammals. The unique combination of fresh and 

saltwater habitats in Louisiana is cause for a large biological diversity and number of 

species. 

The freshwater regions of Louisiana include more than 40,000 miles of rivers, bayous, 

and creeks, nearly 450,000 acres of lakes and ponds, and over 3.5 million acres of 

marsh (Calhoun and Frois 1997). Each habitat supports a variety of species and 

populations. Louisiana has 22 families and 148 species of freshwater fish (Douglas 

1974). Easily accessible waterways and an abundance of warm-freshwater game fish, 

such as the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), spotted bass (Micropterus 

punctulatus), and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), has made the waters of 

Louisiana the destination of choice for freshwater fishermen. While the aforementioned 

three species are most highly prized by fishermen, the state’s waters contain an 

abundance of other species that encompass many sizes and shapes. The following list 

of freshwater species is only a small representation of all those that are found in the 

state and includes only those species that have a statewide distribution or significant 

commercial or sport fishing value. Species include the Mississippi silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus nuchalis), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek chub 

(Semotilus atromaculatus), carp (Cyprinus carpio carpio), channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), 

white bass (Morone chrysops), yellow bass (Morone mississippiensis), stripped bass 

(Morone saxatilis), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), 

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), longear sunfish (Lepomis 

megalotis), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), spotted sunfish (Lepomis punctatus), 

spotted bass, largemouth bass, white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), black crappie 

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), sand darter (Ammocrypta clara), banded darter (Etheostoma 

zonale), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus)

and longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), bowfin (or choupique) (Amia calva), bigmouth 

buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus), smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus babalus), and paddlefish 

(Polyodon spathula). 

The red swamp crawfish (Procambarus clarkii) and white river crawfish (Procambarus 

acutus) are well-known and valuable freshwater crustaceans. Having a statewide 

distribution, crawfish are found in many bodies of water and are concentrated within the 

overflow basins of the Atchafalaya, Red, and Pearl Rivers. Crawfish can survive both in 

and out of the water and are active burrowers, building large systems of underground 
 26 

tunnels and galleries (Huner and Barr 1991). The diet of the crawfish consists primarily 

of water plants, detritus, and aquatic insects and insect larvae. 

The convergence of the Mississippi River with the Gulf of Mexico has created a range of 

habitats utilized by both freshwater and saltwater species. These brackish waters 

provide essential habitat for many species of fish, most notably the red drum (redfish) 

(Sciaenops ocellatus), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), sheepshead 

(Archosargus probatocephalus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), spot 

(Leiostomus xanthurus), sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), spotted seatrout 

(Cynoscion nebulosus), Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia petronus), bay anchovy (Anchoa 

mitchilli), catfishes (lctaluridae), sheephead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates), livebearers 

(Poeciliidae), killifishes (Fundulide), silversides (Membras spp.), and gobies (Gobiidae). 

The deeper coastal waters offshore are habitat to many finfish common to the Gulf of 

Mexico. Many species congregate around the stanchions of the deepwater drilling rigs. 

These artificial reefs provide shelter to offshore species including the bluefish 

(Pomatomus saltatrix), dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus), and blacktip shark (Carcharhinus 

limbatus). The following fish have a greater association with the rigs themselves: red 

snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), 

spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber), and gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus). 

Offshore rigs, artificial reefs, oyster reefs, breakwaters, jetties, and snapper banks 

provide habitat to diverse assemblages of encrusting organisms (epibenthic organisms), 

including hydroids and corals (phylum Cnidaria), bryzoans (phylum Entoprocta), 

sponges (phylum Porifera), barnacles, amphipods, decapods, and other crustaceans 

(phylum Arthropoda) and fish. Those environs farthest offshore often support species of 

tropical origin. 

The waters of Louisiana comprise numerous species of estuarine-marine invertebrates 

including the brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), 

seabob shrimp (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum), and royal red 

shrimp (Pleoticus robustus). Brown and white shrimp, the most abundant of the shrimp 

species, spawn in the Gulf of Mexico. Throughout February and March the brown 

shrimp larvae move into the lower estuaries, where postlarval and juvenile growth takes 

place. As young adults the shrimp emigrate into deeper estuarine waters, eventually 

moving into the nearshore Gulf of Mexico in early to mid summer. Emigration is keyed 

to lunar tides (Blackmon 1974). White shrimp follow a similar pattern of migration with 

few exceptions. Most notably, inshore development occurs in June through August with 

emigration into the Gulf driven by late fall/early winter cold frontal passages (Mac et al. 

1998). 

Although decapod species found in coastal waters are quite diverse and prevalent, the 

blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is the most common and important commercial crab 

species in the north central Gulf of Mexico. The blue crab can survive in a range of 

environments, from offshore marine waters to freshwater marshes. Like the shrimp, the 

blue crab is dependent upon the state’s estuaries for the completion of its life cycle. In 

late summer, egg-baring females migrate offshore to spawn. Shortly thereafter, the 

larvae of the blue crab adopt the inshore migration patterns of estuarine-marine fish. 

Mature male blue crabs remain in brackish and freshwater estuaries for the remainder of 

their lives; conversely, female blue crabs complete their life cycle on the continental shelf 

(Mac et al. 1998). 
 27 

The nektonic mollusk recorded in greatest numbers within the estuaries is the brief squid 

(Lollinguncula brevis). Long fin (Loligo pealei) and arrow squid (Loligo plei) are also 

common and are commercially important as bait for commercial and recreational fishing, 

as well as for human consumption. 

Louisiana’s innumerable surface freshwater hydrologic systems, brackish estuaries, and 

deeper coastal waters provide essential habitats and conditions for the state’s hundreds 

of nektonic species and together form what is considered part of one of the world’s most 

productive fisheries regions. As a result of low stream gradients throughout most of the 

state, many waters move slowly, particularly in association with swamps and other 

wetlands, and are therefore dystrophic. Local aquatic communities appear to have 

adapted to these conditions and populations are typically healthy despite low oxygen 

conditions. However, during periods of extended drought and low water levels, coupled 

with warm temperatures and high algal respiration, fishkills may occur. Population 

growth has caused additional impacts to aquatic habitats. In recent years, hypoxic 

conditions have been documented annually, to varying degrees, for extensive areas on 

the continental shelf off of Louisiana. In an effort to reduce this phenomenon, programs 

are currently being developed and implemented in states within the extensive Mississippi 

River watershed, aimed at reducing nutrient input into the Mississippi River and its 

tributaries. Runoff problems are also being addressed statewide under the Nonpoint 

Source Program. 

2.1.2.2 Benthos 

Benthic organisms are defined as those that live on or in association with the bottom of a 

body of water. Benthic organisms can be split into two large categories: infauna (those 

below the sediment surface) and epifauna (those above the sediment surface). Benthic 

organisms are an important link in Louisiana’s aquatic ecosystems. 

Most coastal communities indicative of soft bottom (poorly consolidated silty clay) 

habitats, are rich in organic material (detritus) and are very productive. However, 

currents and wave energy perturb these communities and consequently, assemblages 

are often dominated by opportunistic species. This is not necessarily the case in 

streams and waterways found elsewhere in the state, where stream bottom community 

composition varies with the ecoregion. 

The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is a well-known and important benthic 

organism both economically and ecologically. The oyster begins life as a free-floating 

larva and remains suspended in the water column for several days while developing a 

tiny bivalve shell. The embryo lives at the mercy of the tides and currents while seeking 

to attach itself to a clean and hard surface. If no surface is found, the oyster falls to the 

sea floor and is buried. If a suitable surface is found, the larva cements itself onto that 

surface and loses all organs of locomotion; thus remaining stationary. The young oyster 

grows rapidly, building a larger shell. The oyster develops best in a mixture of fresh and 

saltwater, ranging from 20% to 75% the salinity of ocean water (Dugas 1982). 

Louisiana’s coastal intertidal and subtidal zones, brackish bayous, and inlets provide 

essential habitat for the development of the oyster. The oyster filters seawater through 

tiny, hair-like structures on the gills, removing oxygen, mineral salts, and microscopic 

floating plants (diatoms)/other microscopic organisms. A single oyster can pump 100 

gallons of water a day through its shell, thereby feeding and cleansing itself (Dugas 

1982). Of ecological significance, the processes of straining and filtration cleanse the 
 28 

water of the estuaries. In addition, oysters build extensive reefs or beds. Oyster reefs 

comprise the majority of hard substrate found in Louisiana’s coastal waters. These 

structures provide protection and support for both the oyster and other diverse 

macrofauna. 

2.1.2.3 Wildlife 

Louisiana has a diverse array of wildlife. There are 71 species of mammals, 130 

species of reptiles and amphibians, and 430 species of birds recorded in Louisiana 

(Dennett 1997). The overall abundance and diversity of wildlife is directly attributed to 

the variety of habitats located throughout the state. Changes in habitat type generally 

follow the geographical boundaries of the state. Wildlife is distributed throughout the 

pine and hardwood forests, prairies, coastal marshes, and alluvial plains of Louisiana. 

Each habitat supports large numbers of animal and bird species, many of which are 

utilized by the populous of the state, including trappers and sport hunters, naturalists, 

students, and others who enjoy observing wildlife. 

Mammalian habitats in Louisiana are extremely diverse, ranging from open-ocean, 

protected estuaries, coastal marshes, and freshwater swamps and marshes, to thick 

pine and hardwood forests, grasslands, and prairies. The mammals that utilize these 

habitats are equally as varied. In size they range from the small eastern harvest mouse 

(Reithrodontomys humulis) to the large Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus 

luteolus). Louisiana has a number of species of Neotropical fauna, as a result of warm 

climate and proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. Neotropical species evolved in Latin 

America at various times in the past and dispersed northward and eastward into Texas 

and Louisiana. Neotropical fauna include the armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), 

Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), Brazilian 

free-tailed bat (Talarida brasiliensis), marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris), fulvous 

harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens), and the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon 

hispidus). Although not indigenous to the continental United States, a few, such as the 

Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), have lived here for more than 20,000 years 

(Choate et al. 1994). 

The following descriptions of mammals were synthesized from information contained 

within Choate et al. 1994 text, Handbook of Mammals of the South-Central States. 

Order Artiodactyla consists of even-toed ungulates, otherwise known as “hoofed 

mammals.” Louisiana, prior to modern civilization, had American elk (Cervus elaphus) 

and bison (Bison bison). Both have now been extirpated from the southeast. The only 

ungulate that lives in Louisiana today is the whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). 

Members of the order Carnivora inhabit all landmasses, including Antarctica. Carnivores 

are generally flesh eaters, although species regularly consume fruits, nuts, and other 

plant matter. Louisiana has many of these familiar mammals including the coyote (Canis 

latrans), red wolf (Canis rufus) (in captivity), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), 

Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), 

raccoon (Procyon lotor), long tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), mink (Mustela vison), 

eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), river otter 

(Lutra canadensis), mountain lion (Puma concolor), and bobcat (Lynx rufus). 

Order Chiroptera are volant mammals, capable of true flight. All bats in Louisiana are 

insectivorous. Species in Louisiana include the southeastern myotis (Myotis 
 29 

austroriparius), silver haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), eastern pipestrelle 

(Pipistrellus subflavus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus 

borealis), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), northern yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius), 

Seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolus), and the Brazilian free-tailed bat (Talarida 

brasiliensis). 

Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana) are the only species of the order 

Didelphimorphia found in the state. They are the most primitive of all living mammals 

and have a fossil record dating to the late Cretaceous period (75 to 80 mya). Opossums 

differ from other mammals in that the young are relatively undeveloped when born and 

must live the first part of their lives within the mother’s marsupium, or “pouch.” 

Another primitive order of mammals with beginnings in the late Cretaceous period is the 

order Insectivora. This order includes shrews and moles, which are found throughout 

Louisiana. Species include the southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), southern shorttailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and the eastern mole 

(Scalopus aquaticus). 

Order Lagomorpha includes hares and rabbits, which are found throughout Louisiana 

and valued by sport hunters and trappers. Species in Louisiana include the swamp 

rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus) and the eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Both 

species are characterized as nocturnal, have semi-solid bones to reduce body weight, 

and a diet composed entirely of plant matter. 

Order Rodentia is the most diverse group of living mammals. Members of this order are 

located on every landmass, with the exception of New Zealand and Antarctica. 

Louisiana has many different species including the eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), 

eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), southern flying 

squirrel (Glaucomys volans), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus), beaver 

(Castor Canadensis), marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris), fulvous harvest mouse 

(Reithrodontomys fulvescens), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), white footed 

mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), hispid cotton rat 

(Sigmodon hispidus), eastern wood rat (Neotoma floridana), prairie vole (Microtus 

ochrogaster), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). 

The nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) is the only species of the order 

Xenarthra found in Louisiana. 

Louisiana’s subtropical climate and abundant precipitation create an ideal habitat for 

cold-blooded animals. Throughout the state, amphibians and reptiles are found in great 

numbers. In addition to natural habitats, frogs, turtles, and snakes can be found in manmade lakes, ponds, parks, and homeowners’ yards. Louisiana provides habitat to the 

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), which after virtual extirpation by trappers 

and hunters has made a strong comeback throughout the state. 

The following descriptions of amphibians and reptiles were synthesized from information 

contained within Dundee and Rossman’s (1989) text, The Amphibians and Reptiles of 

Louisiana. 

Class Amphibia, order Anura, consists of frogs and toads. All members of this order are 

characterized by abbreviated chunky bodies, lack of tail, and elongated hind legs used 
 30 

for jumping. Species found in Louisiana include cricket frogs (Acris spp.), gray treefrog 

(Hyla versicolor), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), 

ornate chorus frog (Pseudacris nigrita), striped chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), 

greenhouse frog (Eleutherodactyus planirostris), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog 

(Rana clamitans), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), American toad (Bufo 

americanus), oak toad (Bufo quercicus), and southern toad (Bufo terrestris). 

Class Amphibia, order Urodela, includes salamanders and newts. The following are 

found in Louisiana: spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), marbled salamander 

(Ambystoma opacum), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), southern dusky 

salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), long-tailed salamander (Eurycea longicauda), 

slimy salamander (Plethodon kisatchie), southern red-backed salamander (Pseudotriton 

ruber), gulf coast waterdog (Necturus maculosus), mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus), 

and eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). Most live in moist forested regions, and 

unlike other amphibians, lay their eggs on land rather than in water. 

Class Reptilia, order Crocodylia includes the American alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis). The American alligator was once very common throughout the state. 

The skin of the alligator, highly prized for commercial value, led to massive kills by 

hunters and trappers. Louisiana outlawed the hunting and trapping of alligators in 1963, 

and under this new protection the American alligator recovered quickly. A limited 

hunting season was reopened in 1972. Today the American alligator can be found 

virtually statewide, with the exception of the hill country of central and northern 

Louisiana. 

Order Squamata consists of lizards and snakes. Fourteen lizard species are found in 

Louisiana and all are carnivores that consume other lizards, insects, worms, and small 

prey. Lizards that inhabit Louisiana include the slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus 

attenuatus), eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis), Mediterranean gecko 

(Hemidactylus turcicus), green anole (Anoles carolinensis), collared lizard (Crotaphytus 

collaris), Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus 

undulatus), coal skink (Eumeces anthracinus pluvialis), five-lined skink (Eumeces 

fasciatus), prairie skink (Eumeces septentrionalis), and ground skink (Scincella lateralis). 

The second division of order Squamata is the snake. The snake is the most diverse 

reptile found in Louisiana, with 39 species common to the state. The southern water 

snake (Nerodia fasciata) is known to live in every parish. All snakes are carnivores and 

lacking any holding claws and cutting teeth, must swallow their prey whole. Louisiana 

has a few venomous species (families Elapidae and Viperidae) and many nonvenomous species (family Colubridae). Louisiana’s subtropical climate is habitat to 

North America’s only species from the highly poisonous Elapidae family. The eastern 

coral snake (Micrurus fulvius fulvius) is easily recognized by bright bands of yellow, red, 

and black. The second family of venomous snakes in Louisiana is the Viperidae and 

includes the copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), 

eastern diamond-backed rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus), timber rattlesnake 

(Crotalus horridus), and pygmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus barbouri). Non-venomous snakes, 

of the family Colubridae, include the worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), scarlet snake 

(Cemophora coccinea), racer (Coluber constrictor), corn snake (Elaphe guttata), rat 

snakes (Elaphe spp.), mud snake (Farancia abacura), rainbow snake (Farancia 

erytrogr), eastern hog-nosed snake (Heterod platerinos), king snake (Lampropeltis 

getulus), milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), salt 

marsh snake (Nerodia clarki), southern water snake (Nerodia fasciata), rough green 
 31 

snake (Opheodrys aestivus), pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni), crawfish snakes (Regina 

spp.), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), red-bellied snake (Storeria occipitomaculata), flat 

headed snake (Tantilla grac), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), western 

ribbon snake (Thamnophis proximus), and the common garter snake (Thamnophis 

sirtalis). 

Class Reptilia, order Testudines, includes turtles, tortoises, and terrapins. This ancient 

group has existed for nearly 200 million years with little change in basic body form. 

Turtles, tortoises, and terrapins are defined by limb type. Turtles have paddle-like 

appendages and live in the ocean. Terrapins have semi-webbed feet and live in and out 

of freshwater. Tortoises have stump-like limbs with abbreviated toes and live on land. 

Species found in Louisiana include the following: loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), 

green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys 

coriacea), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys 

temminckii), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia), 

Mississippi map turtle (Graptemys psuedogeographica kohni), eastern box turtle 

(Terrapene carolina), western box turtle (Terrapene ornata), eastern mud turtle 

(Kinosternon subrubrum), softshell turtles (Apalone spp.), and gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus). 

The most diverse and abundant land animal in Louisiana is the bird. Louisiana has no 

less than 411 different bird species that live here for part or all of the year (Lowery 

1974). These species descend from 19 orders and 66 families. The diversity and 

abundance of birds in Louisiana is attributed to the state’s geographic position and 

climate, which support numerous habitat types. Rivers, streams, bayous, lakes, ponds, 

coastal marshes, and tidal beaches and estuaries provide unequalled habitat for the 

hundreds of bird species. In addition, Louisiana has abundant hardwood swamplands, 

beech-oak uplands, pine forests, and treeless grassy plains, all of which provide habitat 

to land birds. The single greatest factor providing such great diversity is the presence of 

the Mississippi River. Louisiana lies in the Mississippi and Central flyways, routes for 

birds migrating from the Rocky Mountain region, the midwest, and the east. The yearly 

mass movement of birds to the south in the fall brings many northern nesting birds to 

Louisiana. Some remain all winter, while others rest before continuing on to destinations 

further south. 

The following descriptions of birds were synthesized from information contained within 

Lowery’s 1974 text, Louisiana Birds. 

The order Ciconiiformes includes herons, bitterns, storks, and ibises. Representative 

species in the state include the following: great blue heron (Ardea herodias), greenbacked heron (Butorides striatus), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), cattle egret 

(Bubulcus ibis), great egret (Casmerodius albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), American 

bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), wood stork (Mycteria americana), whiteibis (Eudocimus 

albus), and scarlet ibis (Eudocimus ruber). 

Gulls, terns, plovers, and sandpipers, of order Charadriiformes, include the herring gull 

(Larus argentatus), ring billed gull (Larus delawarensis), laughing gull (Larus atricilla), 

common tern (Sterna hirundo), royal tern (Sterna maxima), black tern (Chlidonias niger), 

piping plover (Charadrius melodus), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), and American 

woodcock (Scolopax minor). 
 32 

Order Pelecaniformes includes cormorants and pelicans. Representative species in 

Louisiana include the the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), American white 

pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), and the double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax 

auritus). 

The whooping crane (Grus americana) and sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) are of the 

order Gruiformes. 

The storm petrel (Oceanites gracilis) is representative of the order Procellariiformes. 

Ducks (dabbling, diving, merganser, tree, and stiff-tailed), geese, and swans comprise 

the order Anseriformes and inhabit water, rushes, cane, and other marsh vegetation. In 

autumn, great numbers of ducks and geese arrive in Louisiana via the Mississippi and 

Central flyways to winter. Representative species include the mallard (Anas 

platyrhynchos), wood duck (Aix sponsa), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), 

green-winged teal (Anas crecca), American black duck (Anas rubripes), gadwall (Anas 

strepera), common pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), American 

wigeon (Anas americana), redhead (Aythya americana), canvasback (Aythya 

valisineria), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), 

bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), fulvous tree duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), Canada goose 

(Branta canadensis), snow goose (Chen caerulescens). 

Upland game birds of the order Galliformes found in Louisiana include the common 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). The prairie 

chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) was last recorded in 1919. 

Louisiana has birds of prey of the order Falconiformes. Representative species include 

the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), redshouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus), merlin (Falco columbarius), and the American kestrel (Falco sparverius). 

The nine orders of Columbiformes (doves and pigeons), Psittaciformes (parrots), 

Cuculiformes (cuckoos), Strigiformesn (owls), Caprimulgiformes (goatsuckers), 

Apodiformes (swifts and hummingbirds), Coraciiformes (rollers, kingfishers, and 

relatives), Piciformes (woodpeckers, toucans, and relatives), and Passeriformes 

(songbirds or passerines and perching birds) are comprised of birds that inhabit nearly 

all areas of the state. An abbreviated listing of the hundreds of species includes the 

following: mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), ground dove (Columbina passerina), 

yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), barn owl (Tyto alba), eastern screech owl 

(Otus asio), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), snowy owl (Nyctea scandiaca), 

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), long eared owl (Asio otus), whip-poor will 

(Caprimulgus vociferus), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), chimney swift 

(Chaetura pelagica), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), black chinned 

hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), broad tailed humming bird (Selasphorus 

platycercus), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), red-bellied woodpecker 

(Melanerpes carolinus), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), pileated 

woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), sulphur bellied 

flycatcher (Myiodynastes luteiventris), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), tree 

swallow (Iridoprocne bicolor), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), blue jay (Cyanocitta 
 33 

cristata), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Parus 

carolinensis), winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), 

northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), wood 

thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), European starling (Sturnus 

vulgaris), golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Baltimore oriole (Icterus 

galbula), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), 

American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). 

2.1.2.4 Habitat Types and Associated Biota 

The Louisiana Geographic Approach to Planning (GAP) Analysis Program provides 

technical descriptions for the majority of the habitats listed below (USGS 2001). 

Therefore, the following descriptors will elaborate on the biotic descriptors of the 

community, not the structural characteristics. 

Dominant biota associated with the habitat types discussed below are summarized in the 

following tables: 

♦ Vegetation (Table 2.3); 

♦ Mammals (Table 2.4); 

♦ Reptiles and Amphibians (Table 2.5); 

♦ Birds and Waterfowl (Tables 2.6 through 2.12); 

♦ Fish and Shellfish (Table 2.13); 

♦ Threatened and Endangered Species (Table 2.14); and 

♦ A key to habitat type abbreviations can be found in Table 2.15. 

As for fish associated with these habitat types, there are too many to list in table format. 

At least 500 fresh and saltwater fish species utilize Louisiana’s aquatic habitats from 

northern lakes to offshore reefs. Therefore, it can be assumed that all aquatic habitats 

discussed below have fish species associated with them. For a complete list of 

freshwater fishes in Louisiana refer to the Peterson Field Guide for Freshwater Fishes 

(Page et al. 1991). A list of saltwater fish can be found in Hoese and Moore (1998). 

2.1.2.4.1 Marsh (Salt, Brackish/Intermediate, Fresh, and Flotant) 

There are four types of marsh found in Louisiana: salt, intermediate/brackish, tidal 

freshwater, and flotant marsh. These sub-categories of marsh are detailed below as 

described by Mitsch and Gosselink (1993). 

2.1.2.4.1.1 Salt Marsh 

Located at and around the margins of sounds and estuaries, backs of barrier islands, 

and old flood tide deltas near closed inlets with regular saltwater tides, salt marsh 

vegetation is dominated by Spartina alterniflora at the lower elevations (low marsh) 

typically between mean low tide and mean high tide. Zonation of vegetation occurs 

between mean tide and mean high tide with zones of Juncus romerianus, Spartina 

alterniflora, and sometimes other brackish marsh species. Salt marsh communities are 

highly productive due to the dynamic environment in which they are found. In this 

setting, organic matter is regularly removed and sediment deposited by the tides. Under 

optimal conditions (i.e., presence of a coarse-grain sediment source) tidal sedimentation 

causes a rise in the marsh surface and landward migration of the marsh. Sediment may 

also be deposited on the shoreline, causing estuarineward progradation of the marsh. 

Marshes on the backsides of barrier islands may be subject to episodic burial by sand 

overwash. 
 34 

Table 2.3: Common Vegetation of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

Spartina alterniflora smooth cordgrass SM, B/IM 

Distichlis spicata saltgrass SM, B/IM, 

Salicornia spp. glasswort SM 

Juncus roemerianus black rush SM 

Spartina patens marshhay cordgrass SM, B/IM 

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

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

Typha spp. cattails FM 

Zizaniopsis miliacea giant cutgrass FM 

Panicum hemitomon maidencane FM 

Cladium jamaicense saw grass FM 

Eleocharis spp. spike-rushes FM 

Pontederia cordata pickerelweed FM 

Sagittaria spp. arrowheads FM 

Salix nigra black willow FM, WF, B 

Quercus spp. oaks WF, UF 

Liquidambar styraciflua sweet gum WF, UF 

Nyssa spp. gums, tupelos WF 

Acer rubrum red maple WF, UF 

Taxodium distichum bald cypress WF 

Ulmus americana American elm WF 

Fraxinus spp. ashes WF, UF 

Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar WF 

Platanus occidentalis sycamore WF 

Thalassia testudinum turtlegrass M/ESAV 

Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush WF 

Avicennia germinans black mangrove MS 

Carya spp. hickory UF 

Pinus palustris longleaf pine UF 

Pinus echinata shortleaf pine UF 

Potamogeton spp. pondweed M/ESAV, FSAV 

Ceratophyllum demersum coontail FSAV 

Utricularia spp. bladder worts FSAV 

Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth FSAV 

Alternanthera philoxeroides alligatorweed FSAV 

Limnobium spongia American frog-bit FSAV 

Pistia stratiotes water lettuce FSAV 

Nymphaea odorata white water lily FSAV 

Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla FSAV 

Table 2.4: Common Mammals of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

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

Sylvilagus sp. swamp rabbit, eastern 

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

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

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

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

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

Reithrodontomys fulvescens fulvous harvest 

mouse 

SM, B/IM, FM, WF, B, UF, MS, A/C/G, WS/S, US/S, FS, 

M/ES 

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

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

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

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum UF, A/C/G, WF, B, WS/S, US/S 

Lasiurus borealis eastern red bat WF, UF 

Sciurus carolinensis eastern grey squirrel UF, US/S 

Sciurus niger fox squirrel UF, US/S 

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

Lutra canadensis river otter B/IM, FM, WF, B, WS/S, FS 
 35 

Table 2.5: Common Reptiles and Amphibians of Louisiana and their Associated 

Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

Alligator 

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

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

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

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

Graptemys 

psuedogeographica 

kohnii 

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

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

Deirochelys 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lampropeltis spp. milk snakes, kingsnakes B/IM, M/ES, FM, FS, WF, B, UF, A/C/G, WS/S, US/S 

Agkistrodon 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A/C/G, UF 
 36 

Table 2.6: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Waterfowls and 

Waterbirds 

Scientific Name Common Name Season* Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

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

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

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

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

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

Branta canadensis Canada goose W M/ES, FS, B/IM, FM, A/C/G, W 

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

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

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

WS/S, W 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 W = present in winter 

YR = present year round 

Table 2.7: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Fowl 

Scientific Name Common Name Season* Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey YR WF, B, UF, WS/S, US/S 

Colinus virginianus common bobwhite YR A/C/G, US/S, UF, WF 

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

 W = present in winter 

YR = present year round 
 37 

Table 2.8: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats – Colonial 

Nesting Wading Birds 

Scientific Name Common Name Season* Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

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

W 

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

FS, ME/S 

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

ME/S 

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

M/ES 

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

M/ES 

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

Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night 

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

M/ES 

Nyctanassa violacea yellow-crowned night 

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

M/ES 

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

M/ES 

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern Br FM, FS, W 

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern W FM, FS, W 

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

M/ES, A/C/G 

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

M/ES 

Haematopus palliates American oystercatcher YR SM, B/IM, M/ES 

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

Recurvirostra 

americana American avocet W M/ES, FS, W 

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

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

Charadrius 

semipalmatus semipalmated plovers W ME/S 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s plover Br ME/S 

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

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

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

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

Calidris canutus red knot W M/ES, FS 

Catoptrophorus 

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

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

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

Calidris alba sanderling W FS, M/ES 

Calidris alpine dunlin W WB, M/ES, FS 

Actitus macularia spotted sandpiper W WS/S, FS 

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

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

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

 W = present in winter 

YR = present year round 
 38 

Table 2.9: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats – Raptors 

Scientific Name Common Name Season* Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Br WF, UF 

Pandion haliaetus osprey YR WF, FS, M/ES 

Cathartes aura turkey vulture YR WF, UF 

Coragyps atratus black vulture YR WF, UF 

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

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

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon W A/C/G 

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

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

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

 W = present in winter 

YR = present year round 

Table 2.10: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Non-Passerine 

Land Birds 

Scientific Name Common Name Season* Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

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

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

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

Caprimulgus carolinensis chuck-will’s-widow Br WF, UF, WS/S, US/S, B 

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

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

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

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

Dryocopus pileatus pileated woodpecker YR UF, WF 

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

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

Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker W WF, UF, 

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

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

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

 W = present in winter 

YR = present year round 
 39 

Table 2.11: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Seabirds and 

Gulls 

Scientific Name Common Name Season* Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

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

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

Fregata magnificens magnificent frigatebird NBr SM, M/ES 

Morus bassanus northern gannet W M/ES 

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

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

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

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

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

 W = present in winter 

YR = present year round 

Table 2.12: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Passerine 

Birds 

Scientific Name Common Name Season* Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

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

Muscivora forficata scissor-tailed woodpecker W, Br A/C/G 

Myiarchus crinitus great crested flycatcher Br UF, WF 

Contopus virens eastern pewee Br UF, WF, WS/S, US/S 

Empidonax virescens acadian flycatcher Br UF, WF, B 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troglodytes troglodytes winter wren W UF 

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

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

Regulus satrapa golden-crowned kinglet W UF, WF 

Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet W UF, WF 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hylocichla mustelina wood thrush Br UF, WF 

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike YR A/C/G 

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

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

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

Parula americana northern parula warbler Br WF, B 

Dendroica dominica yellow-throated warbler YR, Br UF 

Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler W, Br UF 

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart Br UF, US/S 

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

 W = present in winter 

YR = present year round 
 40 

Table 2.12: Common Birds of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats - Passerine 

Birds (continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name Season* Habitats (see Table 2.15 for key) 

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson’s warbler Br WF, OS, WB, WS/S 

Helmitheros vermivorus worm-eating warbler Br UF, US/S, UB 

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

Dendroica pinus pine warbler YR UF 

Dendroica discolor prairie warbler Br US/S 

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

Vermivora celata orange-crowned warbler W US/S 

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

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

Oporornis philidelphia Kentucky warbler Br A/C/G, UB, US/S 

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

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

Seiurus aurocapillus ovenbird W UF, US/S 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sturnella magna eastern meadowlark YR A/C/G 

Sturnus vulgaris European starling YR A/C/G 

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

Icterus galbula Baltimore oriole W, Br UF 

Piranga rubra summer tanager Br UF 

Passer domesticus house sparrow YR A/C/G 

Spiza americana dickcissel Br A/C/G 

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

Carpodacus purpureus purple finch W UF 

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

Guiraca caerulea blue grosbeak Br US/S, WS/S, A/C/G 

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

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

Pipilo erythrophthalmus rufous-sided towhee YR, W UF, US/S 

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

SM 

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

 W = present in winter 

YR = present year round 
 41 

Table 2.13: Common Fish and Shellfish of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat (see Table 2.15 for key)* 

Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi silvery minnow FW 

Hybognathus hayi cypress minnow FW 

Notropis spp. shiners FW 

Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner FW 

Phenacobius mirabilis suckermouth minnow FW 

Pimephales vigilax bullhead minnow FW 

Carpiodes carpio river carpsucker FW 

Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub FW 

Cyprinus carpio common carp FW 

Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch FW 

Gambusia affinis mosquito fish FW 

Morone chrysops white bass FW 

Morone mississippiensis yellow bass FW 

Morone saxatilis striped bass FW, BW, SW 

Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass FW 

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass FW 

Ambloplites rupestris rock bass FW 

Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish FW 

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill FW 

Lepomis gulosus warmouth FW 

Lepomis megalotis longear sunfish FW 

Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish FW 

Lepomis punctatus spotted sunfish FW 

Lepomis humilis orangespotted sunfish FW 

Lepomis symmetricus bantam sunfish FW 

Lepomis spp. hybrid sunfish FW 

Centrarchus macropterus flier FW 

Pomoxis annularis white crappie FW 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie FW 

Ammocrypta clara sand darter FW 

Etheostoma zonale banded darter FW 

Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum FW 

Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar FW 

Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar FW, BW 

Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar FW 

Lepisosteus spatula alligator gar FW, BW 

Amia calva bowfin (or choupique) FW 

Ictiobus cyprinellus bigmouth buffalo FW 

Ictiobus babalus smallmouth buffalo FW 

Ictiobus niger black buffalo FW 

Ictalurus furcatus blue catfish FW, BW 

Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish FW 

Ictalurus natalis yellow bullhead FW 

Noturus spp madtoms FW 

Pylodictis olivaris flathead catfish FW 

Mugil cephalus striped mullet FW, BW, SW

Fundulus notatus blackstripe topminnow FW 

Fundulus notti bayou topminnow FW 

Polyodon spathula paddlefish FW 

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon FW 

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad FW, BW 

Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad FW, BW 

Anguilla rostrata American eel FW, BW, SW 

Myrophis punctatus speckled worm eel BW, SW 

Sciaenops ocellatus red drum (redfish) BW, SW 

Pogonias cromis black drum BW, SW 

Paralichthys lethostigma southern flounder BW, SW 

Etropus crossotus fringed flounder BW, SW 

Trinectes maculatus hogchoker BW, SW 

Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead BW, SW 

*FW = Fresh Water, BW = Brackish Water, SW = SaltWater 
 42 

Table 2.13: Common Fish and Shellfish of Louisiana and their Associated Habitats 

(continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat (see Table 2.15 for key)* 

Micropogonias undulates Atlantic croaker BW, SW 

Leiostomus xanthurus spot BW, SW 

Cynoscion arenarius sand seatrout BW, SW 

Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout BW, SW 

Brevoortia petronus Gulf menhaden BW, SW 

Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy BW, SW 

Cyprinodon variegates sheephead minnow FW, BW, SW 

Poeciliidae livebearers FW 

Fundulidae killifishes BW, SW 

Membras spp. silversides SW 

Gobiidae gobies SW 

Elops saurus ladyfish BW, SW 

Megalops atlanticus tarpon SW 

Citharichthys spilopterus bay whiff BW, SW 

Bairdiella chrysoura silver perch BW, SW 

Dasyatis sabina Atlantic stingray BW, SW 

Caranx hippos crevalle jack SW 

Trachinotus carolinus Florida pompano SW 

Lutjanus griseus gray snapper SW 

Lutjanus campechanus red snapper SW 

Coryphaena hippurus dolphin BW, SW 

Carcharhinus limbatus blacktip shark BW, SW 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon FW, BW, SW 

Chaetodipterus faber spadefish BW, SW 

Balistes capriscus gray triggerfish SW 

Menticirrhus americanus southern kingfish BW, SW 

Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel SW 

Prionotus spp. searobins BW, SW 

Penaeus aztecus brown shrimp BW, SW 

Penaeus setiferus white shrimp BW, SW 

Penaeus duorarum pink shrimp BW, SW 

Xiphopenaeus kroyeri seabob shrimp SW 

Pleoticus robustus royal red shrimp BW, SW 

Macrobrachium ohione river shrimp FW 

Palaemonetes spp. grass shrimp FW, BW, SW 

Procambarus clarkii red swamp crawfish FW 

Procambarus acutus white river crawfish FW 

Callinectes sapidus greater blue crab BW, SW 

Callinectus simileis lesser blue crab BW, SW 

Menippe adina stone crab BW, SW 

Panopeus spp. mud crabs BW, SW 

Lollinguncula brevis brief squid BW, SW 

Loligo pealei long fin BW, SW 

Loligo plei arrow squid SW 

Crassostrea virginica eastern oyster BW, SW 

Stramonita haemostoma southern oyster drill SW 

Mercenaria campechiensis southern quahog clam SW 

*FW = Fresh Water, BW = Brackish Water, SW = SaltWater 
 43 

Table 2.14: Threatened and Endangered Species of Louisiana and their Associated 

Habitats 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitats (see Table 2.15 

for key) 

Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana black bear WF 

Felis concolor coryi Florida panther WF, UF 

Canis rufus red wolf WF, FM, WS/S 

Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee W 

Balaenoptera borealis sei whale W 

Balaenoptera physalus finback whale W 

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale W 

Eubalaena glacialis right whale W 

Physeter catodon sperm whale W 

Balaenoptera musculus blue whale W 

Numenius borealis Eskimo curlew A/C/G 

Sterna antillarum least tern FS, FM, B/IM 

Vermivora bachmanii Bachman’s warbler WF 

Campephilus principalis ivory-billed woodpecker WF, UF 

Picoides (Dendrocopos) borealis red-cockaded woodpecker WF, UF 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle WF 

Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican M/ES, W, MS, WS/S 

Charadrius melodus piping plover* ME/S, WB 

Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise WF, UF 

Graptemys oculifera ringed map turtle FS, W 

Chelonia mydas green sea turtle W, M/ESAV, ME/S 

Eretmochelys imbricata hawksbill sea turtle W, M/ESAV, ME/S 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle W, M/ESAV, ME/S 

Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle W, ME/S 

Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle W, ME/S, M/ESAV, SM 

Alligator mississippiensis** American alligator W 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon* W 

Scaphirhynchus albus pallid sturgeon W 

Potamilus inflatus inflated heelsplitter (mussel) FS, W 

Margaritifera hembeli Louisiana pearlshell mussel W 

Lampsilis abrupta pink mucket pearly mussel W 

Potamilus capax fat pocketbook pearly mussel W 

Schwalbea americana American chaffseed A/C/G 

Geocarpon minimum earth fruit A/C/G 

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana quillwort FM, FS 

*Note: critical habitat has been designated for these species. 

**Note: For law enforcement purposes, the alligators in Louisiana are classified as “Threatened due to Similarity of 

Appearance.” They are biologically neither endangered nor threatened. 
 44 

Table 2.15: Key for Habitat Type Abbreviations in Tables 2.3 through 2.14. 

Habitat Type Abbreviation

Saltwater Marsh SM 

Brackish/Intermediate Marsh B/IM 

Freshwater Marsh FM 

Wetland Forest WF 

Wetland Scrub-Shrub WS/S 

Mangrove Swamp MS 

Upland Forest UF 

Marine/Estuarine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) M/ESAV 

Freshwater SAV FSAV 

Batture B 

Agriculture-Cropland-Grassland A/C/G 

Freshwater Shore FS 

Marine/Estuarine Shore M/ES 

Upland Scrub/Shrub US/S 

Wetland Barren WB 

Upland Barren UB 

Water W 

Marine/Estuarine Benthic M/EB 

Freshwater Benthic FB 

Marine/Estuarine Encrusting Communities M/EEC 

Living Reefs LR 

Salt marshes are distinguished from all other community types by the dominance of 

Spartina alterniflora, as well as by their tidal, saltwater environments. Relatively narrow 

zones of brackish marsh at the upper edge are considered part of the salt marsh, but 

larger expanses in the heads of creeks and in the interior of large marsh islands are 

considered separate brackish marsh communities 

2.1.2.4.1.2 Brackish/Intermediate Marsh 

This marsh type is found along the margins of sounds and estuaries somewhat removed 

from connection with the sea, so that salinity is diluted by freshwater inflow and tidal 

range is generally less than in salt marshes. Those marshes in areas with substantial 

regular lunar tides have a regular input of nutrients, which makes them highly productive. 

In addition to high inflow of nutrients, regularly flooded marshes are typically supplied 

with abundant sediment and may produce tidal mud flats and estuarineward 

progradation of the marsh. Areas with only irregular wind tidal flooding have much less 

nutrient input, less mineral sedimentation, and accumulate relatively more organic 

matter. They lack mud flats and their estuarine edges are scarped and erosional. As 

sea level rises, mineral or organic sedimentation causes the marsh surface to rise, the 

landward edge will migrate landward, and changes in tidal inlets may cause changes in 

salinity. 

Brackish marshes are distinguished by their tidal environment and usually by the 

dominance of Juncus romerianus. There is a primary difference in dynamics between 

the regularly flooded marshes in the southern portion of the coastal zone and the 

predominantly irregularly flooded marshes in the northern coastal zone. Areas exposed 

to wave action from large estuaries may also be different in dynamics from narrow 

marshes in small tributaries. 
 45 

2.1.2.4.1.3 Tidal Freshwater Marsh 

This marsh type is found at the margins of estuaries, or drowned rivers and creeks, 

where they are regularly or irregularly flooded with freshwater tides. Historically in 

Louisiana, this marsh type was extensive, but its range has steadily reduced since the 

mid-1950’s due to numerous factors including subsidence, sea-level rise, saltwater 

intrusion, and altered hydrology as a result of river leveeing and oil and gas access 

canals. Tidal freshwater marshes are sustained largely through tidal flooding, which 

brings in nutrients derived from seawater and varying amounts of sediment to the 

community. Regularly flooded marshes are reported to have high productivity, 

equivalent to salt marshes at the same latitude (Odum et al. 1984). Irregularly flooded 

marshes and marshes in areas with little mineral sediment are assumed less productive. 

Tidal freshwater marsh is distinguished from adjacent swamp forest and upland forests 

by the lack of a dominant tree or shrub layer. 

2.1.2.4.1.4 Floating or Flotant Marsh 

Contrary to the stationary marshes outlined above, flotant marshes are produced 

independently of external influences (autogenic processes). In interior marshes that salt 

does not reach or have been cut off from riverine inputs, the fullest expression of 

autogenic development occurs. With the substrates supply of new sediments almost 

entirely cut off, the cumulative vertical accretion becomes increasingly organic (as the 

elevation is contributed to or maintained by the build-up of organic matter). As a result, 

the marsh becomes increasingly light until the whole mat becomes buoyant enough to 

float. When that occurs the flooding regime is no longer unpredictable, but is now a 

stable one in which the sediment is always saturated but the surface nearly never 

flooded. Because the surface is nearly never flooded, the major source of nutrients – 

waterborne sediments – is lost. To adapt, the plants colonizing the mat have high 

below-ground productivity (dense root system) to “wick up” nutrients from the organic 

saturated solution between the mat and the substrate. Species typically found on a 

floating mat are Eleocharis spp., Hydrocotyle spp., Panicum hemitomon, Sagitarria spp., 

as well as many others. 

2.1.2.4.2 Wetland Forest (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed) 

Wetland forests, besides being broken into evergreen, deciduous, and mixed are 

segmented by their flooding frequency. Those areas that experience permanent to 

semi-permanent flooding are deepwater swamps while those receiving only seasonal 

riverine pulses are generally characterized as bottomland hardwood (BLH) forests. The 

distinction is not only made because of flooding regime, but the species composition that 

occurs as a result. In Louisiana, the bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and tupelo/gum 

(Nyssa spp.) swamps are the major deepwater forested wetlands and are characterized 

by bald cypress – water tupelo communities with permanent or near permanent standing 

water (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Bottomland hardwood forests usually occur as an 

ecotone between aquatic and upland ecosystems but have distinct vegetation and soil 

characteristics. The vegetation in BLH forests is dominated by diverse trees that are 

adapted to the wide variety of environmental conditions on the floodplain. Typical 

species are black willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), American elm (Ulmus americana), and 

sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), to name a few. 

2.1.2.4.3 Wetland Shrub/Scrub (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed) 

A scrub-shrub wetland typifies a community in transition and exemplifies the dynamic 

nature of wetlands in general. Many emergent wetlands, if positively accreting and left 
 46 

undisturbed, will gradually be replaced through succession by woody vegetation that will 

in time climax with the scrub-shrub phase. The scrub-shrub wetland is often found 

grading shoreward from an emergent wetland, which borders a lake, bayou, or pond. 

The woody vegetation accounts for at least 30% of the vegetation present, and must be 

less than 20 feet (6 meters) tall. Species composition is dependent on the length of 

inundation, with black willow (Salix nigra) and dogwood (Cornus sp.) growing in the 

temporarily to seasonally wet areas and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) in 

semipermanently flooded areas. The soils in this community typically are wet phases of 

alluvial soils. They may have been cropland at one time, particularly where they border 

large constructed reservoirs. They also may be present along the flanks of spoil 

disposal areas particularly spoil banks along canals dredged through marsh. Soils 

range in reaction from strongly acid to neutral. 

2.1.2.4.4 Upland Forest (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed) 

On the tertiary hills of northwest Louisiana and the Pleistocene terraces, southern pine 

forest is most common on the sandy hill soils. The southern pine forest in Louisiana has 

three major belts: the shortleaf pine-hardwoods, the longleaf pine, and the flatwoods. 

Shortleaf pine-hardwood forests are a mixed composition consisting of shortleaf pine 

(Pinus echinata) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), oaks (Quercus spp.), and hickory 

(Carya spp.). Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) forests have historically been over-cut and 

over utilized due to their importance as a marketable timber and use as naval stores 

before the advent of non-wooden ships in the naval fleet. Restoration of longleaf stands 

has begun, though it is slow to return due to the trees growth rate and lack of protected 

sites. Once established, longleaf pine has a strong resistance to fire damage. In fact, 

its original dominance was attributed to repeat fires and its unique reproductive strategy 

as the mature forests are fire climax communities. Longleaf pine forests are dominated 

by near monocultures of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) in the overstory. The 

understories, however, are known for their high species richness and diversity and are 

typically the site of many rare species with strict edaphic requirements. Flatwoods are 

mixed forests of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and hardwoods or slash pine (Pinus 

elliottii), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and an undergrowth of woody shrubs, notably 

palmettos (Sabal spp.), and waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera). In the western flatwoods, slash 

pine (Pinus elliottii), and numerous shrubs in the mid-story are absent. Upland 

hardwoods are found along the bluffs of Louisiana’s alluvial plains and consist of oaks 

(Quercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), gums (Nyssa spp.), magnolias (Magnolia spp.), 

dogwoods (Cornus spp.), and hollies (Ilex spp.). These species dominate the higher 

ground of blufflands adjacent to the alluvial plains. The most extensive such forests in 

Louisiana are along the western fringes of the Florida Parishes, on Macon Ridge, and 

along the eastern edge of the Southwest prairie. 

2.1.2.4.5 Upland Shrub/Scrub (Evergreen, Deciduous, and Mixed) 

This habitat is generally found on rolling to more steeply sloping sandy sediments with a 

clay layer near the surface, or with sandy to loamy well drained soils. Sites are 

terrestrial, usually dry to xeric, but may have a perched water table for brief periods. A 

clay layer may restrict rooting depth, making deeper moisture unavailable to plants 

during dry periods. Contrary to coastal areas, scrub/shrub is typically an 

understory/midstory component of a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris ) dominated overstory 

forest. The diversity of variations within this community is high, therefore, naming the 

species inclusive of scrub/shrub would be too lengthy for the purposes of this document. 

However, the generally occurring genus’ in these communities are oaks (Quercus spp.), 

sassafras (Sassafras spp.), dogwoods (Cornus spp.), and persimmons (Diospyros spp.). 
 47 

2.1.2.4.6 Dense Pine Thicket 

Dense pine thickets are composed primarily of upland shrub/scrub needle-leaf 

evergreen communities that are predominantly young (from approximately ten to 15 

years and less in age) pine plantations. Due to intensive management of these areas, 

the understory is relatively clear of vegetation except for occasionally occurring smaller 

shrub/scrub and vines. Significant areas of pine thickets are composed of loblolly (Pinus 

taeda) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) regeneration – the primary marketable timber 

species in Louisiana. 

2.1.2.4.7 Agriculture-Cropland-Grassland 

Agriculture-cropland-grassland is made-up of diverse land cover and land uses. Uses 

and crops typical of this habitat type are orchards (primarily pecan), vineyards, 

experimental plots, plant nurseries, yards, and right of ways. Row and cover crops 

consist of various grain crops, cotton, sweet potatoes, soy beans, and gardens. 

Aquaculture consists of crawfish (also rice farming) and catfish ponds. Grasslands are 

dominated by perennial gramminoids. 

2.1.2.4.8 Wetland Barren 

Wetland barrens are exposed areas that are inundated annually and located or 

associated primarily in flood plain or river basins, streams, lakes, ponds, and 

impoundments. These areas are typically the result of dredged material unsuitable for 

growth (usually with high shell content) being deposited in localized areas. They remain 

unvegetated if located about the range of active sediment deposition. If they are located 

at an elevation suitable for sediment deposition, primary succession of vegetative 

communities may begin but will likely be influenced by the underlying and previously 

barren substrate. 

2.1.2.4.9 Upland Barren 

Upland barrens consist primarily of exposed areas that are not inundated annually and 

are not located in flood plains or river basins, streams, lakes, ponds, and impoundments. 

Some areas consist of active or inactive gravel or burrow pits, landfills, erosional scars, 

soil parking areas/logging landings or recently cleared areas. 

2.1.2.4.10 Open Water 

Open water surfaces areas (natural or man-made structures) are rivers, streams, canals, 

ditches, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. 

2.1.2.4.11 Marine/Estuarine Shore 

Unvegetated shorelines of Louisiana’s estuaries and coast are characterized both by the 

substratum type and the organisms that live on and within the sediments (or soils). 

Sediment characteristics (e.g., grain size, organic content) play a large role in 

determining the species composition and abundance, as well as the feeding strategies 

of the organisms that inhabit a given area of shoreline. Estuarine beaches may be 

composed of organic material, although most are largely inorganic sediments. This 

habitat is a transition zone between the marine and estuarine aquatic habitats and 

upland or wetland habitats. It provides many ecological services to other resources, 

such as feeding and loafing areas for birds and other wildlife. Plant debris and dead 

organisms that form a wrack-line provide additional food sources for larger organisms, 

as well as habitat for smaller ones. As considered here, this resource category includes 
 48 

the sediments (mud, sand, etc.) and organic debris, and associated invertebrates, 

bacteria, and algae, and the services that this habitat provides to other resources. 

2.1.2.4.12 Freshwater Shore 

Unvegetated shorelines of Louisiana’s rivers, streams, bayous, ponds, lakes, and other 

fresh waterbodies are characterized both by the substratum type and the organisms that 

live on and within the sediments (or soils). This habitat also includes gravel and 

sandbars in rivers and streams. Sediment characteristics (e.g., grain size, organic 

content) play a large role in determining the species composition and abundance, as 

well as the feeding strategies of the organisms that inhabit a given area of shoreline. 

This habitat is a transition zone between the freshwater aquatic habitats and upland or 

wetland habitats. It provides many ecological services to other resources, such as 

feeding and loafing areas for birds and other wildlife. Plant debris and dead organisms 

that wash up on freshwater shorelines provide additional food sources for larger 

organisms, as well as habitat for smaller ones. As considered here, this resource 

category includes the sediments (mud, sand, gravel, etc.) and organic debris, and 

associated invertebrates, bacteria, and algae, and the services that this habitat provides 

to other resources. 

2.1.2.4.13 Marine/Estuarine and Freshwater Benthic (Soft-Sedimentary) 

Benthic soft-sedimentary habitat (hereafter benthic habitat) in the Gulf of Mexico along 

the Louisiana coast and in Louisiana estuaries is characterized both by the substratum 

type and the organisms that live on and within the sediments. Sediment characteristics 

(e.g., grain size, organic content, etc.) play a large role in determining the species 

composition and abundance, as well as the feeding strategies of the benthic organisms 

that inhabit a given area. Benthic organisms, in turn, influence the chemistry and 

structure of the sediments in which they live through activities such as burrowing, 

deposit feeding, and tube building. An important function of benthic habitat is the 

decomposition of particulate organic material that enters the sediments as fecal pellets, 

dead phytoplankton, zooplankton, and other water column organisms, and plant matter 

from SAV and marshes. The bacteria that feed on this organic matter are consumed by 

meiofauna and deposit-feeding organisms, such as some polychaete worm and bivalve 

species. The organisms that inhabit benthic environments are important food sources 

for many juvenile fishes, as well as brown and white shrimp, and blue crabs, among 

other organisms. Therefore benthic habitats provide many services to the marine and 

estuarine ecosystem. 

2.1.2.4.14 Marine/Estuarine Encrusting Community (Natural/Artificial Substrates) 

Wide varieties of organisms settle and attach to hard substrates (both natural and 

artificial) and provide shelter or a feeding location or both for other organisms. The 

composition of the encrusting community differs depending on whether it is subtidal or 

intertidal, and if intertidal, the location within the intertidal zone. Apart from barnacles 

that are commonly found in the intertidal zone, this habitat is also inhabited by species of 

algae, crabs, tube-building worms, anemones, starfish, and many others. Organisms in 

this habitat exhibit a number of feeding strategies, including grazing on algae and 

bacteria, suspension feeding on phytoplankton and particulate organic matter, and 

predation on organisms living on, or associated with, the hard substrate. This resource 

category includes the substrate itself, the attached organisms, and the closely 

associated mobile organisms that depend on this habitat. 
 49 

2.1.2.4.15 Living Reefs 

Living reefs are present in both marine and freshwater environments and are threedimensional structures formed by living organisms such as oysters, mussels, and corals. 

Living reefs provide primary production through algae and other plants that are present 

in this habitat. Reefs also provide valuable habitat and refuge for fish and other animals. 

Their physical presence can create up-wellings with associated nutrients, which increase 

productivity of these areas. Organisms in this habitat exhibit a number of feeding 

strategies, including grazing on algae and bacteria, suspension feeding on 

phytoplankton and particulate organic matter, and predation on organisms living on, or 

associated with, the hard substrate. This resource category includes the organisms 

forming the primary skeleton of the reef itself, the attached plants and animals, and the 

closely associated mobile organisms that depend on this habitat. 

2.1.2.4.16 Marine/Estuarine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is comprised of rooted vascular plants located in 

areas continually covered with very shallow water. These communities are found 

throughout coastal Louisiana where the water is clear and wave or other disturbances 

are low. Species composition shifts as salinity regimes change through time. 

Submersed aquatic wetlands have many functions including: providing habitat for 

invertebrate species, providing food or shelter or both for juvenile and adult fish, 

waterfowl, and other wildlife, retarding flow velocities, stabilizing bottom sediments, 

slowing erosion, oxygenating the water, and recycling nutrients and heavy metals. 

2.1.2.4.17 Freshwater Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Freshwater SAV is comprised of vascular plants located in areas continually covered 

with water. Submersed aquatic vegetation in wetlands have many functions including 

providing habitat for invertebrate species, providing food or shelter or both for juvenile 

and adult fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife, retarding flow velocities, stabilizing bottom 

sediments, slowing erosion, oxygenating the water, and recycling nutrients and heavy 

metals. The state is actively trying to control the abundance of exotic and native aquatic 

vegetation species. At a moderate level of abundance, freshwater SAV provide 

important habitat services; however, an overabundance speeds eutrophication, 

contributes to fish population imbalances, and impedes navigation. 

2.1.2.4.18 Mangrove Swamp 

The mangrove swamp is an association of halophytic trees, shrubs, and other plants 

growing in brackish to saline tidal waters of tropical and sub-tropical coastlines. These 

communities have been well studied, and researchers have established the importance 

of mangrove swamps in exporting organic matter to adjacent coastal food chains, in 

providing physical stability to certain shorelines to prevent erosion, in protecting inland 

areas from severe damage during hurricanes and tidal waves, and in serving as sinks for 

nutrients and carbon. 

Like the adjacent coastal salt marsh, mangrove swamps can develop only where there is 

adequate protection from wave action. Several physiographic settings favor the 

protection of mangrove swamps, including: 1) protected shallow bays; 2) protected 

estuaries; 3) lagoons; 4) the leeward sides of peninsulas and islands; 5) protected 

seaways; 6) behind spits; and 7) behind offshore shell or shingle islands. 

In addition to the required physical from wave action, the range and the duration of the 

flooding of tides exert a significant influence over the extent and functioning of the 
 50 

mangrove swamp, importing nutrients, aerating the soil water, and stabilizing soil 

salinity. Saltwater is important to the mangroves in eliminating competition from 

freshwater species. The tides provide a subsidy for the movement and distribution of the 

seeds of several mangrove species. They also circulate the organic sediments in some 

fringe mangroves for the benefit of filter feeding organisms such as oysters, sponges, 

and barnacles and for deposit feeders such as snails and fiddler crabs. 

The development of mangrove swamps is the result of topography, substrate, and 

freshwater hydrology, as well as tidal action. Only the most cold tolerant mangrove, 

black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) is found in Louisiana. It periodically suffers die 

back in years in which severe periods of cold weather occur. 

2.1.2.4.19 Batture 

The strip of land between the Mississippi River and the levee is referred to as batture. 

Batture comprises thousands of acres of land, with some large individual tracts in places 

where the levee is set back at some distance from the river. They differ in 

characteristics from cypress-tupelo (Taxodium spp.-Nyssa spp.) swamps in that their 

soils and soil moisture are influenced by steep elevation gradients and the spring flood 

pulses of the Mississippi River, they process large fluxes of energy and materials from 

upstream, and are comprised of different overstory vegetation (Mitsch and Gosselink 

1993). The unpredictable flooding and drying sequence supports a vegetative 

community dominated by black willow (Salix nigra) and other woody species with 

equivalent morphological and/or physiological adaptations to survive, achieve maturity, 

and reproduce in a habitat where the soils within the root zone may become anaerobic 

for various periods during the growing season or not at all for years. As with most types 

of swamps, batture has high natural resource and wildlife habitat values as it is used by 

a number of plant, invertebrate, mammal, fish, and bird species, and is an important 

migratory flyway. In addition to biotic importance, batture also provides beneficial 

functions to downstream communities such as water quality improvement, nutrient 

cycling and retention, and floodwater storage through the seasonal collection of fine 

sediments from floodwaters and the increased basin area the swamps provide. 

2.1.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The published list for the state includes 32 animal and three plant species (see Table 

2.14, Threatened and Endangered Species of Louisiana and their Associated Habitat, 

and Appendix B, Threatened and Endangered Species, Essential Fish Habitat, and 

Other Related Information) (USDOI 2004). Ten candidate species are listed for the state 

(USDOI 2004). 

Section 6 of the ESA encourages each state to develop and maintain conservation 

programs for resident federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Species 

listed as threatened and endangered in Louisiana are maintained by the LDWF 

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 

2.1.2.6 Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801 et 

seq.) provides for stewardship of the nation’s fishery resources within the EEZ, covering 

all U.S. coastal waters 200 miles seaward from the state’s terrestrial boundary. The 

resource management goal is to achieve and maintain the optimum yield from U.S. 

marine fisheries. The Act also establishes a program to promote the protection of 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) throughout state and federal waters in the planning of 
 51 

federal actions. After EFH has been described and identified in fishery management 

plans by the regional fishery management councils, federal agencies are obligated to 

consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, 

or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency 

that may adversely affect any EFH. 

Congress defined EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (16 USC 1802[10]). The EFH regulations go on further to define 

“waters” to include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological 

properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish 

where appropriate; “substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the 

waters, and associated biological communities; “necessary” means the habitat required 

to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy 

ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a species’ 

full life cycle. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are 

described and identified in amendments to address EFH requirements of the Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) of the regional Fishery Management Councils and approved 

by NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Essential Fish Habitat and HAPC 

(if any) within Louisiana and its coastal waters are designated in the generic FMP 

amendment of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 

2.1.3 Cultural Resources 

Louisiana has been inhabited for at least the last 12,000 years. From approximately 

12,000 to 8,000 BC, early people hunted large Pleistocene mammals. With the end of 

the Ice Age and changes in climate, inhabitants adapted to hunting smaller game and to 

gathering plants. The advanced cultures of Poverty Point, Tchefuncte, and Marksville 

developed between 2000 BC and first century AD. Beginning around 700 AD, the 

cultures of Troyville-Coles Creek, Plaquemine, Caddoan, and Mississippian developed 

successively. The nine cultural units mentioned above are termed prehistoric meaning 

prior to contact with the Europeans. 

The arrival of the Europeans and subsequent disease and westward expansion in the 

sixteenth century caused the demise of large Indian population centers. Plantationbased agriculture (cotton and sugarcane) and small-scale farming developed in the 

1700s and 1800s, respectively. The Civil War radically changed Louisiana’s culture and 

labor base, developing the oil, gas, and lumbering industries (Smith et al. 1983). 

Louisiana’s five historic cultural units are termed Historic Contact, Exploration and 

Colonization, Antebellum, War and Aftermath, and Industrialization and Modernization. 

Louisiana’s prehistoric and historic sites have been selected for historical, cultural, 

and/or architectural value. Presently, there are 16 prehistoric and historic sites, which 

may also be referred to as State Commemorative Areas, within the state. Sites include, 

but are not limited to, buildings and associated grounds, military post/forts, cemetery, 

Civil War battlefields, ancient civilization grounds, Native American grounds, and water 

control structures. Of the 16 sites, three are located in West Feliciana Parish, three in 

Natchitoches Parish, two in East Feliciana Parish, one in Sabine Parish, one in Orleans 

Parish, one in St. Martin Parish, one in De Soto Parish, one in Avoyelles Parish, one in 

Iberville Parish, one in West Carroll Parish, and one in Tensas Parish. Additional 
 52 

information is available from the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and 

Tourism (LCRT), Office of State Parks. 

The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official listing of buildings, 

structures, objects, sites, or districts worthy of preservation because they illustrate 

something about our nation’s history or culture at the national, state, or local level. 

Enacted by U.S. Congress (National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 USC 

470 et seq.), the National Register of Historic Places is administered by the states. In 

the state, the National Register of Historic Places is administered by the LCRT, Office of 

Cultural Development, Division of Historic Preservation. 

The National Register of Historic Places recognizes five significant properties, classified 

as buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts. The following terms were set forth by 

the USDOI, NPS, Interagency Resources Division. A building is created principally to 

shelter any form of human activity and/or to refer to a historically and functionally related 

unit. A structure is used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions 

made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter. An object is used to 

distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions that are primarily artistic in 

nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed; associated with a specific 

setting or environment. A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or 

historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or 

vanished, where the location itself possess historic, cultural, or archeological value 

regardless of the value of any existing structure. A district possesses a significant 

concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united 

historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. 

When evaluated within its local, state, or national historic context, a property must be 

significant for one or more of four criteria (A, B, C, and D) for evaluation as set forth by 

the USDOI, NPS, Interagency Resources Division. Associative value (Criteria A and B): 

properties significant for their association or linkage to events or persons important in 

the past. Design or construction value (Criteria C): properties significant as 

representatives of the manmade expression of culture or technology. Information value 

(Criteria D): properties significant for their ability to yield important information about 

prehistory or history. Properties achieving significance within the last 50 years are 

excluded unless they are of exceptional importance, as 50 years is a general estimate of 

time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. 

Presently, the state has 1,161 properties listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. Properties by parish are broken down as follows: six in Acadia, three in Allen, 

21 in Ascension, nine in Assumption, 27 in Avoyelles, ten in Beauregard, 12 in Bienville, 

four in Bossier, 63 in Caddo, 14 in Calcasieu, nine in Caldwell, two in Cameron, ten in 

Catahoula, ten in Claiborne, 11 in Concordia, 29 in De Soto, 75 in East Baton Rouge, 

five in East Carroll, 26 in East Feliciana, three in Evangeline, six in Franklin, four in 

Grant, 25 in Iberia, 18 in Iberville, four in Jackson, 16 in Jefferson Davis, 18 in Jefferson, 

22 in Lafayette, 17 in Lafourche, three in LaSalle, 26 in Lincoln, 11 in Livingston, 12 in 

Madison, five in Morehouse, 27 in Natchitoches, 121 in Orleans, 28 in Ouachita, eight in 

Plaquemines, 29 in Pointe Coupee, 69 in Rapides, two in Red River, nine in Richland, 

seven in Sabine, seven in St. Bernard, six in St. Charles, two in St. Helena, 17 in St. 

James, 12 in St. John the Baptist, 34 in St. Landry, 24 in St. Martin, 26 in St. Mary, 32 in 

St. Tammany, 28 in Tangipahoa, nine in Tensas, 17 in Terrebonne, ten in Union, 16 in 

Vermilion, seven in Vernon, 14 in Washington, 17 in Webster, ten in West Baton Rouge, 
 53 

one in West Carroll, 30 in West Feliciana, and six in Winn. Additional information is 

available from the LCRT, Office of Cultural Development, Division of Historic 

Preservation. 

2.1.4 Population 

The nationwide census of the year 2000 (Census Bureau 2000) recorded the population 

of the state at 4,468,976, indicating a 5.9% increase in growth from the 1990 census. 

The majority of the population, approximately 69%, lived in the eight Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas (MSAs) as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The eight MSAs are 

the greater Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Houma, Lafayette, Lake Charles, Monroe, New 

Orleans, and Shreveport areas. The eight MSAs recorded a slight relative population 

increase of 0.7% from the 1990 census. The remaining 31% of the populous lived in 

cities, towns, and rural communities outside of MSA boundaries. 

Race was reported as follows: 63.9% (2,856,161) Caucasian or white, 32.5% 

(1,451,944) African-American or black, 1.2% (54,758) Asian, 0.57% (25,477) American 

Indian or Alaska native, 0.03% (1,240) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.7% 

(31,131) other race, and 1.1% (48,265) reported two or more races. The population was 

51.6% female and 48.4% male. 

The 2000 census recorded a labor force in Louisiana of 2,012,831 persons, of which 

91.9% were employed, 7.3% were unemployed, and 0.8% were employed in the armed 

services. The average household income for the state was $30,466 and the average per 

capita income was $17,131. In Louisiana, 20.3% of the total populous and 27.1% of 

children under the age of 18 were living at or below the poverty level. Education was 

reported as 76.7% of residents having completed high school and 19.4% having 

completed four or more years of upper level schooling. 

The census recorded 27 different ancestral backgrounds and 8.5% of households 

reported speaking another language in the home besides English. A large percentage 

of residents, 80.2%, were born in and resided in the state, 19.1% migrated from other 

states, and 0.7% emigrated from other countries. 

2.1.5 Infrastructure and Public Services 

Physical infrastructure and public services include commonly provided federal, state, 

parish, municipal, and/or private facilities that support development and protect public 

health and safety, including (but not limited to) transportation (highways, roads, bridges, 

ferries, rails, airports, ports, and navigation), flood protection (levees, floodways, channel 

improvement and stabilization, and principal tributary basin improvements), solid waste 

disposal and treatment, water supply and wastewater disposal, drainage, electricity, 

housing, educational facilities, health care facilities, and police and fire protection. 

Infrastructure and public service development depend heavily on levels of population, 

migration patterns, and employment trends (particularly trends in the oil and gas industry 

and support services, which can fluctuate dramatically). 

The following information was largely extracted from Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Authority (1998) Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana; The 

Roads of Louisiana (1997); and the Louisiana Almanac 2002-2003 Edition (Calhoun and 

McGovern 2002). Louisiana has more than 60,000 miles of roads in interstate highways, 

U.S. highways, state highways, parish roads, and city streets. Louisiana’s interstate 
 54 

system is comprised of six routes and six connecting routes and bypasses. Interstate 

highways 10, 12, and 20 are primary west-east routes across the state. Interstates 49, 

55, and 59 are primary north-south routes across the state. Several state highways, 

Highways 1, 23, 27, 39, and 82, serve as evacuation routes from the coastal zone. 

State and parish maintained bridges number greater than 13,000 and include over 150 

movable bridges (swing-span, lift-span, bascule, and pontoon). Approximately 15 state 

and parish operated ferries provide service across water bodies. Southern Pacific, 

Kansas City Southern, Amtrak, Illinois Central, and Union Pacific are primary rail lines. 

Louisiana has approximately 450 publicly and privately owned and used airports, 

heliports, and seaplane bases. Louisiana ranks first in the nation in total shipping 

tonnage, handling over 450 million tons of cargo each year through public and private 

installations located within the state’s jurisdiction of six deep-draft ports: New Orleans, 

Greater Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, South Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish, and St. 

Bernard. Fifteen smaller ports are situated within the coastal zone and primarily serve 

the oil and gas and fishing industries. The privately owned Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 

(LOOP) offloads approximately ten to 13% of the countries imported crude petroleum. 

The GIWW is a critical shallow-draft transportation link that carries an annual average of 

70 millions tons of freight (primarily liquid bulk items such as petroleum and petroleum 

products, industrial chemicals, pipe and other supplies for the oil fields, and sulfur) 

between the Mississippi and Texas state lines. An alternate GIWW route, linking 

Morgan City and Port Allen, averages 25 million tons of cargo shipped per year. 

The following information was summarized from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New 

Orleans District homepage The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (USACE 1999). 

The Flood Control Act of 1928 committed the federal government to a program of flood 

control and authorized the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. The four major 

elements of the project are: levees for containing flood flows, floodways for the passage 

of excess flows past critical reaches of the Mississippi, channel improvement and 

stabilization for stabilizing the channel in order to provide an efficient navigation 

alignment, increase the flood-carrying capacity of the river, and for protection of the 

levees system, and tributary basin improvements for major drainage and for flood 

control, such as dams and reservoirs, pumping plants, and auxiliary channels. 

The Mississippi River main stem levee system, comprised of levees, floodwalls, and 

various control structures is 2,203 miles in total length. Approximately 1,607 miles lie 

along the Mississippi River itself and 596 miles lie along the south banks of the 

Arkansas and Red Rivers and in the Atchafalaya Basin. 

Project floodwaters are diverted to the Atchafalaya River via the Morganza and West 

Atchafalaya floodways and the Old River Control Structure. At their terminus, a broad 

floodway passes flow to the Gulf of Mexico through the Wax Lake and Berwick Bay 

outlets. Floodwaters flowing down the main channel are diverted into Lake 

Pontchartrain and the Gulf through the Bonnet Carre spillway and continue down river to 

the Gulf. 

Channel improvements and stabilization are accomplished by cutoffs (shorten 

river/reduce flood elevations), revetments (stop meandering), dikes (direct flow), and 

improvement dredging (realign channels). 
 55 

Two of the four major drainage basins in the lower Mississippi River Valley Project are 

located in Louisiana, the Tensas in northeast Louisiana and the Atchafalaya in south 

Louisiana. 

There are approximately 26 landfill service areas, which include both industrial and 

municipal waste sites, in the state. 

Education consists of (but is not limited to) state elementary and secondary schools, 

charter schools (independent public schools), nonpublic independent academies or 

religions institutions, four-year and two-year public universities/colleges, four-year 

nonpublic universities/colleges, state vocational-technical schools, approved special 

state schools, approved proprietary schools, approved flight training schools, public 

libraries, and museums and exhibition spaces (Calhoun and McGovern 2002). 

The Department of Health and Hospitals provides all public health services for the state 

through four program offices (Office of Charity Hospital of Louisiana at New Orleans, 

Office of Hospitals, Office of Human Services, and Office of Public Health) under a twooffice administrative arm (Office of the Secretary and Office of Management and 

Finance) (Calhoun and McGovern 2002). There are approximately 174 hospitals, 72 

alcohol/drug abuse facilities, 23 community health centers, nine state developmental 

centers, 43 mental health clinics, 61 rural health clinics, 109 public health units, and 352 

nursing homes in Louisiana (Calhoun and McGovern 2002). 

2.1.6 Industry 

2.1.6.1 Commercial Fisheries and Aquaculture 

The inland waters, costal marshes, and offshore waters of Louisiana support fishing and 

aquaculture industries. The shrimp fishery is Louisiana’s largest commercial fishery, 

accounting for over 85% of the value of the state’s edible fisheries production (LDWF 

2000a). The shrimp industry is based on the brown and white shrimp (Penaeus aztecus 

and Penaeus setiferus), harvested inshore in the spring and fall respectively, which 

accounts for 93 to 96% of landings by poundage (LDWF 2000a). The seabob shrimp 

(Xiphopenaeus kroyeri), pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum), and royal red shrimp 

(Pleoticus robustus) account for the remaining four to seven percent (LDWF 2000a). On 

average, 40% of Louisiana landings were taken in inshore state waters, 43% were taken 

in the state’s offshore waters, and 17% were taken in federal waters off of Louisiana’s 

coast from 1976 to 1990 (LDWF 2000a). White shrimp landings for the year 2000 

totaled 75,864,278 pounds (34,411.8 metric tons) for a value of $152,374,346 (NOAA 

2000). The total take of brown shrimp for the year 2000 was 62,115,422 pounds 

(28,175.4 metric tons) for a value of $96,514,340 (NOAA 2000). Processing industries 

are a source of additional employment. 

The shrimp fishery, as mandated by the Louisiana Legislature, is under the supervision 

and control of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. The commission has 

been given the authority to set seasons based on technical and biological data that 

indicates when marketable shrimp, in sufficient quantities, are available for harvest. The 

Louisiana Legislature dictates legal gear, licenses and fees, legal sizes, and other 

aspects of the shrimp fishery. 

Oyster production in Louisiana is a $30 million dockside industry (LDWF 2002). 

Louisiana’s coastal waters produce an average of 13 million pounds of oysters annually, 
 56 

of which 60% are shipped to other states and countries (LDWF 2002). Eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea virginica) landings for the year 2000 totaled 11,513,438 pounds (5,222.5 

metric tons) for a value of $24,614,159 (NOAA 2000). The cultivation of oysters is a 

partnership between the state and private oysterman through the use of both public seed 

grounds and privately leased state waterbottoms for $2.00 per acre per year (LDWF 

2001). Oysters are harvested and sold by the sack for a current selling price of between 

$10 and $20 (LDWF 2001). 

The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is the only crab of commercial importance in the 

state. Blue crab landings for the year 2000 totaled 51,430,385 pounds (23,328.7 metric 

tons) for a value of $36,770,381 (NOAA 2000). Peeler blue crab landings for the year 

2000 totaled 544,716 pounds (247.1 metric tons) for a value of $906,196 (NOAA 2000). 

The total take of soft blue crab for the year 2000 was 56,887 pounds (25.8 metric tons) 

for a value of $262,140 (NOAA 2000). 

The Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) is by far the most prolific commercial finfish 

caught in Louisiana’s waters. Atlantic menhaden landings for the year 2000 totaled 

1,111,978,535 pounds (504,390.2 metric tons) for a value of $68,586,452 (NOAA 2000). 

In addition, there are important fisheries for sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), 

spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), black drum (Pogonias cromis), red drum 

(redfish) (Sciaenops ocellatus), and southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma). 

Freshwater species of commercial importance include blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), 

channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), yellow 

bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), bowfin (Amia calva), carp (Cyprinus carpio carpio), gar 

(Lepisosteus occulatus and Lepisosteus spatula), and buffalo (bigmouth-Ictiobus 

cypriellus and smallmouth-Ictiobus bubalus). The total take of all species combined for 

the year 2000 was 1,357,933,958 pounds (615,954.8 metric tons) for a value of 

$418,917,774 (NOAA 2000). The Finfish Management Program within LDWF has 

developed a comprehensive monitoring program for the purpose of making 

recommendations for the management of coastal finfish stocks. The department issued 

19,438 commercial fisherman’s licenses in 2000 to 2001 (Landry, personal 

communication 2001). 

The farm value for Louisiana’s aquaculture crops in the year 2000 was estimated at 

$121 million (Calhoun and McGovern 2002). Louisiana is the fourth leading state in the 

production of catfish and year 2000 total landings (of blue catfish [Ictalurus furcatus], 

channel catfish [Ictalurus punctatus], and flathead catfish [Pylodictis olivaris]) were 

6,216,318 pounds (2819.7 metric tons) valued at just over $3 million (NOAA 2000). The 

number of farm-raised American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) in 2000 

approached all-time highs, although poundage and dollars are unknown. Crawfish 

acreage and production declined sharply in 2000. Landings totaled 392,875 pounds 

(178.2 metric tons) for a value of $677,116 (NOAA 2000). Crawfish landings for the year 

1999 totaled 13,226,019 pounds (5,999.3 metric tons) for a value of $10,479,528 (NOAA 

1999). 

2.1.6.2 Forestry 

The forests and woodlands of Louisiana are managed by Louisiana Department of 

Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF), Office of Forestry. Forestland comprises 48% of the 

state’s total area or approximately 13.8 million acres, a decline of 4.5% since 1974 

(Calhoun and McGovern 2002). The decline is due to the conversion of land to 

agriculture, urban expansion and infrastructure development, and mineral development 
 57 

(Calhoun and McGovern 2002). There are 148,000 owners of Louisiana forestland, of 

which private, non-industrial landowners own 62%, forest products industries own 29%, 

and the general public owns nine percent (LDAF 2002). Fifty-nine of the state’s 64 

parishes contain commercial forest acreage. 

Louisiana’s forest products industries are the second largest manufacturing employer in 

the state with over 900 firms that directly employ over 25,000 people (LDAF 2002). An 

additional 8,000 people are employed in industries that support harvesting and 

transportation of forest products (LDAF 2002). Forestry in Louisiana generates an 

economic impact (4.4 billion in 1999) greater than all other agricultural products 

combined (Calhoun and McGovern 2002). The estimated 2000 value of timber 

resources (value received by landowners from the sale of timber) was $654 million 

(University of Louisiana at Monroe 2000a). 

Sawtimber production for the year 2000 totaled 1,312,371,139 board feet (Doyle Scale) 

(University of Louisiana at Monroe 2000a). Cordwood (pine and hardwood pulpwood 

and chip-n-saw) production for the year 2000 totaled 6,065,787 cords (University of 

Louisiana at Monroe 2000a). Non-timber forestry (Christmas trees, pine straw, firewood, 

and tree seedlings) generated an estimated income of 11.3 million in 2000 (Calhoun and 

McGovern 2002). 

2.1.6.3 Agriculture 

Agricultural data were synthesized from the University of Louisiana at Monroe (2000b) 

and the Louisiana Almanac 2002-2003 Edition (Calhoun and McGovern 2002). 

Animal production in Louisiana produces over a billion dollars in farm income annually 

and nearly a billion dollars in value added worth. The Louisiana poultry industry is the 

largest animal agricultural business in the state, with more than 550 commercial 

producers in 12 parishes. Gross farm value exceeds 730 million dollars annually. 

The beef industry is a 300 million dollar business in the state, with producers numbering 

greater than 12,000. 

Milk is produced in 23 Louisiana parishes, with Tangipahoa, Washington, De Soto, St. 

Helena, and Beauregard Parishes accounting for over 88% of total production. There 

are more than 400 dairy farms and 54,000 milk cows in the state. On-farm value of milk 

is estimated at greater than 110 million dollars annually. 

Louisiana has more than 500 pork producers in 53 parishes. Total pig production has a 

gross farm value of nearly seven million dollars and a value added total greater than one 

million dollars. 

Plant production in Louisiana produces over two billion dollars in gross farm income 

annually and greater than five billion annually in value added worth. Sugarcane is grown 

on approximately 490,000 acres by 785 producers in 24 parishes. Total production of 

processed sugar is nearly 1,550,000 tons with a gross farm value of greater than 

$362,700,000 annually. 

Louisiana’s cotton industry has suffered in recent years due to drought conditions. More 

than 2,600 cotton farmers plant approximately 690,000 acres of cotton annually. Total 

crop is valued at approximately 235 million dollars. 
 58 

The rice industry is nearly a 200 million dollar business. Acreage approximates 478,000, 

and the crop is planted and harvested by close to 1,900 producers. 

Louisiana citrus is grown on more than 1,300 acres and has a gross farm value of nearly 

six million dollars annually. Peaches, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, figs, 

muscadine grapes, mayhaws, pears, plums, apples, persimmons, and pecans are also 

commercially grown and sold in Louisiana. 

Soybeans are an 87 million dollar business in the state, with production on more than 

907,000 acres by 4,500 producers. 

Sweet potatoes are planted on 27,000 acres and have a gross farm value of more than 

57 million dollars with a value added of more than 41 million dollars. 

The three primary feed grains grown in Louisiana are corn, grain sorghum, and oats. 

The gross farm value for feed grains was greater than 105 million dollars. 

Wheat is harvested on approximately 161,000 acres by 600 producers. Total production 

approximates eight million bushels annually. Gross farm value is estimated at greater 

than 19 million. 

Louisiana’s commercial vegetable industry employs nearly 2,300 growers and produces 

45 different vegetable crops on approximately 6,500 acres. The crops combined have a 

gross farm value of more than 29 million. Field tomatoes, fresh mustard, southern peas, 

Irish potatoes, and cucumbers are important crops. 

The commercial production of nursery crops has a total value of 166 million dollars. 

Woody ornamental plants, floriculture and bedding plants, foliage plants, and fruit trees 

are important commercial nursery crops. 

2.1.6.4 Oil and Gas 

Louisiana’s oil and natural gas industry began in Jennings in 1901 when the Heywood 

well produced oil in commercial quantities. In 1908 the first natural gas pipeline was laid 

in Louisiana, transporting gas from Caddo Field to Shreveport, Louisiana. In 1909 the 

“new refinery” (as it was named then) in Baton Rouge became operational. Today the 

refinery is owned and operated by Exxon-Mobil and is one of the largest on the North 

American continent. Construction commenced on the first long-distance oil pipeline in 

1909. Crude oil was being transported from Caddo Parish in northwestern Louisiana to 

the “new refinery” in Baton Rouge, Louisiana by 1910. About 1910, the first over-water 

drilling occurred on Caddo Lake near Shreveport, Louisiana. The next 40 years were 

dominated by the discovery of the large fields of Bull Bayou, Monroe Gas, Haynesville 

Gas, Olla, Lake St John, Main Mass, Eugene Island, Bay Marchand, Vermillion, South 

Pass, and West Cameron. The year 1947 marked the birth of the offshore oil and gas 

industry. In 1969 Louisiana oil production peaked at 728,494,272 barrels of crude and 

condensate. Louisiana’s oil and natural gas reserves declined in 1969 to 1970 for the 

first time since their discovery. The decline initiated the exploration of resources further 

offshore. Throughout the 1990s, deepwater discoveries and the development of new 

technology resulted in an industry rebound. Today the world record for deepwater 

drilling occurs off of the coast of Louisiana in 9,727 feet of water. 
 59 

Louisiana’s vast oil and natural gas reserves support one of the state’s largest 

industries. Including offshore holdings, Louisiana ranks second in the nation in total 

energy produced, second in natural gas produced, and first in crude oil production 

(Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association [LMOGA] 2002). Excluding offshore, 

Louisiana ranks seventh in total energy, third in natural gas, and fourth in crude oil 

production (LMOGA 2002). In 2000, Louisiana produced over 75 million barrels of crude 

oil and over 1.4 billion metric cubic feet of natural gas (LMOGA 2000). Louisiana 

provides support to the most extensively developed and mature outer continental shelf 

(OCS) territory in the United States (LaCoast 1999; LDNR 2002). Of the combined 

federal OCS territories, the Louisiana territory accounts for 88.1% of the 12.8 billion 

barrels of crude oil and condensate produced to date and 82.9% of the 139 trillion cubic 

feet of natural gas natural gas extracted (LDNR 2002). Much of this production is 

supported by a mature infrastructure for transport to and/or through Louisiana (LaCoast 

1999 and LDNR 2002). In addition, Louisiana Ports such as Venice, Port Fourchon, Port 

of Morgan City, Port of Iberia, and Cameron and their associated infrastructures provide 

support and supplies to much of the Gulf of Mexico OCS from Florida to Texas. (LA 1 

Coalition 2003) 

The following statistics were synthesized from The Energy Sector: A Giant Economic 

Engine for the Louisiana Economy (Scott 1996), and the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil 

and Gas Association (LMOGA 2000). Louisiana had over 36,000 miles of above and 

underground pipelines that transported crude petroleum, natural gas, and condensate 

from fields to refineries and storage areas. Louisiana ranked number two in the nation in 

total refining capacity with 19 large-scale refineries that were able to process 2.76 million 

barrels of oil per day. The 19 refineries accounted for 15% of the nation’s total refining 

capacity. 

The Louisiana oil and gas industry is comprised of the exploration and production, 

refining, marketing, and transportation industries. In 2001, the oil and gas industry 

directly employed 82,408 persons (LMOGA 2001). In 1996, jobs in the energy sector 

and earnings were found in at least 54 of Louisiana’s 64 parishes and through both their 

direct and multiplier effects the industry supported $65.2 billion in sales in Louisiana 

firms and over $8 billion in household earnings (Scott 1996). 

2.1.6.5 Tourism 

Tourism was an $8.7 billion industry in Louisiana in the year 2000, surpassing previous 

figures with increased visitation, visitor spending, employment, and payroll and travel 

generated tax revenue (LCRT 2001a). Approximately 23.7 million domestic and 

international travelers visited the state, generating $216.6 million locally, $397.3 million 

for the state, and $627.7 million for the federal government (LCRT 2001a). The increase 

in visitor spending is attributed to the promotion of Louisiana’s diverse culture and to the 

opening of new attractions and hotel properties across the state (LCRT 2001a). Tourism 

in Orleans parish dominated the industry with nearly $4 billion in visitor spending, 

followed by Jefferson, East Baton Rouge, Caddo, and Bossier Parishes (LCRT 2001a). 

Catahoula, Natchitoches, Sabine, Evangeline, St. Landry, and East Baton Rouge 

Parishes recorded modest growth in visitor spending (LCRT 2001a). Travel spending 

directly generated 120,600 jobs and nearly $2 billion in wage and salary income in 2000 

(LCRT 2001a). 
 60 

2.1.7 Land Management and Ownership 

2.1.7.1 Parks 

Louisiana’s State Parks, Historic Sites, and Preservation Area have been chosen for 

their scenery and historical, cultural, architectural, and/or, archeological significance. 

The state manages 56 sites, of which 34 are operational and include 17 State Parks, 16 

Historic Sites (State Commemorative Areas), and one Preservation Area. Total state 

holdings approximate 38,573 acres. This information and additional information on 

Louisiana’s State Parks, Historic Sites, and Preservation Area is available from the 

LCRT, Office of State Parks. 

The USDOI, NPS operates three National Historical Parks/Preserves/Heritage Areas 

and one National Monument in Louisiana. The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and 

Preserve consists of six units. Established in 1978, the six units include sites of natural, 

historical, cultural, and archeological significance in the Mississippi River deltaic region. 

The Cane River Creole National Historical Park and Heritage Area is significant for its 

rural, agricultural landscape, and associated plantations, structures, people, and culture. 

The New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park was established to celebrate and to 

preserve information and resources associated with the origins and evolution of jazz. 

The Poverty Point National Monument is managed by the state and commemorates an 

advanced “prehistoric” culture that thrived during the first and second millennia BC. This 

information and additional information is available from the USDOI, NPS. 

The USACE manages lakeside recreational areas that are generally moderate in size 

and offer a full range of facilities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, boat ramps, 

marinas, and hiking trails. Corps projects in Louisiana include the 520-acre Bayou 

Bodcau Dam and the Ouachita-Black Rivers Navigation Project, which consists of 17 

recreational areas along the 322-mile navigation system. The Columbia Lock 8 Dam 

Pool, Jonesville Lock and Dam Pool, and Pearl River Lock Number 1 are sites within the 

Ouachita-Black Rivers Navigation Project. This information and additional information is 

available from USACE. 

2.1.7.2 Refuges 

The LDWF is responsible for the establishment and development of the Wildlife 

Management Area (WMA) system throughout the state. The department presently 

manages 48 WMAs in seven regions, comprising a total of 1,231,913 acres. Initiated in 

the early 1950s, the state’s management areas represent every habitat type found 

throughout the state; coastal marshes, bottomland hardwoods, cypress tupelo swamps, 

mixed pine hardwoods, longleaf pine savannahs, upland hardwood forests, upland 

longleaf pine forests, and shortleaf pine/oak/hickory forests. This information and 

additional information on Louisiana’s WMAs is available from the LDWF, WMA Program. 

The USDOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages 24 National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWRs) in Louisiana. In addition to the 24 NWRs, USFWS also operates the 

Natchitioches National Fish Hatchery and several Law Enforcement Offices within the 

state. Management ranges from preservation to active manipulation of habitats and 

population. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and 

education, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of the refuge system. 

This information and additional information is available from USDOI, USFWS. 
 61 

2.1.7.3 Forests 

The LDAF, Office of Forestry, is mandated “...to protect, conserve, and replenish the 

natural resources of the state,” (La. Rev. Stat. 3:4271). Forestland comprises 48% of 

the state’s total area, or approximately 13.8 million acres. There are 148,000 owners of 

Louisiana forestland, of which private, non-industrial landowners own 62%, forest 

products industries own 29%, and the general public owns nine percent. The Office of 

Forestry operates and maintains the Alexander State Forest and associated Indian 

Creek Recreation Area. The Alexander State Forest is Louisiana’s only state owned 

demonstration forest and is managed under the multiple-use concept; providing timber 

production, improved wildlife habitat, hunting, recreational opportunity, water and soil 

conservation, forest management research, and endangered species habitat. The 

Alexander State Forest was established in 1923. Nine subsequent purchases of 

adjacent properties have expanded the forest to its present size of approximately 8,000 

acres. This information and additional information on the Alexander State Forest is 

available from the LDAF, Office of Forestry. 

The USDA, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), manages Louisiana’s only National Forest, the 

Kisatchie National Forest. The forest is located in central and northern Louisiana and is 

comprised of five managed Ranger Districts totaling approximately 604,000 acres. 

Forest management practices emphasize natural resource restoration and conservation. 

One National Wildlife Preserve (Catahoula) is located within the Kisatchie National 

Forest. This information and additional information is available from the USDA, Forest 

Service. 

2.1.7.4 Large Private Land Holdings 

Forest statistics for the state were derived from data obtained during a 1991 inventory of 

the 64 parishes by Vissage et al. (1992). Of the state’s 26,265,400 acres, 4,472,100 

acres were owned by the forest industry, defined as lands owned or leased by 

companies or individuals operating wood-using plants (either primary or secondary). 

Farmer-owned lands, defined as lands operated as a unit of ten acres or more and from 

which the sale of agricultural products totals $1,000 or more annually, totaled 724,900 

acres. Nonindustrial private land (corporate), defined as lands privately owned by 

private corporations other than forest industries and incorporated farms, totaled 

2,064,100 acres. Nonindustrial private land (individual), defined as lands privately 

owned by individuals other than forest industries, farmers, or miscellaneous private 

corporations, totaled 5,282,800 acres. 

Farm statistics for the state were obtained from the 1997 Census of Agriculture compiled 

by the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Louisiana Agricultural 

Statistics Service. In 1997, land in farms totaled 7,876,528 acres. The average size of 

farms was 331 acres. Full time farms numbered 11,281. 

Approximately 80% of the Louisiana coastal zone is privately owned (Hinds, personal 

communication 2002). 

2.1.7.5 Tribal Lands 

The four federally recognized American Indian Tribal Reservations are: the Chitimacha 

Tribe of Louisiana (Charenton), the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (Elton), the Jena Band 

of Choctaw Indians (Jena), and the Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana (Marksville). The 

five state recognized American Indian Tribal Service Areas are: the Caddo Adai Indians 

of Louisiana (Robeline), the Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb (Zwolle), the Clifton 
 62 

Choctaw Tribe of Louisiana (Clifton), the Four-Winds Cherokee (Slagle), and the United 

Houma Indians (Golden Meadow). The Apalachee Tribe of Louisiana is recognized as 

an Indian Tribal Community. Additional information is available from the state, Office of 

the Governor, Office of Indian Affairs. 

2.1.8 Recreation and Tourism 

2.1.8.1 Parks, Wildlife Management Areas/Refuges, and Forests 

Louisiana’s State and National Parks (State Historic Sites, State Preservation Area, and 

National Preserve/Heritage Areas) provide for the recreational use of and/or 

preservation of the state’s abundant natural and cultural resources. State and National 

Parks provide fishing, boating, swimming, hiking, biking, birding, camping, and 

picnicking opportunities. State Historic Sites, the State Preservation Area, and National 

Preserve/Heritage Areas educate visitors through structures, museums, artifacts, 

outdoor displays, and interpretive programs. This information and additional information 

on Louisiana’s State Parks, Historic Sites, and Preservation Area is available from the 

LCRT, Office of State Parks. This information and additional information is available 

from USDOI, NPS. 

A press release by the Louisiana Office of State Parks in July 2001, reported a record 

number of visitors for the fiscal year 2000 to 2001. The 1.9 million visitor total broke the 

previous year’s record of 1.7 million (LCRT 2001b). The increase is attributed to the 

acquisition of additional properties and the improvement of park facilities and the park 

system’s central reservation system (LCRT 2001b). 

The USACE manages lakeside recreational areas that are generally moderate in size 

and offer a full range of facilities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, boat ramps, 

marinas, and hiking trails. In Louisiana, the Bayou Bodcau Dam is a waterfowl and 

hunting area open to the public. The Ouachita-Black Rivers Navigation Project consists 

of two navigation pools with 17 recreational areas that provide river access, day-use 

facilities, and activities such as picnicking, swimming, hunting, fishing, boating, and bird 

watching. This information and additional information is available from USACE. 

Louisiana’s state WMAs and NWRs provide recreational use of habitat types located 

throughout the state. All state areas are presently open. Annually, state areas provide 

approximately 1 million outdoor trips to hunters, fisherman, boaters, campers, bird 

watchers, and outdoor enthusiasts. This information and additional information on 

Louisiana’s WMAs is available from LDWF, WMA Program. Information regarding 

NWRs is available from USDOI, USFWS. 

The Alexander State Forest is Louisiana’s only state owned demonstration forest and is 

managed under the multiple-use concept. Approximately 75% of the forest’s 8,000 

acres are managed for hunting and other recreational activities. The Indian Creek Lake 

and Recreation Area is located within the forest and is comprised of a 2,250-acre lake, 

100 acres of developed recreational facilities, and a 250-acre primitive camping area. 

The lake offers freshwater fishing and developed recreational facilities include 

campsites, picnic sites, a covered pavilion, beaches for swimming, bath houses, and a 

boat launch. A hiking trail provides access to and viewing of a variety of habitats 

supporting numerous plant and animal species. This information and additional 

information on the Alexander State Forest is available from the LDAF, Office of Forestry. 
 63 

The Kisatchie National Forest is Louisiana’s only National Forest and is comprised of 

five Ranger Districts throughout central and northern Louisiana. Recreational 

opportunities include fishing and hunting on four lakes and within an 8,700-acre 

wilderness, and 355 miles of trails for camping, picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, and/or off road vehicle riding. This information and additional 

information is available from the USDA, Forest Service. 

2.1.8.2 Natural and Scenic River Systems 

The LDWF is responsible for the administration of the Natural and Scenic Rivers and 

Historic and Scenic Rivers System as mandated by the Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act, 

Acts 1998, No. 947, Section 1, effective July 27, 1988, or La. Rev. Stat. 56:1840 et seq. 

These regulations: 

“...establish procedures and provide a mechanism whereby the Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries can preserve, protect, develop, reclaim, and enhance the 

wilderness qualities, scenic beauties, and ecological regime of rivers and 

streams or segments thereof included within the Louisiana Natural and Scenic 

Rivers and Historic and Scenic Rivers System and for the further purposes of 

preserving aesthetic, scenic, recreational, fish, wildlife, ecological, 

archaeological, geological, botanical, and other natural and physical features and 

resources found along these rivers and streams or segments thereof.” 

The LDWF manages 52 natural, undeveloped rivers and streams. 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542 as amended; 16 USC 1271-1278) 

was passed by Congress in 1968 so: 

 “...that certain selected rivers of the nation, which, with their immediate 

environments, posses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, 

fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in 

free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be 

protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.” 

Saline Bayou is Louisiana’s only designated national wild and scenic river and is located 

within the Kisatchie National Forest. The USFS is responsible for managing the 6,030-

acre Saline Bayou. 

2.1.8.3 Hunting 

Louisiana’s diverse habitat types support an abundance of wildlife and provide for 

hunting on both public and private lands. The LDWF manages approximately 1.4 million 

acres of land in WMAs and refuges throughout the state with the goals of providing 

quality examples of Louisiana’s habitats, insuring viability of these lands’ wildlife 

populations, and providing the opportunity for a quality outdoor recreational experience. 

The department’s Deer Program was established with the objectives to manage and 

maintain a healthy population of whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Louisiana and 

to provide quality outdoor recreation and a harvest of 200,000 deer annually. A game 

harvest survey dated 1996 to 1997 indicated 180,200 deer hunters spent more than 3.7 

million days afield during the deer season and harvested 234,700 deer (LDWF 2000b). 

Within the past five years, values cited have remained relatively stable to slightly 

increasing (LDWF 2000b). Yearly managed hunts to allow for the harvest of surplus 
 64 

deer and to prevent the overbrowsing of habitats are conducted in state WMAs and on 

USFS, USFWS, and USACE designated lands. 

Common small game species include squirrel, rabbit, wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 

common bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American 

woodcock (Scolopax minor), and snipe (Gallinago gallinago). In order to meet public 

demands, LDWF established a Small Game Program and a Turkey Program for the 

purposes of species management, research and population monitoring, restoration, and 

habitat improvement. 

Louisiana is an important waterfowl wintering area due in part to its semitropical climate 

and geographical position. Louisiana is located in the Mississippi and Central flyways, 

by which waterfowl migrate from northern nesting grounds to Louisiana and locations 

south thereof. Migrants winter in coastal marshes, freshwater swamps, and agricultural 

fields. Waterfowl provide economically important activities. In order to meet public 

demands, LDWF has established a Waterfowl Program with the objectives to manage 

waterfowl resources and wetlands and to provide for optimum wildlife benefits and 

quality outdoor experiences. 

During the 2002-2003 season, 146,620 licenses were issued for resident big game, 

75,303 licenses were issued for resident Louisiana waterfowl hunting, and 40,407 

licenses were issued for WMA hunting (Landry, personal communication 2003). 

The number of landowners leasing land for recreational hunting, primarily of whitetail 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus), in 2000 was 5,653 for a total of 6,872,351 acres (Calhoun 

and McGovern 2002). 

The Fur and Refuge Division of LDWF is responsible for the management and 

supervision of indigenous furbearer species and alligator, reptile, and amphibian 

resources. The division manages a total of approximately 428,000 acres of coastal 

marsh on five refuges and four WMAs, all of which are open for various forms of public 

recreation. Pelts of the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), nutria (Myocastor coypus), 

raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison), and river otter (Lutra Canadensis) 

comprise the bulk of the fur harvest. Raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis 

virginiana), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and coyote (Canis 

latrans) are important upland habitat furbearer species. The LDWF issued 982 trapping 

licenses in 2000 to 2001 (Hinds, personal communication 2002). 

2.1.8.4 Fishing 

Numerous accessible waterways and abundant freshwater and marine game fish 

species have made the waters of Louisiana the destination of choice for fresh and 

saltwater fishermen. During the 2002-2003 season, 470,441 licenses were issued for 

resident basic fishing and 276,676 licenses were issued for resident saltwater fishing 

(Landry, personal communication 2003). 

The freshwater regions of Louisiana include: over 40,000 miles of rivers, bayous, and 

streams, nearly 450,000 acres of lakes and ponds, and over 3.5 million acres of marsh. 

Louisiana has 22 families and 148 species of freshwater fish. The following list of 

freshwater species includes only those which have significant sport fishing value: 

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (most highly prized recreational game fish), 

spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), bluegill 
 65 

(Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), white bass (Morone 

chrysops), and the recently introduced stripped bass (Morone saxatilis). 

Recreational fishing in Louisiana’s coastal marshes and marine waters is extremely 

popular among residents and tourists alike. Along the Louisiana coastline, recreational 

fisherman land finfish, crustaceans, and benthos. Port Fourchon and Grand Isle are 

popular destinations for landing red drum (redfish) (Sciaenops ocellatus), blacktip shark 

(Carcharhinus limbatus), sand seatrout (Cynoscion arenarius), black drum (Pogonias 

cromis), and various species of shrimp. Offshore recreational anglers fish artificial reefs 

created by oil and gas platforms, which support a large variety of marine life and big 

game fish such as the bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus), 

wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), blue marlin 

(Makaira nigricans), tunas (Thunnus spp.), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus 

maculates), and cobia (Rachycentron canadum). 

2.1.8.5 Bird Watching 

Louisiana’s semitropical climate and position at the southern terminus of the Mississippi 

and Central flyways provide habitat for both permanent and migratory bird species. Bird 

watching is an economically important activity in coastal Louisiana. Louisiana State 

Park holdings, WMAs, and NWRs promote birding and conduct annual bird counts. 

2.1.8.6 Boating 

Louisiana’s four million acres of water provide the public the opportunity to engage in 

numerous water-related activities. As of December 31, 2000, LDWF had registered 

330,293 boats (Hinds, personal communication 2002). Public launch ramps are located 

throughout the state. 

2.1.9 Federal Facilities 

Federal facilities are defined as lands owned, leased, held in trust or whose use is 

otherwise by law subject solely to the discretion of the federal government, its officers or 

agents. See Table 2.16, Major Federal Landholdings in Louisiana, for a list of major 

federal landholdings in Louisiana. 
 66 

Table 2.16: Major Federal Landholdings in Louisiana 

Department Agency Type Name 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Cameron Prarie National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Delta National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Breton National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Sabine National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Black Bayou National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS Management District Louisiana Wetlands Management District 

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs Indian Reservation Chitamacha Indian Reservation 

NPS National Historical Park Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve

USDOI 

NPS National Monument Poverty Point National Monument 

Navy N/A New Orleans Naval Air Station 

USACE N/A Bonnett Carre Spillway 

Army N/A Louisiana Ordnance Plant 

Air Force N/A Barksdale Air Force Base 

USDOD 

Army N/A Fort Polk Military Reservation 

USFS National Forest Sabine National Forest USDA USFS National Forest Kisatchie National Forest 
 67 

3.0 Affected Program 

The goal of the NRDA provisions in OPA and OSPRA is to make the environment and 

public whole for injury to, loss of, or loss of use of trust resources and services caused 

by an incident. Under OPA (33 USC 2706[b]) and the NCP (40 CFR 300.600), certain 

federal and state agencies and tribal authorities are designated natural resource trustees 

for trust resources and services injured by a discharge or substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil. Federal regulations governing the NRDA process under OPA can be 

found at 15 CFR 990 et seq. These regulations were promulgated by the USDOC, 

acting through NOAA, and became effective February 5, 1996. Additional authority was 

granted to the state trustees under Louisiana’s OSPRA (La. Rev. Stat. 30:2451 et seq.) 

State regulations for the NRDA process under OSPRA were promulgated by LOSCO in 

March 1999 and can be found at La. Admin. Code 43:XXIX., Chap. 1. Each designated 

trustee is authorized to act on behalf of the public under state and/or federal law to 

assess and recover natural resource damages from the party or parties responsible for 

the discharge or threat of discharge. Natural resource damages recovered are used to 

plan and implement actions to restore the trust resources and services injured or lost as 

the result of an incident. 

The OPA and OSPRA regulations for NRDA describe the process by which trustees: 

♦ Identify injuries to trust resources and services resulting from an incident; 

♦ Provide for the return of injured trust resources and services to baseline conditions 

and compensation for interim lost services; and 

♦ Encourage and facilitate public involvement in the restoration process. 

3.1 Trust Resources and Services 

Trust resources are defined under OPA as: 

“Natural resources including land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, 

drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, 

held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States 

(including the resources of the EEZ), any State or local government or Indian 

Tribe, or any foreign government” (33 USC 2701[20]).” 

Trust resources provide various services to other natural resources and to humans. 

Loss of services is included in the definition of injury under the OPA regulations (15 CFR 

990.30) and services is defined as: 

“.... functions performed by a natural resource for the benefit of another natural 

resource and/or the public” (15 CFR 990.30). 

Trust services may be classified as follows: 

♦ “Ecological services - the physical, chemical, or biological functions that one 

natural resource provides for another. Examples include provision of food, 

protection from predation, and nesting habitat, among others; and 

♦ Human services - the human uses of natural resources or functions of natural 

resources that provide value to the public. Examples include fishing, hunting, 

nature photography, and education, among others.” (NOAA 1996a).
 68 

In considering both trust resources and services, trustees are addressing the physical 

and biological environment, and the relationship of people with that environment. 

3.2 Trustee Jurisdictions 

Federal, state, and tribal trusteeship is described under Subpart G of the NCP (40 CFR 

300).

3.2.1 Federal Trustee Jurisdictions 

Under the NCP, the President designated the federal agencies to act on behalf of the 

public as trustees for natural resources (40 CFR 300.600). Under the NCP, “natural 

resources” means land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water 

supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, 

appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States, including the resources of 

the EEZ (40 CFR 300.5). The designated secretaries are to act pursuant to Section 

1006 of OPA. 

3.2.1.1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

The Secretary of Commerce was designated (subsequently delegated to NOAA) as a 

trustee for natural resources managed or controlled by NOAA and for natural resources 

managed or controlled by other federal agencies and that are found in, under, or using 

waters navigable by deep draft vessels, tidally influenced waters, or waters of the 

contiguous zone, the EEZ, and the OCS. Examples of NOAA’s trusteeship include the 

following natural resources and their supporting ecosystems: marine fishery resources, 

anadromous fish, endangered species and marine mammals, and the resources of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries and National Estuarine Research Reserves (40 CFR 

300.600[b][1]). 

NOAA is comprised of five line offices, two of which have primary trustee responsibilities 

for oil spills: the National Ocean Service (NOS) and National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). 

♦ The NOS’ mission is to be the nation's principal advocate for coastal and ocean 

stewardship through partnerships at all levels; and to support and provide the 

science, information, management, and leadership necessary to balance the 

environmental and economic well-being of the nation's coastal resources and 

communities. 

♦ The NMFS’ mission is to rebuild and maintain sustainable fisheries; promote the 

recovery of protected species; and protect and maintain the health of coastal marine 

habitats. 

3.2.1.2 Department of the Interior 

The Secretary of the Interior is designated as trustee for natural resources managed or 

controlled by USDOI. Examples of USDOI’s trusteeship include the following natural 

resources and their supporting ecosystems: migratory birds, anadromous fish, 

endangered species and marine mammals, federally owned minerals, federal lands 

managed by USDOI, and certain federally owned water resources (40 CFR 

300.600[b][2]). 

The USDOI is comprised of a number of bureaus and offices including the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BR), 
 69 

USFWS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Minerals Management Service (MMS), NPS, 

Office of Surface Mining (OSM), and Office of the Secretary. 

♦ The BIA mission is to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, 

and to carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American 

Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. 

♦ The BLM mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

♦ The OSM mission is to carry out the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act in cooperation with states and tribes. The primary objectives are to: 

♦ ensure that coal mines are operated in a manner that protects citizens and the 

environment during mining; 

♦ assure that the land is restored to beneficial use following mining; and 

♦ mitigate the impacts of past mining by aggressively pursuing reclamation of 

abandoned coal mines. 

♦ The MMS mission is to manage the mineral resources on the OCS in an 

environmentally sound and safe manner and to timely collect, verify, and distribute 

mineral revenues from federal and Indian lands. 

♦ The NPS mission is to preserve the natural and cultural resources and values of the 

national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future 

generations. 

♦ The USFWS mission is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continued benefit of the American 

people. 

♦ The USGS mission is to serve the nation by providing reliable scientific information to 

describe and understand the earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; assist in the management of water, biological, energy, and mineral 

resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. 

♦ The BR mission is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in 

an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American 

public. 

3.2.1.3 Federal Land Managing Agencies 

Federal land managing agencies are designated as trustees for natural resources 

located on, over, or under land administered by the United States. The trustees for the 

principal land managing agencies, aside from USDOI, are USDA, USDOD, and USDOE. 

These agencies are trustees for all natural resources and their supporting ecosystems 

that are located on their lands and facilities (40 CFR 300.600[b][3]). 

3.2.2 State Trustee Jurisdictions 

Under the NCP, state trustees shall act on behalf of the public as trustees for natural 

resources, including their supporting ecosystems, within the boundary of a state or 

belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to such state (40 CFR 300.5). 

The Louisiana state trustees participate in NRDA pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, 

Article IX, Section 1; OSPRA, La. Rev. Stat. 30:2451 et seq.; the Louisiana Oil Spill 

Contingency Plan; the Louisiana Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules, La. 

Admin. Code 43:XXIX, Chap. 1, Section 101 et seq.; the Louisiana Constitution, Article 

IX Section 7(A), La. Rev. Stat. 36:601 et seq., La. Rev. Stat. 56:1 et seq.; the Louisiana 

Environmental Quality Act (EQA); the State and Local Coastal Resources Management 
 70 

Act (SLCRMA), La. Rev. Stat. 49:214.21 et seq.; and any other applicable laws or 

authorities. 

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

Pursuant to the Louisiana OSPRA (La.Rev.Stat. 30:2451 et seq.), and La. Admin. Code 

43:XXIX, Chap. 1, LOSCO acts as the Lead Administrative Trustee (LAT) for the state in 

fulfilling its duties to protect, conserve, and replenish the natural resources of Louisiana 

in the event of an actual or threatened release of oil into the environment. As 

Louisiana’s LAT, LOSCO coordinates the activities of the state trustees in the NRDA 

process and compiles and maintains the associated Administrative Records (AR). 

3.2.2.2 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

The EQA created LDEQ on February 1, 1984. The LDEQ is the primary agency in the 

state concerned with environmental protection and regulation. The powers, duties, and 

structure of LDEQ are legislatively described in La. Rev. Stat. 30:2011(A)(1). The LDEQ 

has jurisdiction over matters affecting the regulation of the environment within the state, 

including the regulation of air quality, water pollution, solid waste disposal, protection 

and preservation of the scenic rivers and streams of the state, the regulation and control 

of radiation, the management of hazardous waste, and the regulation of those programs, 

which encourage, assist, and result in the reduction of wastes generated within 

Louisiana. 

3.2.2.3 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

The LDNR was created in 1976 by La. Rev. Stat. 36:351. This statute declares LDNR 

responsible for the conservation, management, and development of water, minerals, and 

other such natural resources of the state, including coastal restoration and management, 

except timber and fish and wildlife. Through conservation, regulation, and scientifically 

sound management, LDNR works to manage, protect, and preserve the state’s 

nonrenewable natural resources, consisting of oil, gas, groundwater, wind, and wetlands 

and fulfill their statutory responsibilities. 

3.2.2.4 Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

The LDWF is the state agency responsible for management of the state's renewable 

natural resources including all wildlife and all aquatic life. The control and supervision of 

these resources are assigned to the department in the Constitution of the State of 

Louisiana of 1974, Article IX, Section 7 and in revised statutes under Title 36 and Title 

56. 

The La. Rev. Stat. 36:602 states that LDWF shall control and supervise all wildlife of the 

state, including fish and all other aquatic life, and shall execute the laws enacted for the 

control and supervision of programs relating to the management, protection, 

conservation, and replenishment of wildlife, fish, and aquatic life in the state, and the 

regulation of the shipping of wildlife, fish, furs, and skins. 

The LDWF is also responsible for the conservation and management of all renewable 

resources on all WMAs, wildlife refuges, scenic rivers, and wildlife preserves that it may 

own or lease. Leasing of nonrenewable state owned resources can only be carried out 

on such WMAs, refuges, preserves, and scenic rivers with the concurrence of LDWF. 
 71 

3.2.2.5 Indian Tribes 

Section 1001 of OPA (33 USC 2701[15]) defines Indian tribe as any Indian tribe, band, 

nation, or other organized group or community (but not including any Alaska Native 

regional or village corporation), which is eligible for the special programs and services 

provided by the United States to Indians due to their status as Native Americans having 

unique governmental authority. An Indian tribe has governmental authority over lands 

belonging to or controlled by the tribe. In the case of natural resource damages, 

provisions for the designation and recognition of Indian tribe trustees are made in 

Section 1006 of OPA (33 USC 2706 [b][4]). Under the NCP, Indian tribes are designated 

as: 

“trustees for the natural resources, including their supporting ecosystems, 

belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to such Indian tribe, or 

held in trust for the benefit of such Indian tribe, or belonging to a member of such 

Indian tribe, if such resources are subject to a trust restriction on alienation” (40 

CFR 300.610).

Title 43, Part XXIX, Section 109 of the La. Admin. Code defines and recognizes as 

trustee(s) those officials of the federal and state governments, of federally recognized 

Indian tribes, and foreign governments, designated under 33 USC 2706(b) of OPA. 

The four federally recognized American Indian Tribal Reservations in the state are: the 

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (Charenton), the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (Elton), the 

Jena Band of Choctaw Indian (Jena), and the Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana 

(Marksville). 

3.2.3 Responsible Party Liability 

3.2.3.1 Responsible Parties 

The RP for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged (or which poses the 

substantial threat of a discharge of oil) into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining 

shorelines or the EEZ, is liable for the removal costs and damages that result from such 

incident. Responsible Party is defined in Section 1001(32) of OPA (33 USC 2701[32]) 

as follows: 

♦ Vessel - In the case of a vessel, the RP is defined as any person owning, operating, 

or demise chartering the vessel; 

♦ Onshore facilities - In the case of an onshore facility (other than a pipeline), the RP is 

defined as any person owning or operating the facility, except a federal agency, 

state, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a state, or any interstate 

body, that as the owner transfers possession and right to use the property to another 

person by lease, assignment, or permit; 

♦ Offshore facilities - In the case of an offshore facility (other than a pipeline or a 

deepwater port licensed under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501 et 

seq.), the RP is defined as the following: 

♦ the lessee or permittee of the area in which the facility is located; or 

♦ the holder of a right of use and easement granted under applicable state law or 

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 USC 1301-1356) for the area in which 

the facility is located (if the holder is a different person than the lessee or 

permittee), except a federal agency, state, municipality, commission, or political 
 72 

subdivision of a state, or any interstate body, that as owner transfers possession 

and right to use the property to another person by lease, assignment, or permit; 

♦ Deepwater ports - In the case of a deepwater port, the RP is defined as a port 

licensed under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501-1524), the licensee; 

♦ Pipelines - In the case of a pipeline, the RP is defined as any person owning or 

operating the pipeline; 

♦ Abandonment - In the case of an abandoned vessel, onshore facility, deepwater port, 

pipeline, or offshore facility, the RP is defined as the persons who would have been 

RPs immediately prior to the abandonment of the vessel or facility, as defined in 

Section 1001(32) of OPA (33 USC 2701[32]); and 

♦ Third Parties - In any case in which a RP establishes that a discharge or threat of a 

discharge and the resulting removal costs and damages were caused solely by an 

act or omission of one or more third parties, the third party or parties shall be treated 

as the RP or RPs for purposes of determining liability. 

3.2.3.2 Non-Viable Responsible Parties 

In some situations it is possible that a RP willing or able to pay a NRDA claim may not 

exist. In such a situation the trustees may elect to submit a natural resource damage 

claim to the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is further described by 

OPA (33 USC 2712[a])[2]) or the state Oil Spill Contingency Fund (OSCF), which is 

further described in La. Rev. Stat. 30:2483-2490. Situations that are considered to have 

non-viable RPs are defined as follows: 

♦ Mystery Incidents – incidents in which no RP can be identified. These spills can be 

pursued by the trustees to the federal OSLTF or the state OSCF; 

♦ Insolvent or Bankrupt RPs - Situations in which no financially sound RP, insurer, 

guarantor, or other liable party can be identified; and 

♦ Recalcitrant RPs. 

3.2.3.3 Excluded Incidents 

The OPA (33 USC 2701 et seq.) defines discharges from the following sources as 

excluded from its provisions and therefore exempt from liability: 

♦ Discharges authorized by a permit issued under federal, state, or local law; 

♦ Discharges from a public vessel - A public vessel means a vessel owned or bareboat 

chartered and operated by the United States, or by a state or political subdivision 

thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when the vessel is engaged in commerce, as 

defined in Section 1001(29) of OPA (33 USC 2701[29]); 

♦ Discharges from an onshore facility, which is subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

Authorization Act (43 USC 1651 et seq.); 

♦ Discharges resulting from an Act of God - An Act of God means an unanticipated 

grave natural disaster or other natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and 

irresistible character the impacts of which could not have been prevented or avoided 

by the exercise of due care or foresight (33 USC 2701[1]); 

♦ Discharges resulting from an Act of War; and 

♦ Acts or omission by a third party. 

3.2.4 NRDA Process 

Both state and federal NRDA regulations provide a step-by-step process for trustees to 

determine injuries, assess damages, and develop and implement restoration projects 

that compensate the public for injuries to trust resources and services impacted by an 
 73 

incident. This process is shown in Figure 3.1, NRDA Process, and includes three 

phases: 

♦ Preassessment Phase; 

♦ Restoration Planning Phase; and 

♦ Restoration Implementation Phase. 

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 

For Oil-related Incidents under OPA - Overview of Process

PREASSESSMENT PHASE 

♦ Determine Jurisdiction 

♦ Determine Need to Conduct Restoration Planning

RESTORATION PLANNING PHASE 

♦ Injury Assessment 

♦ Determine Injury 

♦ Quantify Injury 

♦ Restoration Selection 

♦ Develop Reasonable Range of Restoration 

Alternatives 

♦ Scale Restoration Alternatives 

♦ Select Preferred Restoration Alternative(s) 

♦ Develop Restoration Plan 

RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 

♦ Fund/Implement Restoration Plan 

♦ Monitor Restoration Activities

Figure 3.1: NRDA Process (adopted from NOAA 1996a) 

Each of the three phases is described in detail in Chapter 1 of the NOAA OPA guidance 

document (NOAA 1996a). The following sections provide an overview of the NRDA 

process and were largely taken from the guidance document. Figure 3.2, NRDA 

Process Implementation, further illustrates the process through which the trustees 

implement the NRDA regulations. It is important to note that RPs for incidents are 

encouraged to work cooperatively with the trustees through the NRDA process, and that 

trustees have a regulatory requirement to invite such cooperation. 
Figure 3.2: NRDA Process Implementation (modified from PRD 2001)

 74 

Figure 3.2: NRDA Process Implementation (modified from PRD 2001) Step 

#1

Potentially 

Injured Trust 

Resources and 

Services

Develop 

Assessment

Approach

Choose 

Settlement 

Alternative

 Calculate  Damages 

 Preassessment

Phase

Restoration Planning

Phase

Select 

Restoration 

Alternative

Injury

Found?

Injury 

Assessment 

Method & 

Restoration 

Alternative 

Available?

Develop

RP Cas

Settleme

Single

Incident/

Trustees

Conduct

Project

Scaling

Use

Selection

Factors

 Single

Incident/

RP

Conduct

Project

Scaling

Develop 

Implementa

Settleme

Use

Selection

Factors

 INCIDENT

Y/Y

Develop

Injury 

Assessment 

Study

N/Y

N/N

Y/N

Conduct 

Injury 

Assessment 

Study

RP and Trustees Agree

on Protective Assumptions

Conduct

Initial

Scaling

 Y

N

Identify

Restoration Alternatives

Step 

#

2 Step 

#

3 Step 

#4a Step 

#

5 Step 

#

6 Step 

#4b 
75

3.2.4.1 Preassessment Phase 

The purpose of the Preassessment Phase is to determine if trustees have the jurisdiction 

to pursue restoration under OPA, and, if so, whether it is appropriate to proceed with 

restoration planning (see Figure 3.1, NRDA Process). This preliminary phase begins 

when the trustees are notified of the incident by response agencies or other persons. 

Based on early available information, trustees make a preliminary determination whether 

trust resources and services for which they are trustees under OPA or OSPRA may have 

been, are likely to be, or anticipated to be injured (see Step #1 in Figure 3.2, NRDA 

Process Implementation). Through coordination with response agencies, trustees next 

determine whether response actions have addressed or will adequately address the 

injuries resulting from the incident, and if not, whether feasible primary and/or 

compensatory restoration alternatives exist to address such injuries. If the injuries will 

not be adequately addressed by response actions and feasible restoration alternatives 

exist to address such injuries, trustees may proceed with the NRDA process. 

3.2.4.2 Restoration Planning Phase 

The purpose of the Restoration Planning Phase is to evaluate potential injuries to trust 

resources and services and use that information to determine the need for and scale of 

restoration actions. The Restoration Planning Phase provides the link between injury 

and restoration. The Restoration Planning Phase has two basic components: injury 

assessment and restoration selection (see Figures 3.1, NRDA Process, and 3.2, NRDA 

Process Implementation). 

3.2.4.2.1 Injury Assessment

The goal of injury assessment is to determine the nature, degree, and extent of injuries, 

if any, to trust resources and services (see Step #2 in Figure 3.2, NRDA Process 

Implementation). This information is necessary to provide a technical basis for 

evaluating the need for, type of, and scale of restoration actions. Injury is defined as an 

observable or measurable adverse change in or impairment of a trust resource or 

service. To assess injury, trustees determine whether there is: 

♦ Exposure, a pathway, and an adverse change to a trust resource or service as a 

result of an actual discharge; or 

♦ An injury to or impairment of a trust resource or service as a result of response 

actions or a substantial threat of a discharge. 

Injury assessment may be accomplished by using field observations, field studies, lab 

studies, literature reviews, physical/ecological models, or any combination of these 

methods. A public domain model that has been used historically is the Type A Natural 

Resource Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and Marine Environments 

(NRDAM/CME). The NRDAM/CME determines the trajectory and fate of an oil spill, the 

organisms that are likely to come in contact with the oil, the compensable value 

associated with the likely injuries, and the appropriate restoration actions and associated 

costs. Embedded in the model are data for all United States coastlines, bathymetry, 

biological resources, and habitat types. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (1996b) provides an in-depth overview of the Type A NRDAM/CME. 
76

Models available to quantify interim losses include the Habitat Equivalency Analysis 

(HEA) and Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (1995) provides an in-depth overview of the HEA. 

In cases where the RP is involved in the injury assessment process, the trustees and the 

RP, where appropriate, may reach agreement on reasonable and protective 

assumptions that allow assessment of injury with less investment of time and money in 

assessment studies as referenced in OSPRA (La. Rev. Stat. 30:2480[C][8]). 

3.2.4.2.2 Restoration Selection 

3.2.4.2.2.1 Developing Restoration Alternatives 

Once injury assessment is complete or nearly complete, trustees develop a plan for 

restoring the injured trust resources and services. In the NRDA process, trustees 

identify a reasonable range of restoration alternatives (see Step #3 in Figure 3.2, NRDA 

Process Implementation), evaluate and select the preferred alternative(s), and develop a 

Draft and Final Restoration Plan. Acceptable restoration actions include any of the 

actions authorized under OPA (and OSPRA): restoration, rehabilitation, replacement 

acquisition of the equivalent, or some combination of those actions. 

Restoration actions are either primary or compensatory. Primary restoration is action 

taken to return injured trust resources and services to baseline levels, including natural 

recovery. Compensatory restoration is action taken to compensate for the interim losses 

of trust resources and services pending recovery. Each restoration alternative will 

contain primary and/or compensatory restoration actions that address one or more 

specific injuries associated with the incident. The type and scale of compensatory 

restoration will depend on the nature of the primary restoration action, and the level and 

rate of recovery of the injured trust resources and services, given the primary restoration 

action. 

When identifying the compensatory restoration components of the restoration 

alternatives, trustees must first consider compensatory restoration actions that provide 

services of the same type as those lost. If compensatory actions of the same type 

cannot provide a reasonable range of alternatives, trustees then consider other 

compensatory restoration actions that will provide services comparable to those lost. 

3.2.4.2.2.2 Scaling Restoration Actions 

To ensure that a restoration action appropriately addresses the injuries resulting from an 

incident, trustees must determine what scale of restoration is required to return injured 

trust resources and services to baseline levels and compensate for interim losses (see 

Steps #4a and #4b in Figure 3.2, NRDA Process Implementation). The approaches that 

may be used to determine the appropriate scale of restoration action are resource-toresource (or service-to-service) and the valuation approach (see NOAA 1997 for more 

information on scaling of restoration actions). Models available to scale injuries to 

restoration actions include the HEA and REA. An in-depth overview of the HEA can be 

found in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1995). 

3.2.4.2.2.3 Selecting a Preferred Restoration Alternative 

The identified restoration alternatives are evaluated based on a number of factors (see 

Step #6 in Figure 3.2, NRDA Process Implementation) that include: 
77

♦Cost to carry out the alternative; 

♦Extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the trustees’ goals and 

objectives in returning the injured trust resources and services to baseline and/or 

compensating for interim losses; 

♦Likelihood of success of each alternative; 

♦Extent to which each alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the incident, 

and avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative; 

♦Extent to which each alternative benefits more than one trust resource or service; 

and 

♦Effect of each alternative on public health and safety (15 CFR 990.54[a]). 

If the trustees conclude that two or more alternatives are equally favorable based on the 

above factors, the trustees must select the most cost-effective alternative. 

3.2.4.2.2.4 Developing a Restoration Plan 

The trustees provide a Draft DARP to the public for review and comment. The Draft 

DARP describes the trustees’ preassessment activities, as well as injury assessment 

activities and results, evaluates restoration alternatives, and identifies the preferred 

restoration alternative(s). After reviewing public comments on the Draft DARP, trustees 

develop a Final DARP. The Final DARP becomes the basis of a claim for damages. 

3.2.4.3 Restoration Implementation Phase 

The Final DARP is presented to the RP(s) to implement or fund the trustees’ costs of 

implementing the Plan (see Figure 3.1, NRDA Process, and see Steps #5 and #7 in 

Figure 3.2, NRDA Process Implementation; Single Incident/RP or Single 

Incident/Trustees, respectively), therefore providing the opportunity for settlement of the 

damage claim without litigation. If the RP(s) chooses to implement the restoration 

actions detailed in the Final DARP, then the trustees provide project-oversight, which is 

funded by the RP(s). 

Should the RP(s) decline to settle the claim, trustees are authorized to bring a civil action 

for damages in court or to present the claim8

 to the federal OSLTF or the state OSCF for 

such damages. 

3.2.4.3.1 Restoration Monitoring 

Restoration monitoring is necessary to determine whether the restoration actions are 

providing the trust resources and services required to make the environment and public 

whole. In order to accomplish this task, trustees identify performance criteria against 

which project success is judged through the evaluation of project objectives. 

Performance criteria may include structural, functional, temporal, and/or other 

demonstrable factors. The monitoring component of the Final DARP may address such 

factors as duration and frequency of monitoring needed to gauge progress and success, 

and level of sampling needed to detect the attainment of objectives and goals or the 

need for corrective action. Monitoring is usually conducted for a portion of the project’s 

expected lifespan, a period of time sufficient to give assurance that the project will 

continue to perform as expected. 

 

8

 In the absence of a viable RP (e.g., where the RP is unknown, bankrupt or is not responsible due to a valid defense) 

or when a viable RP fails to respond to a demand letter after 90 days, the trustees have the option of going to the 

federal OSLTF and/or state OSCF to seek monies to implement the restoration actions required for that case. 
78

3.2.4.3.2 Corrective Action 

If the monitoring program shows that the restoration actions are not meeting the 

performance criteria, then the trustees evaluate whether actions should be undertaken to 

correct the deficiencies. 
79

4.0 Proposed Action: Regional Restoration Planning Program 

Federal and Louisiana natural resource trustees have developed the Louisiana RRP 

Program to assist the natural resource trustees in carrying out their NRDA 

responsibilities for incidents. The goals of this statewide Program are to: 1) expedite and 

reduce the cost of the NRDA process; 2) provide for consistency and predictability by 

describing in detail the NRDA process, thereby increasing understanding of the process 

by the public and industry; and 3) increase restoration of lost trust resources and 

services. Attainment of these goals will serve to make the NRDA process as a whole 

more efficient in Louisiana. 

The RRP Program is established to expedite and make the NRDA process more costeffective. The RRP Program is expected to shorten the Restoration Planning Phase of 

the NRDA process through the development of individual RRPs, which will identify 

appropriate restoration projects subjected to public review on a regional basis prior to 

incidents occurring. To further streamline the NRDA process during specific incidents, 

the trustees have incorporated an analysis on the environmental consequences 

generally associated with the implementation of those restoration projects in the RRP 

Program. Additionally, the RRP Program helps to inform the selection of restoration 

projects by identifying the types of restoration that may be suitable to restore those trust 

resources and services likely to be or anticipated to be injured by incidents in Louisiana. 

Consistent application of the RRP Program project selection criteria will enhance the 

predictability and accountability of the decision-making process. Flexibility will be 

increased through the introduction of additional settlement alternatives that are unique to 

the RRP Program process. 

4.1 RRP Program Introduction 

As described in Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, of this document, the RRP Program is 

required to be established in accordance with La. Rev. Stat. 30:2480.1: 

“To assist in making the natural resource damage assessment process more 

efficient, the Regional Restoration Planning Program encompassing the entire 

geographic area of the state, is established in the office of the oil spill 

coordinator. The office of the oil spill coordinator shall develop and implement 

the program in coordination with the state natural resource trustees.” 

The RRP Program is being established to address incidents under OPA and OSPRA. 

The RRP Program does not address injuries from releases of hazardous substances 

under CERCLA (42 USC 9601 et seq.); injuries to park system resources being pursued 

by the NPS under the Park System Resources Protection Act (16 USC 19[jj] et seq.), or 

physical injuries to trust resources and services under the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act (16 USC 1431 et seq.) should a sanctuary be designated in the state. 

The Louisiana RRP Program is jointly administered and used by the trustees to assist in 

carrying out their natural resource trust mandates under OPA and OSPRA. 

Regional restoration planning is defined in the preamble of the OPA regulations as: 

“...compiling databases that identify existing, planned, or proposed restoration 

projects that may provide appropriate restoration alternatives for consideration in 

the context of specific incidents. Plans or projects developed on a regional basis 
80

(e.g., ecosystem, landscape, watershed, or any other) are appropriate so long as 

natural resources and/or services comparable to those expected to be injured by 

an incident are addressed in the plans. In no event may the use of a regional 

restoration plan or other existing proposed project restoration violate OPA’s 

limitation that natural resource damages must be used solely to restore, 

rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of natural resources and services 

injured by an incident,” (OPA Regulations, Preamble Discussion, Subpart AIntroduction, VI. Considerations for Facilitating Restoration, C. Regional 

Restoration Planning, 60 Fed. Reg. 440 [1996]).

Further, the OPA regulations require that: 

“Regional restoration plans must be developed or annotated in such a way that 

trustees are able to justify linking the injuries from a particular incident or set of 

incidents with specific restoration projects within the plan. This may be facilitated 

by describing the types of injuries anticipated from incidents to specific natural 

resources within a region,...” (OPA regulations, Preamble Discussion, Appendix 

A - Considerations to Facilitate the Restoration Process, 60 Fed. Reg. 440 

[1996]).

Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of OPA provide the necessary direction for 

developing RRPs. These guidelines and requirements are contained in 15 CFR 990 et 

seq. In summary, the general provisions concerning RRPs are that they: 

♦ Are tools trustees should consider “as a means to enhance successful restoration 

planning and implementation,” (Preamble to OPA Regulations, Subpart A, VI, A, 60 

Fed. Reg. 440 [1996]); 

♦ “...may consist of compiling databases that identify, on a regional or watershed 

basis, or otherwise as appropriate, existing, planned, or proposed restoration 

projects that may provide appropriate restoration alternatives for consideration in the 

context of specific incidents” (15 CFR 990.15);

♦ “...must be capable of fulfilling OPA’s intent for trustees to restore, rehabilitate, 

replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured natural resources and/or services, 

and can be used provided that the plan 

♦ Was developed with public review and comment or is subject to review and 

comment; 

♦ Will adequately compensate the environment and public for injuries resulting 

from the incident; 

♦ Addresses, and is currently relevant to, the same or comparable natural 

resources and services as those identified as having been injured; and 

♦ Allows for reasonable scaling relative to the incident” (15 CFR 990.56). 

It is important to note that the NRDA process as described by implementing regulations 

and guidance both under OPA and OSPRA does not change as a result of the RRP 

Program. The trustees are further institutionalizing an existing process, as well as 

identifying potential ways to expedite and further define the specific steps of that 

process, expressly within the requirements of the OPA and OSPRA NRDA regulations. 
81

This chapter describes the RRP Program’s goals and objectives, as well as its 

components in relation to the NRDA process and the goals and objectives of 

establishing the RRP Program. Each component is described specifically in terms of 

where it fits into the NRDA decision-making process, and how it meets the Program 

development objectives. 

The scope of the RRPs to be included in the RRP Program, as well as the components 

of the RRP Program, are described in detail below and further illustrated in Figure 4.1, 

NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program, relative to where they would fit into 

the NRDA decision-making process previously shown in Figure 3.2, NRDA Process 

Implementation. 

4.2 RRP Program Components 

4.2.1 Regional Restoration Plans 

The trustees will develop specific RRPs for each of the regions (see Chapter 5.0, 

Regional Boundaries) delineated under the RRP Program. These RRPs will identify the 

trust resources and services in each region that are likely to be or anticipated to be 

injured by an incident, appropriate restoration types for each of the “potentially injured 

trust resources and services”, and “potentially available restoration projects” for each of 

the restoration types identified in each RRP. Restoration actions in response to an 

incident will typically occur in the same region where the incident took place. In some 

incidents, restoration actions may be selected in a region outside the region where the 

incident took place. Examples of such circumstances are provided in Section 4.2.4.3, 

Special Circumstances. 

Identification of potentially available projects will be achieved through a two-step 

process. The first step consists of soliciting projects from the public, government 

agencies, and industry. The types of restoration projects that will be incorporated into 

the RRPs must address the restoration of trust resources and services that will be or are 

likely to be or anticipated to be injured by an incident (see Section 4.2.2, Potentially 

Injured Trust Resources and Services, and Section 4.2.3, Restoration Types). The 

trustees have developed selection criteria for determining whether a given restoration 

project can be included in an RRP. Application of those criteria represents the second 

step in the process. 

The following represent criteria for selection of restoration projects for incorporation into 

each RRP and are based in part on the OPA regulations (15 CFR 990.53[a][2] and 

990.54[a][1-6]): 

♦ “The extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the trustees’ goals and 

objectives in returning the injured natural resources and services to baseline and/or 

compensating for interim losses” (15 CFR 990.54[a][2]). 

♦ Strong Nexus to Injuries Included in the Applicable RRP

Trustees must consider compensatory restoration actions that provide services of 

the same type and quantity, and of comparable values as those lost. Restoration 

projects are evaluated to determine how well the restoration would address the 

injuries to “potentially injured trust resources and services” that occurred as result 

of the potential incident in a specific region. Screening questions include: “Will 

the project provide the same type of trust resources and services, both on-site 
Figure 4.1: NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program

 82

Figure 4.1: NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program Conduct Injury Assessment Study 

Step 

#1 

Opt out of the RRP(s) and go to Step 

Single 

Incident/

Trustees 

Use 

Program 

Selection 

Criteria 

RP 

CO-OP 

Use 

Program 

Selection 

Criteria 

RP/ 

Fund 

CO-OP 

Use 

Program 

Selection 

Criteria 

Single 

Incident/

RP 

Conduct

Project

Scaling 

Use

Program 

Selection 

Criteria 

RP and Trustees Agree 

on Protective Assumptions 

Preassessment Restoration Planning Phase 

Phase 

Potentially 

Injured Trust 

Resources and 

Services 

Develop 

Assessment 

Approach 

Apply 

Restoration Type 

Selection Criteria 

Choose 

Settlement 

Alternative 

Select 

RRP 

Project 

Injury 

Found?

Injury

Assessment 

Method & 

Restoration 

Alternative 

Available? 

INCIDENT 

Y/Y

Develop 

Injury 

Assessment 

Study 

N/Y N/N Y/N 

Conduct

Initial 

Scaling 

Y

 N

Restoration 

Type 

Selected 

Step 

#

2 Step 

#3 Step 

#4a Step 

#

5 Step 

#

6 Ste

p

#4

Go to Step #3 

in Figure 3.2 

Conduct

Project

Scaling 

Conduct

Project

Scaling 

Conduct

Project

Scaling 
 83 

and off-site, that are lost due to the potential injury”?, and “If not, will the 

proposed project result in trust resources and services that are similar or 

complimentary to the ‘potentially injured trust resources and services’”? Projects 

that come closest to restoring the same type of trust resources and services as 

those injured by potential incidents are more likely to be selected than those 

projects where the nexus is not so close.

♦ “The likelihood of success of each alternative” (15 CFR 990.54[a][3]).

♦ Technical Feasibility and Likelihood of Success 

Trustees must consider whether a restoration project can be successfully 

implemented in a reasonable amount of time. Generally, the likelihood of a 

project’s success is evaluated based on whether the method used to implement 

the project: 1) is proven; 2) has a high rate of success as documented in the 

literature; and 3) is capable of being implemented in a cost-effective manner. 

This does not preclude the use of existing technology in new and creative ways 

so long as there is a significant likelihood of successful implementation. 

Nevertheless, for new or unproven technologies, the trustees must demonstrate 

that there is reason to believe that the project will be successful. 

♦ “Only those alternatives .... in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, or 

permits may be considered further under this part” (15 CFR 990.53[a][2]). 

♦ Consistency with Existing Laws and Regulations 

This criterion considers whether a given restoration project complies with 

applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 

The following represent RRP Program specific criteria: 

♦ Listed as One of the Restoration Types Identified in the Applicable RRP 

The RRPs identify those restoration types that are found to be reasonable for 

restoring each of the “potentially injured trust resources and services” within each of 

the RRP regions. The trustees consider whether a proposed restoration project can 

be categorized as one of the restoration types identified in that RRP. 

♦ Located (at least) Partially within the Boundaries of the Applicable RRP Region 

This criterion considers the need for at least a portion of the project to be located 

within the boundaries of the applicable RRP Region except as provided in Section 

4.2.4.3, Special Circumstances. 

Projects in each RRP will be classified by restoration type in order to facilitate the 

determination of the nexus between injuries and specific restoration projects, as well as 

the selection of specific restoration projects for a given NRDA. 

4.2.1.1 RRP Revisions 

The RRPs will be updated through periodic solicitations and the plans will be revised 

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

NRDA Restoration Project Information Sheet used in the RRP Program). Public review 

and comment period on revisions to RRPs will be provided. 
 84 

4.2.2 Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services 

The RRP Program defines those trust resources and services in Louisiana that are likely 

to be or are anticipated to be injured (i.e., at-risk) by incidents as “potentially injured trust 

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

and services” will facilitate the development of the RRPs and assist in the coordination of 

response activities by informing agency personnel who are participating in the incident 

response (i.e., clean up) of trust resources and services that may be of greatest concern 

to the trustees (see Step #1 in Figure 4.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP 

Program, where “potentially injured trust resources and services” were identified prior to 

the incident occurring and are subsequently examined as part of the Preassessment 

Phase of the NRDA process). The “potentially injured trust resources and services” are 

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

4.2.2.1 Coastal 

4.2.2.1.1 Herbaceous Wetlands 

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

located in or near the coastal zone and alluvial basin. The marshes of the Mississippi 

River delta complex and other similar areas in Louisiana support a mix of freshwater, 

estuarine, and marine species. These wetlands are vital habitat for various fish, 

mammals, and resident and migratory birds. As considered here, this category includes 

marsh plants and the invertebrates, bacteria, algae, and sediments associated with the 

vegetation that contribute to all marsh habitat functions. 

4.2.2.1.2 Forested Wetlands 

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

consist of an overstory of large trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and an 

herbaceous layer. As considered here, this category includes the trees, understory 

vegetation, soils, closely associated invertebrates, and the services that this habitat 

provides to other trust resources. 

4.2.2.1.3 Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Unvegetated beaches and shorelines in coastal waters include the perimeters of 

headlands, barrier islands, estuaries and bays, tidal mudflats, and river deltas. This 

zone begins at the lowest part of the intertidal zone and extends into the supratidal zone. 

As considered here, this injury category includes the invertebrates that burrow and/or 

live in this habitat. It encompasses all ecological functions performed by this habitat, 

including, among others, primary production by benthic diatoms in the intertidal zone and 

secondary production by grazers, but does not include human recreational services. 

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

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

periodically or continuously contain moving water, or that form a connecting link between 

two bodies of standing water. Streambeds containing flowing water include: seasonally 

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

flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonal-tidal, or temporary-tidal water regimes (Cowardin 

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

(soils/sediments and hard surfaces) and closely associated invertebrates, and includes 

all ecological functions performed by this habitat (Cowardin et al. 1979). 
 85 

4.2.2.1.4 Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

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

here, living reefs encompass oysters, mussels, and/or other benthic organisms that 

contribute to the reef structure, and the fauna and flora that attach to or are closely 

associated with these reefs. It also includes all ecological services this habitat provides 

to other trust resources. 

4.2.2.1.5 Water Column Organisms 

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

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

ecological services these organisms provide to other trust resources. It also includes 

large mobile crustaceans, such as crabs and shrimp, and demersal fishes which live on 

or near the seafloor. 

4.2.2.2 Inland 

4.2.2.2.1 Herbaceous Wetlands 

Inland herbaceous wetlands are environments that experience periodic flooding and are 

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

specifically to the inland geographic areas where freshwater flow regimes prevail 

throughout the year and saltwater does not typically penetrate from the coast. These 

wetlands support a diverse group of fish, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and 

mammals. As considered here, this category includes marsh plants and the 

invertebrates, bacteria, algae, and sediments associated with the vegetation that 

contribute to all marsh habitat functions. 

4.2.2.2.2 Forested Wetlands 

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

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

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

examples of this habitat in Louisiana are wetland forest (evergreen, deciduous, and 

mixed) and swamp. As considered here, this category includes the trees, understory 

vegetation, soils, closely associated invertebrates, and the services that this habitat 

provides to other trust resources. 

4.2.2.2.3 Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

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

lakefronts, pond shores, mudflats, and riverbanks. As considered here, this injury 

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

encompasses all ecological functions performed by this habitat, including, among others, 

primary production by benthic algae in the nearshore/limnetic zone and secondary 

production by grazers, but does not include human recreational services. 

Streambeds include all water channels and wetlands contained within the intermittent 

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

regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, and 

intermittently flooded (Cowardin et al. 1979). As considered here, this injury category 

includes the substrate (soils/sediments and rocks) and closely associated invertebrates, 

and includes all ecological functions performed by this habitat (Cowardin et al. 1979). 
 86 

4.2.2.2.4 Upland Vegetation 

As defined in the Louisiana GAP analysis program (USGS 2001), this category includes 

agricultural-cropland-grassland, dense pine thicket, upland shrub/scrub (deciduous, 

evergreen, and mixed), and upland forest (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed). It 

encompasses trees, as well as, understory vegetation, soils, and invertebrates in the soil 

or associated with plants, and the services this habitat provides to other trust resources. 

4.2.2.2.5 Water Column Organisms 

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

nektonic organisms, such as fish that live in fresh water streams, ponds, swamps, and 

lakes. It also includes the ecological services these organisms provide to other trust 

resources. 

4.2.2.3 Statewide 

4.2.2.3.1 Birds 

Birds located permanently or seasonally in all coastal and inland areas are included in 

this category (see Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment). This category can also include 

the ecological services birds provide to other trust resources. 

4.2.2.3.2 Wildlife 

Mammals, reptiles, and amphibians from all habitats in all coastal and inland areas are 

included in this category (see Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment). This category can 

also include the ecological services mammals, reptiles, and amphibians provide to other 

trust resources. 

4.2.2.3.3 Recreational Resource Services 

Human recreational resource services are provided by habitats and/or areas throughout 

the state and offshore within the EEZ. Indirect activities (e.g., hiking, biking, picnicking, 

or jogging) and direct activities (e.g., bird and wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, boating, 

or swimming) are included in this category. This category does not, however, include 

the resources themselves that are involved in the activity. 

4.2.2.3.4 Cultural Resource Services 

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

architectural, and traditional cultural services that flow from natural resources that have 

cultural attributes. Cultural resources in Louisiana include lands, buildings, monuments, 

travel routes, ship wrecks, burial sites, ceremonial sites, battle grounds, Indian mounds, 

middens, and other artifacts, generally in excess of 50 years of age, that represent the 

history and culture of the region as perceived by the public or cultural scientists. While 

all state and local historic preservation groups may contribute to the list of state cultural 

resource sites or attributes, the Louisiana State Preservation Office, state Indian tribes, 

and USDOI are primarily responsible for designating Louisiana’s cultural resource sites 

and attributes. Biological resources can have cultural significance and values under 

specific conditions. The loss or injury of a biological resource that has cultural 

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

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

services that natural resources in the state may provide. 
 87 

4.2.3 Restoration Types 

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

equivalent of the injured trust resource or services. To ensure that the RRP Program 

efficiently satisfies this mandate, the trustees identified restoration types that are 

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

resources and services” (discussed in Section 4.2.2, Potentially Injured Trust Resources 

and Services). 

Identification of appropriate restoration types will again increase the predictability and 

consistency of the NRDA decision-making process. Furthermore, restoration projects in 

each RRP will be grouped by restoration type within each region identified in the plan. 

This approach will allow the process of evaluating and selecting preferred restoration 

projects for a particular region to be streamlined (see Step #6 in Figure 4.1, NRDA 

Process Implementation in the RRP Program). 

The restoration types in the RRP Program include the following seven broad categories 

and are defined below. 

♦ Creation / Enhancement of Habitat; 

♦ Physical Protection of Habitat; 

♦ Acquisition / Legal Protection of Resources and Services; 

♦ Stocking of Fauna; 

♦ Physical Protection of Fauna; 

♦ Restoration of Recreational Resource Services and; 

♦ Restoration of Cultural Resource Services. 

4.2.3.1 Creation/Enhancement of Habitat 

Creation of a habitat includes the physical construction of a habitat, such as a marsh or 

reef and planting of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) on a non-vegetated 

waterbottom. Enhancements include hydrological changes to improve a habitat through 

the creation of a crevasse or water diversion; or any habitat manipulation that benefits a 

species, for example, providing nesting sites, increasing the food base, and reducing 

predation.

4.2.3.1.1 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands 

This restoration type consists of actions intended to create a coastal marsh or enhance 

the provision of marsh services from an existing marsh. There are many different 

methods that can be used to create a marsh, including depositing dredged material at an 

elevation suitable for marsh vegetation and then planting marsh vegetation following the 

dewatering or compaction of material, constructing a crevasse in a river levee allowing a 

marsh splay to form, and terracing to protect marsh from wave action and facilitate the 

increase of waterbottom elevation through the deposition of sediment and organic 

matter. An example of an action designed to enhance marsh service flows would be 

increasing hydrologic flow into an existing marsh with poor circulation to augment 

utilization by marine organisms and growth of marsh vegetation. 

4.2.3.1.2 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Forested Wetlands 

This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of forested 

wetlands or enhance the provision of services from an existing forested wetland to other 

trust resources. Planting hardwoods along cheniers and ridges is an example of a 

project to create forested wetlands. An example of an action designed to enhance 
 88 

forested wetland service flows would be increasing hydrologic flow into an existing 

forested wetland with poor circulation to augment utilization by marine and estuarine 

water organisms, such as gapping spoil banks or introducing fresh river water into a 

swamp. 

4.2.3.1.3 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds or enhance the provision of services from existing 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds to other trust resources. Installing a hard structure to 

trap sediment, thus forming additional area of beach, is an example of coastal beach 

creation. Enhancement actions could include such methods as removing debris along 

the beach and/or shoreline that limit the habitat value of the beach. 

Enhancement actions for streambeds could include such methods as removing debris 

that limit the habitat value of a streambed. Regrading or recontouring previously altered 

streambeds is another alternative for enhancement. 

4.2.3.1.4 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

This restoration type consists of actions designed to produce reef habitat or to enhance 

the productivity of, and services provided by, an existing reef. A project such as the 

placing of hard substrates in an area suitable for oyster survival in a configuration 

designed to allow oysters or other reef-forming organisms to settle is an example of reef 

creation. A water quality improvement project that enhances the productivity of an 

existing oyster reef is an example of an enhancement action. 

Construction of an artificial reef, such as increasing hard structure on the seafloor or 

water column, to allow colonization by encrusting organisms and provide habitat for reef 

fish is an example of a project of this restoration type. Other actions designed to create 

artificial reefs or to increase the productivity of an existing reef are also classified in this 

restoration type. 

4.2.3.1.5 Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

This restoration type consists of actions designed to create a new bed of SAV or 

enhance the productivity of an existing bed. Planting seagrasses in a bare area is an 

example of a project to create SAV. A water quality improvement project that reduces 

turbidity and enhances the productivity of an existing seagrass bed is an example of an 

enhancement action. 

4.2.3.1.6 Creation/Enhancement of Inland Herbaceous Wetlands 

This restoration type consists of actions to create herbaceous wetlands or enhance the 

provision of services from an existing wetland to other trust resources. Planting fresh 

marsh vegetation in a bare area is an example of a project to create herbaceous 

wetlands. An example of an action designed to enhance inland herbaceous wetland 

service flows would be increasing hydrologic flow into an existing herbaceous wetland 

with poor circulation to augment utilization by fresh water organisms and growth of the 

vegetation. Adding nutrients to herbaceous wetlands with low productivity is another 

method of enhancement. 

4.2.3.1.7 Creation/Enhancement of Inland Forested Wetlands 

This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of forested 

wetlands or enhance the provision of services from an existing forested wetland to other 
 89 

trust resources. Planting bald cypress or overcup oak in a bare area is an example of a 

project to create forested wetlands. An example of an action designed to enhance 

forested wetland service flows would be increasing hydrologic flow into an existing 

forested wetland with poor circulation to augment utilization by freshwater organisms 

and growth of the woody vegetation. 

4.2.3.1.8 Creation/Enhancement of Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds to enhance the provision of services from existing 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds to other trust resources. Installing a hard structure to 

trap sediment and form an additional area of beach is an example of inland beach 

creation. Enhancement actions could include such methods as removing trash that 

limits the habitat value of a beach. 

Enhancement actions for streambeds could include such methods as removing trash 

that limits the habitat value of a streambed. Regrading or recontouring previously 

altered streambeds, or bendway projects are other alternatives for enhancement. 

4.2.3.1.9 Creation/Enhancement of Inland Upland Vegetation 

This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of upland 

vegetation or enhance the provision of services from existing upland vegetation to other 

trust resources. Planting longleaf pine (Pinus taeda) in a bare area is an example of a 

project to create upland vegetation. Enhancement actions could include such methods 

as mid-story thinning to stimulate wildlife utilization and growth of the upland vegetation. 

4.2.3.2 Physical Protection of Habitat 

Prevention of a particular organism or physical force from adversely affecting a habitat 

constitutes physical protection. Protection of a riparian habitat by fencing off cattle or 

creating breakwaters to reduce wave energy would be examples of physical habitat 

protection. 

4.2.3.2.1 Physical Protection of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands 

This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of coastal 

marsh. Armoring shorelines or erecting fences to exclude herbivores or prevent 

excessive herbivory is one example of physical protection that may be implemented in 

coastal herbaceous wetlands. 

4.2.3.2.2 Physical Protection of Coastal Forested Wetlands 

This type of restoration action includes projects designed to decrease the loss of coastal 

forested wetlands. The use of tree shelters around the base of trees or exclusion fences 

around forest tracts to prevent herbivory are examples of physical protection that may be 

implemented in this habitat. 

4.2.3.2.3 Physical Protection of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of a 

coastal beach or other unvegetated shoreline or streambed. It may involve the 

placement of artificial structures or construction of some natural habitat adjacent to an 

existing shoreline that would reduce erosion of the substrate. 
 90 

4.2.3.2.4 Physical Protection of Inland Herbaceous Wetlands 

This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of 

herbaceous wetlands. Erecting fences to exclude herbivores or prevent excessive 

herbivory is one example of physical protection that may be implemented in inland 

herbaceous wetlands.

4.2.3.2.5 Physical Protection of Inland Forested Wetlands 

This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of 

forested wetlands. The use of tree shelters around the base of trees to prevent 

herbivory and scouring is an example of physical protection that may be implemented in 

this habitat. 

4.2.3.2.6 Physical Protection of Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of a 

sandy beach or other unvegetated shoreline. It may involve placement of artificial 

structures or construction of some natural habitat adjacent to an existing shoreline that 

would reduce erosion of the substrate.

This type of restoration action may also involve projects designed to reduce the loss of 

inland streambeds. Planting fringe vegetation to reduce sedimentation into a streambed 

to keep it from filling in is one example of this type of restoration. Fencing off access to 

the streambed to prevent cattle from entering or enhancing vegetated buffers around 

streambeds would qualify as protection. 

4.2.3.2.7 Physical Protection of Inland Upland Vegetation 

This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of upland 

vegetation. Laying weed mats around the base of trees to alleviate excessive weed 

growth in the area is an example of physical protection that can be implemented in an 

upland vegetated habitat. Erecting deer exclusion fencing or supporting the control of 

detrimental species would provide physical protection of the habitat. 

4.2.3.3 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Resources and Services 

Acquisition or servitude of land as a buffer or protection of created or enhanced habitat 

is an example of restoration under this type. Acquisition or preservation of existing 

habitat may be a potential restoration alternative, although no increase in service flows 

would occur through acquisition or protection alone. Acquisition will generally be used in 

conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or enhancement of habitat. 

Acquisition may be considered as a restoration alternative if the particular habitat has: 1) 

unique qualities; 2) its location is especially valuable; and/or 3) its destruction is 

imminent. Acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded protection under law, 

such as purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered under this restoration 

type. Private land owners may also be encouraged to make an easement donation to 

one of the many non-profit organizations in place to handle land conservation efforts. As 

with all restoration alternatives, trustees must first consider actions that provide services 

of the same type and quality, and of comparable value as those lost. 

4.2.3.3.1 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands 

As mentioned above, acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded protection 

under law, such as purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered under this 

restoration type. Acquisition of this type of coastal herbaceous wetlands will generally 

be used in conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or enhancement of 
 91 

the habitat. This restoration type may also include actions that meet the three 

requirements listed above, such as buying imperiled tracts of herbaceous wetlands or 

other herbaceous wetlands in jeopardy of being developed or pursuing conservation 

easements to remove them from consideration for development or other anthropogenic 

activities. While service flows would not be increased through this alternative, areas that 

may otherwise stop providing services to the public and environment may remain intact 

and contribute toward landscape continuity. 

4.2.3.3.2 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Forested Wetlands 

Again as mentioned above, acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded 

protection under law, such as purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered 

under this restoration type. Acquisition of this type of coastal forested wetlands will 

generally be used in conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or 

enhancement of the habitat. This restoration type may include actions such as 

purchasing tracts or pursuing conservation easements on tracts of coastal forested 

wetlands in jeopardy of being developed or imperiled for other reasons. While service 

flows would not be increased through this alternative, areas that would otherwise stop 

providing services to the public and environment would remain intact and continue to 

contribute to landscape continuity. 

4.2.3.3.3 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

This restoration type would include actions such as purchasing areas adjacent to coastal 

beaches and shorelines (coastal beaches are public lands up to the mean high water 

line), or purchasing privately owned canals/streambeds. Other actions may be taken to 

legally protect this resource such as pursuing conservation easements, limiting access, 

or taking other measures deemed appropriate. While service flows would not be 

increased through this alternative, areas that would otherwise stop providing services to 

the public and environment would remain intact and contribute toward landscape 

continuity. 

4.2.3.3.4 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

This restoration type would include actions such as buying an existing oyster lease to 

provide ecological services. 

4.2.3.3.5 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Herbaceous Wetlands 

Again as mentioned above, acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded 

protection under law, such as purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered 

under this restoration type. Acquisition of this type of inland herbaceous wetlands will 

generally be used in conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or 

enhancement of the habitat. This restoration type would include such actions as 

purchasing tracts of herbaceous wetland habitat that are not otherwise protected and 

are in imminent peril of loss to development. 

4.2.3.3.6 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Forested Wetlands 

Again as mentioned above, acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded 

protection under law, such as purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered 

under this restoration type. Acquisition of this type of inland forested wetlands will 

generally be used in conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or 

enhancement of the habitat. This restoration type would include such actions as 

purchasing tracts of forested wetland habitat that is not otherwise protected and is in 

imminent peril of loss to development. 
 92 

4.2.3.3.7 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Inland beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as considered in this section, include river, 

stream, and lake edges. State law, based on the land survey of 1812, states that the 

public (i.e., state) owns all navigable rivers and streams in the state. This restoration 

type would include such actions as purchasing stream edges that are not otherwise 

protected and are in imminent peril of loss to development. 

4.2.3.3.8 Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Upland Vegetation 

This restoration type would include such actions as purchasing tracts of upland 

vegetation habitat that are not otherwise protected and are in imminent peril of loss to 

development. 

4.2.3.4 Stocking of Fauna 

This restoration type includes the stocking of fish, birds, or other wildlife to replenish 

individuals lost or injured as a result of the incident. 

4.2.3.4.1 Stocking Coastal Water Column Organisms 

This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to directly increase the 

number of coastal water column organisms. Releasing fish from a hatchery to increase 

the species’ population is an example of this type of restoration. 

4.2.3.4.2 Stocking Oysters (and Other Reef Organisms) 

This restoration type is defined as the placement of oysters or other reef organisms in an 

area suitable for their survival. Adult or seed oysters could be used in this type of 

restoration. The intent of this type of restoration is to provide oyster biomass and oyster 

services, apart from reef services in general. 

4.2.3.4.3 Stocking Inland Water Column Organisms 

This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to directly increase the 

number of fresh water column organisms. A project such as releasing fish from a 

hatchery to increase the population of that fish species is an example of this type of 

restoration. 

4.2.3.4.4 Stocking Birds 

This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to directly increase the 

number of birds in general or the number of a particular species or guild. A project such 

as releasing birds hatched and raised from eggs collected in the wild is an example of 

this type of restoration. 

4.2.3.4.5 Stocking Wildlife 

This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to directly increase the 

population of one or more wildlife species. Actions such as raising and releasing the 

species of wildlife injured are included in this restoration type. 

4.2.3.5 Physical Protection of Fauna 

An action such as fencing in an area where birds are nesting to keep predators out is an 

example of this restoration type. Another example would be to remove fishing line and 

other trash from trees and other vegetation to prevent bird injury due to entanglement. 

Posting signs to make the public aware of critical habitat and/or nesting seasons to 
 93 

protect fauna from injury or disturbance due to human use is an example of this 

restoration type. 

4.2.3.5.1 Physical Protection of Birds 

This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to reduce stressors on 

bird populations. An action such as installing fences to protect nests from predators 

qualifies as this restoration type. 

4.2.3.5.2 Physical Protection of Wildlife 

This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to physically protect 

wildlife by decreasing stressors on the wildlife population. Excluding predators from an 

area to reduce predation is an example of this restoration type. 

4.2.3.6 Restoration of Recreational Resource Services 

The restoration of any habitat that provides the public recreational services, direct or 

indirect such as fishing, hiking, hunting, nature photography, and education falls under 

this type. This type of restoration includes actions designed to increase access to, or 

enhance, recreational opportunities. Stocking a lake with fish or creating an artificial reef 

are examples of restoration actions that would enhance the experience of recreational 

fishing. The construction or enhancement of structures such as fishing piers, boat 

ramps, and wildlife viewing areas, could also be considered restoration if it can be 

shown that the amenity would restore lost recreational services to the public. 

4.2.3.7 Restoration of Cultural Resource Services 

Restoration of natural resource services that also have cultural resource service(s) value 

would be an example of restoration under this type. 

4.2.4 Relationship of Trust Resources and Services to Restoration Types/Projects 

In the Restoration Planning Phase (after the injury assessment has been conducted 

[Step #2 in Figure 4.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program]), the 

trustees must identify a reasonable range of restoration alternatives. Identification of 

these restoration alternatives as defined in the OPA regulations (see Step #3 in Figure 

3.2, NRDA Process Implementation) involves both the identification and selection of the 

appropriate restoration types (see Step #3 in Figure 4.1, NRDA Process Implementation 

in the RRP Program) and specific restoration projects (see Step #6 in Figure 4.1, NRDA 

Process Implementation in the RRP Program) under the RRP Program. 

As part of the RRP Program development, the trustees: 1) conducted a nexus analysis 

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

trust resources and services”; 2) developed restoration type screening criteria to assist 

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

services injured during a given incident; and 3) developed screening criteria to select the 

most appropriate restoration project(s) during a given incident. 

4.2.4.1 Nexus Analysis 

The results of the nexus analysis are presented in Figures 4.2, Coastal Restoration 

Types by Trust Resources and Services and 4.3 Inland Restoration Types by Trust 

Resources and Services. The nexus analysis entailed matching appropriate restoration 

types with potentially injured trust resources and services. The figures conceptually 

demonstrate those restoration types that are found to be reasonable for restoring each 

of the “potentially injured trust resources and services.” Checked boxes in these figures 
 94 

indicate that a restoration type is an appropriate restoration alternative for the 

corresponding “potentially injured trust resource or service.” The following is a general 

summary of the analysis that the trustees used to define appropriate restoration types for 

each of the “potentially injured trust resources and services.” The analysis began with 

determining which restoration types had the closest nexus with each of the “potentially 

injured trust resources and services” and moved through a logical process to those 

restoration types which had significantly dissimilar service flows and therefore were 

found not to be appropriate. 

Figure 4.2: Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services 

POTENTIALLY INJURED TRUST 

RESOURCES AND SERVICES 

COASTAL 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Forested Wetlands 

Beaches/Shorelines/ 

Streambeds 

Oyster Reefs 

(and Other Reefs) 

Water Column Org. 

Birds 

Wildlife 

Recreation 

Cultural 

Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

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

Creation/ 

Enhancement 

of Habitat 

Coastal SAV √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Physical 

Protection of 

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

Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

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

Acquisition/ 

Legal 

Protection of 

Habitat 

Coastal SAV √ √ √ √ √ 

Coastal Water Column Org. √ √ 

Coastal Oyster Reefs and Other Reef 

Organisms √ √ √ 

Birds √ √ 

Stocking of 

Fauna 

Wildlife √ √ 

Physical Birds √ √ Protection of 

Fauna Wildlife √ √ 

RESTORATION TYPES 

 Recreational Resource Services √ 

 Cultural Resource Services √
 95 

POTENTIALLY INJURED TRUST 

RESOURCES AND SERVICES 

INLAND 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Forested Wetlands 

Beaches/Shorelines/ 

Streambeds 

Upland Vegetation 

Water Column Org. 

Birds 

Wildlife 

Recreation 

Cultural 

Inland Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Creation/ 

Enhancement 

of Habitat 

Inland Upland Vegetation √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Physical 

Protection of 

Habitat 

Inland Upland Vegetation √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Herbaceous Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Forested Wetlands √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds √ √ √ √ √ 

Acquisition/ 

Legal 

Protection of 

Habitat Inland Upland Vegetation √ √ √ √ √ 

Inland Water Column Org. √ √ 

Birds √ √ Stocking of 

Fauna 

Wildlife √ √ 

Physical Birds √ √ Protection of 

Fauna Wildlife √ √ 

Recreational Resource Services √ 

RESTORATION TYPES 

Cultural Resource Services √

Figure 4.3: Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services 

4.2.4.1.1 Resource-to-Resource 

Resource-to-resource restoration has a strong nexus because it is a one-to-one 

relationship. The injured resource is ultimately replaced by direct restoration of the 

same resource. In Figures 4.2, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and 

Services, and 4.3, Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, any 

injured trust resource that is directly restored has been identified by the trustees as 

having a strong nexus and is therefore considered to be an appropriate restoration type. 

For example, Figure 4.2, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, 

indicates that appropriate restoration for injured coastal forested wetlands would be 

creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, or physical protection of coastal 

forested wetlands. Similarly, an injury to an oyster reef could be directly restored by 
 96 

creation/enhancement of a new oyster reef or by stocking an existing reef to increase 

productivity. In both cases, the same type of injured trust resource can be directly 

restored, or protected, and therefore has a strong resource-to-resource nexus. Figure 

4.3, Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, presents the results of 

this resource-to-resource analysis for the “potentially injured trust resources and 

services” in the inland regions where, for example, appropriate restoration types for a 

forested wetland is the creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, physical 

protection, or acquisition/legal protection of an inland forested wetland. 

4.2.4.1.2 Service-to-Resource 

In some cases it is not possible, feasible, or desirable to replace injured trust resources 

directly. For example, some species cannot be restocked because of technical or cost 

limitations. In such cases, the most appropriate restoration action is often to enhance, 

protect, or create a habitat or resource that produces services that benefit the injured 

trust resource. This is the basis for service-to-resource restoration. Although the 

compensation in this type of restoration is indirect, a strong nexus exists because the 

injured trust services are ultimately replaced through the restoration of an ecological link. 

In Figures 4.2, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, and 4.3, 

Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, the restoration types listed 

below have been identified as appropriate for injuries to coastal and inland services 

because of a strong service-to-resource relationship. 

Coastal: 

♦ Water column organisms. Water column organisms are defined in Chapter 2.0, 

Affected Environment, as plankton, nekton, large mobile crustaceans, and demersal 

fishes. Appropriate restoration types for injuries to these organisms are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, or physical protection of 

herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds. 

These restoration types can increase the export of detritus (which serves as an 

organic food source) and essential nutrients to the estuary. Its increase will 

sustain greater abundance of water quality organisms. Created or enhanced 

herbaceous wetlands improve water quality, and increase spawning area and 

nursery area and habitat for adult fish. All of these actions stimulate production 

of water column organisms. 

♦ Creation/enhancement and acquisition/legal protection of benthic or submerged 

habitats such as oyster reefs, other reefs, and SAV. These restoration types 

create habitat for small benthic organisms and control local turbidity through 

filtration (oyster reefs) or wave energy absorption (SAV). These processes 

benefit water column organisms by providing low-energy havens and benthic 

food sources for plankton and juvenile nekton that in turn promotes the 

sustainability of the resource. 

♦ Birds. Birds are defined in Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, as both permanent 

and migratory species throughout Louisiana. Appropriate restoration types for 

injuries to these organisms are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, or physical protection of 

herbaceous wetlands and forested wetlands. These restoration types can 

increase bird food sources (both terrestrial and aquatic) and provide refuge and 

nesting and foraging habitat to birds. Thus, these restoration types can 

compensate for injuries to bird populations. 
 97 

♦ Creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, or physical protection of 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds. These restoration types can benefit shorebirds, 

wading birds, and raptors by creating intertidal, benthic, and pelagic feeding 

communities. 

♦ Creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection of benthic or submerged 

habitats such as oyster reefs, other reefs, and SAV. These restoration types can 

also benefit shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors by creating benthic and pelagic 

feeding grounds. 

♦ Wildlife. Wildlife is defined in Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, as mammals, 

reptiles, and amphibians in all habitats throughout Louisiana. Appropriate restoration 

types for injuries to these organisms are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, or physical protection of 

herbaceous wetlands and forested wetlands. These restoration types can 

increase wildlife food sources (both terrestrial and aquatic), and provide refuge 

and foraging habitat for wildlife. Thus, these restoration types can compensate 

for injuries to wildlife populations. 

♦ Creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, or physical protection of 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds. These restoration types can benefit wildlife by 

creating intertidal, benthic, and pelagic feeding communities. 

♦ Creation/enhancement and acquisition/legal protection of benthic or submerged 

habitats such as oyster reefs, other reefs, and SAV. These restoration types can 

also benefit wildlife by creating intertidal, benthic, and pelagic feeding 

communities. 

♦ Recreation. Recreational resources are defined in Chapter 2.0, Affected 

Environment, as habitats and/or areas that provide human recreational services, 

both direct and indirect, throughout the state and offshore within the EEZ. 

Appropriate restoration types for injuries to recreational resource services are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, or physical protection of 

herbaceous wetlands and forested wetlands. These restoration types support 

bird and wildlife populations, increase aesthetic qualities, and support juvenile 

fish. All of these restoration types can compensate for injuries to recreational 

resource services such as bird watching, hunting, hiking, and fishing. 

♦ Creation/enhancement, acquisition/legal protection, or physical protection of 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds. These restoration types can provide food and 

habitat for fish, birds, and wildlife, and increase aesthetic qualities. Each of 

these benefits can compensate for injuries to recreational resource services such 

as bird watching, hunting, hiking, picnicking, and fishing. 

♦ Creation/enhancement and acquisition/legal protection of intertidal, benthic, or 

submerged habitats such as oyster reefs, other reefs, and SAV. These 

restoration types can also compensate for injuries to recreational fishing by 

creating benthic and pelagic feeding communities that attract sport fish. 

♦ Stocking existing habitats with water column organisms (generally fish), birds, 

wildlife, and oysters and other reef organisms. These restoration types replenish 

organisms that provide human recreation and can compensate for injuries to 

recreational resource services such as bird watching, hunting, and fishing. 

♦ Physical protection of existing bird and wildlife populations that have been 

injured. These restoration types can compensate the public for recreational 

losses such as bird watching and hunting. 
 98 

Inland: 

♦ Water column organisms. Water column organisms are defined in Chapter 2.0, 

Affected Environment, as plankton, nekton, large mobile crustaceans, and demersal 

fishes. Appropriate restoration types for injuries to these organisms are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, beaches/shorelines/streambeds, and 

upland vegetation. These restoration types can increase the export of detritus 

(which serves as an organic food source) and essential nutrients to the estuary. 

Its increase will sustain greater abundance of water quality organisms. Created 

or enhanced herbaceous wetlands improve water quality, and increase spawning 

and nursery area and habitat for adult fish. All of these methods stimulate 

production of water column organisms. 

♦ Birds. Birds are defined in Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, as both permanent 

and migratory species throughout Louisiana. Appropriate restoration types for 

injuries to these organisms are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, and upland vegetation. These 

restoration types can increase bird food sources (both terrestrial and aquatic), 

and provide birds with refuge and nesting habitat. Thus, these restoration types 

benefit bird populations. 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

inland beaches/shorelines/streambeds. These restoration types can benefit 

shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors by creating benthic and pelagic feeding 

communities. 

♦ Wildlife. Wildlife is defined in Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, as mammals, 

reptiles, and amphibians in all habitats throughout Louisiana. Appropriate restoration 

types for injuries to wildlife are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, and upland vegetation. These 

restoration types can increase wildlife food sources (both terrestrial and aquatic), 

and provide refuge and habitat for wildlife. Thus, these restoration types can 

compensate for injuries to wildlife populations. 

• Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

inland beaches/shorelines/streambeds. These restoration types can benefit 

wildlife by creating shoreline, benthic, and pelagic feeding communities and 

diversifying fauna by habitat diversification (e.g., pools and riffles) and improving 

habitat quality by improvement of stream canopy. 

♦ Recreation. Recreational resources are defined in Chapter 2.0, Affected 

Environment, as habitats and/or areas that provide to the public human recreational 

activities, both direct and indirect, throughout the state and offshore within the EEZ. 

Appropriate restoration types for injuries to recreational resource services are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, and upland vegetation. These 

restoration types support bird and wildlife populations, increase aesthetic 

qualities, and support juvenile fish. All of these benefits may compensate for 

injuries to recreational resource services such as bird watching, hunting, hiking, 

and fishing if the areas created, enhanced, acquired, or protected are open to 

such use. 
 99 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds. These restoration types may provide food and 

habitat for fish, birds, and wildlife, and increase aesthetic qualities. Each of 

these benefits can compensate for injuries to recreational resources services 

such as bird watching, hunting, hiking, picnicking, and fishing if the areas 

created, enhanced, acquired, or protected are open to such use. 

♦ Stocking existing habitats with water column organisms (generally fish or 

zooplankton), birds, wildlife, and oysters and other reef organisms. These 

restoration types replenish organisms that provide human recreation and can 

compensate for injuries to recreational resource service injuries such as bird 

watching, hunting, and fishing. 

♦ Physical protection of existing bird and wildlife populations that have been 

injured. These restoration types can compensate the public for recreational 

losses such as bird watching and hunting. 

4.2.4.1.3 Service-to-Service 

Some restoration types will not directly restore an injured trust resource but will generate 

similar services and support the same wildlife species, and recreational and cultural 

activities. In cases where a restoration type generates the same or similar services as 

the injured trust resource, a strong nexus may be established even though the injured 

and restored trust resources are not the same. This is the basis for service-to-service 

restoration. In Figure 4.2, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, 

the restoration types listed below have been identified as appropriate for injuries to trust 

services because of a strong service-to-service relationship. 

♦ Herbaceous wetlands. Coastal herbaceous wetlands are defined in Chapter 2.0, 

Affected Environment, as primarily salt, brackish/intermediate, and fresh marshes 

located in or near the coastal zone and alluvial basin. Appropriate restoration types 

for injuries to coastal herbaceous wetlands are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

coastal forested wetland areas. These restoration types can compensate for 

injury to herbaceous wetlands since these two ecosystems are closely linked in 

the Louisiana coastal zone. The two ecosystems exchange wildlife, undergo 

similar biogeochemical processes, improve various water quality parameters, 

and retain sediments vital to nutrient cycling and productivity. 

♦ Creation/enhancement and acquisition/legal protection of benthic or submerged 

habitats such as SAV. These restoration types create habitat for wave energy 

absorption. These processes benefit water column organisms by providing lowenergy havens and benthic food sources for plankton and juvenile nekton that in 

turn promotes the sustainability of the resource. 

♦ Forested wetlands. Coastal forested wetlands are defined in Chapter 2.0, Affected 

Environment, as coastal wetland areas dominated by woody vegetation that usually 

consists of an overstory of large trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and 

an herbaceous layer. Appropriate restoration types for injuries to coastal forested 

wetlands are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

coastal herbaceous wetlands. These restoration types can compensate for injury 

to forested wetlands since these two ecosystems are closely linked in the 

Louisiana coastal zone. The two ecosystems exchange birds, wildlife, 

biogeochemistry, hydrology, and sediment in a symbiotic relationship. 
 100 

♦ Oyster reefs (and Other Reef Organisms). Oyster and other reefs are defined in 

Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, as living reefs encompassing oysters, mussels, 

and/or other benthic organisms that make up the reef structure, and the fauna and 

flora that attach or are closely associated with these reefs. Appropriate restoration 

types for injuries to oyster reefs (and other reefs) are: 

♦ Creation/enhancement, physical protection, or acquisition/legal protection of 

coastal herbaceous wetland areas. These restoration types export detrital matter 

for oyster consumption, storm energy abatement, and filtration. These attributes 

stimulate reef production. 

♦ Creation/enhancement of oyster reefs, other reefs, and SAV. These restoration 

types benefit this class of service since they are closely linked in the coastal 

zone. These restored habitats exchange benthic and pelagic organisms with 

oyster reefs, provide storm abatement, and reduce turbidity; all of which promote 

reef productivity. 

♦ Water column organisms. Water column organisms are defined in Chapter 2.0, 

Affected Environment, as plankton, nekton, large mobile crustaceans, and demersal 

fishes. An appropriate restoration type for injuries to water column organisms is: 

♦ Stocking of coastal oyster reefs and other reefs. This restoration type provides 

habitat for benthic organism that in turn provide food for water column organisms. 

Oyster reefs and other reefs also act as highly efficient water filters that decrease 

turbidity and thereby promote productivity of pelagic organisms. 

4.2.4.1.4 Dissimilar Services 

Empty cells in Figures 4.2, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, 

and 4.3, Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, represent a weak 

nexus between “potentially injured trust resources and services” and restoration types. 

Many of the trust resources and services-restoration types relationships have a weak 

nexus due to significantly dissimilar services. For example, creation/enhancement or 

stocking of coastal oyster reefs is highly unlikely to compensate for injuries to coastal 

forested wetlands. Similarly, the creation/enhancement or physical protection of inland 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds will not necessarily remunerate injuries to inland 

forested wetlands (and vice-versa), as the two habitats are not closely linked in the 

ecosystem. 

When a restoration type has the potential, but not likelihood or certainty, to restore an 

injured trust resource or service, the nexus is also considered to be weak. For example, 

physical protection or legal acquisition of SAV may compensate for injuries to a beach, 

shoreline, or streambed if it can be shown that the SAV has the potential to trap 

sediments and, hence, build beach, shoreline, or streambed. Controlling detrital export 

from a coastal forested wetland through enhancement, physical protection or acquisition 

may compensate damages to oyster reefs by reducing turbidity. In both cases, the 

same type of injured trust resource has the potential, but is not likely to be restored and 

therefore is generally characterized as having a weak nexus. Despite this general 

characterization, the empty cells in Figures 4.2, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust 

Resources and Services, and 4.3, Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and 

Services, might, on occasion, support a viable nexus for restoration planning. Such a 

nexus, if applied in a given incident, will be explained on a case-by-case basis in the 

Restoration Plan for that incident. 
 101 

4.2.4.1.5 Restoration Type Selection Criteria 

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

which of the various restoration types with a strong nexus to the “potentially injured trust 

resources and services” identified in Figures 4.2, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust 

Resources and Services, and 4.3, Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and 

Services, are most appropriate to restore the injured trust resources and services during 

a given incident. Application of the restoration type selection criteria during a given 

incident would occur in Step #3 in Figure 4.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP 

Program, (where potential restoration types were identified in the RRP Program, prior to 

the incident occurring). 

These restoration type selection criteria are based in part on the OPA regulations (15 

CFR 990.54[a][1-6]) and include: 

♦ “The extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the trustees’ goals and 

objectives in returning the injured trust resources and services to baseline and/or 

compensating for interim losses” (15 CFR 990.54[a][2]). 

♦ Strength of Nexus to the Injury 

Trustees must consider compensatory restoration actions that provide services of 

the same type and quantity, and of comparable values as those lost. The various 

restoration types are then evaluated to determine how well the restoration type 

would address the injuries to “potentially injured trust resources and services” 

that occurred as result of the incident in a specific region. Screening questions 

include: “Does the option provide the same type of trust resources and services, 

both on-site and off-site, that are lost due to the injury"?, and “If not, will the 

proposed option result in trust resources and services that are similar or 

complimentary to the injured trust resources and services”? Alternatives that 

come closest to restoring the same type of trust resources and services as those 

injured by the incident are more likely to be selected than those where the nexus 

is not so close. 

♦ Scalability 

The compensatory restoration projects must be scaled in order to compensate 

for the injury. The gains in trust resources and services provided by the 

compensatory projects must be at least equal to the trust resources and services 

lost as a result of the injury. Accordingly, the trustees must consider whether the 

restoration projects in a restoration type category are scalable for the incident. 

♦ “The extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/or 

service” (15 CFR 990.54[a][5]). 

♦ Degree to Which Restoration Type Addresses Multiple Injuries

The trustees must consider the potential for a restoration type to address more 

than one trust resource or service injury or loss. 

♦ RRP Program-specific criteria. 

♦ Availability of Projects for this Restoration Type in the RRP

The trustees consider whether a restoration project(s) exists for the applicable 

restoration type(s). 
 102 

♦ Other case-specific parameters. 

4.2.4.2 Project Selection Screening Criteria 

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

select a set of potential project alternatives (including a preferred alternative), and 

provide the Draft Restoration Plan to the public for review under OPA, NEPA, and other 

applicable statutes and regulations. In order to provide consistency, predictability, and 

accountability in this phase of the NRDA decision-making process, the trustees 

established project selection screening criteria to assist in selecting the preferred 

restoration project(s). 

The trustees will use the following criteria (based in part on the OPA regulations, Section 

990.54[a][1-6]), for selecting specific restoration projects: 

♦ “The cost to carry out the alternative” (15 CFR 990.54[a][1]). 

♦ Project Cost-Effectiveness (including ability to partner)

Trustees will consider the relationship of restoration project costs to natural 

resource benefits. Favored projects are those that provide the most benefit for 

the least cost expended. Lower-cost projects that provide equivalent restoration 

benefits are preferred over more costly, but otherwise similar projects. Factors 

that may influence project costs include methods and procedures for project 

implementation,materials, equipment, project design, permitting, oversight, 

maintenance (including contingency funds to cover unforeseen costs for 

additional work to make the project meet performance criteria), monitoring, and 

the ability to partner (i.e., work with other public or private entities to build a 

better/bigger project). 

♦ “The extent to which each alternative is expected to meet the trustees’ goals and 

objectives in returning the injured natural resources and services to baseline and/or 

compensating for interim losses” (15 CFR 990.54[a][2]). 

♦ Proximity to Affected Area

Proximity addresses whether the restoration project is located within the area 

where the injuries occurred or is within a reasonable distance from the affected 

area (e.g., in the same watershed, ecosystem, and/or political boundary). It also 

considers the extent to which the project directly or indirectly benefits injured trust 

resources and services or compensates for lost use within the affected area. For 

example, a habitat restoration project located some distance from the site of the 

injury may be appropriate because it is related to the injured trust resources 

based on species migratory patterns, habitat use, affected life stages of animals, 

or predator/prey relationships. Similarly, a project in one location which is 

intended to restore human uses lost in another location may be reasonably 

related to the lost uses if there is evidence indicating that the affected user 

groups would likely benefit from the project. 

♦ Scalability

The compensatory restoration projects must be scaled in order to compensate 

for the injury. The gains in trust resources and services provided by the 

compensatory projects must be at least equal to the trust resources and services 
 103 

lost as a result of the injury. Accordingly, the trustees must consider whether the 

restoration project is scalable for the incident. 

♦ Extent of Benefit to Injured Trust Resources and Services

Trustees must consider compensatory restoration projects that provide services 

of the same type and quantity, and of comparable value as those lost. 

Restoration projects will be evaluated to determine how well they address the 

injuries to the injured trust resources and services that occurred as result of the 

incident in a specific region. Screening questions include: “Will the project 

provide the same type of trust resources and services, both on-site and off-site, 

that were lost due to the injury”?, and “If not, will the proposed project result in 

trust resources and services that are similar or complimentary to the injured trust 

resources and services”? Projects that come closest to restoring the same type 

of organisms and habitats as those injured by the incident are more likely to be 

selected than those projects where the nexus is not as strong. 

♦ “The likelihood of success of each alternative...” (15 CFR 990.54[a][3]) and “those 

alternatives considered technically feasible” (15 CFR 990.53[a][2]). 

♦ Technical Feasibility and Likelihood of Success 

Trustees must consider whether a restoration project can be successfully 

implemented in a reasonable amount of time. Generally, the likelihood of a 

project’s success is evaluated based on whether the method used to implement 

the project: 1) is proven; 2) has a high rate of success as documented in the 

literature; and 3) is capable of being implemented in a cost-effective manner. 

This does not preclude the use of existing technology in new and creative ways 

so long as there is a significant likelihood of successful implementation. 

Nevertheless, for new or unproven technologies, the trustees must demonstrate 

that there is reason to believe that the project will be successful. 

♦ “The extent to which each alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the 

incident, and avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative,” (15 

CFR 990.54[a][4]). 

♦ Avoidance of Future Additional Injury Resulting from the Project 

The trustees must consider the extent to which each alternative will prevent 

future injury as a result of the incident, and avoid collateral injury as a result of 

implementing the alternative. Specifically, trustees must consider the potential 

for a restoration project to aggravate or cause additional trust resource or service 

injuries, including to trust resources or services that could be injured as a result 

of implementation of the project. For example, projects that have the potential to 

adversely affect listed and/or designated critical habitat, would be designed in 

such a way to avoid those adverse affects. 

♦ “The extent to which each alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/or 

service” (15 CFR 990.54[a][5]). 

♦ Degree to Which Project Addresses Multiple Injuries

The trustees must consider the ability of a restoration project to address more 

than one trust resource or service injury or loss. 
 104 

♦ “The effect of each alternative on public health and safety” (15 CFR 990.54[a][6]). 

♦ Degree to Which Project Affects Public Health and Safety 

The trustees must consider the potential for a given restoration project to have a 

negative impact on public health and safety. 

♦ RRP Program specific criteria 

♦ Ability to Implement Project with Minimal Delay

The trustees consider the stage of a project’s development. For example, 

projects that have engineering and design and/or permitting completed or 

underway may be given higher priority when choosing among otherwise equal 

alternatives. Design or implementation flexibility, where a portion of a project 

may be completed more quickly, may also be considered. 

♦ Degree to Which Project Supports Existing Strategies/Plans

The trustees consider the extent to which a restoration project supports, or is 

consistent with, national, regional, and/or local restoration initiatives and 

mandates, local resource management plans, town ordinances, and/or the 

agendas of various community groups. The trustees may also consider if the 

project can stand-alone or could be integrated into an existing resource 

management program or larger project. Projects that can be integrated may 

increase the environmental benefits of the existing program and realize 

significant administrative cost savings. However, although integration with other 

program efforts may be beneficial, the trustees need to ensure that constraints 

that may be imposed by those programs do not conflict with the trustees’ 

restoration goals under OPA. 

♦ Project Urgency

The trustees consider the window of opportunity in which a project may be 

constructed. For example, the infrastructure to support the project may currently 

exist but may not be present if implementation is delayed (deterioration of a 

feature, such as a ridge, that once gone would make the project difficult or 

impossible). In another example, the imminent construction of a restoration 

project by another program or individual could be added to a project already 

under consideration.. 

♦ Other Factors as Appropriate

4.2.4.3 Special Circumstances 

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

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

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

screening criteria, the most appropriate restoration project(s) for an incident in one 

region is located outside that region. In both cases, in accordance with the law, 

regulation, and criteria above, the trustees will select the restoration project(s) that will 

provide the closest nexus between the injuries and restoration in the most cost-effective 

manner. 
 105 

4.2.5 Environmental Impacts of Restoration Type Implementation 

Once the preferred restoration project(s) is selected, and prior to implementation of the 

project(s), the trustees must, in accordance with NEPA, conduct an environmental 

analysis to evaluate the potential impacts of the project(s) implementation. To further 

streamline the NRDA process, the trustees have conducted an analysis of the 

environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the restoration types 

identified in the RRP Program by evaluating the impacts of the restoration techniques 

commonly used to implement the restoration types. This section provides the 

environmental consequences analysis of the implementation of the RRP Program 

Restoration Types. The discussion will be necessarily broad and generalized to the 

technique on which the analysis has been performed, but provides the starting point for 

assessing site-specific impacts necessary to allow tiering from this document to 

subsequent environmental documentation under NEPA concerning the environmental 

impacts of implementing certain restoration types. The environmental impacts of 

specific restoration projects will be addressed specifically in subsequent NEPA 

documents when the projects are known. If necessary, avoidance and mitigation 

measures will be implemented to lessen the adverse impacts of any construction 

activities. Direct and indirect impacts for most restoration techniques primarily were 

derived from more detailed impact descriptions contained in the Louisiana Coastal Area 

(LCA) Ecosystem Restoration Study Final Environmental Impact Statement (USACE 

2004) and Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (USACE 1993). Direct and indirect impacts for inland silvicultural, 

land/substrate recontouring and rehabilitation, and resource enhancement techniques 

primarily were derived from more detailed impact descriptions contained in the southern 

forest resource assessment (Weir and Greiss 2002). 

The analysis is divided into two subsections: coastal restoration techniques and inland 

restoration techniques. 

4.2.5.1 Coastal Restoration Techniques 

The coastal restoration techniques include: 

♦ Vegetative Planting; 

♦ Vegetative Protection; 

♦ Hydrologic Restoration; 

♦ Marsh Management; 

♦ Dredge and Fill; 

♦ Shoreline Protection; 

♦ Faunal Stocking; 

♦ Sediment Diversion; 

♦ Freshwater Diversion; 

♦ Outfall Management; and 

♦ Nutrient and Sediment Trapping. 

4.2.5.1.1 Vegetative Planting 

Vegetative planting projects typically involve planting nursery stock or rooted cuttings, or 

broadcasting seeds. This restoration technique is usually used to supplement other 

restoration activities, including but not limited to, dredge and fill, hydrologic restoration, 

sediment diversion, and shoreline protection projects. Vegetative plantings may be used 

in the restoration of coastal herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, 
 106 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds, SAV, as well as the restoration of recreational and 

cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Vegetative planting may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife and aquatic 

fauna from habitat disturbance and noise during planting. These activities also may 

temporarily affect public access and result in short-term, adverse effects to water 

quality (e.g., elevated turbidity). Direct adverse effects are expected to be temporary 

and the severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. Direct beneficial effects 

are not anticipated from vegetative planting projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

In Louisiana and elsewhere, vegetative planting projects have been used 

successfully to improve ecological function through the production of live above and 

below ground biomass, the establishment of surface structure for epiphytic 

production, reduction of soil erosion (via stabilization of exposed soils and 

dampening wind-induced waves) (Belhadjali 2002), and enhanced ability for the 

marsh ecosystem to store and cycle nutrients (LCWCRTF 2003). Localized, 

temporary improvements in water quality may result if soil erosion is reduced or 

eliminated and enhanced nutrient cycling occurs as a result of vegetative planting 

(Ward et al. 1984). As vegetation matures, the marsh usually provides increased 

habitat for fish and wildlife resources and improves the overall aesthetic quality of 

the ecosystem. After vegetative maturation, created marsh may support activities 

such as wildlife viewing, sport and commercial fishing, and hunting that could 

contribute positively to the local economy. Vegetative planting may have positive 

socioeconomic effects to the extent that these types of projects restore and protect 

coastal wetlands and associated fish and wildlife resources (USACE 1993). 

Vegetative plantings also may prevent erosion of cultural resources (USACE 1993). 

Short- or long-term adverse social, human health, transportation, and air quality 

effects are not anticipated for vegetative planting projects. 

4.2.5.1.2 Vegetative Protection 

Vegetative protection is most often used in conjunction with vegetative plantings and 

involves the use of materials that aid in increasing the propagule or seedling survival 

rates. This method can protect against herbivory and/or competition through the 

placement of tree shelters, exclusion fences, weed mats, and the application of 

herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and mammal repellents, as well as other 

applications. Vegetative protection may be used in the restoration of coastal 

herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, SAV, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as 

well as the restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Vegetative protection activities may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife and 

aquatic fauna from habitat disturbance and noise associated with the application of 

protective materials. Vegetative protection projects have the potential to temporarily 

affect water quality from the application of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, 

mammal repellents, and other chemicals. Shelters, mats, and exclusion devices 

used for vegetative protection may be aesthetically displeasing until the vegetative 

cover becomes more productive. These activities also may temporarily affect public 

access. Direct adverse effects to the human environment are expected to be 
 107 

temporary and the severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. Direct 

beneficial effects are not anticipated from vegetative protection projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts – 

In Louisiana and elsewhere, vegetative protection projects have been used 

successfully to preserve wetlands and wetland-associated recreation (USACE 1993), 

increase or maintain the rate of vegetative survival (Meyers et al.1995), and increase 

moisture retention. These projects may provide a long-term benefit by preserving 

coastal wetlands and the associated wildlife and aquatic fauna. Vegetative 

protection activities may have positive socioeconomic effects to the extent that these 

types of projects restore and protect coastal wetlands and associated fish and 

wildlife resources (USACE 1993). Protective features may result in other benefits by 

providing a variety of substrates for colonization and thereby increase the faunal 

diversity of an area, e.g., placement of rip rap for shoreline armoring or breakwaters 

which creates a base for fouling and reef organism colonization and provides crevice 

and cover for larger aquatic organisms. This restoration technique also may prevent 

erosion of cultural resources (USACE 1993). Short- or long-term, adverse 

environmental, social, human health, transportation, and air quality effects are not 

anticipated for vegetative protection projects. Vegetative protection projects are 

expected to result in a net beneficial effect to the human environment. 

4.2.5.1.3 Hydrologic Restoration 

Hydrologic restoration projects involve changing existing drainage patterns in an attempt 

to address the problems associated with excessive or deficient drainage. This may 

include plugging oil and gas canals or removing/installing water control structures. This 

technique may be used in the restoration of coastal herbaceous wetlands, forested 

wetlands, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the restoration of recreational 

and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

A temporary increase in noise levels and restriction of public access may result from 

hydrologic restoration activities. Installation of structures and dredging and filling 

activities may impact cultural resources. Direct adverse effects are expected to be 

temporary and severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. Direct beneficial 

effects are not anticipated from hydrologic restoration projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

The potential positive and adverse effects of hydrologic restoration projects have 

been well documented in other technical evaluations of restoration projects in 

Louisiana. In summary, these types of projects can moderate or reduce salinity 

levels, improve water quality (e.g., reduced turbidity), and reduce habitat loss 

(USACE 1993; 2004). After implementation, these types of projects may result in 

environmental conditions more suitable for SAV and wildlife and aquatic fauna 

(USACE 1993). Hydrologic restoration projects also can prevent erosion of cultural 

resources (USACE 1993). Conversely, altered hydrology may cause adverse effects 

from increased erosion, decreased sustainability of flora and fauna, decreased water 

quality (e.g., elevated nutrient concentrations), and restricted recreational access 

(USACE 2004). Short- or long-term, adverse environmental, social, human health, 

transportation, and air quality effects are not anticipated for hydrologic restoration 

activities. Hydrologic restoration projects are expected to result in a net beneficial 

effect to the human environment. 
 108 

4.2.5.1.4 Marsh Management 

Marsh management projects often employ structures to alter water levels, manage 

hunting and fishing for recreation, manage grazing animals, control local water quality, 

and direct tidal flow. Structures used include dikes, natural landscape features, weirs, 

flap gates, and culverts. Scheduled burning is a form of marsh management that does 

not employ structures to alter water levels. The marsh management technique may be 

used in the restoration of coastal herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, and SAV, as 

well as the restoration of recreational, wildlife, and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

A temporary increase in noise levels and restriction of public access may result from 

marsh management activities. Direct impacts to water levels and salinities inside the 

managed area may occur from installation of weirs or flap gates. Scheduled burning 

can cause temporary adverse effects to air quality and coastal habitats. 

Construction activities may impact cultural resources. Direct adverse effects are 

expected to be temporary and severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. 

Direct beneficial effects are not anticipated from marsh management projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

Because most marsh management is dependent upon alteration of hydrology, the 

indirect benefits and detriments discussed in Section 4.2.5.1.3, Hydrologic 

Restoration, are relevant. Additionally, marsh areas controlled by burning can 

stimulate vegetative density and vigor and organic material availability to organisms 

but may limit organic carbon available for soil building. This restoration technique 

also can prevent erosion or innundation of cultural resources from the 

creation/enhancement of wetlands (USACE 1993). Conversely, adverse impacts of 

management burning may be degraded habitat quality. Short- or long-term, adverse 

environmental, social, human health, transportation, and air quality effects are not 

anticipated for marsh management activities. An overall net benefit to the human 

environment is expected for marsh management projects. 

4.2.5.1.5 Dredge and Fill 

Dredge and fill is often used in conjunction with vegetative plantings, vegetative 

protection, shoreline protection, sediment diversion, outfall management, hydrologic 

restoration, and nutrient and sediment trapping. This technique may involve building 

new marshland, filling abandoned oil and gas canals, nourishing deteriorating wetlands 

and beaches, constructing terraces, and repairing breached levees or natural ridges. 

Dredged material is often obtained from adjacent waterways, but can be obtained from 

more remote borrow areas as well. This technique may be used in the restoration of 

coastal herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, 

as well as the restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Dredge and fill projects may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife and aquatic 

fauna and existing vegetation from habitat disturbance and noise. These activities 

also may temporarily affect public access and result in short-term, adverse effects to 

water quality (e.g., elevated turbidity). Direct adverse effects are expected to be 

temporary and the severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. Direct 

beneficial effects are not anticipated from dredge and fill projects. 
 109 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

The potential positive and adverse effects of dredge and fill projects have been well 

documented in other technical evaluations of restoration alternatives in Louisiana 

(USACE 1993; 2004). In summary, dredge and fill projects can create marshes that 

provide some functions similar to natural ones (USACE 1993). As created marsh 

matures, it can provide increased habitat for fish and wildlife resources and improve 

the overall aesthetic quality of the ecosystem. After maturation, created marsh may 

support activities such as wildlife viewing, sport and commercial fishing, and hunting 

that could contribute positively to the local economy. Dredge and fill projects may 

have positive socioeconomic effects to the extent that these types of projects restore 

and protect coastal wetlands and associated fish and wildlife resources (USACE 

1993). They also may prevent erosion or innundation of cultural resources (USACE 

1993). Conversely, dredge and fill projects may cause short- to long-term 

displacement of wildlife and aquatic fauna. Short- or long-term adverse social, 

human health, transportation, and air quality effects are not anticipated for dredge 

and fill projects. An overall net benefit to the human environment is expected from 

dredge and fill projects. 

4.2.5.1.6 Shoreline Protection 

Shoreline protection projects are often used in conjunction with vegetative planting, 

vegetative protection, dredge and fill, freshwater diversion, and outfall management 

techniques. Shoreline protection is designed to protect beaches, streambeds, and pond 

edges from exposure to flooding, wave energy, longshore transport, or wave energy. 

Most often, wave energy can be dissipated by employing structures such as wave mats, 

fences, or segmented breakwaters. Flooding and wave energy is often controlled 

through the use of bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, riprap, or other structures directly 

adjacent and parallel to the shoreline. Lastly, longshore transport is generally controlled 

through the use of jetties that run perpendicular to the shoreline and trap sediments. 

This technique may be used in the restoration of coastal herbaceous wetlands, forested 

wetlands, beaches/shorelines/streambeds, and SAV. 

Direct impacts - 

The direct impacts of shoreline protection activities are variable depending on the 

habitat characteristics, hydrological conditions, and structures employed. Shoreline 

protection projects may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife and aquatic fauna 

from habitat disturbance and noise. These activities also may temporarily affect 

public access and result in short-term, adverse effects to water quality (e.g., elevated 

turbidity). The potential loss of connectivity between a water source and its adjacent 

habitat can be immediately detrimental to the wildlife, plant, and aquatic species 

composition, sediment stability, and nutrient cycling in the affected area. Direct 

adverse effects are expected to be temporary and the severity of these effects is 

expected to be minimal. Direct beneficial effects are not anticipated from shoreline 

protection projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

The potential positive and adverse effects of shoreline protection projects have been 

well documented in other technical evaluations of restoration alternatives in 

Louisiana (USACE 1993; 2004). This restoration technique can prevent marsh loss 

and the erosion of cultural resources. Shoreline protection projects may have 

positive socioeconomic effects to the extent that these types of projects protect 

coastal wetlands and associated fish and wildlife resources (USACE 1993). 
 110 

Conversely, shoreline protection structures can prevent sediment and nutrient 

transport. Protective features may result in other benefits by providing a variety of 

substrates for colonization and thereby increase the faunal diversity of an area, e.g., 

placement of rip rap for shoreline armoring or breakwaters which creates a base for 

fouling and reef organism colonization and provides crevice and cover for larger 

aquatic organisms. Short- or long-term adverse social, human health, transportation, 

and air quality effects are not anticipated for shoreline protection projects. An overall 

net benefit is expected for shoreline protection activities. 

4.2.5.1.7 Faunal Stocking 

Faunal stocking involves the stocking or re-introduction of fish, birds, or other wildlife. 

Faunal stocking may be used in conjunction with the restoration of coastal herbaceous 

wetlands, forested wetlands, beaches/shorelines/streambeds, and oyster reefs (and 

other reefs), as well as the restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Stocking fauna in coastal environments can immediately provide opportunities for 

wildlife viewing, sport and commercial fishing, and hunting that could contribute 

positively to the local economy, depending on the type, life stage, and number of 

animals released. It serves to replace lost or diminished populations and 

compensates for altered trophic balance. Direct adverse effects are not anticipated 

from faunal stocking. Direct effects of this restoration technique are expected to be 

beneficial. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

The potential benefits and drawbacks for stocking fauna have been well studied for 

many species of wildlife and aquatic fauna (e.g., Kohler and Hubert 1993; Payne 

1998). Stocking fauna can provide long-term opportunities for wildlife viewing, sport 

and commercial fishing, and hunting that could contribute positively to the local 

economy, depending on the type and number of animals released. Potential 

adverse effects of stocking fauna include, but are not limited to, alteration of the 

trophic balance at the ecosystem level (e.g., resource limitation), altered population 

dynamics of wildlife and aquatic fauna, and decreased genetic diversity. An overall 

net benefit to the human environment is expected for faunal stocking projects. 

4.2.5.1.8 Sediment Diversion 

Sediment diversion projects are often used in conjunction with outfall management, 

hydrologic restoration, and nutrient and sediment trapping. Most often, this technique 

involves creating a cut in a levee (crevasse splay) in order to connect a wetland, or open 

water area, with a sediment source to build land. A sediment diversion can be 

uncontrolled (water and sediment flow freely), partially controlled (directional jetties), or 

controlled (control structures), depending on the ecosystem characteristics and size of 

the restoration project. Sediment diversion may be used in the restoration of coastal 

herbaceous wetlands and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the restoration of 

recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Installation of sediment diversions may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife 

and aquatic fauna from habitat disturbance and noise. These activities also may 

temporarily affect public access and result in short-term, adverse effects to water 

quality (e.g., elevated turbidity). Installation activities may impact cultural resources. 
 111 

Direct adverse effects are expected to be temporary and severity of these effects is 

expected to be minimal. Direct beneficial effects are not anticipated from sediment 

diversion projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

The potential positive and adverse effects of sediment diversion projects have been 

well documented in other technical evaluations of restoration alternatives in 

Louisiana (USACE 1993; 2004). The addition of sediments in target areas can 

counteract subsidence and increase the amount of wetland habitat available for 

wildlife and aquatic fauna (USACE 1993). This restoration technique also has been 

used successfully to restore hydrologic connectivity and improve ecosystem function 

(USACE 2004). Sediment diversions may prevent erosion of cultural resources 

(USACE 1993). Conversely, sediment diversions can cause negative impacts to an 

area through increased erosion if the existing vegetation is not supported or 

productive due to the altered water table levels. Nutrients in association with 

sediments are generally a benefit if deposited in existing wetland areas, but nutrients 

that are transported to open water may promote eutrofication (USACE 1993). 

Restricted access may have adverse impacts to recreational use and altered natural 

characteristics may adversely impact aesthetic quality. Short- or long-term adverse 

social, human health, transportation, and air quality effects are not anticipated for 

sediment diversion projects. An overall net benefit to the human environment is 

expected for sediment diversion projects. 

4.2.5.1.9 Freshwater Diversion 

Freshwater diversion projects are often used in conjunction with outfall management, 

and hydrologic restoration. Most often, this technique involves creating a control 

structure in a levee in order to connect a wetland with a freshwater source. Freshwater 

diversion may be used in the restoration of coastal herbaceous wetlands, forested 

wetlands, SAV, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the restoration of 

recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Installation of freshwater diversions may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife 

and aquatic fauna from habitat disturbance and noise. These activities also may 

temporarily affect public access and result in short-term, adverse effects to water 

quality (e.g., elevated turbidity). Installation activities may impact cultural resources. 

Direct adverse effects are expected to be temporary and severity of these effects is 

expected to be minimal. Direct beneficial effects are not anticipated from freshwater 

diversion projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

Alterations in the salinity regime from freshwater diversions can affect the species 

composition of the affected area. The sustainability and proliferation of flora and 

fauna in adjacent areas may be affected. Altered hydrology can have an initial shortterm adverse effect on the species present, but can also result in an overall net 

benefit by increasing species diversity, land building, seasonal pulsing, nutrient 

cycling, sediment deposition, vegetative growth and biomass production, and 

creating habitat. Other impacts can be the emergence of new vegetation and 

improved landscape continuity. Negative changes in water quality may occur, 

especially if freshwater diversion projects are located outside of active deltas 

(USACE 1993), but this restoration technique also can result in a long-term benefit to 
 112 

water quality in the affected area (USACE 1993). Although associated fresh water 

and nutrients can be of benefit to grass beds and shellfish, suspended solids 

associated with diverted water may reduce light penetration, and can potentially 

cause stress to those resources. Restricted access may have adverse impacts to 

recreational use and altered natural characteristics may adversely impact aesthetic 

quality. Short- or long-term adverse social, human health, transportation, and air 

quality effects are not anticipated for freshwater diversion restoration projects. An 

overall net benefit to the human environment is expected for freshwater diversion 

projects. 

4.2.5.1.10 Outfall Management 

Outfall management projects are often used in conjunction with sediment diversions, 

freshwater diversions, and hydrologic restoration. Most often, this technique involves 

creating structures that direct the flow of water and/or sediments through outfall areas. 

Outfall management projects may be used in the restoration of coastal herbaceous 

wetlands, forested wetlands, SAV, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the 

restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Installation of outfall management structures may have short-term, adverse effects to 

wildlife and aquatic fauna from habitat disturbance and noise. These activities also 

may temporarily affect public access and result in short-term, adverse effects to 

water quality (e.g., elevated turbidity). Installation activities may impact cultural 

resources. Direct adverse effects are expected to be temporary and severity of 

these effects is expected to be minimal. Direct beneficial effects are not anticipated 

from outfall management projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

Altered hydrology can have an initial short-term effect on the species present, but 

result in an overall net benefit by increasing increased species diversity, land 

building, seasonal pulsing, nutrient cycling, sediment deposition, and habitat 

creation. Other impacts can be the emergence of new vegetation and improved 

landscape continuity. Negative or positive changes in water quality may occur from 

outfall management projects (USACE 1993). Access by fisherman and hunters may 

be reduced unless structures are equipped with boat bays (USACE 1993). Altered 

natural characteristics may adversely impact aesthetic quality. An overall net benefit 

to the human environment is expected for outfall management projects. 

4.2.5.1.11 Nutrient and Sediment Trapping 

Nutrient and sediment trapping projects are often used in conjunction with sediment 

diversions, dredge and fill, vegetation planting, and shoreline protection. This technique 

can be carried out through the use of Christmas tree fences, terraces, and vegetative 

buffers. This technique may be used in the restoration of coastal herbaceous wetlands, 

forested wetlands, SAV, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the restoration 

of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Nutrient and sediment trapping activities may have short-term, adverse effects to 

wildlife and aquatic fauna from habitat disturbance and noise. This restoration 

technique may have temporary adverse affects on water quality (e.g., elevated 

turbidity) during initial project activities. Installed structures to trap nutrients and 
 113 

sediments may be aesthetically displeasing. These activities also may temporarily 

affect public access. Direct adverse effects to the human environment are expected 

to be temporary and the severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. Direct 

beneficial effects are not anticipated from outfall management projects. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

The potential positive and adverse effects of sediment and nutrient trapping projects 

have been well documented in other technical evaluations of restoration alternatives 

in Louisiana (USACE 1993; 2004). In summary, trapping sediment and nutrients can 

provide a benefit by enhancing wetlands through increased deposition or accretion, 

reducing wave energy, and positively affecting aesthetic quality by protecting coastal 

wetlands and associated fish and wildlife resources (USACE 2004). Other impacts 

may be the emergence of new vegetation and improved landscape continuity. These 

projects may provide a long-term benefit by preserving coastal wetlands and the 

associated wildlife and aquatic fauna. Conversely, structures and deposited 

sediments may obstruct navigable waters and create hazards to navigation or cause 

detrimental water quality changes or inhibit sediment and nutrient transport that help 

to sustain other areas. Restricted access may have adverse impacts to recreational 

use and altered natural characteristics may adversely impact aesthetic quality. An 

overall net benefit to the human environment is expected for nutrient and sediment 

projects. 

4.2.5.2 Inland Restoration Techniques 

The inland restoration techniques include: 

♦ Vegetative Planting; 

♦ Vegetative Protection; 

♦ Hydrologic Restoration; 

♦ Silvicultural Techniques 

♦ Land/Substrate Recontouring and Rehabilitation; 

♦ Resource Enhancement; and 

♦ Faunal Stocking. 

4.2.5.2.1 Vegetative Planting 

Vegetative planting projects are often used in conjunction with hydrologic restoration, 

silvicultural techniques, and land/substrate recontouring and rehabilitation. This 

technique typically involves the planting of nursery stock or rooted cuttings, or 

broadcasting of seeds. Vegetative plantings may be used in the restoration of inland 

herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, upland vegetation, and 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the restoration of recreational and cultural 

areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Vegetative planting may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife and aquatic 

fauna from habitat disturbance and noise during planting. These activities also may 

temporarily affect public access and result in short-term, adverse effects to water 

quality (e.g., elevated turbidity). Direct adverse effects are expected to be 

temporary and the severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. 
 114 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

In Louisiana and elsewhere, vegetative planting projects have been used 

successfully to improve ecological function through the production of live above and 

below ground biomass, the establishment of surface structure for epiphytic 

production, reduction of soil erosion (via stabilization of exposed soils and 

dampening wind induced waves) (Belhadjali 2002), and enhanced ability for the 

wetland ecosystem to store and cycle nutrients (LCWCRTF 2003). Localized, 

temporary improvements in water quality may result if soil erosion is reduced or 

eliminated and enhanced nutrient cycling occurs as a result of vegetative planting 

(Ward et al. 1984). As vegetation matures, the marsh usually provides increased 

habitat for fish and wildlife resources and improves the overall aesthetic quality of 

the ecosystem. After vegetative maturation, created wetlands may support activities 

such as wildlife viewing, sport and commercial fishing, and hunting that could 

contribute positively to the local economy. Vegetative planting may have positive 

socioeconomic effects to the extent that these types of projects restore and protect 

wetlands and associated fish and wildlife resources (USACE 1993). Vegetative 

plantings also may prevent erosion of cultural resources (USACE 1993). Short- or 

long-term adverse social, human health, transportation, and air quality effects are 

not anticipated for inland vegetative planting projects. 

4.2.5.2.2 Vegetative Protection 

Vegetative protection is most often used in conjunction with vegetative plantings and 

involves the use of materials that aid in increasing the propagule or seedling survival 

rates. This method can protect against herbivory and/or competition through the 

placement of tree shelters, exclusion fences, weed mats, and the application of 

herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and mammal repellents, as well as other 

applications. Vegetative protection may be used in the restoration of inland herbaceous 

wetlands, forested wetlands, upland vegetation, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as 

well as the restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Vegetative protection activities may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife and 

aquatic fauna from habitat disturbance and noise associated with the application of 

protective materials. Vegetative protection projects have the potential to temporarily 

affect water quality from the application of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, 

mammal repellents, and other chemicals. Shelters, mats, and exclusion devices 

used for vegetative protection may be aesthetically displeasing until the vegetative 

cover becomes more productive. These activities also may temporarily affect public 

access. Direct adverse effects to the human environment are expected to be 

temporary and the severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

In Louisiana and elsewhere, vegetative protection projects have been used 

successfully to preserve wetlands and wetland-associated recreation (USACE 1993), 

increase or maintain the rate of vegetative survival (Meyers et al.1995), and increase 

moisture retention. Vegetative protection activities may have positive socioeconomic 

effects to the extent that these types of projects restore and protect wetlands and 

associated fish and wildlife resources (USACE 1993). Protective features may result 

in other benefits by providing a variety of substrates for colonization and thereby 

increase the faunal diversity of an area, e.g., placement of rip rap for shoreline 

armoring or breakwaters which creates a base for fouling and reef organism 
 115 

colonization and provides crevice and cover for larger aquatic organisms. This 

restoration technique also may prevent erosion of cultural resources (USACE 1993). 

Short- or long-term, adverse environmental, social, human health, transportation, 

and air quality effects are not anticipated for vegetative protection projects. Inland 

vegetative protection projects are expected to result in a net beneficial effect to the 

human environment. 

4.2.5.2.3 Hydrologic Restoration 

Hydrologic restoration projects involve changing existing drainage patterns or mimicking 

natural drainage systems in an attempt to address the problems associated with 

excessive or deficient drainage. This may include plugging or back-filling agricultural 

drainage ditches or removing or installing water control structures. This technique may 

be used in the restoration of inland herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, upland 

vegetation, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the restoration of 

recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

A temporary increase in noise levels and restriction of public access may result from 

hydrologic restoration activities. Installation of structures and dredging and filling 

activities may impact cultural resources. Direct adverse effects are expected to be 

temporary and severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

The potential positive and adverse effects of hydrologic restoration projects have 

been well documented in other technical evaluations of restoration projects in 

Louisiana. In summary, these types of projects can moderate or reduce salinity 

levels, improve water quality (e.g., reduced turbidity), and reduce habitat loss 

(USACE 1993; 2004). After implementation, these types of projects may result in 

environmental conditions more suitable for SAV and wildlife and aquatic fauna 

(USACE 1993). Hydrologic restoration projects also can prevent erosion of cultural 

resources (USACE 1993). Conversely, altered hydrology may cause adverse effects 

from increased erosion, decreased sustainability of flora and fauna, decreased water 

quality (e.g., elevated nutrient concentrations), and restricted recreational access 

(USACE 2004). Positive or negative socioeconomic impacts on recreational and 

cultural opportunity and aesthetic quality may occur through changes of resources 

and services in adjacent areas. The context and severity of effects from hydrologic 

restoration projects is largely dependent on site-specific conditions. Short- or longterm, adverse environmental, social, human health, transportation, and air quality 

effects are not anticipated for hydrologic restoration activities. Inland hydrologic 

restoration projects are expected to result in a net beneficial effect to the human 

environment. 

4.2.5.2.4 Silvicultural Techniques 

Silvicultural techniques are often used in conjunction with land/substrate recontouring 

and rehabilitation, vegetative plantings, vegetative protection, resource enhancement, 

and faunal protection/stocking. Commonly used techniques are selective harvesting, 

shelterwood, timber stand improvement, thinning, seed tree, as well as other even and 

uneven-aged harvesting techniques. These techniques may be used in the restoration 

of inland herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, upland vegetation, and the 

restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 
 116 

♦ Direct impacts - 

A temporary increase in noise levels and restriction of public access may result from 

silvicultural practices. These activities also may temporarily affect public access and 

result in short-term, adverse effects to water quality (e.g., elevated turbidity). Direct 

effects are expected to be temporary and severity of these effects is expected to be 

minimal. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

Some silvicultural techniques such as harvesting of the overstory typically create 

gaps in the canopy, thereby increasing light availability to the understory and midstory vegetation, typically increasing their percent cover (Weir and Griess 2002). 

Reduced canopy cover also may cause soil temperature increases which can 

contribute to increased cellulose decomposition, thereby changing the mobility of 

various nutrients essential to tree growth. Thinning reduces competition for available 

resources and results in a more rapid maturing of the forest. Silvicultural operations 

can reduce the opportunity for recreation until the canopy emerges from the midstory. Conversely, the use of the above techniques will contribute to increased forest 

health and productivity, the input of coarse woody debris to an ecosystem, the 

mimicking of natural disturbance, and, if desired, increased understory cover and 

wildlife habitat, as well as numerous other ecological benefits (Messina et al. 1997). 

Slash, the bi-product of harvesting, typically contributes to the amount of course 

woody debris on the forest floor, aids in sediment trapping and nutrient cycling, and 

may add or detract from wildlife habitat (Weir and Griess 2002). The removal of 

slash and timber, or mechanical alterations to the substrate may either encourage or 

discourage the recruitment of understory and overstory. Dense understories 

facilitate the trapping of sediments in riverine systems and decrease the amount of 

run-off in upland systems – both of which can contribute to on-site and downstream 

water quality improvements. Water quality may be influenced by crossings over 

waterways, skid trails on steep slopes, or incorrectly spaced waterbars (Shepard 

1994). Short- or long-term, adverse environmental, social, human health, 

transportation, and air quality effects are not anticipated for silvicultural activities 

designed to improve habitat function. Applications of silvicultural techniques for 

inland restoration are expected to result in a net beneficial effect to the human 

environment. 

4.2.5.2.5 Land/Substrate Recontouring and Rehabilitation 

Land/substrate recontouring and rehabilitations are often used in conjunction with 

hydrologic restoration, vegetative plantings, vegetative protection, and silvicultural 

techniques. This technique may involve reworking soils to create microtopography, 

grading soils for proper drainage, and creation of bedding for post-harvest manipulation. 

This technique may be used in the restoration of inland herbaceous wetlands, forested 

wetlands, upland vegetation, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the 

restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

A temporary increase in noise levels and restriction of public access may result from 

land/substrate recontouring and rehabilitation. Earth-moving activities may impact 

hydrology, vegetation, and cultural resources. These activities also may temporarily 

affect public access and result in short-term, adverse effects to water quality (e.g., 
 117 

elevated turbidity) (Shepard 1994). Direct adverse effects are expected to be 

temporary and severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

Adjacent habitats may be indirectly adversely impacted by nearby land/substrate 

recontouring and rehabilitation due to possible alterations in hydrologic patterns 

(Messina et al. 1997). Conversely, after land/substrate recontouring and 

rehabilitation, created wetlands, upland vegetation, or 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds may support activities such as wildlife viewing, sport 

and commercial fishing, and hunting that could contribute positively to the local 

economy. Short- or long-term, adverse environmental, social, human health, 

transportation, and air quality effects are not anticipated for these activities. Inland 

land/substrate recontouring and rehabilitation is expected to result in a net beneficial 

effect to the human environment. 

4.2.5.2.6 Resource Enhancement 

Resource enhancements are often used in conjunction with vegetative plantings, 

vegetative protection, and silvicultural techniques. This technique includes application of 

fertilizer, creation of cavities in trees for avian habitat, selective culling of trees for 

habitat, and application of herbicides for the manipulation of understory and overstory 

vegetative components and increased agricultural/cropland/grassland production. This 

technique may be used in the restoration of inland herbaceous wetlands, forested 

wetlands, upland vegetation, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as well as the 

restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Resource enhancement may have short-term, adverse effects to wildlife from habitat 

disturbance and noise during restoration activities. A potential benefit of resource 

enhancement is the immediate creation of habitat. Direct adverse effects are 

expected to be temporary and the severity of these effects is expected to be minimal. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

Positive impacts often include increases in productivity to both the understory and 

overstory communities, which may be largely beneficial to the fauna that utilize the 

area, as it increases the area’s utility for foraging and nesting. Additionally, 

increased productivity in different canopy levels may contribute toward the addition 

of organic matter to the substrate, thereby contributing to the storage/cycling of 

nutrients and enhancement of the soil structure (Weir and Griess 2002). 

Modifications to the canopy may result in a positive impact to the amount of coarse 

woody debris that is added to the understory. Negative impacts to water quality may 

result, especially after the removal of significant portions of a forest canopy, the 

application of various chemicals for the control of biotic elements, or the removal of 

ground habitat (Shepard 1994). Resource enhancements may affect the aesthetic, 

cultural, and recreational value and quality of the area. Short- or long-term, adverse 

environmental, social, human health, transportation, and air quality effects are not 

anticipated for resource enhancement activities. Inland resource enhancements are 

expected to result in a net beneficial effect to the human environment. 

4.2.5.2.7 Faunal Stocking 

This technique involves the stocking or re-introduction of fish, birds, or other wildlife. 

Faunal stocking may be used in conjunction with the restoration of inland herbaceous 
 118 

wetlands, forested wetlands, upland vegetation, and beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as 

well as the restoration of recreational and cultural areas. 

♦ Direct impacts - 

Stocking fauna can immediately provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, sport and 

commercial fishing, and hunting that could contribute positively to the local economy, 

depending on the type and number of animals released. It serves to replace lost or 

diminished populations and compensates for altered trophic balance. Direct effects 

of this restoration technique are expected to be beneficial. 

♦ Indirect impacts - 

The potential benefits and drawbacks for stocking fauna have been well studied for 

many species of wildlife and aquatic fauna (e.g., Kohler and Hubert 1993; Payne 

1998). Stocking fauna can provide long-term opportunities for wildlife viewing, sport 

and commercial fishing, and hunting that could contribute positively to the local 

economy, depending on the type and number of animals released. Potential 

adverse effects of stocking fauna include, but are not limited to, alteration of the 

trophic balance at the ecosystem level (e.g., resource limitation), altered population 

dynamics of wildlife and aquatic fauna, and decreased genetic diversity. An overall 

net benefit to the human environment is expected for inland faunal stocking projects. 

4.2.6 Settlement Alternatives 

Under the RRP Program, selection of the settlement alternative to be used in a given 

incident (see Step #5 in Figure 4.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program) 

typically occurs after a restoration type(s) has been identified and initial scaling has been 

conducted (see Step #4a in Figure 4.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP 

Program). The latter is done to obtain a general estimate of the appropriate quantity of 

replacement trust resources or services that will compensate for the amount of injured 

trust resources or services. 

When settling a NRDA case with a RP for a given incident, the trustees and RP 

generally have two options (see Figure 3.2, NRDA Process Implementation): 1) the RP 

can implement the restoration actions that are required to restore the injured trust 

resources and services for the incident with trustee oversight; or 2) the RP can provide 

funding for the trustees to implement the required restoration actions (i.e., “ProjectSpecific Cash Settlement”). Note that a RP can also settle its NRDA liability by using 

both options for one case, where the RP implements a project to restore some of the 

injured trust resources and services from an incident and provides funds to the trustees 

to resolve the remaining liabilities for other injuries. 

In the absence of a viable RP (e.g., where the RP is unknown, bankrupt, or is not 

responsible due to a valid defense) or when a viable RP fails to respond to a demand 

letter after 90 days, the trustees also have the option of going to the federal OSLTF 

and/or state OSCF to seek monies (similar to the “Project-Specific Cash Settlement” 

alternative) to implement the restoration actions required for that case. Under the NRDA 

process described in Chapter 2 of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Resource 

Process (NOAA 1996a), the required restoration action in this instance generally 

involves a specific restoration project that has been selected, in part, because it provides 

the appropriate quantity of replacement trust resources or services to compensate for 

the amount of injured trust resources or services resulting from a given incident. 
 119 

The RRP Program describes a number of additional case settlement alternatives to 

assist the trustees and RPs in negotiations to resolve RP liabilities for incidents. These 

settlement alternatives may provide opportunities for implementing restoration projects 

more quickly and cost-effectively; pooling settlements to implement larger projects than 

could be accomplished by using individual settlements, and potentially facilitating 

implementation of more ecologically significant projects. 

The settlement alternatives available through the RRP Program are depicted in Figure 

4.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program (see Step #5), and are 

described below according to two categories: those general alternatives that already are 

used (see Section 4.2.6.1, Existing Settlement Alternatives) and those that are unique to 

the RRP Program (see Section 4.2.6.2, Additional Settlement Alternatives). 

4.2.6.1 Existing Settlement Alternatives 

4.2.6.1.1 Single Incident - RP-Implemented Restoration Project 

This settlement alternative provides for the implementation of an entire RRP restoration 

project(s) by a single RP who is liable for injuries resulting from a specific incident. (RP 

implementation of an entire restoration project is the only settlement alternative that has 

been used in Louisiana to resolve liability for incidents under OPA and/or OSPRA.) 

4.2.6.1.2 Single Incident - Trustee-Implemented Restoration Project 

This settlement alternative provides for a cash settlement between a single RP and the 

trustees. The RP provides cash to the trustees based on the cost of implementing a 

specific restoration project(s) in order to resolve liability for an individual, specific 

incident. The trustees in turn use the settlement funds to implement a specific 

restoration project(s) in an RRP. (This method of resolving liability has been widely used 

in other states under OPA.) 

4.2.6.2 Additional Settlement Alternatives 

4.2.6.2.1 RP CO-OP 

This settlement alternative provides an opportunity for RPs to partner with others to 

implement a restoration project identified in an RRP that is larger than their individual 

liability for a specific incident, thereby sharing their implementation costs (e.g., 

engineering and design, permitting, mobilization, and demobilization). This alternative 

may allow the RPs to take advantage of economies of scale in implementing a larger 

project, thereby lowering their costs of resolving their specific liabilities. Specifically, 

RPs could potentially partner to implement a larger project in a number of ways, for 

example: 

♦ A group of RPs could jointly implement a project by pooling funds based on their 

specific liability; 

♦ One RP could implement a project with other RPs contributing the funds based on 

their specific liabilities; 

♦ One and/or a group of RPs could implement a project that appropriately resolves the 

RP’s OPA NRDA liability and that is carried out in conjunction with restoration needs 

for other purposes (e.g., Coast 2050 restoration); or 

♦ A RP with a partner(s) (e.g., other state or federal restoration programs and 

conservation organizations) could jointly implement a project that meets the needs of 

both partners and still appropriately resolves the RP’s liability. 
 120 

Additionally, the “RP CO-OP Settlement” alternative provides an opportunity for a single 

RP to use one appropriately scaled project to address its liability for two or more of its 

own incidents. 

4.2.6.2.2 RP/Fund CO-OP 

This settlement alternative provides an opportunity to the RP(s) to implement a 

restoration project identified in an RRP that is larger than the specific liability for a 

specific incident and, therefore, cost-share the implementation costs (e.g., engineering 

and design, permitting, mobilization, and demobilization) with either federal OSLTF or 

state OSCF monies received by the trustees to resolve liability from similar incidents for 

which there was no viable RP or a viable RP failed to respond to a demand letter after 

90 days. This settlement alternative is similar to the “RP CO-OP Settlement” alternative 

except that instead of the RP partnering with other parties to share the cost of a larger 

project, the RP cost shares the implementation of the project with the trustees using 

cash settlements received from the federal OSLTF and/or the state OSCF. A 

prerequisite for the potential use of this settlement alternative is the prior occurrence of 

an incident(s) for which the trustees have received partial monies to implement required 

restoration actions from the federal OSLTF and/or the state OSCF. This alternative may 

allow the RP to take advantage of economies of scale in implementing a larger project 

and thereby may lower their costs of resolving their specific liabilities. 

4.2.6.2.3 Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement [RESERVED] 

This section is reserved pending a determination of feasibility of the development of unit 

costs for all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement alternative of “Non-ProjectSpecific Cash Settlement” in the RRP Program Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (DPEIS) of May 2003 have been removed from this document. If 

feasibility of the unit costs concept across all regions is determined at a later date, this 

final document may be amended to include this settlement alternative. 

4.2.6.2.4 Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement/Fund CO-OP [RESERVED] 

This section is reserved pending a determination of feasibility of the development of unit 

costs for all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement alternative of “Non-ProjectSpecific Cash Settlement” in the RRP Program DPEIS of May 2003 have been removed 

from this document. If feasibility of the unit costs concept across all regions is 

determined at a later date, this final document may be amended to include this 

settlement alternative. 

4.2.7 Restoration Project Performance Criteria 

Performance criteria are measurable sets of targets, quantified through the collection of 

data in accordance with a prescribed monitoring protocol or methodology, that reflect the 

structural, functional, and/or temporal objectives of a restoration project. Performance 

criteria will be used by the trustees to determine when project objectives have been met 

and the desired restoration outcome has been achieved, and if interim corrective actions 

are necessary. Performance criteria may vary from project to project as the scope of 

monitoring conforms to the specific objectives of the restoration project. Examples of 

performance criteria are provided in Table 4.1, Potential Performance Criteria by 

Restoration Type. Other examples of performance criteria are canopy architecture, stem 

density, survival rates, species richness and composition, elevation, hydrology, and soil 

properties, as well as indicators of functional performance. Because they are used to 

determine when a project has achieved the desired restoration outcome (i.e., project 
 121 

goals), careful development of performance criteria is essential to obtaining a robust 

indication of goal achievement. The following guidelines will be considered fundamental 

to the development of performance criteria: 1) define project objectives; 2) develop 

performance criteria prior to project implementation to avoid potential bias; and 3) 

conceive performance criteria with a comprehensive understanding of the target 

ecosystem and habitat. 

Table 4.1: Potential Performance Criteria by Restoration Type 

Restoration Type Examples of Potential Performance Criteria

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Percent vegetative cover and associated acreage of that 

required percent vegetative cover.

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Forested 

Wetlands 

Minimum basal area attainment of the planted woody species; 

survivability for a designated time period: minimum acreage 

associated with survivability or basal area attainment.

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Volume or surface area of sediments deposited as a result of 

the action.

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Oyster 

Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

Increase in productivity; placement of sufficient volume of 

specified hard substrate to designated dimensions in a specified 

area.

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Percent vegetative cover and associated acreage of that 

required percent vegetative cover.

Creation/Enhancement of Inland 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Percent vegetative cover and associated acreage of that 

required percent vegetative cover.

Creation/Enhancement of Inland Forested 

Wetlands 

Minimum basal area attainment of the planted woody species; 

survivability for a designated time period; minimum acreage 

associated with survivability or basal area attainment.

Creation/Enhancement of Inland 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Volume or surface area of sediments deposited as a result of 

the action.

Creation/Enhancement of Inland Upland 

Vegetation 

Percent vegetative cover (as with herbaceous plantings) or 

basal area attainment (as with plantings of tree species).

Physical Protection of Coastal Herbaceous 

Wetlands 

Demonstration of the decrease in loss of coastal herbaceous 

wetlands within the area of physical protection.

Physical Protection of Coastal Forested 

Wetlands 

Demonstration that herbivory was reduced as a result of the 

physical protection.

Physical Protection of Coastal 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Demonstration of the decrease in loss of coastal 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds within the area of physical 

protection.

Physical Protection of Inland Herbaceous 

Wetlands 

Demonstration that herbivory was reduced to a designated 

degree as a result of the physical protection.

Physical Protection of Inland Forested 

Wetlands 

Demonstration that herbivory was reduced as a result of the 

physical protection.

Physical Protection of Inland 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Demonstration of the decrease in loss of inland 

beaches/shorelines/streambeds within the area of physical 

protection. 

Physical Protection of Inland Upland 

Vegetation 

Attainment of the design specifications of a structure (such as a 

fence); attainment of a reduction of the impact, which the subject 

physical protection is intended to prevent. 

Acquisition/Legal Protection 

Demonstration of the legal sufficiency of a property acquisition 

or other assurance that future loss of service flows would not 

occur. 

Stocking of Fauna Number of individuals stocked and initial survival of stocked 

fauna. 

Physical Protection of Fauna Demonstration of attainment of a project design measure. 

Recreational Resource Services Demonstration of attainment of a specific engineering design. 

4.2.8 Restoration Project Monitoring Requirements 

Monitoring of implemented restoration projects will be an essential component of the 

RRP Program because monitoring data provide the trustees with quantitative information 
 122 

that is used to determine when a project has met its performance criteria or if interim 

corrective action is necessary. Specifically, periodic collection and assessment of 

monitoring data enable the trustees to evaluate performance criteria in relation to the 

specific objectives of the restoration project to determine when project objectives have 

been met, and to quantify the trajectory of the restoration project in order to identify 

needs, if necessary, for implementing corrective actions in a timely manner. Prescribed 

monitoring protocols will be project-specific and vary by restoration type, habitat type, 

project features, and the availability of cost-effective sampling techniques. Examples of 

potential monitoring requirements are provided in Table 4.2, Potential Monitoring 

Requirements by Restoration Type. Specific monitoring requirements for restoration 

projects will be specified in a monitoring plan that will be drafted prior to implementation 

of the project. The monitoring plan will: 1) define the project objectives that must be 

attained to achieve the desired outcome of the restoration project; 2) identify the 

performance criteria that will measure the attainment of each objective; and 3) specify 

monitoring protocols pertaining to sampling design, sampling frequency, sampling 

techniques, data procurement and analysis, quality assurance and quality control of 

data, the schedule of site visits, report deadlines, and corrective action plans. 

Table 4.2: Potential Monitoring Requirements by Restoration Type 

Restoration Type Examples of Potential Monitoring 

Requirement 

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Initial planting survival and measurements for percent vegetative 

cover using an accepted method, such as the point-intercept method 

or an equivalent. 

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds Measurements (volumetric or aerial) of the sediment deposition. 

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Oyster 

Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

Quantifiable increase in productivity of the existing oyster reef; 

demonstration that the hard structure was installed as designed. 

Creation/Enhancement of Coastal 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Measurement of initial planting survival and measurements for 

percent vegetative cover using an accepted method, such as the 

point-intercept method or an equivalent. 

Creation/Enhancement of Inland 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Initial planting survival and measurements for percent vegetative 

cover using an accepted method, such as the point-intercept method 

or an equivalent. 

Creation/Enhancement of Inland 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds Measurements (volumetric or aerial) of the sediment deposition. 

Physical Protection of Coastal Herbaceous 

Wetlands 

Quantifying the rates of marsh loss within the area of physical 

protection and marsh loss outside the area of physical protection. 

Physical Protection of Coastal Forested 

Wetlands Measures of herbivory in protected versus unprotected areas. 

Physical Protection of Coastal 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Quantifying the rates of habitat loss within the area of physical 

protection and habitat loss outside the area of physical protection. 

Physical Protection of Inland Herbaceous 

Wetlands Measures of herbivory in protected versus unprotected area. 

Physical Protection of Inland Forested 

Wetlands Measures of herbivory in protected versus unprotected areas. 

Physical Protection of Inland 

Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

Quantifying the rates of habitat loss within the area of physical 

protection and habitat loss outside the area of physical protection. 

4.3 RRP Program Management Structure 

The management framework for RRP Program implementation consists of four major 

components: Authorized or Approving Officials, Trustee Council, NRDA Case Teams 

(including Regional Staff), and RRP Program Administration and Coordination. Figures 

4.4, RRP Program Management Framework, and 4.5, RRP Program Management 

Framework – Administrative, depict the RRP Program Management Framework. 
 123 

Figure 4.4: RRP Program Management Framework 

Figure 4.4: RRP Program Management Framework Authorized or Approving Officials 

Region

5

Region

1

Region

2

Region

4

Region

3

Region

6

Region

7

Reg

8

RRP Program Administration 

and Coordination 

(see Figure 4.5 for details)

Trustee Council

(see Figure 4.6 for details)

NRDA

Case Teams 

(see Figure 4.6 for details)

Project

Monitoring Team 

(see Figures 4.5 and 4.6 for details)
Figure 4.5: RRP Program Management Framework - Administrative 

 124 

Figure 4.5: RRP Program Management Framework – Administrative Region

5

Region

1

Region

2

Region

4

Region

3

Region

6

Region

7

RRP Program 

Administration and Coordination

♦ Reporting ♦ Project Tracking ♦ Financial Tracking and 

Accounting 

♦ Trust Fund Accounting ♦ Project Database 

Maintenance

Administration

♦ RRP Program Updates♦ RRP Updates ♦ Project Solicitations ♦ Public Participation ♦ Plan Maintenance

Planning

♦ Project Searches♦ Project Implementation 

Monitoring 

♦ Project Performance 

Monitoring 

Case Support

Coordination
 125 

4.3.1 Authorized or Approving Officials 

The primary role of the Authorized or Approving Officials is to provide oversight and 

guidance to their staffs involved in the management, administration, and implementation 

of the RRP Program and to function as the Authorized or Approving Official to 

recommend approval or approve RRP Program settlements, depending on agency 

delegations. Consistent with agency policy, Authorized or Approving Officials may 

delegate authority for approving settlements. Authorized or Approving Officials will 

consist of the designated Authorized or Approving Officials representing each of the 

natural resource trustee agencies and Indian tribes that are participating in the RRP 

Program, or their designee(s). 

4.3.2 Trustee Council 

The membership of the Trustee Council will consist of a representative(s) from each of 

the designated trustee agencies and Indian tribes that are party to the RRP Program. 

Decisions on individual NRDA cases will be made by those members of the Trustee 

Council that have jurisdiction over the trust resources and services impacted by a 

particular incident. 

The primary role of the Trustee Council is to guide and manage the case activities of the 

NRDA Case Teams (see Section 4.4, RRP Program Case Implementation Process) and 

RRP Program Project Monitoring Team. Trustee Council members will individually seek 

concurrence and direction from their respective Authorized or Approving Official and 

agency counsel on proposed settlements and negotiation of cases. To ensure statewide 

consistency in the cases processed through the RRP Program, all decisions related to 

the individual NRDA cases, from case selection to restoration project implementation, 

will be made by the Trustee Council and referred for final approval to the Authorized or 

Approving Official consistent with agency policy. 

4.3.3 NRDA Case Teams 

The primary role of the NRDA Case Teams will be to conduct the technical components 

of the individual NRDA cases processed through the RRP Program under the direction 

of the Trustee Council, including the NRDA Preassessment and Injury Assessment 

Phases of the NRDA RRP Program process. 

Membership of the NRDA Preassessment and/or Assessment Case Teams for a given 

incident will depend on the trustees’ jurisdictions, the trust resources or services 

impacted, and availability of each agency’s personnel. In general, NRDA Case Team 

membership will be limited to those agency representatives that have jurisdiction in the 

area impacted by the incident or have trust resources or services impacted by the 

incident. However, lack of participation in a NRDA Case Team for a given incident does 

not preclude a trustee agency with jurisdiction from participating in the NRDA process for 

that incident, as it may be more efficient for some trustees to rely on the information 

generated by the NRDA Case Team. 

Each Trustee Council member will be responsible for designating the NRDA Case Team 

member(s) for his or her agency. NRDA Case Teams may consist of members of the 

Trustee Council and/or Regional RRP Program field staff (or contractors with trustee 

oversight), as appropriate. The following is a list of some of the 

responsibilities/functions/products that will be carried out or produced by the NRDA 

Case Teams under the direction of the Trustee Council: 
 126 

♦ Drafting and making available for review Draft and Final DARPs; 

♦ Drafting and publishing Notices of Intent to use the RRP Program, conduct 

restoration planning, and/or notify the public of the availability of a DARP; 

♦ Scheduling, holding, and maintaining records on public meetings and public 

hearings; 

♦ Conducting the restoration planning; and 

♦ Drafting any settlement documents9, including administrative settlements, consent 

decrees, and amendments to such documents. 

4.3.4 RRP Program Project Monitoring Team 

It is anticipated that an RRP Program Project Monitoring Team will be established to: 1) 

conduct the monitoring activities for restoration projects implemented by the trustees or, 

alternatively, review the monitoring results for restoration projects implemented by the 

RPs and submitted to the Trustee Council and 2) make recommendations to the Trustee 

Council as to whether restoration performance criteria have been met. The membership 

of the RRP Program Project Monitoring Team may vary depending on the location of the 

restoration project and will be determined by the Trustee Council. 

4.3.5 Regional Field Staff 

Some of the participating trustee agencies have regional offices and field staff 

throughout the state. To maximize the cost-efficiency of RRP Program implementation, 

participating agencies may provide support for RRP Program implementation to the 

extent that resources allow. Specifically, regional and/or field staff may assist in the 

Preassessment and Restoration Planning Phases of the NRDA cases processed 

through the RRP Program, and in restoration project implementation oversight activities. 

4.3.6 RRP Program Administration and Coordination 

LOSCO, in coordination with the other trustee agencies, will be responsible for RRP 

Program administration and coordination functions. Administrative functions for the RRP 

Program include: record keeping, reporting, financial tracking and accounting, Natural 

Resources Restoration Trust Fund accounting, and restoration project database 

maintenance. 

Coordination activities are related to planning and case support. Coordination of 

planning activities may include: coordinating revisions to the RRP Program, including 

updates to the RRPs (e.g., solicitation of potential restoration projects and incorporation 

of restoration projects), RRP maintenance (e.g., project tracking), and public 

participation. 

Coordination of case support may include restoration project searches for cases and 

coordination of the trustees’ project implementation and performance monitoring. 

4.4 RRP Program Case Implementation Process 

The following is a description of the RRP Program Case Implementation Process 

beginning with the notification of an incident through completion of monitoring of the 

restoration project (see Figure 4.6, RRP Program Case Implementation Process). 

 

9

 Settlement documents will be prepared by trustee attorneys in consultation with Case Team members and in 

accordance with any trustee agency policy or guidance. 
Figure 4.6: RRP Program Case Implementation Process 

 127

Figure 4.6: RRP Program Case Implementation Process 

Y

N

Response 

Team 

Complete 

NRDA 

Preliminary 

SPILL Worksheet 

INCIDENT 

LOSCO 

Distribute

NRDA 

Preliminary 

Worksheet 

Trustee 

Council 

Preliminary 

Determination of 

Jurisdiction 

Trustee 

Council 

Select 

Preassessment

Case Team

Develop 

Preassessment

Strategy

Invite RP to Participate in Cooperative Assessment 

(assuming RP was not invited 

 previously) 

Pr

C

A

Preassessm

Case Team 

Collect 

Preassessm

Data

RRP Program 

Project Monitoring 

Team 

Project 

Implementation

Oversight and 

Monitoring 

Results to 

Trustee Council 

RP, Trustees, 

or Contractor 

IMPLEMENT 

RESTORATION 

PROJECT 

NRDA 

Case Team 

Apply Restoration

Type Selection 

Criteria 

Recommend

Restoration

Type and 

Settlement

Alternative

to Trustee 

Council 

Conduct Initial

Scaling 

Dev

Imple

Ass

S

A

Trustee 

Council 

AO Approve 

Settlement 

Place Cash 

Settlement in 

Project-Specific 

Account 

Scale Restoration

Project(s)

NRDA 

Case Team 

Apply Restoration

Project Selection 

Screenin

g Criteria

Develop RP 

Implementation Settlement 

Public Review

Recommend 

Restoration  Project(s) 

Develop Project-Specific 

RP Cash Settlement 

Project

Project- Specific Cash Settlement
 128 

Specifically, it describes the general roles and responsibilities for the case 

implementation process including: coordination and movement of data and information, 

development and implementation of damage assessment, and decision-making between 

and among the Regional Field Staff, Authorized or Approving Officials, LAT10, Trustee 

Council, NRDA Case Teams, and the RRP Program Project Monitoring Team. It should 

be noted that though the steps described below are presented separately, in the case of 

a real incident, some of these steps would occur simultaneously. Additionally, due to the 

amount of information available and/or the cooperative nature of the NRDA, some of the 

steps may be skipped altogether. 

4.4.1 Preassessment Phase 

When an incident occurs in Louisiana, state and federal response agencies are notified 

that an incident has occurred. Often, Louisiana state and federal NRDA trustee 

agencies are notified at the same time by response or other personnel. A response 

team11 made up of state and federal personnel, as appropriate, goes to the site to 

investigate the incident and carry out their response and/or clean up responsibilities. 

Under the RRP Program, a NRDA Preliminary Worksheet (see Appendix D, NRDA 

Preliminary Worksheet, for a copy of the worksheet) will usually be completed by agency 

personnel when they investigate an incident. The worksheet will then be transmitted to 

LOSCO who will distribute it to the Trustee Council. Using the information provided in 

the worksheet, the Trustee Council will make a preliminary determination as to whether 

or not ”natural resources under the trusteeship of the trustee may have been, or may be, 

injured as a result of the incident” (15 CFR 990.41[a][3]). When the Trustee Council 

makes a determination of jurisdiction, they will assign a Preassessment Case Team to 

go to the site of the incident and initiate the Preassessment Phase. 

4.4.1.1 Preassessment Case Selection Screening 

The Preassessment Case personnel will collect preassessment data to confirm whether: 

injuries to public trust resources or services have resulted, or are likely to result, from the 

incident, response actions have not adequately addressed, or are not expected to 

address, the injuries resulting from the incident, and feasible primary and/or 

compensatory restoration actions exist to address the potential injuries (15 CFR 

990.42[a][1-3]) (i.e., the Preassessment Case Selection Screening Criteria). The 

preassessment data will be provided to the LAT who will distribute the data to the 

Trustee Council. Based on the data provided and a preliminary determination that 

restoration planning is feasible, the Trustee Council may decide to proceed with 

preassessment actions. 

4.4.1.2 Case Assessment Selection Screening 

Once the Trustee Council has decided to proceed with the Preassessment Phase, the 

Preassessment Case personnel will continue to collect preassessment data. The 

preassessment data will be provided to the LAT, who will distribute it to the Trustee 

 

10 Lead Administrative Trustee means the trustee(s) who is selected by all participating trustees to coordinate NRDA 

activities and maintain the AR. The LAT(s) should also facilitate communication between the On-Scene Coordinator, 

the RP, and other natural resource trustees regarding their activities during the response phase, (15 CFR 990.30). 

11 “Response”means containment and removal of oil or a hazardous substance from water and shorelines or the 

taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, 

but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches, as defined in 

section 1001 (30) of OPA (33 USC2701 (30)). 
 129 

Council. Using the information provided by the Preassessment Case personnel, the 

Trustee Council will apply the following Case Assessment Selection Screening Criteria 

to determine whether: potential injuries actually have occurred to trust resources or 

services, the response actions will not adequately address the injuries, injury 

assessment and scaling methods are available, and feasible primary and/or 

compensatory actions exist to address the potential injuries. If the case assessment 

selection screening criteria are met, the Trustee Council may decide to proceed with the 

Restoration Planning Phase. 

4.4.2 Restoration Planning Phase 

If the Trustee Council decides to pursue a NRDA for this incident, an NRDA Case Team 

will be identified for that case, a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning will be 

prepared, and the AR will be opened. At this time the RP will be invited to participate in 

a cooperative assessment, assuming they have not been invited earlier. Under the 

supervision of the Trustee Council, the NRDA Case Team will then carry out the 

technical components of the Restoration Planning Phase, including developing and 

implementing an injury assessment strategy and providing a preliminary 

recommendation of a restoration type(s). This information will be provided to the LAT, 

who will distribute it to the Trustee Council for review. Based on that information, the 

Trustee Council will determine if the injuries have been adequately quantified. If so, the 

NRDA Case Team, under the supervision of the Trustee Council, will select an 

appropriate restoration type(s) (see Section 4.2.4, Relationship of Trust Resources and 

Services to Restoration Types/Projects), conduct initial scaling, and begin negotiations 

with the RP on which settlement alternative to pursue. 

4.4.2.1 Settlement Alternatives 

Settlement alternatives are described in detail in Section 4.2.6, Settlement Alternatives. 

Each proposed settlement will be submitted for approval or a recommendation for 

approval to the Authorized or Approving Officials. 

4.4.2.1.1 Cash Settlements (Trustee-Implemented Restoration Project) 

If the settlement alternative selected and approved by the Trustee Council is one in 

which the RP provides cash to the trustees based on the cost of implementing a specific 

restoration project (i.e., “Single Incident – Trustee-Implemented Restoration Project”), 

the NRDA Case Team will apply the restoration project selection screening criteria (see 

Section 4.2.4.2, Project Selection Screening Criteria) to, and with approval of the 

Trustee Council (and Authorized or Approving Officials, as appropriate), select the 

restoration project(s). The cash settlement will be placed in a “Project-Specific Cash 

Settlement“ restoration account to fund future implementation of one of the RRP 

projects. 

4.4.2.1.2 RP-Implemented Restoration Project Settlement 

If the settlement alternative selected and approved by the Trustee Council, involves any 

RP(s)-implemented projects, the NRDA Case Team will apply the restoration project 

selection screening criteria (see Section 4.2.4.2, Project Selection Screening Criteria) to 

and, with approval of the Trustee Council (and Authorized or Approving Officials as 

appropriate), select the restoration project(s) to be implemented by RP(s). 

4.4.2.2 Restoration Project Selection 

Regardless of the specific settlement alternative selected, the restoration project 

selection for all project-specific settlements (i.e., “Single Incident – Trustee- 
 130 

Implemented Restoration Project,” “Single Incident – RP-Implemented Restoration 

Project,” “RP CO-OP”, and “RP/Fund CO-OP”) will be completed using the screening 

criteria described in Section 4.2.4.2, Project Selection Screening Criteria, of this 

document. 

4.4.2.3 Settlement Requirements 

4.4.2.3.1 Restoration Projects/Alternatives 

As a requirement of settlement, the RP(s) or the trustees will be implementing a 

restoration project to make the public and environment whole for the resources and 

services lost as a result of an incident. In addition to the requirement to implement a 

project, the settlement will also include provisions for project monitoring, structural 

operations and maintenance, potential corrective actions, contingencies, and 

reimbursement of assessment costs. 

4.4.2.3.2 Monitoring 

The purpose of monitoring is two-fold: 1) to determine whether the project goals and 

objectives have been or will be met by evaluating project performance against 

performance criteria; and 2) to identify any mid-course corrections or adaptive 

management procedures that may be necessary to ensure the sustainability of a project. 

To fulfill these objectives, monitoring will be undertaken after project implementation. 

Monitoring of projects implemented under the RRP Program will be performed using 

replicable, technically sound sampling techniques. 

4.4.2.3.3 Operation and Maintenance 

Under some circumstances, a project may involve hard structures that are not selfmaintaining or operating such as variable-crested weirs or flap gates. For these 

structures, an operations and maintenance plan must be developed at the time of the 

structure’s design. Each plan will include the design specifications of the structure, a 

detailed map showing structure location, permits and permit amendments, a schedule of 

maintenance and operation, a schedule of inspections, budget, cost-share agreement (if 

needed), a schedule for reports including the construction completion report, and a 

strategy for structure removal if at a later point in time the structure is deemed 

structurally unsound (e.g., a navigation hazard). 

4.4.2.3.4 Corrective Actions/Project Adjustments 

Corrective actions and project adjustments are any action that the Trustee Council 

deems necessary to ensure the success of the project after project implementation. The 

decision to proceed with corrective actions and/or adjustments will be made following 

evaluation of the monitoring data and consideration of the performance criteria. 

Corrective actions and/or adjustments will be considered if performance criteria goals 

and objectives are not met, or are progressing too slowly. As part of the settlement, the 

RP(s) is financially responsible for the cost of the required corrective actions and/or 

adjustments. In the case of a trustee-implemented project, the trustees may collect or 

require, as appropriate, that the RP(s) place in an escrow a sum of money to cover 

possible corrective actions and/or adjustments. In cases where the RP has 

implemented the project, the RP(s) will be required to implement the corrective action 

and/or adjustment. 
 131 

4.4.2.3.5 Contingencies 

Trustees may collect from, or require that, the RP place in escrow a sum of money to 

cover unexpected costs associated with the implementation of the project. Such 

contingencies may also be applied to trustee oversight costs, as these future costs can 

only be estimated at the time of settlement. Any contingency funds collected or placed 

in escrow, as appropriate, will be used in the manner specified in the settlement 

documents. 

4.4.2.3.6 Assessment Costs 

The financial responsibility of the RP(s) for a given incident extend(s) to the trustees’ 

assessment costs resulting from the incident. Assessment costs are administrative and 

other costs incurred by the trustees associated with the injury assessment and 

Restoration Planning Phase of the NRDA. 

4.4.2.4 Settlement Calculation 

Regardless of the specific settlement alternative selected to restore the injured trust 

resources and services lost from a given incident, the financial responsibilities of the RP 

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

selection, feasibility analyses, engineering and design, permitting, and conservation 

easements), project implementation, monitoring, operations and maintenance, trustee 

oversight and administrative costs, corrective actions, contingencies, and any other 

project-related costs that may forseeably arise throughout the life of the project. Under 

each settlement alternative, a Consent Decree or other binding settlement document will 

be required to provide an RP with a release from liability. 

4.4.2.4.1 RP-Implemented Restoration Project 

If a RP chooses to implement a restoration project itself or through a contracted third 

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

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

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

associated with the implementation of the project, monitoring, operations and 

maintenance, potential corrective actions, and contingencies would remain the 

responsibility of the RP(s) as part of the settlement, but would not need to be calculated. 

In the case of multiple RPs or the implementation of an RRP restoration project with a 

partnering program or organization, the settlement calculation would take into account 

what portion of the cost each contributing RP or program is responsible for. Partnering 

will not decrease a RP’s liability, but may allow them to take advantage of economies of 

scale in implementing a larger project, thereby lowering the cost of resolving their 

specific liabilities. 

4.4.2.4.2 Cash Settlement - Project-Specific Cash Settlement 

If the RP(s) provides the trustees with the money to implement a specific restoration 

project (which was selected by the trustees with input from the RP[s] and the public by 

applying the RRP Program project selection screening criteria), the settlement 

calculation would include the trustees’ assessment costs plus the sum of all costs to 

conduct the project planning and design, permitting, implementation, monitoring, 

operations and maintenance, oversight and administration, and contingencies for a 

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

services. If the RP(s) liability is less than the full amount of the project, the RP can pay 

the trustees based on the percentage of the selected restoration project (e.g., “RP/Fund 

CO-OP Settlement” alternative). 
 132 

4.4.2.4.3 Cash Settlement - Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement [RESERVED] 

This section is reserved pending a determination of feasibility of the development of unit 

costs for all regions. Therefore, references to the settlement alternative of “Non-ProjectSpecific Cash Settlement” in the in the RRP Program DPEIS of May 2003 have been 

removed from this document. If feasibility of the unit costs concept across all regions is 

determined at a later date, this final document may be amended to include this 

settlement alternative. 

4.4.3 Restoration Implementation Phase 

Once a project is to be implemented, whether by the RP(s) or the trustees, the Trustee 

Council will assign a trustee project manager to the restoration project. The project 

manager will be responsible for coordinating and tracking the implementation of the 

RRP restoration project and providing periodic reports on its status to the Trustee 

Council. As part of this responsibility, and in consultation with the specific NRDA Case 

Teams, the project manager will coordinate the RRP Program Project Monitoring Teams 

in terms of scheduling, tracking, and assuring that specific implementation and 

performance monitoring takes place. Regular status reports, including need for 

corrective actions or letters of completion, will be provided to the NRDA Case Teams 

and Trustee Council until the case is closed. 

4.5 Sources of Restoration Funding 

There are two potential sources of funds for restoration of trust resources and services 

injured or lost as a result of an incident. 

♦ RP(s), through cash settlements to resolve their liability from incidents, can/will 

provide funds for a specific project or as part of pooled funding for a specific project. 

♦ In the absence of a viable RP (e.g., where the RP is unknown, bankrupt, or is not 

responsible due to a valid defense) or when a viable RP fails to respond to a 

demand letter after 90 days, the trustees have the option of going to the federal 

OSLTF and/or state OSCF to seek monies to implement the restoration actions 

required for that incident. 

Funds from other programs that carry out restoration (e.g., permit mitigation and Coastal 

Impact Assistance Funds) may be available in conjunction with funds from cash 

settlements to implement larger projects, or cash settlements may be used as matches 

for other restoration program projects if permitted by each trustees’ applicable laws and 

regulations (e.g., Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act 

[CWPPRA]). 

Funds from other programs cannot be used to replace a restoration requirement 

associated with natural resource liability from an incident. The trustees will ensure that 

the public receives an appropriate increment of restoration benefit beyond that which 

accrues from other programs when combining a settlement for natural resource liability 

with programs supported by public funds. 

4.6 Use of the RRP Program and RRPs 

The trustees propose to use the RRP Program and RRPs in a variety of situations, as 

appropriate. The trustees with jurisdiction for any given event will determine the most 

effective process for conducting a NRDA for that spill. In the majority of circumstances, 

it is anticipated that the projects in an RRP will be used by trustees as potential 
 133 

restoration alternatives for injuries and service losses requiring restoration during the 

Restoration Planning Phase of the NRDA process, thereby minimizing the need to do 

more lengthy incident-specific restoration planning as part of the damage assessment 

process for most incidents. 

However, there may be circumstances in which the trustees determine that restoration 

planning outside of the context of the RRP Program is appropriate, due to the specific 

conditions of the incident. For example, the trustees may decide to follow the traditional 

NRDA process after injury assessment or after initial scaling of the injury (see Figure 

4.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program). Additionally, there may be 

cases in which restoration types and the attending analysis from the RRP Program, as 

well as restoration projects from the RRPs, will be used to address certain injuries from 

an incident; and restoration planning outside of the context of the RRP Program will be 

carried out for other injuries from the incident. 
 134 

5.0 Regional Boundaries 

Based on an evaluation of the existing Louisiana plans/programs, as well as other data, 

the state will be divided into nine RRP regions (see Figure 5.1, Regional Boundaries for 

the RRP Program). These nine regions include the four Coast 205012 regions along the 

coast, including state waters, (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998)

plus five inland regions, created through a combination of LDEQ’s defined watersheds 

(LDEQ 2000). The ability to show nexus, or the ability to link potential injuries to 

restoration alternatives and/or projects within a region, is simplified due to habitat 

similarities within these boundaries. It is anticipated that dividing the state into nine 

regions will facilitate trustee implementation of the RRP Program and the management 

of the RRPs. 

In addition, as appropriate, the trustees intend to address impacts to the trust resources 

and services in federal waters off the state by use of restoration projects from one or 

more of the coastal RRPs. Federal waters encompass the federal waters offshore 

Louisiana between the boundary of the federal/Louisiana territorial seas to the extent of 

the EEZ. 

Figure 5.1: Regional Boundaries for the RRP Program 

 

12 The Coast 2050 Plan is the Louisiana coastal resources management plan that was developed “...to sustain a 

coastal ecosystem that supports and protects the environment, economy and culture of southern Louisiana, and that 

contributes greatly to the economy and well-being of the nation.” 

Federal Waters 
 135 

5.1 Definition of RRP Regional Boundaries 

The RRP regional boundaries demarcate four coastal and five inland regions that 

encompass the entire state. The boundaries of the coastal regions correspond to 

regional boundaries delineated and defined in the Coast 2050 Plan (Louisiana Coastal 

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Authority 1998). The boundaries of the inland regions correspond to a 

conglomeration of watersheds originally delineated by LDEQ. A description of each 

RRP region is provided in the following sections. 

5.1.1 Region 1 

This region encompasses the Lake Pontchartrain hydrologic basin and portions of the 

Mississippi River, Amite River, and Pearl River basins, the Pleistocene terraces, and 

delta plain. Bordered to the north by Interstate 12 and the St. Bernard Parish line, 

Region 1 extends south to the Mississippi River and Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, and 

from the Amite River and intermediate terraces along its western border to the Pearl 

River and Chandeleur Islands along its eastern border. The following parishes are 

located either partly or completely within Region 1: Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, 

Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany, and 

Tangipahoa. 

5.1.2 Region 2 

This region encompasses the Breton Sound and Barataria hydrologic basins and the 

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

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

extends south to the Caminada-Moraeu Headland, Plaquemines barrier system, and 

Birdfoot delta, and from Bayou Lafourche along its western border to the Mississippi 

River and Mississippi River Gulf Outlet along its eastern border. The following parishes 

are located either partly or completely within Region 2: Ascension, Assumption, 

Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and 

St. John the Baptist. 

5.1.3 Region 3 

This region encompasses the Terrebonne, Atchafalaya, and Teche/Vermilion hydrologic 

basins, and portions of the alluvial valley and delta plain. Bordered to the north by 

intermediate and prairie terraces and natural levees, Region 3 extends south from the 

landward extent of coastal wetlands, as defined by the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation Plan (LDNR 1997), to the Timbalier and Isle Dernieres barrier island 

chains and Atchafalaya Delta, and from Freshwater Bayou Canal along its western 

border to Bayou Lafourche along its eastern border. The following parishes are located 

either partly or completely within Region 3: Assumption, Iberia, Lafourche, St. Martin, St. 

Mary, Terrebonne, and Vermilion. 

5.1.4 Region 4 

This region encompasses the Calcasieu River, Sabine River, and Mermentau River 

hydrologic basins, and portions of the Chenier plain and Pleistocene terraces. Bordered 

to the north by the Prairie terraces, Region 4 extends south from the landward extent of 

the Chenier Plain to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Louisiana/Texas border along its 

western border to Freshwater Bayou Canal along its eastern border. The following 

parishes are located either partly or completely within Region 4: Calcasieu, Cameron, 

and Vermilion. 
 136 

5.1.5 Region 5 

This region encompasses a majority of the Pearl River, Bogue Chitto River, Tangipahoa 

River, and Amite River drainage basins and portions of the Mississippi River basin and 

Pleistocene terraces. Bordered to the north by the Louisiana/Mississippi border, the 

eastern boundary of Region 5 extends south along the Pearl River to Interstate 12 near 

Slidell, Louisiana. The southern boundary extends west from the Pearl River along 

Interstate 12 to the Amite River. The eastern boundary of Region 5 follows the Amite 

River south to near Port Vincent and then extends southwest along the western margin 

of St. Amant Swamp and the Pleistocene terrace to the Mississippi River near Burnside, 

Louisiana. The following parishes are located either partly or completely within Region 

5: Ascension, Concordia, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe 

Coupee, St. Helena, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Washington, West Baton Rouge, and 

West Feliciana. 

5.1.6 Region 6 

This region encompasses portions of the Red River, Atchafalaya River, Mississippi 

River, and Teche/Vermilion basins and the alluvial valley. The northern boundary of 

Region 6 extends east from the confluence of the Red River and Calcasieu River basins, 

near the town of Otis, Louisiana, to the Louisiana/Mississippi border north of the town of 

Point Breeze, Louisiana. The boundary follows the Red River east to Bayou Choctaw 

and then cuts south to the town of Bunkie, Louisiana, where it turns east and follows 

Bayou Des Glaises and the Outflow Channel to the Mississippi River in Concordia 

Parish. The eastern boundary of Region 6 extends south to the northern boundary of 

the coastal wetlands, as defined in the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan 

(LDNR 1997). The southern boundary of Region 6 extends along the coastal wetlands 

from Bayou Lafourche near Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to Freshwater Bayou Canal on 

the west. The western boundary of Region 6 extends north from Freshwater Bayou 

Canal and continues along the western boundary of the Teche/Vermilion River basin to 

the confluence of the Red River, and Calcasieu River basins near the town of Otis, 

Louisiana. Along its eastern border, Region 6 is bounded by the Mississippi River from 

just north of Point Breeze, Louisiana, to Donaldsonville, Louisiana. The following 

parishes are located either partly or completely within Region 6: Acadia, Allen, 

Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Concordia, Evangeline, Iberia, Iberville, Lafayette, 

Pointe Coupee, Rapides, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, Vermilion, West Baton Rouge, 

and West Feliciana. 

5.1.7 Region 7 

This region encompasses portions of the Calcasieu River, Mermentau River, and Sabine 

River basins. The western boundary extends from the confluence of the 

Louisiana/Texas border and the Red River and Sabine River basins, just south of the 

town of Bethany, Louisiana, to the marsh areas just north of the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway and the Louisiana/Texas border. The eastern boundary extends southeast 

from the confluence of the Louisiana/Texas border and the Red River and Sabine River 

basins, just south of the town of Bethany, Louisiana, to the western bank of Freshwater 

Bayou Canal. The southern boundary extends from the western bank of Freshwater 

Bayou Canal westward to the Louisiana/Texas border, along the northern extent of the 

Chenier Plain. On the west, Region 7 follows the Louisiana/Texas border from the 

marsh areas just north of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway north to the confluence of the 

Louisiana/Texas border, the Red River and the Sabine River basins, approximately three 

miles south of the town of Bethany, Louisiana. The eastern boundary follows the 

eastern edge of the Sabine, Calcasieu and Mermentau basins inclusively. The following 
 137 

parishes are located either partly or completely within Region 7: Acadia, Allen, 

Beauregard, Caddo, Calcasieu, Cameron, De Soto, Evangeline, Jefferson Davis, 

Lafayette, Natchitoches, Rapides, Sabine, St. Landry, Vermilion, and Vernon. 

5.1.8 Region 8 

This region encompasses the Little River, Tensas River, and Ouachita River basins and 

a portion of the Mississippi River basin. Bordered to the north by the 

Louisiana/Arkansas border and to the east by the Louisiana/Mississippi border, Region 8 

extends southwest from the state line approximately six miles northeast of the town of 

Waterproof, Louisiana (located along the Mississippi River), to the Tensas River where it 

extends west and south to the Black River and then south to the Catahoula Lake 

Diversion Canal. The boundary continues west along the southern margin of Catahoula 

Lake to the westward margin of the Little River drainage basin. The western boundary 

of Region 8 extends north along the western margin of the Little River and Ouachita 

River drainage basins to the Louisiana/Arkansas border. The following parishes are 

located either partly or completely within Region 8: Bienville, Caldwell, Catahoula, 

Claiborne, Concordia, East Carroll, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, La Salle, Lincoln, Madison, 

Morehouse, Ouachita, Rapides, Richland, Tensas, Union, West Carroll, and Winn. 

5.1.9 Region 9 

This region encompasses portions of the Red River and Mississippi River basins. 

Bordered to the north by the Louisiana/Arkansas border, Region 9 extends south from 

the state line along the Louisiana/Texas border to the confluence of the Red River and 

Sabine River drainage basins, just north of the town of Bethany, Louisiana, and then 

southeast to the confluence of the Calcasieu River and Red River drainage basins, near 

the town of Otis, Louisiana. The boundary follows the Red River east to Bayou Choctaw 

and then cuts south to the town of Bunkie, Louisiana, where it turns east and follows 

Bayou Des Glaises and the Outflow Channel to the Mississippi River in Concordia 

Parish. The western boundary of Region 9 extends south from the Louisiana/Arkansas 

border along the western margin of the Ouachita River and Little River drainage basins 

to the southern margin of Catahoula Lake and east to the Catahoula Lake Diversion 

Canal. The boundary continues north along the Black River and Tensas River and then 

northeast to the Mississippi River approximately six miles north of the town of 

Waterproof, Louisiana. The eastern boundary follows the Louisiana/Mississippi border 

from the point north of Waterproof, Louisiana, to just north of the Outflow Channel near 

Point Breeze, Louisiana. The following parishes are located either partly or completely 

within Region 9: Avoyelles, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Catahoula, Claiborne, Concordia, 

De Soto, Grant, La Salle, Lincoln, Natchitoches, Rapides, Red River, Sabine, Tensas, 

Vernon, Webster, and Winn. 
 138 

6.0 Alternatives 

This chapter describes the alternatives considered, outlines the process that was used 

to generate and evaluate the alternatives to achieve the purpose and need for the RRP 

Program, and provides a programmatic basis for the choice of the “RRP 

Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative.” The “No Action Alternative” is 

described first. The “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” is then 

described. The other programmatic alternative that was considered prior to formal 

scoping (but not carried forward) is noted, along with the rationale for eliminating it from 

further consideration. 

The “No Action Alternative” is to continue to carry out all NRDAs in the state using the 

NRDA process and current practices described in Chapter 3.0, Affected Program. 

The “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” is the Louisiana RRP 

Program described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Proposed Action: Regional Restoration 

Planning Program and Chapter 5.0, Regional Boundaries. These chapters describe the 

RRP Program components in relation to the NRDA process and the goals and objectives 

of establishing the RRP Program. 

The NRDA process as described by implementing regulations and guidance both under 

OPA and OSPRA does not change as a result of the RRP Program. The trustees are 

further institutionalizing an existing process, as well as identifying ways, to expedite and 

further define the specific steps of that process, expressly within the requirements of the 

OPA and OSPRA NRDA regulations. 

To expedite the NRDA process and make it more cost-effective, the RRP Program 

intends to shorten the Restoration Planning Phase of the process through the 

development of individual RRPs, which will identify and subject to public review 

appropriate restoration projects prior to incidents. In addition, the RRP Program will aid 

in the selection of restoration projects by identifying in advance the types of restoration 

that may be suitable to restore those trust resources and services likely to be or 

anticipated to be injured by incidents in Louisiana. The RRP Program/FPEIS will also 

streamline the NEPA process for case-specific documents and decision-making by 

tiering the programmatic and environmental analysis for both the project selection and 

implementation from the FPEIS and RRPs. Consistent application of the RRP Program 

project selection criteria will enhance the predictability and accountability of the decisionmaking process. Flexibility will be increased through the introduction of additional 

settlement alternatives. 

6.1 No Action Alternative 

6.1.1 Summary 

Both state and federal NRDA regulations provide for a step-by-step process for trustees 

to determine injuries, assess damages, and develop and implement restoration projects 

that compensate the public for injuries to trust resources and services impacted by an 

incident. 

The “No Action Alternative” is defined as continuing to implement the NRDA process 

without the institution of the RRP Program. The “No Action Alternative” was used as a 

basis for comparison with the RRP Program. The affected environment and existing 
 139 

NRDA process are described in Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, and in Chapter 3.0, 

Affected Program. The following are the major phases of the NRDA process: 

♦ Preassessment Phase; 

♦ Restoration Planning Phase; and 

♦ Restoration Implementation Phase. 

6.1.2 Overview of the NRDA Process 

The description below of the NRDA process is intended to provide the context for the 

comparison of the “No Action Alternative” and the “RRP Program/Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative.” 

Preassessment Phase – The purpose of the Preassessment Phase is to determine if 

trustees have the jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA, and, if so, whether it is 

appropriate to do so. 

Restoration Planning Phase – The purpose of the Restoration Planning Phase is to 

evaluate potential injuries to trust resources and services and use that information to 

determine the need for and scale of restoration actions. The Restoration Planning 

Phase provides the link between injury and restoration. The two basic components of 

the Restoration Planning Phase are injury assessment and restoration selection. 

Restoration Implementation Phase – The Restoration Implementation Phase occurs 

after the DARP is presented to the RP(s) to implement or fund the trustees’ costs of 

implementing the DARP, therefore providing the opportunity for settlement of the 

damage claim without litigation. Should the RP(s) decide to decline to settle the claim, 

trustees are authorized to bring a civil action for damages in court or to present the 

claim13 to the federal OSLTF or the state OSCF for such damages. If the RP(s) choose 

to implement the restoration actions detailed in the DARP, then the trustees provide 

project oversight that is funded by the RP(s). Otherwise the trustees will implement the 

project. 

6.2 RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

6.2.1 Summary 

The RRP Program is described in its entirety in Chapter 4.0, Proposed Action: Regional 

Restoration Planning Program and Chapter 5.0, Regional Boundaries. The RRP 

Program defines, expands, and/or refines several important components beyond the 

existing NRDA process. The following are the major components: 

♦ Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services; 

♦ Restoration Types (including nexus analysis and environmental consequences 

analysis of implementation); 

♦ Settlement Alternatives; 

♦ Screening Criteria; and 

♦ Regional Boundaries of the RRPs. 

 

13 In the absence of a viable RP (e.g., where the RP is unknown, bankrupt, or is not responsible due to a valid 

defense) or when a viable RP fails to respond to a demand letter after 90 days, the trustees have the option of going 

to the federal OSLTF or state OSCF to seek monies to implement the restoration actions required for that case. 
 140 

6.2.2 Overview of Program Components 

The descriptions below of the RRP Program components are programmatic and are not 

intended to define the case-specific actions or outcomes that may be implemented under 

the RRP Program. 

Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services – The RRP Program defines those 

trust resources and services in Louisiana that are likely to be or are anticipated to be 

injured (i.e., at-risk) by incidents as “potentially injured trust resources and services.” 

Pre-identification of these “potentially injured trust resources and services” will facilitate 

the development of the RRPs and assist in the coordination of response activities by 

informing agency personnel who are participating in the incident response (i.e., clean 

up) of trust resources and services that may be of greatest concern to the trustees. The 

“potentially injured trust resources and services” are listed below under three broad 

categories: coastal, inland, and statewide, and are detailed in Section 4.2.2, Potentially 

Injured Trust Resources and Services. 

♦ Coastal 

♦ Herbaceous Wetlands 

♦ Forested Wetlands 

♦ Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

♦ Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

♦ Water Column Organisms 

♦ Inland 

♦ Herbaceous Wetlands 

♦ Forested Wetlands 

♦ Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds 

♦ Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs) 

♦ Water Column Organisms 

♦ Statewide 

♦ Birds 

♦ Wildlife 

♦ Recreational Resource Services 

♦ Cultural Resource Services 

Restoration Types – The RRP Program identifies restoration types that are appropriate 

for the restoration of injuries for each identified “potentially injured trust resources and 

services” in the RRP Program. These restoration type categories are: 

♦ Creation / Enhancement of Habitat; 

♦ Physical Protection of Habitat; 

♦ Acquisition / Legal Protection of Resources and Services; 

♦ Stocking of Fauna; 

♦ Physical Protection of Fauna; 

♦ Restoration of Recreation Resource Services; and 

♦ Restoration of Cultural Resource Services. 

Figures 4.2, Coastal Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, and 4.3, 

Inland Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, summarize the specific 

restoration type(s) in each restoration type category that is appropriate for the restoration 

of injuries to each identified “potentially injured trust resources and services” in the RRP 

Program. This determination of the range of appropriate restoration types is based on 
 141 

the nexus analysis that is described in Chapter 4.0, Proposed Action: Regional 

Restoration Planning Program. The trustees have also conducted an environmental 

consequences analysis on the restoration types by evaluating impacts of implementing 

various restoration techniques. Carrying out both analyses in the FPEIS will result in 

both technical process and NEPA compliance efficiencies at the case level during the 

Restoration Planning Phase. The trustees will be able to tier the case-specific DARPs 

and environmental assessments from the FPEIS and RRPs. 

The trustees also have developed restoration type selection criteria that assists in 

determining which of the various restoration types identified in Figures 4.2, Coastal 

Restoration Types by Trust Resources and Services, and 4.3, Inland Restoration Types 

by Trust Resources and Services, are most appropriate to restore the trust resources 

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

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

project selection. Furthermore, projects in each RRP will be classified by restoration 

type to facilitate the selection of specific restoration projects based on the type of trust 

resources and services injured. This approach will streamline the process of evaluating 

and selecting preferred restoration project(s) to be reviewed by the public. 

Settlement Alternatives – The RRP Program describes a number of additional case 

settlement alternatives to assist the trustees and RPs in negotiations to resolve RP 

liabilities for incidents. These additional settlement alternatives generally represent 

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

two usual options: RP-implemented restoration or RP cash settlement and trusteeimplemented restoration. These settlement alternatives also may provide opportunities 

for implementing restoration projects more quickly and cost-effectively, pooling 

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

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

significant projects. 

Screening Criteria – In order to improve consistency, predictability, and accountability 

of the NRDA decision-making process, the trustees identified and defined project 

selection and other screening criteria to be used in implementing the RRP Program. 

These criteria are for: 

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

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

resources and services in a case; and 

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

Regional Boundaries of the RRPs – The RRP Program established nine regions for 

which regional plans will be developed. There are four coastal regions based on the 

Coast 2050 Plan (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 

and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998) regions and five inland 

regions based on LDEQ’s defined watersheds (LDEQ 2000). For each region, an 

individual RRP will be produced. Each RRP will identify the trust resources and services 

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

been identified to date for implementation within that region. The first RRP will be done 

for Region 2. Establishing regions also provides an administrative tool to, among other 

things, facilitate tracking of cases, settlement accounting, restoration, and monitoring. 
 142 

6.3 Other Programmatic Alternative Considered 

Prior to the commencement of the formal scoping process for this FPEIS on the RRP 

Program, the trustees considered one other alternative. This alternative consisted of 

developing RRPs with databases that identify existing, planned, or proposed restoration 

projects that may provide appropriate restoration alternatives for consideration in the 

context of specific incidents. It was determined that this alternative did not meet the 

objectives of providing greater consistency and predictability of the NRDA process by 

detailing how that process would work, thereby increasing understanding of the process 

by the public and industry. Also, it did not meet the state legislative mandate to establish 

a program. Therefore, this alternative was not carried forward. Instead, a more 

comprehensive alternative, embodied in the RRP Program, was developed for review by 

the public. 

6.4 Evaluation of Alternatives 

In evaluating the programmatic aspects of the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative” verses the “No Action Alternative,” a comparative analysis has been done 

determining the relative programmatic consequences of implementing the RRP Program 

or not. The analysis of the relative environmental consequences of the two alternatives 

is provided in Chapter 7.0, Environmental Consequences. 

6.4.1 RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

As described above, it is anticipated that the RRP Program will achieve the following: 

♦ Expedite and potentially reduce the cost of the NRDA process; 

♦ Provide greater consistency and predictability by detailing the NRDA process, 

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

♦ Increase restoration of lost trust resources and services. 

To expedite and make the NRDA process more cost-effective, the RRP Program intends 

to shorten the Restoration Planning Phase of the NRDA process through the 

development of individual RRPs, which will identify appropriate restoration projects 

subjected to public review prior to incidents occurring. In addition, the RRP Program 

helps to inform the selection of restoration projects by identifying in advance the types of 

restoration that may be suitable to restore those trust resources and services likely to be 

or anticipated to be injured by incidents in Louisiana. Further, through the development 

of a FPEIS for the RRP Program and tiering the RRPs and case-specific DARPs from 

the information and analysis provided in the FPEIS, the NEPA process for the NRDA 

cases will be streamlined significantly. It is also anticipated that model documents 

(including DARPs, consent decrees, and NOIs) will be developed under this Program, to 

provide more efficiencies and lower the costs of carrying out NRDAs. Although the RRP 

Program requires upfront costs to identify restoration projects in advance and develop 

planning documents, economies of scale will allow overall implementation costs to be 

lower. 

Consistent application of the RRP Program project selection criteria will enhance the 

predictability, consistency, and accountability of the decision-making process. Flexibility 

will be increased through the introduction of additional settlement alternatives. 

It is anticipated that describing the NRDA process in greater detail will enable the public 

and affected entities to participate more fully in restoration planning for incidents. First, 

the RRP Program identifies trust resources and services that are likely to be or are 
 143 

anticipated to be injured from an incident and what restoration type is appropriate to 

restore the trust resources and services that were injured or lost. It also provides the 

rationale for how those decisions were made. The public and affected parties will have 

an opportunity to review the restoration alternatives that have been identified to date for 

implementation, by restoration type, in a specific region to restore trust resources and 

services injured in that region prior to an incident occurring. By describing in detail each 

step and the criteria used in the NRDA process, the public and affected parties will 

understand the trustees’ roles and rationale for their decisions, thereby improving the 

ability of interested parties to participate in the process. 

Finally, by streamlining the NRDA process and making it more efficient: 1) the costs to 

both the trustees and RPs will be lowered; 2) restoration of injured trust resources and 

services will be increased; and 3) most importantly, the public will be made whole more 

quickly. 

6.4.2 Summary of Benefits 

The RRP Program, including the RRPs, is intended to benefit the public, industry, and 

natural resource trustees by: 

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

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

♦ Reducing the cost of restoration planning and implementation; 

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

larger, more ecologically significant restoration projects; 

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

process, thereby increasing the understanding of that process by the public and 

industry; 

♦ Improving coordination between restoration activities under the NRDA mandates and 

other restoration efforts in the state; 

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

by incidents for which there is no viable RP; 

♦ Maximizing opportunities for partnering among RPs, trustees, and other public and 

private restoration efforts; and 

♦ Increasing opportunity for public participation in the NRDA process through preincident planning. 

The trustees will periodically review the implementation of the RRP Program in the 

context of the benefits described above, in order to identify opportunities for 

improvement. In addition, the trustees are committed to identifying, developing, and 

using innovative operational tools and methods that will achieve the intended benefits of 

the RRP Program. 
 144 

7.0 Environmental Consequences 

This chapter discusses the environmental consequences of the “No Action Alternative” 

compared to the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” based on the 

description of the programmatic benefits described in Chapter 6.0, Alternatives. Section 

7.1, Direct and Indirect Impacts, describes the direct and indirect impacts of the 

alternatives; Section 7.2, Cumulative Impacts, describes the cumulative impacts of the 

alternatives; Section 7.3, Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity, summarizes the 

balance between short-term uses versus long-term productivity; and Section 7.4, 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments, lists the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources. 

The environmental consequences analysis is necessarily generalized. The exact 

manner in which the implementation of the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative” will affect the environment will be determined largely by the implementation 

of the Program as it applies to specific cases. This analysis does not attempt to 

distinguish between all possibilities as to how the trustees may implement the “RRP 

Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” as it applies to specific cases. Instead 

this analysis simply assesses likely impacts at a statewide scale. 

Under OPA and OSPRA, the selection of restoration projects to be implemented as part 

of a specific case is subject to NEPA and all relevant laws and regulations. This is the 

case whether the “No Action Alternative” or the “RRP Program/Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative” is selected. 

The number of cases and speed of their resolution through implementation of restoration 

will determine the actual beneficial impact of the Program. On a statewide, landscape 

scale, substantial impacts cannot be expected for a number of years, but locally, 

landscape impacts may be evident sooner. In a geographic sense, the impact of the 

RRP Program can be expected to be most prominent and most quickly realized in 

Region 2, which is the region with the highest frequencies of incidents. 

This FPEIS can only anticipate what might be the cumulative impacts of the statewide 

implementation of the RRP Program as cumulative impacts are those that result from the 

incremental consequences of an action when added to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts assessment will be considered (along 

with additional site-specific direct and indirect impacts) when tiering is used for sitespecific projects under the program. 

7.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 

The environmental resource impacts and socioeconomic impacts are presented below 

on a programmatic level. The major differences between the impacts of the “No Action 

Alternative” and the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” are ones of 

degree or proportion. Therefore, the beneficial environmental impacts and lack of 

potentially significant adverse environmental impacts and economic and social impacts 

are similar. 

7.1.1 Beneficial Impacts 

Compared to the “No Action Alternative,” it is anticipated that the amount of restoration 

accomplished under the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will be 

greater, accomplished more quickly and generally at a larger scale, with more public 

participation, and at a lower cost to the trustees and RPs. The “RRP 
 145 

Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will also improve coordination with other 

restoration efforts in the state and maximize opportunities for partnering. Therefore the 

trustees expect that the beneficial impacts of the “RRP Program/Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative” will be greater than those of the “No Action Alternative.”

7.1.1.1 Direct 

Both alternatives share the goal of making the public and the environment whole for 

injuries to trust resources and services from incidents. Restoration actions taken by the 

trustees to return injured trust resources and services to baseline and compensate the 

public for interim losses will have long-term and significant beneficial impacts on both 

the physical environment and biological resources impacted by incidents. Whether 

restoration occurs at the site of the incident or off-site, restoration under NRDA is 

required to create, protect, or enhance trust resources and services, and therefore it 

serves to directly benefit those types of trust resources and services that are the focus of 

restoration actions. 

For example, in the case of threatened and endangered species, many species have 

been listed in that status because of population declines due to the loss of their primary 

habitats. Likewise, the intent of identifying and protecting essential fish habitat in the 

coastal area is to prevent the decline of fish populations. Therefore restoration of 

habitat, in general, and specifically habitat for threatened and endangered species, will 

assist in the maintenance and possibly the recovery of populations of threatened and 

endangered species. Restoration of habitat will benefit essential fish habitat when 

habitat restoration is in the coastal area. 

Restoration of trust resources and services that are of cultural value or support 

economic activities, such as recreation, tourism, and commercial fishing, will also be 

impacted in a beneficial way by the restoration of those trust resources and services on 

which they depend. 

7.1.1.2 Indirect 

The restoration of trust resources and services injured by incidents will have foreseeable 

indirect beneficial impacts to the other parts of the physical environment, biological 

resources, cultural resources, or related economic activities. For example, when 

addressing an injury related to one type of service flow from a trust resource by restoring 

that resource, usually all service flows related to that resource are restored or enhanced. 

7.1.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts 

At a programmatic level, it is anticipated that under the “RRP Program/Environmentally 

Preferred Alternative” there will be more restoration of injured trust resources and 

services and restoration will be accomplished more quickly. Therefore, there appears to 

be less of a potential for significant adverse environmental impacts under the “RRP 

Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” as compared to the “No Action 

Alternative.” Under implementation of either alternative, mitigation measures are 

available to avoid or reduce any potentially significant adverse impacts to a less than 

significant level as individual restoration project(s) are reviewed and implemented. The 

project(s) will be scaled in such a way that the net benefits of the project compensate for 

injury(s) resulting from the incident(s) and collateral injury(s) (if any) from the 

implementation of the compensation project(s). Specific analysis of environmental 

impacts, their significance, and the availability and choice of specific mitigation 

measures will be developed and presented in future second or third tier environmental 
 146 

documents prepared, as necessary, prior to the implementation of specific restoration 

projects. 

7.1.3 Economic and Social Impacts 

Both alternatives result in beneficial socioeconomic impacts to the public and the 

industries and communities that depend on the state’s resources for commerce and 

recreation as a result of the restoration of trust resources and services on which they 

depend. At the same time, under “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative,” 

RPs for incidents will have a predictable and efficient way of resolving their liabilities. By 

implementing restoration more quickly, the time between an incident and full recovery of 

lost trust resources and services will be reduced, thereby reducing the RPs’ liability. 

7.2 Cumulative Impacts 

The restoration of trust resources and services injured by incidents will contribute to 

avoidance or mitigation of the adverse environmental impact to those trust resources 

and services and other parts of the physical environment, biological resources, natural 

resources with cultural value, and related economic activities. Both alternatives will 

contribute to the cumulative beneficial impacts of restoration efforts that have previously 

been constructed and are being constructed under separate federal and state authorities 

and by local and private entities. 

Compared to the “No Action Alternative,” it is anticipated that the amount of restoration 

accomplished and therefore the cumulative beneficial impacts under the “RRP 

Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will be significantly greater, will be 

accomplished more quickly, and generally will be at a larger scale. At the same time, 

the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” will also improve coordination 

with other restoration efforts in the state and maximize opportunities for partnering, 

which will also have a cumulative beneficial impact. 

7.3 Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity 

At a programmatic level under both alternatives, overall benefits to long-term productivity 

related to the state’s physical environment, biological resources, natural resources with 

cultural value, and resource-dependent industries outweigh the limited short-term 

adverse impacts. Under the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative,” it is 

anticipated that the overall long-term productivity will be greater than under the “No 

Action Alternative.” 

Both alternatives may have short-term construction related impacts as a result of 

implementing restoration projects. However, these impacts would usually be minor and 

would cease when construction is complete. Avoidance and mitigation measures will be 

implemented to lessen the adverse impacts of any construction activities. 

7.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

As part of implementation, irreversible commitments of resources could result from 

restoration actions that involve construction or land conversion under either of the 

alternatives. Committed resources could include construction materials, labor and 

energy necessary for construction, operation and maintenance. Potential land 

conversion would commit habitat, agriculture, or other land uses to other uses; however, 

in many cases these land conversions could be undone if there were any unanticipated 

adverse impacts. Avoidance and mitigation measures will be implemented to lessen the 
 147 

adverse impacts of any construction or land conversion activities to lessen impacts 

under either alternative. 
 148 

8.0 Coordination with Other Programs, Regulatory Authorities 

8.1 Overview 

As a cooperative interagency effort, the RRP Program is required to comply with various 

state and federal environmental laws and regulations. This chapter, not necessarily 

exhaustive, provides a general overview of the regulatory and programmatic 

environment in which NRDA restoration activities will be conducted under the RRP 

Program. Federal environmental laws and regulations to which the RRP Program is 

subject are outlined in Sections 8.2.1, Program Compliance with Federal Laws, and 

8.2.2, Program Compliance with Federal Regulations and Federal Executive Orders. 

Louisiana state environmental laws and regulations to which the RRP Program is subject 

are discussed in Sections 8.2.3, Program Compliance with State Laws, and 8.2.4, 

Program Compliance with State Regulations. 

In addition to laws and regulations, the trustees must also consider existing 

environmental programs or plans in developing and implementing the RRP Program. 

Through coordination with other established programs, the trustees can ensure that the 

RRP Program does not duplicate other efforts, but instead leads to more effective and 

cost-efficient NRDA procedures. This, in turn, will add to the overall effort to protect, 

enhance, and restore the trust resources of Louisiana. Major state, federal, and joint 

state-federal partnership programs that the RRP Program will seek to complement are 

listed below. 

Appendix E, Compliance Status of Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program 

with Relevant Federal and State Laws, Regulations, and Programs, provides a table that 

summarizes the current state of the RRP Program’s compliance and coordination with 

local, state and federal environmental laws, regulations, and existing programs. 

8.2 Program Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulations 

8.2.1 Program Compliance with Federal Laws 

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (AFCA) (16 USC 757[a] et seq.)

The AFCA authorizes the Secretaries of Commerce and/or the Interior to enter into 

cooperative agreements with the states for the conservation, development, and 

enhancement of the nation’s anadromous fishery resources. Pursuant to such 

agreements, the federal government may undertake studies and activities to restore, 

enhance, or manage anadromous fish, fish habitat, and passages. The Act authorizes 

federal grants to the states or other non-federal entities to improve spawning areas, 

install fishways, construct fish protection devices and hatcheries, conduct research to 

improve management, and otherwise increase anadromous fish resources. The trustees 

will carefully consider the provisions of the AFCA when making any site-specific 

restoration choice, and may be able to take advantage of the provisions and funding of 

AFCA in order to enhance anadromous fish restoration plans and projects within the 

state. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) (33 USC 1251 et seq.) 

The CWA is the principal law governing pollution control and water quality of the nation’s 

waterways. Section 404 establishes a permit program for the disposal of dredge or fill 

material into national waters and is administered by USACE. In general, restoration 

projects that move dredged or filled material into or out of navigable waters or wetlands 
 149 

(e.g., hydrologic restoration of salt marshes or the placement of artificial reefs require 

404 permits). 

Under the 404 Program, restoration projects specifically identified for implementation in 

a consent decree, court decision, settlement agreement, or non-judicial settlement 

agreement do not require a 404 permit and are authorized under Nationwide Permit 

(NWP) 32, Completed Enforcement Actions (iii), provided that all other conditions of 

NWP 32 are satisfied. If the consent decree, court decision, or settlement agreement 

provides for a ”Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement,” and a project will not be selected 

for implementation until sometime later, then NWP-32 may not be applicable for that 

project. 

Under Section 401 of the CWA, restoration projects that entail discharge or fill to 

wetlands or waters within federal jurisdiction must obtain certification of compliance with 

state water quality standards. In general, restoration projects with minor wetlands 

impacts (i.e., a project covered by an USACE Programmatic General Permit) are not 

required to obtain certification under Section 401, while projects with potentially large or 

cumulative impacts to critical areas require certification. 

It is probable that some of the RRP Program’s restoration projects will require permits. 

However, since project-specific restoration sites have not yet been selected, no Section 

404 permits or 401 certifications will need to be issued at this time. Through 

coordination with USACE, the trustees will ensure that any site-specific restoration 

project is properly permitted under both Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act of 1990 (CWPPRA) 

(P.L. 101-646) 

Through implementation of this Act, the federal government funds wetland enhancement 

projects nationwide, with approximately $50 million appropriated for restoration activities 

in Louisiana alone. A task force initiated under the authority of CWPPRA annually 

develops a list of high-priority projects for implementation. The projects targeted by 

CWPPRA focus on marsh creation, wetland restoration, and various other modes of 

protection and enhancement of these valuable resources. The trustees hope to be able 

to partner with the task force by contributing funding to appropriate restoration projects 

that meet both the CWPPRA and OPA mandates. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC 1451 et seq.) 

The CZMA establishes a policy to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, 

restore and enhance the nation’s coastal resources. The federal government provides 

matching grants to states for the realization of these goals through the development and 

implementation of state coastal zone management programs. Section 1456 of the 

CZMA requires federal actions in the coastal zone to be consistent, to the maximum 

extent practicable, with approved state programs. It stipulates that no federal licenses or 

permits be granted without giving the state the opportunity to concur that the project is 

consistent with the state’s coastal policies. Other provisions of the CZMA provide for the 

development of special area management plans for areas of the coastal zone of 

particular importance (16 USC 1456[b][6]). In addition, Section 6217 of P.L. 101-508, 

codified at 16 USC 1455(b), requires states with federally approved coastal zone 

management programs to develop programs for the control of coastal non-point pollution 

control. 
 150 

In order to comply with the CZMA, the trustees forwarded a copy of the RRP Program 

DPEIS to the LDNR Coastal Management Program for their review and determination of 

programmatic consistency. Once a particular site-specific restoration project is selected, 

a further determination of consistency will likely be necessary. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

The ESA requires that all federal departments and agencies seek to conserve 

endangered and threatened species and their habitats and encourages those 

departments and agencies to utilize their authorities to further these purposes. 

Specifically, Section 7 of the ESA charges federal agencies with aiding in the 

conservation of listed species (Section 7[a][1]), and requires federal agencies to ensure 

that their activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

adversely modify designated critical habitats (Section 7[a][2]). Section 7 of the ESA 

further requires that federal agencies and departments consult with USDOC and USDOI 

to minimize the impacts of federal actions on endangered and threatened species and 

designated critical habitat. The Departments of Commerce and Interior publish lists of 

endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat under their 

jurisdictions. The concurrence of the appropriate consulting agency – NMFS for USDOC 

or USFWS for USDOI – with an action agency’s determination that a particular activity is 

not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat is required. The 

concurrence of the appropriate agencies is necessary for this determination. 

The trustees have performed an analysis of the potential impacts of the RRP Program 

on endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat in Louisiana (see 

the list of threatened and endangered species in Appendix B, Threatened and 

Endangered Species, Essential Fish Habitat, and Other Related Information). The 

project selection screening criteria include requiring that projects not adversely affect 

listed species and/or designated critical habitat. In addition, the overall goal of the 

restoration projects arising from the RRP Program is the restoration of environmental 

function and use, an outcome that is expected to benefit listed species that use 

Louisiana habitats. Therefore, the trustees have determined that adoption of the 

preferred alternative is not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species 

and/or their critical habitat. The NMFS and USFWS have concurred with the trustee’s 

determination (see Appendix F, Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat 

Consultations). 

In addition, the trustees will carefully consider the status and needs of endangered 

species and designated critical habitat when developing RRPs and site-specificDARPs. 

Once a site-specific restoration project is chosen and the DARP written, a Section 7 

consultation will be undertaken as necessary to ensure that adverse effects to listed 

species from each project are unlikely. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), Section 303(a)(7) of the Amended Magnuson-Stevens 

Act 

In Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress directs NMFS and the 

eight regional Fishery Management Councils, under the authority of the Secretary of 

Commerce, to: 1) describe and identify EFH in each fishery management plan; 2) 

minimize to the extent practicable the adverse impacts of fishing on EFH; and 3) identify 

other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. Additionally, 

pursuant to Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, federal agencies must 

consult with NMFS regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or 
 151 

proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect EFH. The 

NMFS and federal agencies responsible for funding actions that may adversely affect 

EFH should consult on a programmatic level under Section 303(j) of the MagnusonStevens Act, if appropriate, with respect to these actions. An EFH consultation can be 

combined with existing environmental review procedures, such as those used under the 

NEPA and the ESA to streamline these requirements. The determination to combine 

consultations (e.g., through the issuance of one letter to NMFS for consultation on the 

ESA and EFH) will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

The trustees performed an analysis of the potential impacts of Louisiana RRP Program 

implementation on EFH and determined that adoption of the “RRP 

Program/Environmentally/Preferred Alternative” is not likely to adversely affect EFH. 

The NMFS concurred with this determination (see Appendix F, Endangered Species Act 

and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations).. 

The trustees will carefully consider all potential impacts to EFH when making sitespecific restoration project selections. Additionally, while concurrence has been sought 

at the programmatic level, the trustees will perform and include an EFH assessment, as 

required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and seek NMFS concurrence for each projectspecific DARP/EA. For the list of EFH as designated by the Fisheries Management 

Council, see Appendix B, Threatened and Endangered Species, Essential Fish Habitat, 

and Other Related Information. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 USC 661 et seq.) 

FWCA, Subsection 2(a), requires that federal agencies consult with USFWS, NMFS, and 

state wildlife agencies for activities that affect, control, or modify waters of any stream or 

body of water in order to conserve and protect these resources. The FWCA, Subsection 

2(b), requires USFWS and NMFS to: 1) report its recommendation for wildlife 

conservation and development, and the expected results; and 2) describe the damage to 

wildlife attributable to the project and the measures proposed for mitigating or 

compensating for these damages. This consultation is generally incorporated into the 

process of complying with the Section 404 (see CWA above) permitting process or other 

review requirements. In addition, the FWCA provides NMFS and USFWS with grantmaking authority, which may be useful in disbursing funds for specific restoration 

projects, or for leveraging restoration projects with additional federal funding. 

The fact that the three consulting agencies of the FWCA are represented by the RRP 

Program trustees means that FWCA compliance will generally be inherent in the 

trustee’s decision-making process. However, a further assessment of compliance with 

the FWCA will be made at the time of selection of site-specific restoration projects. 

Information Quality Guidelines Issued Pursuant to Section 515 of P.L. 106-554 

Information disseminated by federal agencies to the public after October 1, 2002, is 

subject to Information Quality guidelines developed by each agency pursuant to Section 

515 of P.L. 106-554 that are intended to ensure and maximize the quality of such 

information (i.e., the objectivity, utility, and integrity of such information). The DPEIS, 

upon release as a draft, is an information product covered by Information Quality 

guidelines established by NOAA and USDOI for this purpose. The FPEIS is in 

compliance with all applicable Information Quality guidelines, including predissemination review requirements, and the trustees will strive to ensure that any future 
 152 

information products produced as a result of the RRP Program are in full compliance 

with applicable Information Quality guidelines. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.) 

NEPA is the basic national charter for ensuring the federal government considers 

impacts to the environment resulting from the decisions and actions. It establishes a 

process of environmental review and public notification for federal planning and 

decision-making. A presidentially appointed Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

has developed specific implementing regulations for NEPA (see Section 8.2.2, Program 

Compliance with Federal Regulations and Federal Executive Orders). 

The trustees have fully integrated their planning and development with the requirements 

of NEPA through production of this FPEIS, which outlines the anticipated benefits and 

possible adverse impacts of the RRP Program. When federal trustees are involved, 

implementation of specific restoration projects will require additional NEPA 

documentation in the form of project-specific EAs. 

Moreover, public involvement in the RRP Program’s planning process has been even 

greater than that required by NEPA compliance alone. The trustees have produced a 

Public Review Document (PRD), published various public notices, and held several 

public meetings in order to maximize the opportunity for public review of, and comment 

on, the RRP Program. The trustees envision continued public involvement in the RRP 

Program, whereby the public will be involved in helping to develop, shape, and comment 

on site-specific restoration planning and implementation. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et seq.) 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies, or federally funded entities, to 

consider the impacts of their projects on historic properties. The NHPA regulations 

require that federal agencies take the lead in this process, and outline procedures to 

allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment on any proposed federal 

action. The trustees have already undertaken the process of surveying the important 

cultural and historic resources that exist within Louisiana (see Chapter 2.0, Affected 

Environment). At the time of selection of a site-specific restoration project, a further 

evaluation of possible impacts to historic properties will be made in order to ensure 

compliance with the NHPA. As appropriate, the trustees will consult with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (NWRSIA) (16 USC 

668[dd])

The NWRSIA provides, in part, that any new or expanded use of a NWR must be 

compatible. A compatible use is defined as a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or any other use of a NWR that, based on sound professional judgment, 

will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the fulfillment of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission or the purposes of the NWR. A compatibility determination is a 

written determination by the Refuge Manager and Regional Refuge Chief, finding 

whether a proposed or existing use of a NWR is a compatible use. A compatibility 

determination is only required when USFWS has jurisdiction over the use. For example, 

proposed uses that deal exclusively with air space, navigable waters, or over-lay refuges 

where another federal agency has primary jurisdiction over the area, would not require a 

compatibility determination. 
 153 

The trustees will coordinate with the appropriate Refuge Manager whenever a proposed 

restoration project might result in a new or expanded use of a NWR. If a compatibility 

determination is required, the trustees will provide the information necessary to complete 

that process. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 USC 2701 et seq.) 

The OPA is the main statute detailing procedures for contingency planning for, 

prevention of, and response to oil spills within the United States. The OPA identifies 

which governmental departments and authorities have trustee authority. Additionally, a 

major goal of OPA is to make the environment and public whole for injury to, or loss of, 

trust resources and services as a result of a discharge or substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil. The trustees have striven to ensure full compliance with all of the 

dictates of OPA and will coordinate closely with all of the authorities and programs 

delineated in OPA, which relate to oil spill planning, response, and restoration. 

Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 401 et seq.) 

The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates development and use of the nation’s navigable 

waterways. Section 10 of the Act prohibits unauthorized obstruction or alteration of 

navigable waters and invests USACE with the authority to regulate discharges of fill and 

other materials into such waters. Restoration actions that require Section 404 permits 

(see CWA above) are also likely to require permits under Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act; however, a single permit generally serves for both. Once a site-specific 

restoration project is chosen, the trustees will ensure full compliance with the Rivers and 

Harbors Act either through Section 404 permitting procedures or through a separate 

Section 10 permit, as necessary. 

Other Potentially Applicable Federal Laws 

♦ Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336) 

♦ Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.) 

♦ Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (16 USC 3901) 

♦ Estuarine Protection Act (16 USC 1221 et seq.) 

♦ Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 USC 1361 et seq.) 

♦ Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 USC 1401 et seq.) 

♦ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703 et seq.) 

♦ Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470[aa] et seq.) 

8.2.2 Program Compliance with Federal Regulations and Federal Executive Orders 

Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 

1500 et seq.) 

The presidentially appointed CEQ developed specific implementing regulations for 

NEPA (see NEPA discussion above). These regulations address, among other topics, 

the overall structure, purpose, and format to which Environmental Impact Statements 

should adhere. The trustees have carefully considered the CEQ implementing 

regulations in formatting this FPEIS. 

NOAA’s 1996 Final Rule on Natural Resource Damage Assessments (61 Fed. Reg. 

440 [January 5, 1996] and 15 CFR 990 et seq.) 

As discussed in Section 1.1.1, Legal Mandates and Authorities, the USDOC, acting 

through NOAA, has issued final regulations under OPA (15 CFR 990 et seq.), which 

provide an approach that trustees may use when conducting NRDA assessments. 

Potential establishment of RRPs, and procedures for conducting Regional Restoration 
 154 

Planning and Restoration, are also discussed in these regulations. The trustees have 

striven to ensure that all programmatic elements are in full compliance with these NOAA 

regulations. They will also strive to incorporate the NRDA regulations into site-specific 

restoration project selection and implementation. 

Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires federal agencies to identify and 

address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts of 

programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations. Where 

disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations are identified, 

federal agencies are tasked with addressing those impacts. The trustees sought input 

from “Environmental Justice” interest groups during the formal scoping process by 

sending copies of the DPEIS to their members. The trustees will review the potential for 

disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations at the time of 

site-specific restoration project selection. 

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management 

Executive Order 11988 is a flood-hazard policy for federal agencies, requiring them to: 

1) take action to reduce the risks of flood losses; 2) restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains; and 3) minimize flood impacts on human safety, 

health, and welfare. The trustees will comply with Executive Order 11988 by considering 

the potential impacts of any site-specific project and minimizing, to the farthest extent 

practicable, any flooding impacts that might result. 

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands 

Executive Order 11990 establishes a wetlands policy for all agencies charged with 

managing federal lands, sponsoring federal projects, or providing federal funds to state 

or local projects. This Order requires federal agencies to follow avoidance, mitigation, 

and preservation procedures before proposing new construction in wetlands. It also 

provides mechanisms for public input into the decision process. Executive Order 11990 

can restrict the sale of federal land containing wetlands. However, it does not apply to 

federal discretionary authority for non-federal projects (other than funding) on nonfederal land. The trustees believe that the RRP Program will add greatly to the 

protection of wetlands. The trustees will additionally comply with Executive Order 11990 

by considering all impacts to wetlands when evaluating site-specific restoration projects. 

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites; and Executive Order 13175 – 

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13007 describes federal policy for accommodating sacred Indian sites. 

This Executive Order requires federal agencies with statutory or administrative 

responsibility for managing federal lands to: 1) accommodate access to and ceremonial 

use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religions practitioners; 2) avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sacred sites and; where appropriate; and 3) maintain the 

confidentiality of these sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13175 exists to: 1) promote regular and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal 

implications; 2) strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships 

with Indian tribes; and 3) reduce the imposition of unfounded mandates upon Indian 

tribes. 
 155 

Federally recognized Indian tribes are natural resource trustees (see Section 3.2.2.5, 

Indian Tribes). The trustees will carefully consider the potential impacts of any sitespecific restoration project on sacred Indian sites, and the need for consultation and 

collaboration with Indian tribal officials will be evaluated at the time of project selection. 

8.2.3 Program Compliance with State Laws 

Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (OSPRA) (La. Rev. Stat. 30:2451 

et seq.) 

Louisiana’s OSPRA established LOSCO, created the position of Oil Spill Coordinator as 

the state’s lead administrator on oil spill matters, and charged that office with the 

authority to assess natural resources damages. Louisiana’s OSPRA also designated 

the state natural resource trustees as LDEQ, LDNR, and LDWF. These agencies are 

jointly responsible for assessing injuries to trust resources and services resulting from 

unauthorized discharges of oil, and ensuring that the public is made whole for the losses 

of trust resources and services through the restoration, replacement, or acquisition of 

the equivalent of the injured resources.

Management of State Lands (La. Rev. Stat. 41:1701.1 et seq.)

This statute provides authority for the management of state lands to LDNR and State 

Lands Office (LSLO). This statute creates provisions regarding permitting, land 

reclamation, and usage of land and waterbottoms belonging to the state. The trustees 

will coordinate with these agencies as necessary regarding the construction of RRP 

Program projects on state owned lands and waterbottoms. 

Archaeological Finds on State Lands (La. Rev. Stat. 41:1605) 

This statute provides for the permitting of all activities that fall within sites of 

archaeological importance on state lands. No activity shall commence within these sites 

without obtaining a permit from the LCRT. The trustees will require the acquisition of 

such permits where required. 

Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority (La. Rev. Stat. 49:213.1) 

This statute establishes the restoration authority, which is comprised of state agency 

leaders and is located within the Office of the Governor. Their main purpose is to govern 

the state’s Wetlands Trust Fund, as well as provide direction and development of the 

state's Coastal Vegetated Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Plan. The trustees 

will coordinate with the authority on matters regarding coastal restoration priorities, and 

will plan restoration activities consistent with the state’s overall strategies. 

Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Plan (La. Rev. Stat. 49:213.6) 

The above-mentioned authority is tasked on an annual basis to develop a plan that 

serves as the state’s overall strategy for conducting coastal restoration activities and 

management of restoration projects. This plan specifies the funding requirements of that 

year in regards to the state’s Wetlands Trust Fund. The plan is presented to the public 

and, ultimately, the legislative natural resources committees for ultimate approval. The 

trustees will review the plan to ensure RRP Program projects are consistent with the 

state’s overall planning strategies. 
 156 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Act (La. Rev. Stat. 49: 

214.1) 

This act establishes the Wetland Conservation and Restoration Program. The program 

is to be implemented in accordance with the Coastal Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Plan developed by the Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Authority. The trustees will coordinate with the Coastal Restoration Division of LDNR on 

matters regarding coastal restoration, and will plan restoration activities consistent with 

the State’s overall strategies. 

Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation (La. 

Rev. Stat. 49:214.11) 

This provides for the creation of an advisory committee to provide input for developing 

restoration strategies. The commission represents a broad range of people and groups 

that are critical to the efforts of coastal restoration. The trustees will coordinate with this 

commission in so that restoration planning will compliment their efforts. 

Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SLCRMA) (La. 

Rev. Stat. 49:214.21 et seq.) 

The purpose of this Act is to protect, develop, and, where feasible, restore or enhance 

the resources of the state’s coastal zone. Under SLCRMA, the Coastal Management 

Division (CMD) of LDNR is charged with implementing the Louisiana Coastal Resources 

Program (LCRP). The LCRP strives to balance conservation and resource use, aids in 

resolving user conflicts, encourages coastal zone recreational value, and determines the 

future course of coastal development and conservation. The statutes below are of 

particular interest to project planning and construction within the coastal zone. 

♦ Special Areas, Projects, and Programs (La. Rev. Stat. 49:214.29) 

 Special areas are designations by LDNR that have unique or valuable 

characteristics requiring special management practices. Special areas may 

include beaches, barrier islands, shell deposits, salt domes, or other geological 

areas of interest both to coastal habitat and infrastructure. The LDNR may set 

priorities to these areas, specifically for funding available under Section 308 of 

the federal CZMA (P.L. 92-583 as amended by P.L. 94-370). The trustees will, to 

the maximum extent practicable, identify these sites for special consideration as 

they may pertain to the RRP Program. 

♦ Coastal Use Permit (CUP) (La. Rev. Stat. 49:214.30) 

 This statute stipulates that no entity shall commence a coastal use of state or 

local concern without acquiring a CUP through the LDNR CMD. Parishes with an 

approved local program can permit coastal activities of local concern. State 

permitting authority is still retained over uses of state concern in the coastal 

zone. The permit process is a means to ensure that project activities, especially 

dredging and filling, are done in accordance with the LCRP. Like most permits, 

the CUP provides for a public notice and hearing period. The trustees will ensure 

that proper actions are taken to obtain a CUP for all projects being constructed 

as part of the RRP Program. 

♦ Consistency Determination (La. Rev. Stat. 49:214.32) 

 This statute provides for the regulation of projects constructed within the coastal 

zone to be consistent with guidelines established under the CZMA (16 USC 1451 

et seq.) and SLCRMA (La. Rev. Stat. 49:214 et seq.). Consistency 
 157 

determinations are provided by LDNR CMD. The trustees will ensure that all 

restoration projects receive a favorable consistency determination, and comply 

with approved federal, state, and local coastal zone programs. 

Title 56 (La. Rev. Stat. 56) 

This title outlines the duties and authorities of LDWF. In addition, the Wildlife and 

Fisheries Commission is created within the Executive Branch, and is responsible for 

determining policy and rules governing the wildlife and fisheries populations throughout 

the state. 

♦ Fish Restoration and Management Projects (La. Rev. Stat. 56:25) 

This statute provides that the state adhere to the provisions of 16 USC 777 et 

seq., which requires the federal government to aid states in fish restoration and 

management projects. Furthermore, the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries 

Commission is authorized, empowered, and directed to perform such acts as 

may be necessary to conduct fish restoration projects as defined and stipulated 

by the Act. The trustees will conduct restoration planning in accordance with this 

Act. 

♦ Civil Penalties for Restitution of Value of Wildlife and Aquatic Life (La. Rev. 

Stat. 56:40 et seq.) 

 This statute provides that LDWF may impose penalties on parties responsible for 

injury to, or unlawful capture of, wildlife and aquatic life. Furthermore, the 

Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission shall create procedures for 

determining the value of said injuries. The trustees will ensure, to the greatest 

extent practicable, that RRP Program projects do not inflict injury on surrounding 

wildlife and aquatic life. 

♦ Wildlife Management Areas (La. Rev. Stat. 56:109) 

 This statute provides that LDWF establish, manage, and regulate use of wildlife 

management areas, preserves, refuges, and sanctuaries. Commercial activities 

and project construction within these areas are allowed at the consent of the 

department. The trustees will coordinate with the department regarding any 

project activities that may fall within these designated areas. 

♦ Oysters and Oyster Industry (La. Rev. Stat. 56:421 et seq.) 

 This section establishes the Oyster Task Force and regulations of the industry. 

In addition, this section establishes authority under LDWF to create a private 

leasing program within state waterbottoms for the purpose of oyster cultivation. 

Lessee notification is required for any coastal activity located in close proximity to 

leased waterbottom. The trustees will coordinate with LDWF and/or private 

lessees regarding any RRP Program project that may impact private or public 

oyster grounds. 

♦ Management of Natural and Scenic River Systems (La. Rev. Stat. 56:1841 et 

seq.) 

 This statute provides for the establishment of the Natural and Scenic Rivers 

System under the authority of LDWF. This system is administered for the 

purposes of preserving, protecting, developing, reclaiming, and enhancing the 

wilderness qualities, scenic beauties, and ecological diversity of certain freeflowing streams. This statute provides criteria for classifying a scenic river 
 158 

system, and calls for the creation of a management plan for each system. The 

LDWF is responsible for plan implementation, and for reviewing permit requests 

to determine consistency with management objectives. The trustees will 

coordinate with LDWF in regards to project planning in the vicinity of designated 

scenic river systems. 

♦ Threatened or Endangered Species Conservation (La. Rev. Stat. 56:1901 et 

seq.) 

 This section provides for LDWF to designate and conserve endangered or 

threatened species pursuant to the federal ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Species 

listed under this act are federally and state protected from unlawful sale, trade, or 

capture. Furthermore, the state has the authority to draft regulations regarding 

the permitting of such activities that may be harmful to listed species or their 

habitat. As stated above, the trustees, with the concurrence of USFWS and 

NMFS, have determined that the RRP Program is not likely to adversely affect 

endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. 

Water Quality Control (La. Rev. Stat. 30:2074 et seq.) 

The LDEQ is provided, under this statute, the authority to manage and regulate 

discharges of waste materials and pollutants into any waters within the state. 

Furthermore, LDEQ provides water quality certifications for all activities involving 

discharge of sediments into state waters. This certification is required prior to 

construction and is granted in accordance with Section 404 of the federal CWA. Other 

water permits may be required for project construction depending upon the nature of the 

activity. The regulations governing the permitting process through LDEQ are provided 

under La. Admin. Code 33.I.1701. The trustees will ensure that all appropriate permits 

are obtained prior to project construction. 

8.2.4 Program Compliance with State Regulations 

Management of Archaeological and Historical Sites (La. Rev. Stat. 1:375) 

These regulations were created pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. 41:1605 regarding the 

preservation of archaeological sites located on state lands. Permits are required prior to 

conducting any project activities located within these sites. The trustees will seek such 

permits where required. 

Louisiana Surface Water Quality Standards (La. Admin. Code 33:IX, Chapter 11) 

These regulations establish the procedures that LDEQ follows regarding the permitting 

of wastewater discharge into state waters. These follow general permitting guidelines 

stated under La. Admin. Code 33.I.1701, and are pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. 30:2074 et 

seq. The trustees will ensure that all appropriate permits are obtained prior to project 

construction. 

Coastal Management Regulations (La. Admin. Code 43:I, Chapter 7) 

Pursuant to SLCRMA (La. Rev. Stat. 49:214.21 et seq.), the LCRP regulations provide 

specific coastal use guidelines, rules, and procedures for CUPs and mitigation, 

regulations for development, approval, and consistency review of local coastal 

programs, and procedures for the designation, utilization, and management of special 

areas. The trustees will ensure that these state provisions are adhered to and that the 

appropriate permits and determinations are acquired. 
 159 

Oyster Lease Relocation Program (La. Admin. Code 43:I, 850-859, Subchapter B). 

The purpose of this Program is to reduce conflict between public coastal restoration 

projects and private oyster leases that may be impacted by the projects. The Program is 

voluntary and establishes four options from which the lessee may choose. A matrix 

determines relocation costs and the lease is reverted back to the state. The trustees will 

investigate these regulations for its pertinence to the RRP Program, and will consider 

any conflicts that may arise with private oyster leases as a result of restoration projects. 

OSPRA NRDA Regulations (La. Admin. Code 43: XXIX, Chapter 1) 

State regulations for the NRDA process under OSPRA were promulgated by LOSCO. 

The OSPRA regulations for NRDA describe the process by which trustees identify 

injuries to trust resources and services resulting from an incident; provide for the return 

of injured trust resources and services to baseline conditions and compensation for 

interim lost services; and encourage and facilitate public involvement in the restoration 

process. Both federal (15 CFR 990 et seq.) and state NRDA regulations complement 

and support each other. The trustees will strive to make certain that the development 

and implementation of the RRP Program and RRPs will be consistent with guidance 

provided in the state NRDA regulations. 

8.3 Program Coordination and Compatibility with Existing Federal, State, and Joint 

Federal-State Programs 

The Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (BTNEP) 

The Barataria-Terrebonne estuary basins encompass over 4.1 million acres, bounded by 

the Mississippi River to the east, the Atchafalaya basin to the west, the town of 

Morganza, Louisiana, in the north and the town of Grand Isle, Louisiana, to the south. 

The BTNEP has identified seven priority issues, which affect this important area. They 

are: changes in water flow, sediment reduction, habitat loss, eutrophication, pathogen 

contamination, toxic substances, and changes in living resources. The Louisiana RRP 

Program trustees will evaluate the information provided by BTNEP and consider the 

priority issues identified when making site-specific restoration implementation decisions. 

Caernarvon and Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion Projects 

This project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965 and has been in operation 

since 1991. The Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion is located on the eastern bank of the 

Mississippi River near the boundary line dividing St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes. 

The project diverts freshwater from the Mississippi River to surrounding estuarine and 

coastal areas of Breton Sound in an effort to promote historic environmental and 

ecological conditions. The Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion Project is a $119.6 million 

project that was opened in early 2002, and is the world’s largest freshwater diversion 

project. Davis Pond is designed to reintroduce freshwater and the associated nutrients 

and sediments into the Barataria estuary. The USACE was responsible for construction 

of these projects and LDNR is responsible for the ongoing operation. The RRP Program 

trustees will strive to coordinate their activities with those of the Caernarvon and Davis 

Pond Freshwater Diversion Projects. 

Coast 2050 

Coast 2050 is a joint planning initiative of state and federal agencies, and includes 

members of the Louisiana Wetland Conservation Restoration Authority, the CWPPRA 

Task Force, and the LDNR Coastal Zone Management Authority. This coalition of 

agencies is currently developing a strategic plan to provide enhanced protection of the 

state’s coastal resources. 
 160 

Coast 2050 aims to “maximize the diversity and extent of coastal habitats, while 

minimizing impacts to coastal users.” The Coast 2050 initiative also strives to involve 

fishers, hunters, industry, and other regulatory agencies in its planning structure. The 

trustees will strive to coordinate with, and complement the activities of, the Coast 2050 

initiative. In an effort to further this complementary relationship, the trustees established 

the boundaries in the four coastal regions, identified in the RRP Program, to be the 

same four regions delineated in the Coast 2050 plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan was established as a framework 

between the Canadian and United States governments in 1985, with the goal of 

conserving waterfowl populations through habitat protection and restoration. The 

government of Mexico joined the partnership in 1994. This international program is 

managed in units of joint ventures at the local level. Louisiana is within both the Lower 

Mississippi Valley and the Gulf of Mexico Joint Ventures, and includes representatives 

from LDWF and USFWS, private landowners, and conservation groups, among others. 

The RRP Program trustees will strive to coordinate their activities, as much as 

practicable, with those of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Tensas River Basin Initiative 

In an effort to restore and conserve the Tensas River Basin, USEPA provides grants to 

LDEQ, in order that a watershed model of the system could be developed. In addition, 

USDA participated in identifying and developing potential restoration sites in the Tensas 

River Basin. The Nature Conservancy has also been an important partner in this effort. 

The RRP Program trustees will strive to coordinate their activities, as much as 

practicable, with those of the Tensas River Basin Initiative. 

Wetlands Reserve Program 

The Wetlands Reserve Program is an effort to encourage, and establish formal 

procedures for, voluntary conservation and restoration of wetlands on privately held 

properties. This Program is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, a division of USDA. The Program offers participating landowners three possible 

options to conserve and protect wetlands on their property: 1) establishment of 30-year 

conservation easements; 2) establishment of permanent conservation easements; or 3) 

entry into a restoration cost-share agreement of at least 10-years duration. The RRP 

Program trustees will strive to coordinate with and complement, to the fullest extent 

practicable, the goals and efforts of the Wetlands Reserve Program. 

Other Potentially Applicable Federal, State, and Joint State-Federal Programs 

♦ Conservation Reserve Program (USDA) 

♦ Louisiana Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan 

♦ Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

[NRCS]) 

♦ Farm Service Agency Conservation Reserve Program (USDA) 

♦ Environmental Quality Incentives Program (USDA) 

♦ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

State Only 

♦ Atchafalaya Basin Program (LDNR) 

♦ Dedicated Dredge Program (LDNR) 
 161 

♦ (Parish) Coastal Zone Management Program (LDNR) 

♦ Louisiana Comprehensive Water Management Plan (LDNR) 

♦ 2002 Water Quality Inventory, Section 305(b) (LDEQ) 

♦ Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, Water Quality Management Plan (LDEQ) 

♦ Ozone Alert Action Plan/Ozone Action Program (LDEQ) 

♦ General Forest Management Plan (LDWF) 

♦ Louisiana Natural Areas Registry Program (with the Nature Conservancy) (LDWF) 

♦ Forest Stewardship Program (Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

[LDAF]) 

♦ Louisiana Statewide Transportation Plan (Louisiana Department of Transportation 

and Development [LDOTD]) 

♦ Louisiana’s Comprehensive Archeological Plan (LCRT) 

Potential Partners 

♦ Ducks Unlimited 

♦ Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 

♦ The Nature Conservancy 
 162 

9.0 RRP Program Development Process 

This chapter describes the RRP Program development process. The process included a 

series of RRP Program Workgroup planning meetings, informal scoping, and formal 

scoping to develop the RRP Program FPEIS. 

9.1 RRP Program Workgroup Meetings 

The RRP Program Workgroup includes trustee representatives from the following federal 

and state trustee agencies: NOAA, USDOI, LOSCO, LDNR, LDEQ, and LDWF. This 

Workgroup began meeting in January 2000 to develop the RRP Program. More than 

thirty planning meetings were held by the RRP Program Workgroup since that date. 

9.2 Informal Scoping 

Between October 2000, and Spring 2001, more than 15 informal scoping meetings and 

presentations were made to regulatory agencies, environmental and conservation 

groups, parishes, landowners, industry, and the public. The purpose of these scoping 

meetings and presentations was to describe the concepts that form the various 

components of the RRP Program and to request input and comments from the public 

and affected parties on these Program components. The input provided was used to 

assist in the finalization of a draft proposal that was entitled, “Louisiana’s Proposed 

Regional Restoration Planning Program, PRD, June 2001”. This document described 

the: 

♦ Purpose and need for the RRP Program; 

♦ Proposed RRP Program, including the concepts for RRPs (and boundaries), 

Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services, Restoration Types, and Settlement 

Alternatives; and 

♦ Benefits of the proposed RRP Program. 

9.3 Formal Scoping 

Formal scoping for the RRP Program and FPEIS and formal solicitation for appropriate 

restoration projects for potential inclusion in the RRPs began on June 19, 2001. This 

date marked the publication and distribution of the PRD and publication of the NOI to 

develop a FPEIS. As part of the NOI, an AR was established. The AR is maintained at 

NOAA in Silver Spring, Maryland and duplicate copies are maintained at LOSCO, Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana: 

NOAA/Damage Assessment Center Headquarters 

1305 East West Highway, Suite 10218 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

(301) 713-3038 

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

150 Third Street, Suite 405 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 

(225) 219-5800 

As part of the formal scoping process, over 1000 copies of the PRD were distributed to 

the public and affected parties on or before July 2, 2001. Six public meeting were held 

through out the state on the following dates, at the following locations: 
 163 

July 17, 2001 

State Office Building 

1525 Fairfield Avenue, Room 205 

Shreveport, Louisiana 

 

July 18, 2001 

Monroe City Hall, Council Chamber 

400 Lea Joyner Expressway 

Monroe, Louisiana 

 

July 19, 2001 

Louisiana Convention Centre 

2225 N. MacArthur Drive 

Alexandria, Louisiana 

July 24, 2001 

Joseph S. Yenni Bldg., Jefferson Parish Council Chamber 

1221 Elmwood Park Blvd. Jefferson/New Orleans, Louisiana 

July 25, 2001 

McNeese State University, Burton Business Center 

350 Lawton Drive 

Lake Charles, Louisiana 

July 26, 2001 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana Room 

2000 Quail Drive, 1st Floor, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

All public comments provided at the public meeting, or sent, are summarized in the AR. 

9.4 Development of the FPEIS 

Based on input from the public and further consideration by the RRP Program 

Workgroup, the RRP Program/DPEIS was completed and released for public review 

pursuant to NEPA on May 9, 2003. A 60 day comment period ending on July 9, 2003 

was provided, and two public meetings to receive comments were held on June 23, 

2003 (2:00 pm and 6:30 pm), at the following location: 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

LaBelle Room: Conservation and Mineral Resources Hearing Room, First 

Floor 

LaSalle Office Building 

617 North 3rd Street 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 

All public comments provided at the public meeting and responses given are 

summarized and can be found in Appendix G, Public Comments and Responses. All 

written comments on the RRP Program/DPEIS, a summary of the written comments, and 

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

on input from the public during the public comment period and further consideration by 

the RRP Program Workgroup, the RRP Program FPEIS was finalized. 
 164 

10.0 References 

Belhadjali, K. 2002. North Lake Mechant Land Bridge Restoration, Construction Unit 1, 

CWPPRA Priority Project List 10, (State No. TE-44). Louisiana Department of 

Natural Resources, Restoration Technology Section, Coastal Resources 

Division. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Blackmon, J.H., 1974, Observations on the emigration of the brown shrimp, Penaeus 

aztecus, through a tidal pass in the Caminada bay, Louisiana area: Louisiana 

State University, Baton Rouge, Master’s thesis, 58 p. 

Calhoun, M. and Frois, J., eds., 1997, Louisiana almanac 1997-98 edition: Pelican 

Publishing Company, Gretna, LA, 624 p. 

Calhoun, M. and McGovern, B., eds., 2002, Louisiana almanac 2002-2003 edition: 

Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, LA, 661 p. 

Census Bureau, 1994, County and city data book: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, DC, 928 p. + appendices. 

Census Bureau, 2000, U.S. Department of Commerce, United States census 2000, 

Uniform Resource Locator [URL]: www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

Chapman, P.M., 1989, Current approaches to developing sediment quality criteria: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 8, p. 589-599. 

Choate, J.R., Knox Jones, J., Jr., and Jones, C., 1994, Handbook of mammals of the 

south-central states: Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA and 

London, England, 304 p. 

Coast 2050, 2002, Project overview: URL: www.coast2050.gov. 

Coleman, J.M., 1976, Deltas: Processes of deposition and models for exploration: 

Continuing Education Publishing Co., Champaign, IL, 102 p. 

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

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

p. 

Dennett, D., 1997, Louisiana’s wildlife worth watching: Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA, 114 p. 

Douglas, N.H., 1974, Freshwater fishes of Louisiana: Claitor’s Publishing Division, Baton 

Rouge, LA, 443 p. 

Dugas, R., 1982, The Louisiana oyster: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 

Moran Colorgraphic Incorporated, Baton Rouge, LA, 33 p. 

Dundee, H.A. and Rossman, D.A., 1989, The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana: 

Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA and London, England, 300 p. 
 165 

Farrow, D.R.G., Arenstam, A., DeSouza, A., Kineon, F., Lowe, J., Pacheco, P., Pait, T., 

Rohmann, S., and Swain, M., 1992, Coastal zone boundary review (amended 

draft): National summary: State characterization reports: Office of Ocean 

Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental 

Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD, 141 p. 

Hinds, R., October 11, 2002, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal 

Management Division, personal communication. 

Hoese, H.D., and R.H. Moore, 1998, Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and 

adjacent waters – second edition. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, 

Texas. 

Huner, J.V. and Barr, J.E., 1991, Red swamp crawfish: biology and exploitation, 3rd

edition: Louisiana State University, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana Sea 

Grant College Program, Baton Rouge, LA, 128 p. 

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

Companies, Inc., New York, NY, 213 p. 

Kohler, C.C., and W.A. Hubert, editors. 1993. Inland Fisheries and Management in 

North America. Second ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md. 594 pp. 

LA 1 Coalition, 2003, Facts & Figures, URL: www.la1coalition.org/facts.html. 

LaCoast, 1999, WaterMarks: Louisiana oil and gas activity, URL: 

www.lacoast.gov/watermarks/1999c-summer/offshore.htm. 

LaCoure, J., June 20, 2002, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality 

Senior Scientist for Enforcement, personal communication. 

Landry, J., August 15, 2003, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Office of 

Management and Finance: Licensing and Registration, personal communication. 

Landry, J., November 14, 2001, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Office of 

Mangement and Finance: Licensing and Registration, personal communication. 

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

manual of hydrology - Part 1 general surface-water techniques: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Water-Supply Paper, 1541-A, 29 p. 

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, 2002, Forest Product Marketing, 

Utilization, and Development Program, URL: 

www.ldaf.state.la.us/divisions/forestry/forestproducts/default.asp. 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

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

coastal Louisiana: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, 

LA, 161 p. 
 166 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2003. The 2003 

Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of Coastal Wetland 

Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Projects. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources. 27 pp. 

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, 2001a, Louisiana tourism 

industry sees best year ever, URL: www.crt.state.la.us/crt/ltgov/ltgov.htm. 

Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, 2001b, State parks visitation 

sets new record, URL: www.crt.state.la.us/crt/ltgov/ltgov.htm. 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 1997, Evaluation/Air Monitoring 

Operations, URL: www.deq.state.la.us/evaluation/index.htm. 

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

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

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

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 2004, State of Louisiana water quality 

integrated report (Section 305(b) and 303(d) Part I-III, 

URL:www.deq.state.la.us/planning/wqireports/ 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, 1997, Louisiana coastal wetlands program, 

Baton Rouge, LA, 112 p. + appendices. 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, 2002, Presentation to U.S. Commission on 

ocean policy, Gulf of Mexico regional meeting submitted by T. Michael French, 

Director of Technology Assessment Division, URL: 

http://www.dnr.state.la.us/SEC/EXECDIV/TECHASMT/communications/correspo

ndence/oceanpolicycommission030802.html. 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 2002, Public Works and 

Water Resources Division/introduction, URL: 

www.dotd.state.la.us/intermodal/division/div_introduction.shtml. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2002, Oyster strike force, URL: 

www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/index.asp?cn=lawlf&pid=582. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2001, A brief history of the Louisiana 

oyster industry, URL: 

www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/index.asp?cn=lawlf&pid=1084. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2000a, Louisiana shrimp and shrimping, 

URL: www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/index.asp?cn=lawlf&pid=689. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2000b, Deer Program Overview, URL: 

www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/index.asp?cn=lawlf&pid=902. 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, 2002, Louisiana oil and gas facts, 

URL: www.lmoga.com/home.html. 
 167 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, 2001, Louisiana oil and gas industry 

employment statistics, URL: www.lmoga.com/home.html. 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, 2000, Louisiana oil and gas facts, 

URL: www.lmoga.com/home.html. 

Lovelace, J.K., 1991, Water use in Louisiana, 1990: Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and Development water resources special report no. 6, 131p. 

Lowery, G.H., Jr., 1974, Louisiana birds: Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 

LA, 567 p. 

Mac, M.J., Opler, P.A., Puckett Haecker, C.E., and Doran, P.D., 1998, Reprinted from 

status and trends of the nation’s biological resources, 2 volumes: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, p. 385-436. 

MacDonald, D.D. and Ingersoll, C.G., 2000, An assessment of sediment injury in the 

Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal, Indiana Harbor, and the nearshore 

areas of Lake Michigan, Volume I: Prepared by MacDonald Environmental 

Sciences Ltd., Nanaimo, British Columbia, United States Geological Survey, 

Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, MO, and in association 

with Industrial Economics Incorporated, Cambridge, MA, for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office, Bloomington, IN, p. 4-7. 

Messina, M.G., S.H. Schoenholtz, M.W. Lowe, Z.Y. Wang, D.K. Gunter, and A.J. Lando. 

1997. Initial responses of woody vegetation, water quality, and soils to 

harvesting intensity in a Texas bottomland hardwood ecosystem. Forest Ecology 

and Management 90: 201-215. 

Mitsch, W.J., and Gosselink, J.G., 1993, Wetlands, 2nd edition: Van Nordstrand Reinhold 

Publishing, New York, NY, 722 p. 

Myers, R.S., G.P. Shaffer, and D.W. Llewellyn. 1995. Bald Cypress Restoration in 

Southeast Louisiana – the relative effects of herbivory, flooding, competition, and 

macronutrients. Wetlands 15(2): 141-148. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000, Commercial fisheries/annual 

commercial landings statistics, URL: 

www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1999, Commercial fisheries/annual 

commercial landings statistics, URL: 

www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1997, Scaling compensatory 

restoration actions: Guidance document for natural resource damage 

assessment under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, 

Silver Spring, MD, 57 p + appendices. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996a, Injury assessment: Guidance 

document for natural resource damage assessment under the Oil Pollution Act: 
 168 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and 

Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD, 78 p + appendices. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996b, Specifications for Use of 

NRDAM/CME Version 2.4 to Generate Compensation Formulas – Guidance 

Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act 

of 1990. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, 

Maryland. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1995, Habitat Equivalency Analysis: 

An overview. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, 

Maryland. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1975, The coastline of the United 

States, No. 71046: Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC. 

Odum, W. E., Smith, T. J., III, Hoover, J. K., and McIvor, C. C. 1984. The Ecology of 

Tidal Freshwater Marshes of the United States East Coast: A Community Profile, 

FWS/OBS-83/17, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Oubre, M., June 20, 2002, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Engineering 

Section, personal communication. 

Page, L.M, Burr, B. M., Peterson, R.T., 1991, Peterson field guide: Freshwater fishes: 

Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 502 p. 

Payne, N.F. 1998. Wildlife Habitat Management of Wetlands. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

549 pp. 

Scott, L.C., 1996, The energy sector: A giant economic engine for the Louisiana 

economy, prepared by Loren C. Scott and Associates, Baton Rouge, LA, for 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, Baton Rouge, LA, 46 p. 

Scruton, P.C., 1960, Delta building and the deltaic sequence: In: Shepard, F.P., ed., 

Recent sediments, northwest Gulf of Mexico, American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, Tulsa, OK, p. 82-102. 

Shepard, J.P. 1994. Effects of forest management on surface water quality in wetland 

forests. Wetlands 14(1): 18-26. 

Smith, S.D., Rivet, P.B., Byrd, K.M., and Hawkins, N.W., 1983, Louisiana’s 

comprehensive archaeological plan: Louisiana Department of Culture, 

Recreation, and Tourism, Office of Cultural Development, Division of 

Archaeology, Baton Rouge, LA, 315 p. 

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

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

cooperation with Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 

Baton Rouge, LA, Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4085, 55 p. 
 169 

The Roads of Louisiana (atlas), 1997, Shearer Publishing, Fredericksburg, TX, 104 p. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana Ecosystem 

Restoration Study, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Volume 

2 of 3). New Orleans, Louisiana. 918 pp. with appendices A-D. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, The Mississippi River and tributaries project, New 

Orleans District, URL: www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/bro/misstrib.htm. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. Final Programmatic Impact Statement for 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan. USACE, New Orleans District. 

195 pp. + appendices. 

U.S. Coast Guard, 2003, Pollution incidents in and around U.S. waters, a spill/release 

compendium 1969-2000, URL: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/gm/nmc/response/stats/aa.htm. 

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

Wildlife Service, URL: endangered.fws.gov. 

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

Division, URL: http://sdms.nwrc.gov/gap/gap2.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998, National water summary 1986 – Hydrologic events and 

ground water quality: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply, Paper 2325, 560 p. 

University of Louisiana at Monroe, 2000a, Timber and pulpwood production, Center for 

Business and Economic Research, Louisiana Electronic Assistance Program, 

URL: leap.ulm.edu. 

University of Louisiana at Monroe, 2000b, Agriculture and natural resources, Center for 

Business and Economic Research, Louisiana Electronic Assistance Program, 

URL: leap.ulm.edu. 

Van Heerden, I.L. and Roberts, H.H., 1980, The Atchafalaya delta – Louisiana’s new 

prograding coast: Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological 

Societies, v. 30, p. 497-506. 

Vissage, J.S., Miller, P.E., and Hartsell, A.J., 1992, Forest statistics for Louisiana 

parishes – 1991: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA, Resource Bulletin SO168, 65 p. 

Ward, L.G., W.M. Kemp, and W.R. Boynton. 1984. The influence of waves and seagrass 

communities on suspended particulates in an estuarine embayment. Marine 

Geology 59:85-103. 

Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis, editors. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p. 
 170 

Wells, J.T., Chinburg, S.J., and Coleman, J.M., 1982, Development of the Atchafalaya 

River deltas: generic analysis: Prepared by Louisiana State University, Coastal 

Studies Institute, Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, LA, for U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 91 p. 
 171 

11.0 List of Preparers 

PREPARERS EXPERTISE

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office (LOSCO) 

Karolien Debusschere Geomorphology 

Charles K. Armbruster Coastal Geomorphology 

Christina M. Swaye Geography 

Gina Muhs Saizan Biology 

Robert “Tat” Kennedy Geology 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

William Conner Marine Biology 

Ann Berger Planning 

Lisa DiPinto Marine Science 

Sheila O’Brien Attorney 

John Rapp Wetland Ecology 

Katherine Wheelock Coastal Ecology 

Brian Julius Economics 

Linda B. Burlington Attorney 

John Iliff Restoration Science 

Kim Barry Economics 

Tony Penn Economics 

Jason Forman Attorney 

John Kern Benthic Ecology 

Tom Moore Environmental Policy 

Cheryl Brodnax Oyster Biology 

Jim Hoff Fisheries Biology 

Troy Baker Fisheries Biology 

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) 

Stephen Spencer Biology 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Warren Lorentz Environmental Toxicology 

Buddy Goatcher Wildlife Biology 

Dolores Savignano Zoology 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

Chris Piehler Aquatic Botany 

John de Mond Coastal Ecology 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) 

Jim Rives Wildlife Biology 

Derek Hamilton Environmental Affairs 

Richard Stanek Wildlife Biology 

Jennifer Beall Coastal Geology 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) 

Jim Hanifen Biology 

Terry Romaire Marine Biology 

Heather Finley Geology 
 172 

12.0 List of Agencies 

Office of the Governor 

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

United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) 

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

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, and DEFINITIONS 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AFCA Anadromous Fish Conservation Act 

AR Adminstrative Record 

BIA (USDOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLH Bottomland hardwood 

BLM (USDOI) Bureau of Land Management 

BR (USDOI) Bureau of Reclamation 

BTNEP Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMD (LDNR) Coastal Management Division 

CUP Coastal Use Permit 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DARP(s) Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan(s) 

DSAY(s) Discounted Service Acre Year(s) 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

EQA Environmental Quality Act 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

GAP (Louisiana) GAP (Geographic Approach to Planning) Analysis 

Program 

GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

HAPC Habitat Area(s) of Particular Concern 

HEA Habitat Equivalency Analysis 

La. Admin. Code Louisiana Administrative Code 

La. Rev. Stat. Louisiana Revised Statute 

LAT Lead Administrative Trustee 

LCRP Louisiana Coastal Resources Program 

LCRT Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism 

LDAF Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

LDOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

LMOGA Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association 

LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 

LOSCO Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office 

LSLO Louisiana State Lands Office 

MMS (USDOI) Minerals Management Service 

MSA(s) Metropolitan Statistical Area(s) 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
A-2 

NCP National Contingency Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS (USDOC, NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI(s) Notice(s) of Intent 

NOS (USDOC, NOAA) National Ocean Service 

NPFC (USCG) National Pollution Funds Center 

NPS (USDOI) National Park Service 

NRCS (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRDA(s) Natural Resource Damage Assessment(s) 

NRDAM/CME NRDA Model for Coastal and Marine Environments 

NWP Nationwide Permit 

NWR(s) National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRSIA NWR System Improvement Act 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OPA Oil Pollution Act 

OSC On-Scene Coordinator 

OSCF (Louisiana) Oil Spill Contingency Fund 

OSLTF (Federal) Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

OSM (USDOI) Office of Surface Mining 

OSPRA Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act 

DPEIS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

FPEIS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PRD Public Review Document 

REA Resource Equivalency Analysis 

RP(s) Responsible Party(ies) 

RRP(s) Regional Restoration Plan(s) 

RRP Program Regional Restoration Planning Program 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

SLCRMA (Louisiana) State and Local Resources Management Act 

SHPO (Louisiana) State Historic Preservation Office 

URL Uniform Resource Locator 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDOC United States Department of Commerce 

USDOD United States Department of Defense 

USDOE United States Department of Energy 

USDOI United States Department of the Interior 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS (USDA) United States Forest Service 

USFWS (USDOI) United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WMA(s) Wildlife Management Area(s) 

Definitions 

Baseline means the condition of the trust resources and services that would have 

existed had the incident not occurred. Baseline data may be estimated using historical 
A-3 

data, reference data, control data, or data on incremental changes (e.g., number of dead 

animals), alone or in combination, as appropriate. 

Benthic means pertaining to the bottom of a body of water. 

Brackish means pertaining to water with a low salt content, usually up to five parts per 

thousand during the period of average annual low flow. 

Claim, as defined by Section 1001 of OPA, means a request, made in writing for a sum 

certain, for compensation for damages or removal costs resulting from an incident. 

Coastal waters means the waters and bed of the Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of 

the state, including the arms of the Gulf of Mexico subject to tidal influence, estuaries, 

and any other waters within the state, if such other waters are navigated by vessels with 

a capacity to carry ten thousand gallons or more of oil as fuel or cargo. 

Corrective action means any action necessary to correct for a failure of a project to meet 

a specific performance criterion. 

Cost-effective means the least costly activity among two or more activities that provide 

the same or a comparable level of benefits, in the judgment of the trustees. 

Damages means damages specified in Section 1002(b) of OPA (33 USC 1002[b]), and 

includes the costs of assessing these damages, as defined in Section 1001(5) of OPA 

(33 USC 2701[5]). 

Discharge means any emission (other than natural seepage), intentional or 

unintentional, and includes, but is not limited to, spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, 

emitting, emptying, or dumping, as defined in Section 1001(7) of OPA (33 USC 2701[7]). 

Dystrophic means having low nutrient content, but high organics. 

Ecosystem means the biological community and its environment that together, function 

as a system of complimentary relationships, with the transfer and circulation of energy 

and matter. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) means the zone established by Presidential 

Proclamation 5030 of March 10, 1983, 3 CFR, 1984 Comp., p. 22, including the ocean 

waters of the areas referred to as “eastern special areas” in Article 3(1) of the 

Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics on the Maritime Boundary, signed June 1, 1990, as defined in Section 1001(8) 

of OPA (33 USC 2701[8]). 

Exposure means direct or indirect contact with the discharged oil. 

Facility means any structure, group of structures, equipment, or device (other than a 

vessel), which is used for one or more of the following purposes: exploring for, drilling 

for, producing, storing, handling, transferring, processing, or transporting oil. This term 

includes any motor vehicle, rolling stock, or pipeline used for one or more of these 

purposes, as defined in Section 1001(9) of OPA (33 USC 2701[9]). 
A-4 

Habitat means the area that supports a given organism, population, or community. 

Incident means any occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin, 

involving one or more vessels, facilities, or any combination thereof, resulting in the 

discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters, 

adjoining shorelines, or the EEZ, as defined in Section 1001(14) of OPA (33 USC 

2701[14]). 

Indian tribe (or tribal) means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 

community, but not including any Alaska Native regional or village corporation, which is 

recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United 

States to Indians because of their status as Indians and has governmental authority over 

lands belonging to or controlled by the tribe, as defined in Section 1001(15) of OPA (33 

USC 2701[15]). 

Injury means an observable or measurable adverse change in or impairment of a trust 

resource or service. Injury may occur directly or indirectly to a trust resource or service. 

Injury incorporates the terms “destruction,” “loss,” and “loss of use” as provided in OPA. 

Interim losses and interim lost services (uses) means the reduction in trust resources 

and the services they provide, relative to baseline levels, that occur from the onset of an 

incident until complete recovery of the injured trust resources and services. 

Intertidal means the region between highest and lowest tide lines (i.e., that region 

covered with water at high tide and exposed at low tide) in a marine, estuarine, or tidal 

freshwater environment. 

Lead Administrative Trustee(s) (LAT[s]) means the trustee(s) who is selected by all 

participating trustees whose trust resources or services are injured by an incident, for 

the purpose of coordinating natural resource damage assessment activities. The LAT(s) 

should also facilitate communication between the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), RP, 

and other natural resource trustees regarding their activities during the response phase. 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) means the entity established by the Secretary 

of Transportation whose function is the administration of the OSLTF. Among the 

NPFC's duties are: providing appropriate access to the OSLTF for federal agencies and 

states for removal actions and for federal trustees to initiate the assessment of natural 

resource damages, providing appropriate access to the OSLTF for claims, and 

coordinating cost recovery efforts. 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) means the process of collecting and 

analyzing information to evaluate the nature and extent of injuries resulting from an 

incident, and determining the restoration actions needed to bring injured trust resources 

and services back to baseline and make the environment and public whole for interim 

losses. 

Natural resources means land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking 

water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, 

appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States (including the resources of 

the EEZ), state or local government, Indian tribe, or any foreign government, as defined 

in Section 1001(20) of OPA (33 USC 2701[20]). 
A-5 

Navigable waters means the waters of the United States, including the territorial sea, as 

defined in Section 1001(21) of OPA (33 USC 2701[21]). 

National Contingency Plan (NCP) means the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan) codified at 40 CFR 300, which 

addresses the identification, investigation, study, and response to incidents, as defined 

in Section 1001(19) of OPA (33 USC 2701[19]). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) means the National Environmental Policy Act 

(42 USC 4321 et seq.) 

Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, 

sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil. However, the 

term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, that is 

specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under 42 USC 9601(14)(A) 

through (F), as defined in Section 1001(23) of OPA (33 USC 2701[23]). 

On-Scene Coordinator means the official designated by USEPA or USCG to coordinate 

and direct response actions under the NCP, or the government official designated by the 

lead response agency to coordinate and direct response actions under the NCP. 

Oil Pollution Act (OPA) means the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 USC 2701 et seq.) 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) means the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

administered by the USCG NPFC. 

Pathway means any link that connects the incident to a trust resource or service, and is 

associated with an actual discharge of oil. 

Person means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality, 

commission, or political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body, as defined in 

Section 1001(27) of OPA (33 USC 2701[27]). 

Person responsible, responsible person, or responsible party (RP) means: 

(1) The owner or operator of a vessel or terminal facility from which an unauthorized 

discharge of oil emanates or threatens to emanate;. 

(2) In the case of an abandoned vessel or terminal facility, the person who would have 

been the responsible person immediately prior to the abandonment;. or 

(3) Any other person, but not including a person or entity who is rendering care, 

assistance, or advice in response to a discharge or threatened discharge of another 

person, who causes, allows, or permits an unauthorized discharge of oil or threatened 

unauthorized discharge of oil. 

Public use(s) means the services provided by trust resources for human activities; this 

includes, but is not limited to, cultural, archaeological, transportation, public water supply, 

industrial water supply, swimming, fishing, harvesting of natural resources, nature viewing, 

hunting, diving, sailing, boating, hiking, camping, climbing, photographing, drawing, painting, 

and other human uses. 
A-6 

Public vessel means a vessel owned or bareboat chartered and operated by the United 

States, or by a state or political subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when 

the vessel is engaged in commerce, as defined in Section 1001(29) of OPA (33 USC 

2701[29]). 

Quality assurance means the total integrated program for assuring the reliability of 

collected data. 

Recovery means the return of injured trust resources and services to baseline. 

Responsible Party (RP) means: 

(1) Vessels - In the case of a vessel, any person owning, operating, or demise chartering 

the vessel; 

(2) Onshore facilities - In the case of an onshore facility (other than a pipeline), any 

person owning or operating the facility, except a federal agency, state, municipality, 

commission, or political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body, that as the owner 

transfers possession and right to use the property to another person by lease, 

assignment, or permit; 

(3) Offshore facilities - In the case of an offshore facility (other than a pipeline or a 

deepwater port licensed under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501 et seq.)), 

the lessee or permittee of the area in which the facility is located, or the holder of a right 

of use and easement granted under applicable state law or the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act (43 USC 1301-1356) for the area in which the facility is located (if the holder 

is a different person than the lessee or permittee), except a federal agency, state, 

municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body, that 

as owner transfers possession and right to use the property to another person by lease, 

assignment, or permit; 

(4) Deepwater ports - In the case of a deepwater port licensed under the Deepwater Port 

Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501-1524), the licensee; 

(5) Pipelines - In the case of a pipeline, any person owning or operating the pipeline; or 

(6) Abandonment - In the case of an abandoned vessel, onshore facility, deepwater port, 

pipeline, or offshore facility, the persons who would have been responsible parties 

immediately prior to the abandonment of the vessel or facility, as defined in Section 

1001(32) of OPA (33 USC 2701[32]). 

Restoration means any action (or alternative), or combination of actions (or alternatives), 

to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured trust resources and 

services. Restoration includes: 

(1) Primary restoration, which is any action, including natural recovery, that returns 

injured trust resources and services to baseline; and 

(2) Compensatory restoration, which is any action taken to compensate for interim 

losses of trust resources and services that occur from the date of the incident until 

recovery. 

Restoration action(s) means any of the actions authorized under OPA (restoration, 

rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent), or some combination of 

those actions. Restoration actions by trustees are intended to complement the initial 

response and cleanup activities of response agencies. 
A-7 

Restoration alternative means a combination of primary and/or compensatory restoration 

actions that address one or more specific injuries associated with the incident. 

Acceptable restoration alternatives include any of the actions authorized under OPA 

(restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent), or any 

combination of those actions. Each restoration alternative must be designed so that, as 

a package of one or more actions, the alternative would make the environment and 

public whole. 

Restoration plan means a plan developed for public review and comment that describes the 

restoration alternatives to be considered in the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, 

and/or acquisition of equivalent trust resources and services. 

Sampling means the process of taking or observing a representative subset of a larger 

unit and using it to study the properties of the whole. 

Scale means the size or spatial and temporal extent of restoration actions. 

Scaling means the process of determining, for identified restoration actions, the size or 

scale of the actions that would be required to expedite recovery of injured trust 

resources and services to baseline and compensate the public for interim lost trust 

resources and services. 

Scaling approach means the general framework used for scaling a restoration action. 

Trustees may use resource-to-resource or service-to-service approaches, or valuation 

approaches. In scaling compensatory restoration actions, each approach is used with 

the objective of providing benefits from compensatory actions equal to losses from trust 

resource and service injuries. 

Resource-to-resource or service-to-service scaling is an approach in which the trust 

resources and services injured due to the incident are replaced by an equivalent 

quantity of discounted trust resources and services (or resource proxies). 

The valuation approach requires that the value of injured trust resources or services 

be measured explicitly, and that a restoration action provide trust resources or 

services of equivalent value to the public. The approach relies on the concept that 

lost value can be determined using one of a variety of possible units of exchange, 

including units of natural resource services or dollars. The primary valuation 

approach is value-to-value. Under some circumstances, a second valuation 

approach, value-to-cost, may be used. 

Under the value-to-value approach to scaling, trustees determine the scale of 

restoration actions required to provide gains (or “value”) equal to the value of the 

interim losses. Discounting is used to take into account differences in timing of 

losses and gains. 

Value-to-cost is a variant of the valuation approach. Under the value-to-cost 

approach, a restoration action is scaled by setting the cost of the restoration action 

equal to the value of losses due to the injury. 

Scaling method means a technique that is employed to generate the required 

information under the different scaling approaches. Examples of scaling methods 
A-8 

include habitat equivalency analysis under the service-to-service or resource-to-resource 

approaches, or the travel cost method under the valuation approaches. More than one 

method may be employed if needed to address the different injuries resulting from an 

incident, but trustees must be careful to avoid double-counting when using multiple 

methods. 

Services (or natural resource services) means the functions performed by a natural 

resource for the benefit of another natural resource and/or the public. 

Significant, in biological terms, means an action that is likely to have an important and/or 

major effect. Statistically, it means a difference, at a specified probability level, between 

or among two or more sampling distributions. 

State trustee(s) means the state trustee coordinator (LOSCO) and the other state natural 

resource trustees (LDEQ, LDNR, and LDWF). The definition of state trustees may also 

include other agencies of the state, as designated by the Governor, according to OPA, as 

state natural resource trustees. 

Subtidal means the region in marine, estuarine, or tidal freshwater environments that is 

deeper than the lowest tide line, such that it is always submerged at any tidal elevation. 

Supratidal means the region in marine, estuarine, or tidal freshwater environments that 

is above the mean high tide level. 

Toxicity means the inherent potential of a contaminant such as oil to adversely affect 

individual organisms. 

Trust resources and services means natural, biological, socioeconomic, and cultural 

resources and the functions performed by them for the benefit of another resource 

and/or the public. Such resources and services belong to, are managed by, are held in 

trust by, appertain to, or otherwise are controlled by the United States (including the 

resources of the EEZ), any state or local government or Indian tribe, or any foreign 

government. 

Trustees (or natural resource trustees) means those officials of the federal and state 

governments, of Indian tribes, and of foreign governments, designated under OPA (33 

USC 2706[b]). 

Unauthorized discharge (of oil) means any actual or threatened discharge of oil not 

authorized by a federal or state permit. 

United States means the several states of the United States, the District of Columbia, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin 

Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and any other territory or 

possession of the United States, as defined in Section 1001(36) of OPA (33 USC 

2701[36]). 

Value means the maximum amount of goods, services, or money an individual is willing 

to give up to obtain a specific good or service, or the minimum amount of goods, 

services, or money an individual is willing to accept to forgo a specific good or service. 

The total value of a natural resource or service includes the value individuals derive from 
A-9 

direct use of the natural resource, for example, swimming, boating, hunting, or 

birdwatching, as well as the value individuals derive from knowing a natural resource will 

be available for future generations. 
B-1

APPENDIX B: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT, 

AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION 

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is to conserve “the ecosystems 

upon which endangered and threatened species depend” and to conserve and recover listed 

species ((16 USC 1531 et seq.). Endangered species are species in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are defined as species 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. 

The ESA is primarily administered by USDOI, USFWS and USDOC, NMFS. The USFWS is 

responsible for federally-listed terrestrial and freshwater species and certain marine mammals 

(i.e., West Indian manatee, Trichechus manatus). The NMFS is responsible for federally-listed 

marine fish and whales. The USFWS and NMFS share trusteeship responsibility for federallylisted interjurisdictional fishes (i.e., Gulf sturgeon [Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi]) and marine 

sea turtles. In addition, the ESA directs all federal agencies to conserve endangered and 

threatened species and their habitats and requires agencies to utilize their authorities to further 

these purposes. 

Under Section 4 of the ESA, plant and animal species are listed solely on the basis of the 

species’ biological status and threats to its existence. A species that closely resembles an 

endangered or threatened species may be listed due to similarity of appearance. Candidate 

species (as defined by USFWS) are species for which there is enough information to warrant 

proposing them for listing as endangered or threatened, but these species have not yet been 

proposed for listing. Candidate species (as defined by NMFS) are species for which concerns 

about their status indicate that they may warrant listing in the future. Federal agencies and the 

public are encouraged to consider candidate species during project planning so that future 

listings may be avoided. Section 4 of the Act provides for designations of critical habitat for 

listed species and includes geographic areas “on which are found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special 

management considerations or protection” (16 USC 1531 et seq.). 

The following is a list of federal threatened and endangered species found throughout the 

coastal and upland regions of Louisiana, as well as designated critical habitat. Threatened and 

endangered species are grouped by animal or plant and are listed in alphabetical order. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (FEDERAL) as of March 1, 2004 

ANIMALS (32) 

Status Listing

T1

 alligator, American (Alligator mississippiensis) 

T bear, Louisiana black (Ursus americanus luteolus) 

E2

 curlew, Eskimo (Numenius borealis) 

T eagle, bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) 

E mussel, fat pocketbook pearly (Potamilus capax) 

T mussel, inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus) 

T mussel, Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera hembeli) 

E mussel, pink mucket pearly (Lampsilis abrupta) 

E2

 panther, Florida (Felis concolor coryi) 

E pelican, brown (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

T plover, piping (Charadrius melodus) 
B-2

T sea turtle, green (Chelonia mydas) 

E sea turtle, hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

E sea turtle, Kemp’s (Atlantic) ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) 

E sea turtle, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) 

T sea turtle, loggerhead (Caretta caretta) 

T sturgeon, Gulf (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E sturgeon, pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) 

E tern, least (interior pop.) (Sterna antillarum) 

T tortoise, gopher (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T turtle, ringed map (Graptemys oculifera) 

E3

 warbler, Bachman’s (Vermivora bachmanii) 

E whale, blue (Balaenoptera musculus) 

E whale, finback (Balaenoptera physalus) 

E whale, humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

E whale, right (Eubalaena glacialis) 

E whale, sei (Balaenoptera borealis) 

E whale, sperm (Physeter catodon) 

E2

 wolf, red (Canis rufus) 

E2

 woodpecker, ivory-billed (Campephilus principalis) 

E woodpecker, red-cockaded (Picoides [Dendrocopos] borealis) 

PLANTS (3) 

Status Listing

T earth fruit (Geocarpon minimum) 

E quillwort, Louisiana (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E chaffseed, American (Schwalbea americana) 

T = Threatened 

E = Endangered 

1 = For law enforcement purposes, the alligators in Louisiana are classified as “Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance.” 2

 = Presumed to be extinct in Louisiana 

3

 = No confirmed nesting ground sighting since the mid-1960s, however, several sightings have occurred on wintering grounds over

the last decade. Spcies may be extirpated in Louisiana. 

DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi): A final rule designating Gulf sturgeon critical 

habitat was published on March 19, 2003 (68 FR 13370) and 14 geographic areas (units) 

among the Gulf of Mexico rivers and tributaries were identified - seven under USFWS 

jurisdiction and seven under NMFS jurisdiction. Maps and details regarding the final rule can be 

found at http://alabama.fws.gov/gs. 

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus): A final rule designating critical habitat for the wintering 

population of piping plovers was published on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 36087) and seven 

geographic areas (units) in Louisiana along the Gulf of Mexico, rivers, and tributaries were 

identified. Details regarding the final rule can be found at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/Species_FRDoc#V02. 
B-3

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are 

described and identified in amendments to address EFH requirements of the Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) of the regional Fishery Management Councils and approved 

by NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Essential Fish Habitat and HAPC 

(if any) within Louisiana and its coastal waters are designated in the generic FMP 

amendment of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 

The following section lists essential fish species and habitats divided into specific areas 

of concern. Species and habitats managed under the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

for the Gulf of Mexico are presented separately, as are species managed under the 

federally-implemented FMP. 

When seeking an EFH consultation from NMFS, 50 CFR 600.920(e)(3) provides 

guidance regarding the mandatory contents and recommended additional information for 

EFH assessments to assist in the preparation of a DARP. 

Mandatory contents. The assessment must contain: 

♦ A description of the action; 

♦ An analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the managed 

species; 

♦ The federal agencies conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and 

♦ Proposed mitigation, if applicable. 

If appropriate, the assessment should also include additional information such as: 

♦ The results of an on-site inspection to evaluate the habitat and the site-specific 

effects of the project; 

♦ The views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected; 

♦ A review of pertinent literature and related information; 

♦ An analysis of alternatives to the action. Such analysis should include alternatives 

that could avoid or minimize adverse effects on EFH; and 

♦ Other relevant information. 

When an EFH consultation is sought for a DARP, whether informal or formal, a lead 

agency must be designated. Under 50 CFR 600.920 (b), if more than one federal 

agency is responsible for a federal action, the consultation requirements of Sections 

305(b)(2) through (4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act may be fulfilled through a lead 

agency. The lead agency should notify NMFS in writing that it is representing one or 

more additional agencies. Alternatively, if one federal agency has completed an EFH 

consultation for an action and another federal agency acts separately to authorize, fund, 

or undertake the same activity (such as issuing a permit for an activity that was funded 

via a separate federal action), the completed EFH consultation may suffice for both 

federal actions if it adequately addresses the adverse effects of the actions on EFH. 

Federal agencies may need to consult with NMFS separately if, for example, only one of 

the agencies has the authority to implement measures necessary to minimize adverse 

effects on EFH and that agency does not act as the lead agency. 
B-4

If, for a particular project, the trustees choose to designate a non-federal representative, 

50 CFR 600.920(c) states that a federal agency may designate a non-federal 

representative to conduct an EFH consultation by giving written notice of such 

designation to NMFS. If a non-federal representative is used, the federal action agency 

remains ultimately responsible for compliance with 50 CFR 305(b)(2) and 50 CFR 

305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Fishery Management Plans and Managed Species for the Gulf of Mexico Managed by the 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council14

Shrimp Fishery Management Plan 

brown shrimp - Penaeus aztecus 

pink shrimp - Penaeus duorarum 

royal red shrimp - Pleoticus robustus 

white shrimp - Penaeus setiferus 

Red Drum Fishery Management Plan 

red drum (redfish) - Sciaenops ocellatus 

Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan 

black grouper- Mycteroperca bonaci 

gag grouper - Mycteroperca microlepis 

gray snapper - Lutjanus griseus 

gray triggerfish - Balistes capriscus 

greater amberjack - Seriola dumerili 

lane snapper - Lutjanus synagris 

lesser amberjack - Seriola fasciata 

red grouper - Epinephelus morio 

red snapper - Lutjanus campechanus 

scamp grouper - Mycteroperca phenax 

tilefish - Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps 

yellowtail snapper - Ocyurus chrysurus 

vermilion snapper - Rhomboplites 

aurorubens 

Stone Crab Fishery Management Plan 

stone crabs - Menippe spp.

Spiny Lobster Fishery Management 

Plan 

spiny lobster - Panulirus argus 

Coral and Coral Reef Fishery 

Management Plan 

varied coral species and coral reef 

communities 

comprised of several hundred species 

Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishery 

Management Plan 

bluefish - Pomatomus saltatrix 

dolphin - Coryphaena hippurus 

cobia - Rachycentron canadum 

king mackerel - Scomberomorus cavalla 

little tunny - Euthynnus alleteratus 

 Spanish mackerel - Scomberomorus 

maculatus

 

14 NMFS, 1999, Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. URL: 

http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/efh/EFHprimer2.pdf. 
B-5

Species Managed under the Federally-Implemented Fisheries Management Plans 

Managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service15

Billfish 

blue marlin - Makaira nigricans 

longbill spearfish - Tetrapturus 

pfluegeri 

sailfish - Istiophorus platypterus 

white marlin - Tetrapturus albidus 

Swordfish 

swordfish - Xiphias gladius 

Tuna 

albacore - Thunnus alalunga

Atlantic bigeye - Thunnus obesus

Atlantic yellowfin - Thunnus 

albacares 

skipjack - Katsuwonus pelamis

western Atlantic bluefin - Thunnus 

thynnus 

Sharks 

Atlantic angel shark - Squatina dumerili 

Atlantic sharpnose shark - Rhizoprionodon 

terraenovae 

basking shark - Cetorhinus maximus

bigeye sand tiger - Odontaspis noronhai

bigeye sixgill shark - Hexanchus vitulus

bigeye thresher shark - Alopias superciliosus

bignose shark - Carcharhinus altimus

blacknose shark - Carcharhinus acronotus

blacktip shark - Carcharhinus limbatus

blue shark - Prionace glauca

bonnethead - Sphyrna tiburo 

bull shark - Carcharhinus leucas 

Caribbean reef shark - Carcharhinus perezi 

Caribbean sharpnose shark - Rhizoprionodon 

porosus 

common thresher shark - Alopias vulpinus 

dusky shark - Carcharhinus obscurus 

finetooth shark - Carcharhinus isodon 

Galapagos shark - Carcharhinus galapagensis 

great hammerhead - Sphyrna mokarran 

lemon shark - Negaprion brevirostris 

longfin mako shark - Isurus paucus 

narrowtooth shark - Carcharhinus brachyurus 

night shark - Carcharhinus signatus 

nurse shark - Ginglymostoma cirratum 

oceanic whitetip shark - Carcharhinus 

longimanus 

porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus 

sandbar shark - Carcharhinus plumbeus 

sand tiger shark - Odontaspis taurus 

scalloped hammerhead - Sphyrna lewini 

sharpnose sevengill shark - Heptranchias perlo 

shortfin mako shark - Isurus oxyrinchus 

silky shark - Carcharhinus falciformis 

sixgill shark - Heptranchias griseus 

smalltail shark - Carcharhinus porosus 

smooth hammerhead - Sphyrna zygaena 

spinner shark - Carcharhinus brevipinna 

tiger shark - Galeocerdo cuvieri 

whale shark - Rhinocodon typus

white shark - Carcharodon carcharias

 

15 NMFS, 1999. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. URL: 

http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/efh/EFHprimer2.pdf. 
B-6

Essential Fish Habitat Identified in Fisheries Management Plan Amendments of the Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils16

(Generally, EFH for species managed under the NMFS Billfish and Highly Migratory Species 

Plans falls within the marine and estuarine water column habitats designated by the Councils) 

Estuarine areas 

♦ Estuarine emergent wetlands 

♦ Mangrove wetlands 

♦ Submerged aquatic vegetation 

♦ Algal flats 

♦ Mud, sand, shell, and rock substrates 

♦ Estuarine water column 

Marine areas 

♦ Water column 

♦ Vegetated bottoms 

♦ Non-vegetated bottoms 

♦ Live bottoms 

♦ Coral reefs 

♦ Artificial reefs 

♦ Geologic features 

♦ Continental Shelf features 

♦ West Florida Shelf 

♦ Mississippi/Alabama Shelf 

♦ Louisiana/Texas Shelf 

♦ South Texas Shelf 

Geographically Defined Habitat Areas of Particumar Concern (HAPC) Identified in 

Fisheries Management Plan Amendments Affecting the Southeast and Caribbean Areas 

Texas/Louisiana 

♦ Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary 

 

16 NOAA, 1999, Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. URL: 

http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/efh/EFHprimer2.pdf 
C-1 

APPENDIX C: NRDA RESTORATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET 
C-2 
C-3 
D-1 

APPENDIX D: NRDA PRELIMINARY WORKSHEET 
D-2 
E-1 

APPENDIX E: COMPLIANCE STATUS OF LOUISIANA REGIONAL RESTORATION 

PROGRAM WITH RELEVANT FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND 

PROGRAMS 

LAW SCOPE LEAD 

AGENCY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Americans with 

Disabilities Act (P.L. 

101-336) 

Establishes a clear and comprehensive 

prohibition of discrimination on the basis 

of disability. 

Lead state or 

federal agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act (16 

USC 757a et seq.) 

Conservation and restoration of 

anadromous fish resources and habitat. 

NMFS, 

USFWS 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Archeological Finds on 

State Lands (La. Rev. 

Stat. 41:1605) 

Permitting on sites with archaeological 

importance. LCRT 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Clean Air Act (42 USC 

7401 et seq.)

Authorizes the USEPA to establish 

NAAQS to protect public health and the 

environment. 

USEPA 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Clean Water Act (33 

USC 1251 et seq.; 

Sections 404 and 301) 

Regulates discharge of dredge and fill 

materials in waters of the United States; 

protection of wetlands. 

USACE, 

USEPA 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible 

agencies. Project-specific permit 

may be required. 

Clean Water Act (33 

USC 1251 et seq.) Establishes state water quality standards. USEPA 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible 

agencies. Project-specific permit 

may be required. 

Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation and 

Restoration Authority 

(La. Rev. Stat. 

49:213.1) 

Governs the state’s Wetlands Trust Fund, 

as well as provide direction and 

development of the state’s Coastal 

Vegetated Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Plan. 

Various state 

agencies 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Coastal Wetlands 

Conservation and 

Restoration Plan (La. 

Rev. Stat. 49:213.6) 

Specifies the funding requirements of that 

year in regards to the state’s Wetlands 

Trust Fund. 

Various state 

agencies 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection, 

and Restoration Act of 

1990 (P.L. 101-646) 

Establishes regime for protection and 

enhancement of wetlands. 

USACE, 

NOAA, 

USFWS, 

USEPA, 

USDA, NRCS, 

LDNR 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Coastal Zone 

Management Act (16 

USC 1451 et seq.) 

Establishes protection measures for 

coastal zone. NOAA, LDNR 

DPEIS sent to Louisiana CZMA 

Program Office for review and 

programmatic consistency 

determination. Project-specific 

consistency determinations will also 

be required, as will CUPs, if the state 

or a private entity is lead on projectspecific implementation. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act (16 

USC 3901) 

Promotes the conservation of wetlands in 

order to maintain the public benefits they 

provide, and to fulfill international 

obligations contained in various migratory 

bird treaties and conventions. 

USFWS, 

NOAA, 

USEPA, and 

state agencies 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Endangered Species 

Act (16 USC 1531 et 

seq). 

Identifies and establishes protective 

measures for threatened and endangered 

species. 

USFWS, 

NMFS 

Programmatic Section 7 consultation 

being performed to assess 

consistency. Project-specific 

coordination will also be necessary 

with responsible agencies at time of 

implementation. 

Essential Fish Habitat, 

Section 303(a) of the 

amended MagnusonStevens Act 

Identifies and establishes protective 

measures for EFH. NMFS 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 
E-2 

LAW SCOPE LEAD 

AGENCY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Estuarine Protection 

Act (16 USC 1221 et 

seq.) 

Provides a means to protect, conserve, 

and restore estuaries in a manner that 

maintains balance between the need for 

natural resource protection and 

conservation and the need to develop 

estuarine areas to promote national 

growth. 

NMFS, and 

lead state or 

federal agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (16 

USC 661 et seq.) 

Establishes protection of fish and wildlife. 

Applies to federal actions only. 

USFWS, 

NMFS 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Information Quality 

Guidelines (P.L. 106-

554 Section 515) 

Provides policy and procedural guidance 

to federal agencies for ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, 

and integrity of information (including 

statistical information) disseminated by 

federal agencies. 

Lead federal 

agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Louisiana State and 

Local Coastal 

Resources 

Management Act (La. 

Rev. Stat. 49:214.21 – 

214.42) 

Establishes the state coastal program. LDNR 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Louisiana Oil Spill 

Prevention and 

Response Act (La. 

Rev. Stat. 30:2451 et 

seq.) 

Supports and compliments OPA and other 

federal law. 

LOSCO, 

LDWF, LDEQ, 

LDNR 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Management of State 

Lands (La. Rev. Stat. 

41:1701.1 et seq.)

Provides authority for the management of 

state lands. 

LDNR and 

LSLO 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (16 

USC 1361 et seq.)

Establishes a moratorium on the taking 

and importation of marine mammals and 

marine mammal products, except under 

very specific circumstances. 

NOAA, 

USFWS 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Marine Protection, 

Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act (33 

USC 1401 et seq.)

Authorizes the USEPA to regulate ocean 

dumping of industrial wastes, sewage 

sludge, and other wastes through a permit 

program. 

Lead federal 

agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (16 USC 703 et 

seq.)

Establishes a federal prohibition, unless 

permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, 

take...any migratory bird...or any part, 

nest, or egg of any such bird.” 

Lead federal 

agency, 

USFWS 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

National 

Environmental Policy 

Act (42 USC 4321 et 

seq.) 

Requires survey and disclosure of 

environmental impacts of proposed 

federal projects. 

Federal lead 

agency, 

USEPA 

Phased compliance in effect. 

Program currently in compliance. 

Finalization of FPEIS and further 

project-specific consultation as 

necessary. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 

USC 470 et seq.) 

Establishes protective regime for historic 

properties. Applies to federal actions. 

USDOI 

(Registry of 

Historic 

Places) 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act (16 

USC 668[dd]) 

Establishes standards and procedures to 

ensure compatible uses of NWRs USFWS 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with the responsible 

agency at the time of implemenation. 

Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (33 USC 2701 et 

seq.) 

Establishes measures for prevention and 

response to oil spills. 

All federal and 

state agencies 

involved in oil 

spill prevention 

and response 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Act (33 USC 401) 

Restricts obstruction or alterations of 

navigable waterways. USACE 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination, and 

additional permit, may be necessary 

with responsible agencies at time of 

implementation. 
E-3 

REGULATION SCOPE LEAD 

AGENCY COMPLIANCE STATUS 

Council on 

Environmental 

Quality’s Implementing 

Regulations (40 CFR 

1500 et seq). 

Regulations address the overall structure, 

purpose, and format to which an EIS 

should adhere. 

Lead federal 

agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Executive Order 

12898 ”Environmental 

Justice” 

Requires assessment of project impact on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Lead federal 

agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Executive Order 

11988 ”Floodplain 

Management” 

Requires federal agencies to protect and 

conserve floodplain resources. 

Lead federal 

agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Executive Order 

11990 ”Protection of 

Wetlands” 

Requires federal agencies to protect and 

conserve wetland resources. 

Lead federal 

agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Executive Orders 

13007 ” Indian Sacred 

Sites” and 13175 

”Consultation with 

Tribal Governments” 

Requires consideration and consultation 

with Indian tribes over actions that may 

have tribal implications. 

Lead federal 

agency 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with Tribal Governments 

at time of implementation. 

Louisiana Coastal 

Resources Program 

(La. Admin. Code 

43:700 et seq).

Establishes rules for the state coastal 

program. LDNR 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Louisiana Surface 

Water Quality 

Standards 

(La. Admin. Code 

33.IX, Chapter 11) 

Permitting of wastewater discharge into 

state waters. LDEQ 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Management of 

Archaeological and 

Historic Sites (La. 

Rev. Stat. 41:1605) 

Permitting of activities located within 

these sites. 

State Historic 

Preservation 

Office (SHPO) 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

NOAA’s 1996 Final 

Rule on Natural 

Resource Damage 

Assessments (61 FR 

440 and 15 CFR 990) 

Describes procedures for performing 

NRDAs in accordance with OPA. NOAA 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination will be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

Oyster Lease 

Relocation Program 

(La. Admin. Code 43:I, 

850-859, Subchapter 

B) 

Establishes options for state and federal 

agency buy-out of oyster leases. 

LDNR, LDWF, 

and federal 

agencies 

Program currently in compliance. 

Project-specific coordination may be 

necessary with responsible agencies 

at time of implementation. 

FEDERAL, STATE, 

AND JOINT 

FEDERAL-STATE 

PROGRAM 

SCOPE LEAD 

AGENCY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 

Atchafalaya Basin 

Program 

Conserves and restores, where possible, 

the unique environmental values while 

enhancing traditional uses of the 

Atchafalaya Basin. 

LDNR, USACE 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Barataria-Terrebonne 

National Estuary 

Program 

Conservation and protection of the 

Barataria-Terrebonee estuary ecosystem. USACE, LDNR 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Coast 2050 Enhanced protection and conservation of 

Louisiana coastal resources. 

USACE, 

LDNR, others 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Coastal Zone 

Management Program 

Federal-state partnership dedicated to 

comprehensive management of the 

nation’s coastal resources, ensuring their 

protection for future generations while 

balancing competing national economic, 

cultura, and environmental interests. 

NOAA, LDNR 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 
E-4 

FEDERAL, STATE, 

AND JOINT 

FEDERAL-STATE 

PROGRAM 

SCOPE LEAD 

AGENCY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 

Farm Service Agency 

Conservation Reserve 

Program 

Aimed at returning highly erodible lands 

and lands subjected to flooding to more 

natural states that help protect soil and 

surface waters. 

USDA (NRCS), 

Farm Service 

Agency, and 

federal or state 

agencies 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program 

Provides a voluntary conservation 

program for farmers and ranchers that 

promotes agricultural production and 

environmental quality as compatible 

national goals. 

USDA (NRCS) 

and lead state 

or federal 

agency 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Forest Stewardship 

Program 

Provides a means for state, federal, and 

private agencies to better coordinate their 

services to the private, non-industrial 

forest landowners for total resource 

management. 

LDAF and lead 

state or federal 

agency 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

General Forest 

Management Plan 

Supports the conservation of natural and 

unique habitat communities occurring on 

the WMAs, as well as the restoration of 

the state’s bottomland hardwood forest 

resources. 

LDWF and lead 

state or federal 

agency 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Louisiana 

Comprehensive 

Historic Preservation 

Plan 

Achieve the preservation of Louisiana 

objects, sites, structures, and districts 

deemed significant in the broad historical 

development of the United States, 

Louisiana, and sub-divisions thereof, 

through direct action and through 

influencing the action of others. 

SHPO, LCRT, 

USDOI (NPS) 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Louisiana 

Comprehensive Water 

Management Plan 

Developed a comprehensive 

management policy that governs ground 

water use. 

LDNR 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Louisiana Natural 

Areas Registry 

Program 

Designed to honor and recognize owners 

of outstanding natural areas for their 

commitment to the protection of our 

state’s natural heritage. 

LDWF 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

North American 

Waterfowl 

Management Plan 

An international wetlands/waterfowl 

Restoration Plan that functions to help 

form partnerships with other government 

agencies, private landowners, and 

corporations to generate non-department 

funding sources to restore, protect, 

purchase, and enhance wetland habitat 

on public and private lands in Louisiana 

and nationwide. 

LDWF 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Louisiana Statewide 

Transportation Plan 

Developed to provide a blueprint for 

strengthening the state’s foundation for 

economic growth, to seize opportunities in 

international trade, to enhance the quality 

of life for Louisiana citizens, to support 

existing wealth-building industries, and 

send a message that Louisiana is 

proactive – a good place to invest, a good 

place to do business, and a good place to 

live. 

LDOTD 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Program, 

Water Quality 

Management Plan 

Program consists of menus of 

recommended "best management 

practices", or actions that can be taken to 

address specific problem issues, as well 

as a plan to help bring about 

implementation of these practices. 

LDEQ, LDNR 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Dedicated Dredge 

Program 

Creates wetlands using small dredge 

technology. LDNR 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Tensas River Basin 

Initiative 

Modeling and protection of Tensas River 

Watershed. 

USEPA, 

USDA, LDEQ, 

the Nature 

Conservancy, 

others 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 
E-5 

FEDERAL, STATE, 

AND JOINT 

FEDERAL-STATE 

PROGRAM 

SCOPE LEAD 

AGENCY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 

Wetlands Reserve 

Program 

Protection and enhancement of wetland 

resources. USDA (NRCS) 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 

Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program 

Voluntary program for people who want to 

develop and improve wildlife habitat 

primarily on private land. 

USDA (NRCS) 

Project-specific coordination, as 

appropriate, at the time of sitespecific restoration implementation. 
F-1 

APPENDIX F: ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

CONSULTATIONS 
F-2 

USFWS letter to NOAA Concurring with NOAA’s Determination that Adoption of the 

FPEIS Preferred Alternative is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Threatened or Endangered 

Species or their Critical Habitat 
F-3 
F-4 

Updated USFWS letter to NOAA Concurring with NOAA’s Determination that Adoption of 

the FPEIS Preferred Alternative is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Threatened or 

Endangered Species or their Critical Habitat 
F-5 
F-6 

NOAA NMFS letter to NOAA Concurring with NOAA’s Determination that Adoption of the 

FPEIS Preferred Alternative is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Threatened or Endangered 

Species or their Critical Habitat 
F-7 
F-8 

Response letter from NOAA NMFS with Essential Fish Habitat comments for the FPEIS 
F-9 
F-10 
G-1 

APPENDIX G: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

Summary of Comments/Questions Received During the 

Public Meetings on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning 

Program (RRP Program)/Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (DPEIS) 

Meeting: 2:00 PM CDT, June 23, 2003 

Department of Natural Resources 

LaSalle Building 

617 N. 3rd Street 

Baton Rouge, LA 70802 

Comments, Questions, and Responses during the Meeting

1. Will restoration take place in the region where the spill occurred? In what 

circumstances would restoration take place outside the region? 

Response: Restoration project selection will be based on criteria that are described in 

the RRP Program. One of the mandated criteria is that a nexus (or linkage) exists 

between the injured resource(s) and the restoration project. The proposed regions are 

ecosystem based, and the trustees anticipate that restoration projects will be 

constructed in the region where the resources were injured. If a suitable restoration 

project is not available within the region where the injury occurred, then a project(s) may 

be done outside the region where the oil spill occurred, if appropriate. All restoration 

determinations, including a decision to carry out a restoration project outside of the 

region where the injury occurred, will be presented for public review and comment in a 

Restoration Plan as required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). 

2. Will projects be prioritized? 

Response: Restoration projects will not be prioritized in the Regional Restoration Plans 

(RRPs) because the appropriateness of any specific project to meet the restoration 

requirements of any particular spill cannot be determined until the facts of the spill are 

known. However, after the damage assessment and restoration planning process has 

been completed, it is common for the trustees to indicate their preferred restoration 

projects in the Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan that is provided to the public 

for review and comment. 

3. One meeting participant applauded the plan and noted his appreciation that 

previous comments have been incorporated into the DPEIS. 

Response: No response necessary. 

4. What mechanisms are in place to expedite Natural Resource Damage Assessments 

(NRDAs) under the RRP Program? 

Response: Mechanisms to expedite NRDAs include, but are not limited to, establishing a 

clear management structure and identification of potential restoration projects in the 

RRPs. 
G-2 

5. Who determines the unit restoration costs? 

Response: The natural resource trustees will determine the costs based on past 

experience and any other considerations or analyses that may be helpful. Unit costs will 

be included in Draft RRPs that are presented for public review and comment. Final unit 

costs will be updated from time to time, as needed. 

Note: This question is reserved pending a determination of feasibility of the development 

of unit costs for all regions. If feasibility of the unit costs concept across all regions is 

determined at a later date, this final document may be amended to include a response to 

this question. 

6. One meeting participant commented that he found the RRP Program website quite 

helpful. 

Response: No response necessary. 

7. Will the RRP Program increase the number of NRDA cases? 

Response: Over the last year, the trustees have increased the number of cases that 

they are working on and expect to continue to do more cases even without the RRP 

Program. At the same time, one of the major goals of the RRP Program is to make the 

NRDA process more efficient and thereby lower the costs and decrease the time needed 

to complete the NRDA process for both the trustees and the Responsible Parties (RPs). 

8. How does the RRP Program balance public trust and Responsible Party (RP) 

interests? When a clear injury to a resource is identified, but there are other 

resources that are much more limited and could benefit more from restoration, 

can these limited resources be restored instead of the resources that were 

injured? 

Response: The concept of linkages between resources and services lost and the 

resources and services restored is a major cornerstone of OPA. Therefore, a nexus 

between the resources injured and resources restored must be established. As part of 

the RRP Program development, the trustees conducted a nexus analysis to identify one 

or more appropriate restoration types for each of the “potentially injured trust resources 

and services”. Restoration of an alternate resource may be appropriate if a logical and 

compelling argument can be made that similar services are provided and that the 

alternate restoration project is more cost-effective. 

9. Can new technology be tested for restoration projects? 

Response: Under OPA, restoration projects that involve unproven technology must have 

a reasonable expectation of success. Although basic monitoring of each restoration 

project is conducted to determine the success of the project and the need to make midcourse corrections, intensive and costly experimental procedures are generally not 

conducted for natural resource restoration purposes. Nevertheless, the trustees 

recognize the opportunities afforded by oil spill restoration projects to learn more about 

new types of restoration. Trustee agencies will therefore continue to look for 

opportunities to apply outside sources of funding to study selected projects and 

approaches. 

10. What recourse does a landowner have in the event of an oil spill on his/her land? 

Response: Natural resource trustees only assess and restore public resources that have 

been injured by an oil spill. A private landowner may have private recourse under OPA 

by filing a third party claim against the RP. 
G-3 

11. Is the Louisiana RRP Program a template program or the first program of its kind? 

Response: The RRP Program is the first of its kind in the nation. Other states are 

interested in this program, but each state will have to tailor this type of program to the 

particular circumstances in that state. 

12. What is the next step in the RRP Program process? Do all agencies have to 

provide concurrence? 

Response: The DPEIS will be finalized in the next few months. The Draft RRP for 

Region 2 will be available for public review and comment in the next few months as well. 

All trustee agencies involved in the development the RRP Program and RRPs will have 

to concur before the DPEIS and RRPs are made final. 

13. Can the RRP Program partner with other restoration programs? 

Response: Yes, the trustees are very open to joint efforts that would maximize the 

effectiveness of oil spill restoration projects. 

14. How will restoration projects be pooled under the pooled settlement alternatives 

of the RRP Program? 

Response: In general, projects will be combined by restoration type within each of the 

regions. 

Note: This question is reserved pending a determination of feasibility of the 

development of unit costs for all regions. If feasibility of the unit costs concept across all 

regions is determined at a later date, this final document may be amended to include a 

response to this question. 

15. Can restoration projects be implemented on private land? Where do the 

restoration projects come from? 

Response: Anyone, including private landowners, can submit a restoration project(s) for 

inclusion in a RRP. Trustees then apply the project selection criteria to the proposed 

restoration projects, and consider them for inclusion in the plans. As part of the NRDA 

process for any given case, the trustees will evaluate the appropriate restoration projects 

based on screening criteria identified in the RRP Program. The public will then have the 

opportunity to review and comment on restoration project(s) selection. 

16. What is considered “ecologically significant”? 

Response: The DPEIS discusses the possibility of pooling small settlements to fund 

larger more “ecologically significant” projects. Ecological significance is not specifically 

defined in the DPEIS, and the trustees did not intend to imply that bigger projects are 

always better projects. Use of the term ecological significance is simply a reference to 

the notion that a larger project may be more valuable as wildlife habitat, or in the 

provision of other services such as flood control, than a series of smaller individual 

projects comprising the same area. Under the RRP Program, the trustees will have the 

flexibility to consider larger projects. 

17. What is the RRP Program’s budget? How are vendors chosen? 

Response: Generally, the identified RP must pay the injury assessment, restoration, and 

administrative costs of NRDA activities related to a given spill event. Expediting the 

NRDA process will likely minimize these costs. Often, RPs hire specialized contractors 
G-4 

to represent them during the damage assessment and restoration phases. Trustees 

may also, in some cases, hire contractors to implement specific restoration projects. 

18. To what extent will the RRP Program minimize the role of the RP’s consultant? 

Response: The RP determines the role of their consultant(s), if any. To the extent that 

the RRP Program streamlines the damage assessment and restoration planning 

process, the level of effort would be reduced for participants on all sides. On the other 

hand, the level of effort needed to implement the restoration project will not likely be 

affected to any significant degree. 

19. Is an RP restricted to restoration projects selected by the natural resource 

trustees? 

Response: No. The RRP Program will not change the level of input by the RP and 

public in the restoration planning process. The regional project lists are in place to help 

expedite that process. 

20. For pooled settlements, will damages increase as a result of the time lapse 

between settlement and implementation? 

Response: No. When a RP opts to provide a Non-Project-Specific Cash Settlement, a 

reasonable time period between injury and restoration implementation is incorporated 

into the determination of damages for that settlement. The natural resource trustees 

assume the risks related to any delays in implementing a project while additional funds 

accumulate and a project is selected. 

Note: The question of unit costs is reserved pending a determination of feasibility of the 

development of unit costs for all regions. If feasibility of the unit costs concept across all 

regions is determined at a later date, this final document may be amended to include a 

response to this question. 

21. What is the timeframe for implementation of the individual RRPs? 

Response: The order of development has been based in part on the frequency of spills 

within each region. The plan for Region 2 is under development at this time as this 

region has had the highest frequency of spills in the past. In the near future, the trustees 

expect to begin development of the Region 6 RRP, as Region 6 has had the highest 

incident of spills of all of the inland regions in the past. 

Meeting: 6:30 PM CDT, June 23, 2003 

Department of Natural Resources 

LaSalle Building 

617 N. 3rd Street 

Baton Rouge, LA 70802 

Comments, Questions, and Responses during the Meeting

1. Does the RRP Program only apply to oil spills? 

Response: Yes. 

2. How is injury quantified? 

Response: The natural resource trustees quantify injured resources based on the extent, 

severity, and duration of the injury. These parameters are then translated into 

restoration needs. 
G-5 

3. How detailed are the RRPs? 

Response: They list the local resources at risk, the restoration projects identified in the 

region, and provide the unit cost of restoration for the principle restoration types in that 

region. 

4. Will the RRP Program use volunteers for the implementation of restoration 

projects? 

Response: Yes, when practicable. 

5. Why isn’t the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) listed as a natural 

resource trustee? 

Response: The President has not designated the USEPA as a natural resource trustee 

under the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 
G-6 

Summary of Written Comments Received on the Louisiana Regional Restoration 

Planning Program (RRP Program)/Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) and Trustee Responses 

Public Comment Period: May 7 to July 9, 2003 

Comments and Responses

1. Several commenters stated that the RRP Program will make the Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment (NRDA) process more expeditious and cost-effective, and 

should shorten the Restoration Planning Phase. 

Response: The trustees agree with this comment. No further response necessary. 

2. One commenter stated that the Draft PEIS is well-written, concise, and provides a 

comprehensive description of the natural resources, services, policies, and 

regulations that would likely be affected as a result of implementing the RRP 

Program. The Final PEIS, and the National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

documentation for subsequent Regional Restoration Plans with specific 

restoration projects, will provide the affected public and industry a better 

understanding, and greater predictability, of the NRDA process in Louisiana. 

Response: The trustees agree with this comment. No further response necessary. 

3. Several commenters provided minor editorial changes to the text of the Draft 

PEIS. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

4. In developing the Louisiana RRP Program, the best aspects of the NRDA process 

must be retained, including the focus on the resources, flexibility, and innovation, 

which lead to effectiveness and cost-efficiency. 

Response: The trustees believe that they have retained the best aspects of the NRDA 

process through the proposed implementation of the RRP Program. For example, the 

restoration type and project selection screening criteria, including the nexus analysis, 

provided in the RRP Program are indicative of how the RRP Program maintains the 

focus on the resources throughout the NRDA process. Also, the trustees feel that the 

settlement alternatives discussed in Section 4.2.6, Settlement Alternatives [previously 

Section 3.2.6], of the PEIS broaden the flexibility and innovation previously available 

under the NRDA process. Finally, two of the primary goals of the RRP Program, which 

are stated in Section 1.1, Introduction, of the PEIS are reducing the cost of the NRDA 

process and increasing restoration of lost natural resources and services. 

5. One commenter suggested that the PEIS describe specific performance criteria or 

indicators by which the RRP Program implementation can be reviewed for 

success as part of a one time review. Further, it was recommended that periodic 

Program reviews be carried out to provide the basis for operational corrections or 

improvements. 

Response: The trustees are committed to continuing to improve implementation of the 

NRDA process through implementation of the RRP Program. To that end, the PEIS 

describes the goals and the intended benefits of the RRP Program in Section 1.1, 

Introduction, and in Section 1.4.2, Benefits of the Proposed Action, respectively. The 
G-7 

success of RRP Program implementation will be determined in the context of these 

goals and intended benefits. The trustees believe that periodic reviews of the RRP 

Program are appropriate and consistent with the trustees’ commitment to establishing 

the most effective and efficient NRDA process. Therefore, text in the Executive 

Summary-Section 4.0, Evaluation of Alternatives, Section 1.4.2, Benefits of the 

Proposed Action, and Section 6.4.2, Summary of Benefits [previously Section 5.4.2], has 

been added to reflect the commitment to periodically review the RRP Program to 

determine the extent to which the Program is achieving its stated goals and benefits, and 

identify opportunities for improvement. 

6. One commenter felt that the PEIS should describe how the Responsible Party (RP) 

will interact with the trustees in this Program structure. A formal invitation for the 

RP to participate in the NRDA process should be issued as soon after the incident 

as possible. 

Response: The PEIS describes how the RP will interact with the trustees. Section 3.2.4, 

NRDA Process [previously Section 2.2.4], states “It is important to note that RPs for 

incidents are encouraged to work cooperatively with the trustees through the NRDA 

process, and that trustees have a regulatory requirement [under the Oil Pollution Act 

(OPA)] to invite such cooperation.” The OPA NRDA regulations, (15 CFR 990.44[d]), 

require the trustees to invite the RPs to participate in the damage assessment process. 

The trustees concur that this invitation should be issued as soon as possible in the 

NRDA process. 

7. To date, most responsible parties in Louisiana NRDA cases have opted to 

implement restoration themselves with trustee oversight. The currency used in 

Louisiana’s NRDA process has been injured resources; cash value and money 

management must not be of primary importance. 

Response: The focus of the RRP Program is on restoring injured natural resources and 

the Program provides a variety of ways to achieve such restoration. 

8. The third sentence in the Executive Summary Section 2.0, Purpose of the 

Proposed Action/Regional Restoration Planning Program, should use the word 

“potentially” instead of “simultaneously”. Additionally, the word “potentially” 

should be used throughout the text when referring to project benefits. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

9. Section 1.1, Introduction. One commenter said that the Program must result in 

decreased transaction costs for individual NRDA or there will be no increased 

benefit to the public. Consistency and predictability will limit the trustees' ability 

to pursue alternative restoration opportunities. The trustees and RP should have 

the flexibility to conduct restoration with or without the RRP Program. 

Response: One of the goals of the RRP Program is to expedite and reduce the costs of 

the NRDA process, thereby decreasing costs. However, this goal is not the only benefit 

that is contemplated from the implementation of the RRP Program. Other benefits that 

are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the RRP Program are listed in 

Section 1.4.2, Benefits of the Proposed Action, as well as other sections of the PEIS. 

The goal of providing consistency and predictability by describing the NRDA process in 

detail is intended to increase the understanding of the process by the pubic and industry. 

The RRP Program does not limit the ability of the trustees to pursue alternative 
G-8 

restoration opportunities. The RRP Program provides the flexibility to use or not use the 

components described in it, as appropriate (see Section 4.6, Use of the RRP Program 

and RRPs [previously Section 3.6]). 

10. In Table 1.1, Status of NRDA for Incidents in the State of Louisiana (1990-2000) 

[now 1990-2004], it was suggested that the information presented is confusing. 

Further, the “Type of Habitat Injured” column should be revised for consistency 

with the “Potentially Injured Trust Resources and Services” list in Executive 

Summary Section 3.0, Alternatives, and Section 3.2.2, Potentially Injured Trust 

Resources and Services [now Section 4.2.2].

Response: The table was revised accordingly. 

11. Section 1.4.1, Regional Restoration Planning Program. The Program describes 

additional mechanisms for case settlement, but these already were options 

available to the trustees; flexibility has not necessarily been increased. 

Response: The trustees agree that the settlement options described in the PEIS are 

currently available to the trustees and RPs under OPA and the Louisiana Oil Spill 

Prevention and Response Act (OSPRA). The trustees believe that by describing the full 

range of options, including the types of case settlements, that parties will have a better 

understanding of various alternatives, leading to increased flexibility in how cases are 

settled. 

12. Section 2.1.2, Biological Resources, Appendix B, Affected Environment [now 

Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, Appendix C, Threatened and Endangered 

Species, Essential Fish Habitat, and Other Related Information [now Appendix B], 

and their associated reference should be updated with the latest threatened and 

endangered species information. 

Response: These sections were updated accordingly. The number of listed species was 

updated in Section 2.1.2, Biological Resources and Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment, 

and the list of threatened and endangered species was updated in Appendix B, 

Threatened and Endangered Species, Essential Fish Habitat, and Other Related 

Information [previously Appendix C].

13. Section 2.1.2, Biological Resources, implies that Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

provisions do not apply nationwide. Specific text was recommended. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

14. In Section 2.1.3, Socioeconomic Resources, under subsection “Recreation and 

Tourism,” [now provided in Section 2.1.11.3, Hunting, and Section 2.1.11.4, 

Fishing] more accurate and/or up-to-date information regarding hunting and 

fishing licensing may be available from Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries (LDWF).

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

15. Section 2.2.4.2.1, Injury Assessment [now Section 3.2.4.2.1], should be expanded 

to include details of assessment methods that have been used historically and 

that exist within the public domain. Reference should be made to various 

assessment procedures that are outlined in OSPRA. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 
G-9 

16. Figure 3.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program [now Figure 4.1], 

should have a “Use Program Selection Criteria” box inserted after “Non-ProjectSpecific Cash Out,” which would fall under Step #6 [RESERVED]. 

Note: This question is reserved pending a determination of feasibility of the 

development of unit costs for all regions. If feasibility of the unit costs concept across all 

regions is determined at a later date, this final document may be amended to include a 

response to this question. 

17. Figure 3.1, NRDA Process Implementation in the RRP Program [now Figure 4.1], 

should identify the circumstances when one would go to Step #3 in Figure 2.2, 

NRDA Process Implementation [now Figure 3.2].

Response: The box that refers to “go to Step #3 in Figure 3.2” [previously Figure 2.2] 

refers to a point in the process when the trustees can elect not to use some or all of the 

components of the RRP Program. There could be any number of circumstances where 

the components of the RRP Program are not used, see Section 4.6, Use of the RRP 

Program and RRPs (previously Section 3.6). The decision to use the components of the 

RRP Program will be dictated by the specific incident. 

18. Section 3.2.4.2, Project Selection Screening Criteria [now Section 4.2.4.2], and 

Appendix D, Project Solicitation Form [now titled NRDA Restoration Project 

Information Sheet in Appendix C], the NRDA Restoration Project Information 

Sheet should include a private land owner’s willingness to sign a conservation 

servitude as a screening criteria and descriptive language regarding conservation 

servitude should be added as well. 

Response: These suggestions have been incorporated into Appendix C, NRDA 

Restoration Project Information Sheet [previously Appendix D]. 

19. Wording in Section 3.2.4.2, Project Selection Screening Criteria [now Section 

4.2.4.2], should be modified for consistency with OPA NRDA regulations (15 CFR

900.54). Also, a bullet should be added to address the effect(s) of an alternative 

on public health and safety (15 CFR 900.54 [a][6]). 

Response: The text has been revised accordingly. 

20. Section 3.2.6, Settlement Alternatives [now Section 4.2.6], should indicate where 

the settlement payments will reside pending the implementation of compensatory 

projects. 

Response: The trustees will determine the most appropriate place to deposit settlement 

funds pending implementation of the restoration project(s) for each incident based on 

the terms of the settlement and type of restoration project(s) to be implemented. 

 

21. Section 3.2.6.2.3, Non-Project-Specific Cash Out [now Section 4.2.6.2.3, NonProject-Specific Cash Settlement], should be revised to clarify whether or not the 

discounted service acre year (DSAY) and discounted kilogram biomass year 

(DKBY) unit values will account for the interim service losses sustained during the 

period prior to project implementation [RESERVED]. 

Note: This question is reserved pending a determination of feasibility of the 

development of unit costs for all regions. If feasibility of the unit costs concept across all 

regions is determined at a later date, this final document may be amended to include a 

response to this question. 
G-10 

22. Section 3.2.7, Restoration Project Performance Criteria [now Section 4.2.7], should 

be expanded to include a list of restoration types and subtypes historically used, 

with the specific performance criteria for each type. 

Response: The text throughout the subsections of Section 4.2.3, Restoration Types 

[previously Section 3.2.3], and Section 4.2.7, Restoration Project Performance Criteria 

[previously Section 3.2.7], has been revised accordingly. Also, Table 4.1, Potential 

Performance Criteria by Restoration Type, was added to Section 4.2.7, Restoration 

Project Performance Criteria [previously Section 3.2.7]. 

23. Section 3.2.8, Restoration Project Monitoring Requirements [now Section 4.2.8], 

should provide additional information describing what methods and frequency of 

monitoring have been used historically for the performance criteria discussed in 

Section 3.2.7, Restoration Project Performance Criteria. 

Response: The text throughout the subsections of Section 4.2.3, Restoration Types 

[previously Section 3.2.3], and Section 4.2.8, Restoration Project Monitoring 

Requirements [now Section 3.2.8], has been revised accordingly. Also, Table 4.2, 

Potential Monitoring Requirements by Restoration Type, was added to Section 4.2.8,

Restoration Project Monitoring Requirements [previously Section 3.2.8]. 

24. One commenter noted that a dispute resolution process was essential to ensure 

that cases proceed smoothly from the initial assessment through implementation 

of restoration. The commenter recommended that a conflict or dispute resolution 

process be added to Section 3.3, RRP Program Management Structure [now 

Section 4.3], to ensure program efficiency. 

Response: The trustees agree that a dispute resolution process is an important 

mechanism for ensuring efficient decision making. Details of the process developed for 

the RRP Program will be described in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the 

trustee agencies. 

25. There were several comments concerning Section 3.3, RRP Program Management 

Structure [now Section 4.3], and Section 3.4, RRP Program Case Implementation 

Process [now Section 4.4]. One commenter suggested that participation in the 

management structure as described in Section 3.3, RRP Program Management 

Structure [now Section 4.3], is at the discretion of that agency. How does the 

responsible party interact with the trustees in this Program structure? Another 

commenter said that the management structure and case implementation process 

seem too bureaucratic and detailed. The funding required to support this 

management system may negate any savings realized by streamlining the 

assessment and restoration planning and implementation development. Further, 

Section 6.1.2, Potentially Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts [now Section 

7.1.2], should include a statement that potential adverse impacts could result from 

lack of manpower on the state level. 

Response: The management structure and the RRP Program case implementation 

process described in Section 4.3, RRP Program Management Structure [previously 

Section 3.3], and in Section 4.4, RRP Program Case Implementation Process 

[previously Section 3.4], respectively, are simply an articulation of a structure and 

process that are already in place, and the interaction between them. These sections 

were provided as a result of questions asked during the informal scoping process, where 

the public asked how trustees are organized and how the case process works. It should 

be emphasized that Section 4.3, RRP Program Management Structure [previously 
G-11 

Section 3.3], describes management functions, not individual positions or staffing and/or 

resource obligations. 

Furthermore, the RRP Program does not call for the re-allocation or diversion of funds or 

resources from other programs. This is not an element of the RRP Program and in fact, 

the Program intends to streamline the NRDA process. The potential diversion or reallocation of resources amongst environmental programs at the department level is a 

wholly separate decision outside the context of this proposed action. Accordingly, there 

is no reason to evaluate the speculative impacts associated with any perceived diversion 

of resources in Section 7.1.2, Potentially Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts 

[previously Section 6.1.2]. 

26. In Section 3.3.1, Authorized or Approving Officials [now Section 4.3.1], what is the 

proposed mechanism for designating Authorized or Approving Officials? Will 

state officials be designated by the Governor? 

Response: Each federal trustee agency will designate its Authorized or Approving 

Official based on established policies and procedures. The Authorized Officials for the 

state trustee agencies are the secretaries of the natural resource trustee agencies as 

designated by the Governor. 

27. Section 3.3.2.4, RRP Program Project Monitoring Team [now Section 4.3.2.2], 

should be relocated to follow Section 3.3.2.1, Case Teams [now Section 4.3.2.1, 

NRDA Case Teams] and revised to clarify that the Project Monitoring Team will 

review results and make recommendations to the Trustee Council. Similarly, 

Section 3.3.2, Trustee Council [now Section 4.3.2], should be revised to indicate 

that the Trustee Council will also guide and manage RRP Program Project 

Monitoring Team activities. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

28. One commenter suggested that Figure 3.6, RRP Program Case Implementation 

Process [now Figure 4.6], be expanded to two pages, and that clarification be 

added to reflect coordination with the Trustee Council and the public. 

Response: The figure was revised to clarify that the Case Team will recommend the 

restoration type and settlement alternative to the Trustee Council, and that the RRP 

Program Project Monitoring Team will deliver its project implementation oversight and 

monitoring results to the Trustee Council. Also, a box was added to the figure to indicate 

that public review would be sought when choosing a restoration project. It should be 

noted however, that this figure only represents the internal trustee process and is not 

inclusive of every instance in which public review would be sought. 

29. Section 3.4.3.4, Settlement Calculation [now Section 4.4.2.4], should give 

consideration to reimbursing the costs of RRP Program development to 

participating trustee agencies. 

Response: The federal trustees considered various ways to recover the costs of RRP 

Program development through settlement of individual cases, but were unable to identify 

an equitable approach that met basic accounting principles under federal law. 
G-12 

30. Section 3.5, Sources of Restoration Funding [now Section 4.5], should be revised 

to clarify that funds from other programs cannot be used to pay for restoration 

required to settle the natural resource liability arising from any incident. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

31. One commenter requested that Section 7.2.1, Program Compliance with Federal 

Laws [now Section 8.2.1], and Appendix F, Compliance Status of Louisiana 

Regional Restoration Planning Program with Relevant Federal and State Laws, 

Regulations, and Programs [now Appendix E], include a discussion of the RRP 

Program’s compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

32. With respect to Section 7.2.1, Program Compliance with Federal Laws [now 

Section 8.2.1], and it’s discussion of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), one 

commenter recommended that neither a Final PEIS nor a Record of Decision for 

the proposed RRP Program be issued until Section 7 consultation is complete. 

Response: Following informal consultation for Section 7 of the ESA, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) suggested additional language. The text was revised 

accordingly. Based on an analysis of potential effects, the trustees have concluded that 

adopting the “RRP Program/Environmentally Preferred Alternative” is not likely to 

adversely affect threatened or endangered species and/or their critical habitat. The 

trustees presented their analysis and conclusion to USFWS and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), as required under Section 7 of the ESA. Appendix F, 

Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations, includes copies of 

the letters sent to the trustees by these agencies indicating their concurrence with the 

trustee determination. These letters effectively conclude the ESA consultation process. 

33. One commenter recommended that the discussion in Section 7.2.1, Program 

Compliance with Federal Laws [now Section 8.2.1], concerning the Clean Water 

Act be revised to indicate more clearly when Nationwide Permit 32 would apply to 

RRP Program projects. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

34. One commenter suggested that the discussion of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in 

Section 7.2.1, Program Compliance with Federal Laws [now Section 8.2.1], be 

revised to clarify the process for complying with the requirements of EFH. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

35. One commenter suggested that the discussion in Section 7.2.1, Program 

Compliance with Federal Laws [now Section 8.2.1], of the National Historic 

Preservation Act should mention consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

36. One commenter suggested language to clarify the text in Section 7.3, Program 

Coordination and Compatibility with Existing Federal, State, and Joint FederalState Programs [now Section 8.3], about the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 
G-13 

37. The list in Section 7.3, Program Coordination and Compatibility with Existing 

Federal, State, and Joint Federal-State Programs [now Section 8.3], of “Other 

Potentially Applicable Federal, State, and Joint State-Federal Programs” should 

include Partners for Wildlife. The subsection entitled “Also:” should be renamed 

“Potential Partners:” and Partners for Wildlife should be removed. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

38. In Chapter 10.0, List of Preparers [now Chapter 11.0], Heather Finley's expertise is 

in biology and geology. 

Response: The trustees recognize that individuals listed in Chapter 10.0, List of 

Preparers [now Chapter 11.0], have considerable expertise in several fields of study. 

The list in Chapter 10.0 [now Chapter 11.0], List of Preparers, however, is only intended 

to provide each person’s primary specialty. 

39. For Appendix B [now Chapter 2.0], Affected Environment, New text has been 

proposed to replace the last three sentences of the first paragraph of “Sediment 

Quality.” 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

40. Appendix B [now Chapter 2.0], Affected Environment, Tables B-3 through B-13 

[now 2-3 to 2-13], should be revised in accordance with the May 30, 2003 

comments provided to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by 

USFWS. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. Tables for common fish and shellfish, and 

threatened and endangered species were also added. 

41. In Appendix B [now Chapter 2.0], Affected Environment, for the discussion of 

threatened and endangered species, new text was recommended to replace the 

2nd through 5th sentences of the first paragraph. It was suggested that the section 

be revised to specifically discuss the affected environment of federally listed 

threatened and endangered species and their habitats in Louisiana. 

Response: The language related to agency responsibilities has been removed from 

Appendix B, Affected Environment [now Chapter 2.0], with the revised language 

provided added to the discussion of threatened and endangered species contained in 

Appendix C, Threatened and Endangered Species, Essential Fish Habitat, and Other 

Related Information [now Appendix B]. The PEIS describes the affected environment in 

the State of Louisiana. As part of the ESA Section 7 consultation process with NMFS 

and USFWS, the trustees have assessed the potential effects of the Regional 

Restoration Plans on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. The 

trustees’ assessment and letters of concurrence are provided in Appendix F, 

Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations of the PEIS. 

42. Appendix B [now Chapter 2.0], Affected Environment. The discussion of Refuges 

should mention that USFWS also operates the Natchitoches National Fish 

Hatchery and several Law Enforcement Offices in Louisiana. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 
G-14 

43. In Appendix B [now Chapter 2.0], Affected Environment, the discussion of 

Essential Fish Habitat, the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

should be clarified. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 

44. In Appendix B [now Chapter 2.0], Affected Environment, Table B-16 [now Table 2-

18], Major Federal Landholdings in Louisiana, should be reviewed for accuracy 

using the information provided by USFWS. 

Response: The table was revised as suggested. The title was changed from ”Federal 

Facilities in Louisiana” to “Major Federal Landholdings in Louisiana” to better reflect the 

properties listed. 

45. Additional information about EFH was recommended for Appendix C [now 

Appendix B], Threatened and Endangered Species, Essential Fish Habitat, and Other 

Related Information. 

Response: The text was revised accordingly. 
G-15 

Comments received from LDWF on the DPEIS during the public review period 
G-16 
G-17 

Summary of LDWF Written Comments on the Draft PEIS

Page: 26 

The program must result in decreased transaction costs for individual NRDA or there will be no 

increased benefit to the public. Consistency and predictability could be a two-edged sword that 

will limit the trustees' ability to take advantage of restoration opportunities that clearly benefit 

resources but don't fit the framework established by the RRP Program. Therefore, flexibility 

must be not only included, but encouraged. The uncertainty that needs to be minimized is 

whether or not restoration will take place, not the specific means by which restoration is 

achieved. 

Page: 29 

The program described describes additional mechanisms for case settlement, but these already 

were options available to the trustees; flexibility has not necessarily been increased. 

Page: 31 

It should be clearly stated in the PEIS that the regional restoration program is but one of several 

ways to compensate the public by restoring natural resources injured by oil spills. The 

document should clearly state that resource restoration for injuries resulting from an incident(s) 

is the overall goal of the program, and that that restoration will be pursued in the most efficient 

and cost-effective manner possible. The trustees should evaluate each incident based on its 

own merits and decide (cooperatively with the responsible party) whether restoration should be 

conducted through an incident-specific NRDA, the Regional Restoration Planning Program, or 

any other means that adequately compensates the public for injury to natural 

resources/services. This concept is alluded to here; it should be highlighted and emphasized in 

the Purpose and Need section (1.3) 

Page: 31

and also will (not but) 

Page: 31

See previous comments regarding predictability, consistency, and uncertainty. 

Page: 39 

More accurate and/or up-to-date information regarding licensing may be available from LDWF. 

Contact Janice Landry at 225 765-2881. This comment also applies to fishing licenses. 

Page: 54 

Identify the circumstances when one would go to step 3 in figure 2.2 [now Figure 3.2] 

Page: 58 

The meaning of the text for birds and wildlife here is unclear. Is the intent to say "Birds 

(mammals) located permanently or seasonally in all coastal and inland areas are included in 

this category (Appendix B). This category can also include injuries to the ecological services 

birds (mammals) provide to other resources." 

Page: 96 

What is the proposed mechanism for designating "authorized officials"? Will state officials be 

designated by the Governor? 
G-18 

Page:96

It should be stated that the mechanism of participation by individual agencies is at the discretion 

of that agency. How does the responsible party interact with the trustees in this program 

structure? 

Page: 99 

Agencies may choose to participate in program implementation through mechanisms other than 

through regional staff. 

Page: 101 

A formal invitation for the RP to participate at this point is appropriate; however the RP should 

be involved in the process as soon after the incident as possible. 

Page: 136 

Heather Finley's expertise is in biology and geology
G-19 

Comments received from LDEQ on the DPEIS during the public review period 
G-20 
G-21 
G-22 
G-23 
G-24 
G-25 
G-26 

Comments received from USDOI on the DPEIS during the public review period 
G-27 
G-28 
G-29 
G-30 
G-31 
G-32 
G-33 

Comments received from NRCS on the DPEIS during the public review period 
H-1 

APPENDIX H: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PEOPLE RECEIVING COPIES 

OF THE FPEIS 

List of Organizations to which the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program (RRP Program) was Mailed 

♦ Congress: 

♦ United States House of Representatives - Louisiana Delegation 

♦ United States Senate - Louisiana Delegation 

♦ United States Senate/Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 

♦ Federal Agencies: 

♦ Access Board 

♦ Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

♦ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

♦ Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled 

♦ Consumer Product Safety Commission 

♦ Council on Environmental Quality 

♦ Export-Import Bank of the United States 

♦ Farm Credit Administration 

♦ Federal Communications Commission 

♦ Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

♦ Federal Emergency Management Agency 

♦ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

♦ Federal Maritime Commission 

♦ Federal Trade Commission 

♦ General Services Administration 

♦ International Boundary and Water Commission 

♦ Marine Mammal Commission 

♦ National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

♦ National Capital Planning Commission 

♦ National Credit Union Administration 

♦ National Indian Gaming Commission 

♦ National Science Foundation 

♦ Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

♦ Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

♦ Presidio Trust 

♦ Securities and Exchange Commission 

♦ Small Business Administration 

♦ Tennessee Valley Authority 

♦ United States Agency for International Development 

♦ United States Department of Agriculture 

♦ United States Department of Commerce 

♦ United States Department of Defense 

♦ United States Department of Energy 

♦ United States Department of Health and Human Services 

♦ United States Department of Homeland Security 

♦ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development 
H-2 

♦ United States Department of Justice 

♦ United States Department of Labor 

♦ United States Department of State 

♦ United States Department of the Interior 

♦ United States Department of Transportation 

♦ United States Department of Treasury 

♦ United States Department of Veterans Affairs 

♦ United States Environmental Protection Agency 

♦ United States Postal Service 

♦ Native American Tribes: 

♦ Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (Charenton) 

♦ Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (Elton) 

♦ Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (Jena) 

♦ Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (Marksville) 

♦ State Legislature: 

♦ Louisiana State Senators 

♦ Louisiana State Representatives 

♦ Louisiana State Agencies: 

♦ Lafourche Basin Levee District Board of Commissioners 

♦ Louisiana Applied and Educational Oil Spill Research and Development Program 

♦ Louisiana Department of Administration/State Land Office 

♦ Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

♦ Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism 

♦ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

♦ Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 

♦ Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

♦ Louisiana Department of Public Safety/State Police 

♦ Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

♦ Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

♦ Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Louisiana Office of the Governor 

♦ Other State Agencies: 

♦ Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

♦ California Office of Spill Prevention and Response 

♦ Colorado Office of the Attorney General 

♦ Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

♦ Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

♦ Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

♦ Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

♦ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

♦ New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

♦ New York State Department of Law 

♦ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

♦ Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 

♦ Texas General Land Office 

♦ Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

♦ Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 
H-3 

♦ Washington Department of Ecology 

♦ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

♦ Parish Government 

♦ Acadia Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Acadia Parish Police Jury 

♦ Allen Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Allen Parish Police Jury 

♦ Ascension Parish Council 

♦ Ascension Parish Government 

♦ Ascension Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Assumption Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Assumption Parish Police Jury 

♦ Avoyelles Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Avoyelles Parish Police Jury 

♦ Beauregard Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Beauregard Parish Police Jury 

♦ Bienville Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Bienville Parish Police Jury 

♦ Bossier Parish Police Jury 

♦ Caddo/Bossier Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Caddo Parish Commission 

♦ Calcasieu Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 

♦ Caldwell Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Caldwell Parish Police Jury 

♦ Cameron Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Cameron Parish Police Jury 

♦ Catahoula Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Catahoula Parish Police Jury 

♦ Claiborne Parish 

♦ Claiborne Parish Police Jury 

♦ Concordia Parish 

♦ Concordia Parish Police Jury 

♦ DeSoto Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ DeSoto Parish Police Jury 

♦ East Baton Rouge Parish Metro Council 

♦ East Baton Rouge Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ East Carroll Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ East Carroll Parish Police Jury 

♦ East Feliciana Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ East Feliciana Parish Police Jury 

♦ Evangeline Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Evangeline Parish Police Jury 

♦ Franklin Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Franklin Parish Police 

♦ Grant Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Grant Parish Police Jury 

♦ Iberia Parish Council 

♦ Iberia Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Iberville Parish Council 
H-4 

♦ Iberville Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Jackson Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Jackson Parish Police Jury 

♦ Jefferson Davis Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury 

♦ Jefferson Parish 

♦ Jefferson Parish Council 

♦ Jefferson Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Jefferson Parish Port 

♦ Lafayette Consolidated Government 

♦ Lafayette Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Lafourche Parish Council 

♦ Lafourche Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ LaSalle Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ LaSalle Parish Police Jury 

♦ Lincoln Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Lincoln Parish Police Jury 

♦ Livingston Parish 

♦ Livingston Parish Council 

♦ Livingston Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Madison Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Madison Parish Police Jury 

♦ Morehouse Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Morehouse Parish Police Jury 

♦ Natchitoches Parish Police Jury 

♦ Natchitoches Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Orleans Parish 

♦ Orleans Parish Council 

♦ Orleans Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Ouachita Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Ouachita Parish Police Jury 

♦ Plaquemines Parish Council 

♦ Plaquemines Parish Government 

♦ Plaquemines Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Pointe Coupee Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury 

♦ Police Jury Association of Louisiana 

♦ Port of Vermilion, Abbeville Harbor and Terminal District 

♦ Rapides Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Rapides Parish Police Jury 

♦ Red River Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Red River Parish Police Jury 

♦ Richland Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Richland Parish Police Jury 

♦ Sabine Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Sabine Parish Police Jury 

♦ St. Bernard Parish 

♦ St. Bernard Parish Council 

♦ St. Bernard Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Charles Parish Council 

♦ St. Charles Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 
H-5 

♦ St. Helena Parish 

♦ St. Helena Parish Police Jury 

♦ St. James Parish Council 

♦ St. James Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. John the Baptist Parish 

♦ St. John The Baptist Parish Council 

♦ St. John The Baptist Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Landry Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Landry Parish Police Jury 

♦ St. Martin Parish Council 

♦ St. Martin Parish Government 

♦ St. Martin Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Mary Parish Council 

♦ St. Mary Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ St. Tammany Parish 

♦ St. Tammany Parish Council 

♦ St. Tammany Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Tangipahoa Parish Council 

♦ Tangipahoa Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Tensas Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Tensas Parish Police Jury 

♦ Terrebonne Parish 

♦ Terrebonne Parish Council 

♦ Terrebonne Parish Government 

♦ Terrebonne Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Union Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Union Parish Police Jury 

♦ Vermilion Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Vermilion Parish Police Jury 

♦ Vernon Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Vernon Parish Police Jury 

♦ Washington Parish Council 

♦ Washington Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Webster Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Webster Parish Police Jury 

♦ West Baton Rouge Parish Council 

♦ West Baton Rouge Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ West Carroll Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ West Carroll Parish Police Jury 

♦ West Feliciana Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ West Feliciana Parish Police Jury 

♦ Winn Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness 

♦ Winn Parish Police Jury 

♦ Private Industry 

♦ Alpha Biotek Environmental, LLC 

♦ Apache Corp. 

♦ Arabie Environmental Solutions, Inc. 

♦ Associated Branch Pilots 

♦ Atchafalaya Water Trails, Inc. 

♦ Beous Brothers Towing, Inc. 
H-6 

♦ Beuerman Miller Group 

♦ Boise Cascade/Southern Forest Resources 

♦ BP Amoco 

♦ Central Gulf Lines, Inc. 

♦ CH2M Hill 

♦ Chevron Pipe Line Co. 

♦ ChevronTexaco 

♦ CITGO Refinery Division 

♦ C-K Associates, Inc. 

♦ Coastal Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

♦ Conoco, Inc. 

♦ Dominion Exploration and Production, Inc. 

♦ Dupont Specialty Chemicals 

♦ E&E Group, LLC 

♦ El Paso Production 

♦ Energy Services 

♦ Equilon Pipeline Company LLC 

♦ Equiva Services, LLC 

♦ ERDAS 

♦ Exxon Mobil Corp. 

♦ Exxon Mobil Production 

♦ Jones, Walker, et al

♦ Justiss Oil Co., Inc. 

♦ Kerr-McGee 

♦ Louisiana Chemical Association 

♦ Louisiana Independent Oil and Gas Association 

♦ Louisiana Landowner Association 

♦ Louisiana Mid Continent Oil and Gas 

♦ Maxim Technologies, Inc. 

♦ Merlin Management Services, Inc. 

♦ Murray Law Firm 

♦ Ocean Energy 

♦ Patton Boggs LLP Attorneys at Law 

♦ Placid 

♦ PPG Industries 

♦ Public Strategies, Inc. 

♦ Pyburn and Odom, Inc. 

♦ Rabalais, Hanna, and Hebert 

♦ Shaw E&I 

♦ Shell 

♦ SMS USA 

♦ Stolt Offshore, Inc. 

♦ Sun Pipe Line Co. 

♦ T. Baker Smith and Son, Inc. 

♦ Texaco 

♦ The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited 

♦ Tidewater Marine, Inc. 

♦ UNOCAL 
H-7 

♦ Non-Profit Organizations 

♦ Algiers Community Improvement Association 

♦ Ascension Parish Residents Against Pollution 

♦ Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program 

♦ Black Bear Conservation Committee 

♦ Citizens Against Contamination 

♦ Citizens for Clean Environment 

♦ CLEAN 

♦ Coalition for Community Action 

♦ Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana 

♦ Coast Alliance 

♦ Coastal States Organization 

♦ Concerned Citizens 

♦ Concerned Citizens of JFK 

♦ Concerned Citizens of Mossville 

♦ Concerned Citizens of Norco 

♦ Deep South Center for Environmental Justice 

♦ Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

♦ Greenpeace 

♦ Gulf Restoration Network 

♦ League of Women Voters 

♦ Louisiana ACORN 

♦ Louisiana Audubon Council 

♦ Louisiana Environmental Action Network 

♦ Louisiana Environmental Justice Project 

♦ Louisiana State University 

♦ Louisiana Wildlife Federation 

♦ M.E.A.N., Inc. 

♦ McNeese State University 

♦ National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee 

♦ Natural Resources Defense Council 

♦ North Lake Charles Environmental Action Now 

♦ Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen Associations, Inc. 

♦ Poor People for Fair and Equal Access to Justice 

♦ R.E.S.T.O.R.E 

♦ Restore America's Estuaries 

♦ Sierra Club 

♦ South Louisiana Economic Council (SLEC) 

♦ Southern University and A&M College 

♦ St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment 

♦ The National Academies/Oceans Studies Board 

♦ The Nature Conservancy 

♦ Tulane Law School 

♦ United States Public Interest Research Group 

♦ University of Louisiana