The 2015 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress

on the Effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands

Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Projects

 oastal Wetlands Planning, Protection C

 and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)

oastal Wetlands Planning, Protection 

 and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)

The 2015 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress

on the Effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection and Restoration Act Projects

Suggested Citation

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2015. The 

2015 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Projects.

Map images provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Wetlands Research 

Center. Document direction and review provided by the 2015 CWPPRA Report to 

Congress Workgroup.

C
Documentation

This report is submitted by the Task Force in accordance with CWPPRA, Title III of Public Law 101–646. This report 

fulfills the CWPPRA mandate, which requires a report to the U.S. Congress every 3 years on the effectiveness of Louisiana’s 

coastal wetland restoration projects.

Task Force Member Agencies

•	 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (represented by the New Orleans District): contact 504–862–2204 or at http://www.mvn.

usace.army.mil/missions/environmental/cwppra.aspx.

•	 U.S. Department of the Interior (represented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service): contact 337–291–3100 or at http://

www.fws.gov/lafayette; http://www.fws.gov/coastal/CoastalGrants/.

•	 U.S. Department of Agriculture (represented by the Natural Resources Conservation Service): contact 318–473–7751 or 

at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/la/programs/easements/acep/?cid=nrcs141p2_015685.

•	 U.S. Department of Commerce (represented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine 

Fisheries Service): contact 225–389–0508 or at http://habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/index.html.

•	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (represented by the Water Quality Protection Division of EPA Region 6): contact 

214–665–7275 or at http://www.epa.gov/region06/6wq/at/cwppra.htm.

•	 Louisiana’s Governor’s Office (represented by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority chairman): contact 

225–342–3968 or at http://www.coastal.la.gov/.

Web sites

LaCoast, the official CWPPRA Web site, has a complete project listing and technical documents at http://lacoast.gov.

The CWPPRA program is administered through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The CWPPRA organizational chart, 

standard operating procedures, annual Priority Project List (PPL) reports, and administrative proceedings documentation 

are publicly available on the Mississippi Valley New Orleans District Web site at http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/missions/

environmental/cwppra.aspx.

Acknowledgments

The Louisiana CWPPRA Task Force wishes to thank Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Legislature,

the Federal Louisiana Delegation, and the U.S. Congress for their support of this crucial program.

Louisiana continues to face an unprecedented collapse of its entire coastal ecosystem and the vital economic activity and 

unique culture that it supports. 

Over the past 25 years, the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force (Task Force) has 

fulfilled its role under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) by implementing a scienceand engineering-based program that extensively engages stakeholders and the public and serves as the Nation’s model for 

effective and efficient coastal restoration. In order to secure the future of Louisiana’s coast, the Task Force and stakeholders 

must share a common vision, one that aligns with State and national priorities.

CWPPRA Mission Statement
iii

Contents

Introduction. ............................................................................................................................................ 1

CWPPRA Overview............................................................................................................................... 5

CWPPRA as a Project Incubator for Other Restoration Programs ......................................... 5

Grand Lake Shoreline Protection Project............................................................................ 6

Chenier Ronquille Barrier Island Restoration Project....................................................... 8

CWPPRA Project Expansions and Partnerships ..................................................................... 10

How CWPPRA Fits Into the Current Coastal Louisiana Restoration Landscape .............. 10

Current CWPPRA Program Developments............................................................................. 13

Louisiana State 2012 Coastal Protection and Restoration Master Plan........................ 13

CWPPRA Projects Reaching Their 20-Year Lives ........................................................... 13

Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Fund.................................................. 13

CWPPRA Reauthorization.................................................................................................. 13

RESTORE Act ....................................................................................................................... 13

CWPPRA’s Benefits to Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................... 15

Louisiana Coastal Restoration Techniques ...................................................................................... 20

Barrier Island Restoration........................................................................................................... 21

Marsh Creation............................................................................................................................. 22

Freshwater and Sediment Diversions ....................................................................................... 23

Shoreline Protection..................................................................................................................... 23

Hydrologic Restoration............................................................................................................... 23

Sediment and Nutrient Trapping .............................................................................................. 25

Vegetative Planting...................................................................................................................... 25

CWPPRA Project Selection Process................................................................................................... 27

CWPPRA Project Planning and Implementation............................................................................ 28

Examples of Recently Constructed Significant and Strategic Projects ................................. 30

Lake Hermitage Marsh Creation Project.......................................................................... 30

Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation Cycles 4 and 5 Project................................................... 32

West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration Project................................................... 32

Evaluating the CWPPRA Program with Monitoring Data............................................................ 35

Coastwide Reference Monitoring System ................................................................................ 35

Approach and Design of CRMS......................................................................................... 35

The CRMS Web Site............................................................................................................. 35

Evaluation Summaries of Selected CWPPRA Projects ........................................................... 36

East Mud Lake Marsh Management Project.................................................................... 37

Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration Project......................................................... 41

East Marsh Island Marsh Creation Project....................................................................... 46

North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration Project.................................................... 49

Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation Project................................................................... 54

Mississippi River Sediment Delivery System−Bayou Dupont Project......................... 58

Fish and Wildlife Benefits of Selected CWPPRA Projects.............................................. 62

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 63

References ............................................................................................................................................. 64

Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix 1. Complete List of Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and

Restoration Act Projects Authorized Since 1990 .................................................................69

Appendix 2. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act

Educational Videos ..................................................................................................................69

Appendix 3. Louisiana Coastal Threatened and Endangered Species, Fisheries,

and Common Marsh Plants....................................................................................................71

Figures

1. Grand Lake Shoreline Protection project features ...................................................................7

2. Chenier Ronquille Barrier Island Restoration project features ..............................................9

3. Barataria Basin Landbridge projects work synergistically to

restore a larger area ...............................................................................................................10

4. Louisiana coastal restoration program projects .....................................................................12

5. Allocation of Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund ..................................................................14

6. Lake Hermitage Marsh Creation project map ........................................................................31

7. Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation Cycles 1 through 5 project map..........................................33

8. West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration project map.................................................34

9. Map of the East Mud Lake Marsh Management project, completed in June 1996............38

10. Structure No. 5 in the northwest corner of CTU 2 provides managed

hydrologic connectivity between the East Mud Lake Marsh Management

project area and Calcasieu Lake.............................................................................................39

11. Land-water change analysis for East Mud Lake Marsh Management project

from 1994 to 2000 .....................................................................................................................40

12. Photograph depicting healthy marshhay cordgrass marsh and a CRMS

vegetative sampling site in the East Mud Lake Marsh Management project area.........41

13. Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration project map.......................................................43

14. A, Oblique aerial photograph taken during low water about a year after

construction of the Oysterbreak reefs at the Bioengineered Oyster Reef

Demonstration project. B, Stacked, interlocking rings shown from

behind OysterBreak-East ........................................................................................................44

15. Soil elevation changes in the Oysterbreak and reference areas of the

Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration project from October 2011

to July 2013................................................................................................................................45

16. Colonization of oysters on east end of Oysterbreak–East 20 months

after construction .....................................................................................................................45

17. Map of the East Marsh Island Marsh Creation project, constructed

in December 2010 .....................................................................................................................47

18. Aerial view of the eastern half of the East Marsh Island Marsh Creation

project, June 2011 .....................................................................................................................48

19. View of healthy marshhay cordgrass and chairmaker’s bulrush thriving

within the nourishment area of the East Marsh Island Marsh Creation

project in September 2013 .......................................................................................................48

20. Vegetative cover of the East Marsh Island Marsh Creation project ....................................49

21. Map of the North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration project ......................................50

iv
v

22. Land-water classification for the North Lake Mechant Landbridge

Restoration project area in 2002, prior to construction.......................................................51

23. Land-water classification for the North Lake Mechant Landbridge

Restoration project area in 2012, after project construction...............................................52

24. Vegetation in the North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration project fill

area showing healthy stands of seashore saltgrass, marshhay cordgrass,

common reed, and goldenrod growing on the restored marsh........................................53

25. Map of Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation project............................................................55

26. The Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation project area continues to

support vigorous marsh vegetation more than 20 years after

project construction .................................................................................................................56

27. Land-water classification of the Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation

project and reference areas .....................................................................................................56

28. Habitat classification of the Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation project

and reference areas using 2012 CRMS aerial photography ...............................................57

29. Project map of the Mississippi River Sediment Delivery System−

Bayou Dupont project, completed in May 2010 ..................................................................59

30. The Mississippi River Sediment Delivery System−Bayou Dupont

project area in 2013, looking west from the Plaquemines Parish flood

protection levee, 3 years postconstruction ...........................................................................60

31. Land-water classification of the Mississippi River Sediment Delivery

System−Bayou Dupont project area......................................................................................61

32. Annual mean cover for each species of vegetation surveyed at Mississippi

River Sediment Delivery System−Bayou Dupont project stations...................................62

Tables

1. Threatened, endangered, and rare species of the Louisiana coastal zone..........................16

2. Louisiana waterfowl, other migratory and resident birds, mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians benefited by CWPPRA projects......................................................................20

3. Commercially and recreationally important fisheries species benefited

by CWPPRA projects.............................................................................................................20

4. CWPPRA projects authorized from 2013 to 2015 for Phase 1—Engineering

and Design ..............................................................................................................................29

5. CWPPRA projects authorized from 2013 to 2015 for Phase 2—Construction....................30

6. Selected CWPPRA projects highlighted in this report ..........................................................36
Pontchartrain

Basin

Barataria 

Basin

Terrebonne Basin

Mermentau

Basin

Teche/Vermilion

Basin

Calcasieu/Sabine

Basin

Atchafalaya Delta

Basin

New Orleans

Baton Rouge

Lake Charles

Slidell

Lafayette

Morgan City

0 25 50 100 K

± 0 25 50 

Louisiana

Port Fourchon

1932–2010 land gain

1932–2010 land loss

Basin boundary

Image Source: 1983-2009 Landsat Thematic Mapper

Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana (1932 to 2010)

Map adapted fromCouvillion, B.R., Barras, J.A., Steyer, G.D., Sleavin, William, Fischer, Michelle, Beck, Holly, Trahan,

Nadine, Griffin, Brad, and Heckman, David, 2011, Land area change in coastal Louisiana from 1932 to

2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3164, scale 1:265,000, 12 p. pamphlet.

See pamphlet for more information.
xecutive E

 Summary:

vii

Louisiana wetlands host a diverse and vibrant ecosystem that serves as a vital 

environmental, economic, and cultural asset for the United States. Wetlands act as a buffer 

against hurricanes and storms. They also store excess floodwater during high rainfall. Wetlands 

replenish aquifers, and they purify water by filtering out pollutants and absorbing nutrients.

Approximately 37 percent of all coastal marshes of the lower 48 States are located in 

Louisiana (Couvillion and others, 2011; NOAA, 2006). Unfortunately, this fragile environment 

is disappearing at an alarming rate. Between 1996 and 2010, Louisiana underwent more coastal 

wetland loss than all other States in the lower 48 combined (NOAA, 2010). A USGS report 

(Couvillion and others, 2011) estimates the 1984 to 2010 Louisiana coastal average land loss 

rate at approximately 16.6 square miles per year. Louisiana’s average coastal land loss rate 

equates to the disappearance of an area equivalent to a 

football field every hour. Louisiana has already lost more 

than 1,883 square miles (1.2 million acres) of land over 

the last 80 years, an area equal to the size of the State of 

Delaware. Modeled projections show that, without increased 

restoration efforts, an additional 811 square miles (519,000 

acres) to 1,739 square miles (1.1 million acres) may be at 

risk of loss by the year 2060 (Couvillion and others, 2013). 

Wetlands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife. 

Louisiana coastal wetlands are the breeding grounds and 

nurseries for thousands of species of aquatic and terrestrial 

life, as well as many species of birds including our Nation’s 

symbol, the bald eagle. It is estimated that more than five 

million waterfowl migrate to coastal Louisiana each year. 

Because of the abundant wildlife and wetlands to hunt and 

fish, Louisiana is referred to as the “Sportsman’s Paradise.” 

Today many of these wetlands are being lost. 

Congress recognized the ongoing severe coastal 

wetland losses in Louisiana and the increasing impacts on 

locally, regionally, and nationally important resources when 

it established the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection 

and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in 1990 (Public Law 

101–646, Title III). Since its inception, CWPPRA has 

constructed, or funded for construction, projects to protect 

and restore more than 88,000 net acres (138 square miles) 

Louisiana Coastal Wetland Loss Facts

• LA lost more coastal wetlands than all other

lower 48 States combined

• 	LA loses 1 football field of land per hour

• 	LA lost more than 1,883 square miles (1.2 million

acres)—equal to size of Delaware

• 	LA may lose 0.5 to 1.1 million acres in next 50 years

The 2015 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness

of Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Projects
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1

LOUISIANA LOSES

ONE FOOTBALL FIELD

OF LAND PER HOUR

wetland loss from 1932-2010

viii

of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands in its first 25 years (1990 to 2015). The purpose of this report is 

to fulfill the requirement by Congress for the Task Force to provide a scientific evaluation every 

3 years on the effectiveness of the projects (Section 303 (b) (7) of CWPPRA). These restored 

wetlands and associated open-water habitats provide foraging, escape cover, nesting, breeding, 

and nursery habitat for a myriad of 

coastal fish and wildlife, including 

threatened and endangered, at-risk, and 

rare species, as well as commercially 

and recreationally valuable species. 

Additionally, a variety of freshwater 

and estuarine-dependent fish and 

shellfish are residents of Louisiana’s 

coastal wetlands.

Our national economy also 

benefits from Louisiana’s coastal 

wetlands. Economic activity in 

Louisiana’s coastal zone includes 

oil and gas production, shipping 

commerce, commercial fisheries, 

oyster production, and fur harvesting. 

This activity accounts for more than 

450,000 jobs and billions of dollars 

in revenues (CPRA, 2011; Batker and 

others, 2012). Additionally, wetlands 

are wonderful recreational resources 

and are part of Louisiana’s growing 

ecotourism business. 

CWPPRA has been essential to advancing the cause of coastal restoration in Louisiana. 

Nevertheless, it has long been recognized that no single restoration program alone is sufficient to 

address Louisiana’s coastal crisis. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 established the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) 

program to address some restoration needs that were not included within the scope of CWPPRA. 

Currently, the LCA consists of 15 near-term projects, 3 programs, and 1 long-term study. The 2012 

Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast (Master Plan [CPRA, 2012]) also 

addresses restoration and protection needs beyond the authorization of CWPPRA.
ix

In the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill, a number of complementary 

efforts have begun to restore Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. In July 2012, the Resources and 

Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States 

Act (RESTORE Act) established the 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

Council. The enactment of the 

RESTORE Act established a structure 

and funding mechanism to complement 

CWPPRA and further enhance 

coastal restoration in Louisiana and 

the other Gulf Coast States. With 25 

years of on-the-ground experience, 

CWPPRA is well poised to continue 

its role as a highly collaborative and 

expeditious program for implementing 

targeted coastal restoration projects. 

Additionally, CWPPRA has the 

experience necessary for success with 

broader and more ambitious restoration 

efforts. The CWPPRA project 

development and selection process 

generates more construction-ready 

projects than the program can afford to 

build. These “shovel-ready” projects 

are available to other programs for 

expedited implementation. Some 

CWPPRA projects (e.g., Chenier 

Ronquille Barrier Island Restoration, Scofield Island Restoration, and Lake Hermitage Marsh 

Creation) have already been targeted for implementation or expansion with DWH-related funds. 

Although Congress in 2004 reauthorized CWPPRA through 2019, the CWPPRA program is 

expected to reach its capacity for funding new projects before then. 

If fully funded, CWPPRA could complement the aforementioned programs by quickly 

developing and implementing projects in high-priority areas while more comprehensive and 

complex coastal restoration measures are being developed. Thus, CWPPRA helps “hold the 

line” in critical parts of the landscape pending implementation of more systemic and large1,883 square miles of land lost—

approximately the size of Delaware
x

scale solutions. CWPPRA serves as a 

model for interagency collaboration and 

decision making. The interagency decision 

making and public involvement processes 

established by CWPPRA could be utilized 

by other restoration programs. Moreover, the 

CWPPRA program could serve as a vehicle 

for advancing the Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council strategy and (or) for 

administering restoration funds from other 

sources. 

CWPPRA has been and will continue 

to be the primary source of practical 

experience, learning, and agency expertise 

regarding coastal restoration in Louisiana. 

The monitoring data collected through the 

CWPPRA program since the 1990s are 

used to select, prioritize, and design nearly 

all coastal restoration. Since 2007, the 

Coastwide Reference Monitoring System 

(CRMS), funded by CWPPRA and the State 

of Louisiana, has been used to evaluate 

project effectiveness and has provided 

critical baseline ecological data to inform 

coastal restoration and disaster response. 

CWPPRA monitoring programs provide 

vital information to evaluate not only the 

CWPPRA program but also other restoration 

programs. 

In addition to its ecosystem benefits, 

CWPPRA has provided hands-on experience 

with the practical challenges of bringing 

restoration projects from concept to reality. 

CWPPRA has been a “training academy” 

CWPPRA’s Programmatic Benefits

• Proven Track Record of Project 

Construction–Over 25 years, 200 approved 

projects benefiting more than 1,344 square miles 

(860,000 acres); 101 constructed (20 under 

construction).

• Responsive–CWPPRA projects are constructed 

in 3 to 5 years.

• Interagency Approach–Cost-effective projects 

developed by an experienced interagency team 

(5 Federal, 2 State agencies).

• Community Involvement–Local governments 

and citizens contribute to project nomination

and development.

• Predictable Funding–Federal Sport Fish & 

Boating Safety Trust Fund funding to 2015 

through fishing equipment taxes and small 

engine fuel taxes.

• Fiscally Responsible–CWPPRA projects are 

cost effective.

• Science Based–CWPPRA’s monitoring program 

(Coastwide Referencing Monitoring System 

- CRMS). Demonstration projects “field-test” 

restoration techniques for future restoration 

project success. 

• Complementary–CWPPRA projects 

complement other large-scale restoration efforts 

(i.e., Coastal Impact Assistance Program, 

State Master Plan, BP DWH Oil Spill Early 

Restoration and the RESTORE Act).
xi

from which Federal and State personnel have gained invaluable experience in administering 

a coastal restoration program and implementing a range of different types of projects. Much 

of the expertise needed to effectively implement other Gulf Coast restoration efforts comes 

directly or indirectly from CWPPRA. Thus, whether in its current form or in an expanded role, 

CWPPRA can be a cornerstone for the effort to restore sustainability to coastal Louisiana; 

however, without reauthorization by Congress, this will not be possible. 

The CWPPRA Task Force authorized 12 new projects between 2013 and 2015 (Priority 

Project Lists [PPLs] 22–24) for Phase 1—Engineering and Design. If constructed, those 

projects would result in a benefit of approximately 3,813 net acres of wetlands. During the 

same period, the Task Force also authorized Phase 2—Construction of five projects that are 

expected to result in an estimated net benefit of approximately 2,309 acres of wetlands. These 

approved construction projects are all marsh creation projects, including one with hydrologic 

restoration features. 

The Louisiana coast is separated into four ecologic regions that cover nine hydrologic 

basins. Projects that were authorized to begin Phase 1—Engineering and Design during this 

reporting period (2013–2015) are highlighted on the following page. From 2013 to 2015, 

the Task Force authorized two projects in Region 1, four in Region 2, three in Region 3, and 

three in Region 4. A map illustrating Louisiana’s coastal regions with CWPPRA projects from 

1990 to 2015 (PPL 1–24) can be found at http://lacoast.gov/maps/allregions_ppl1-24_2015-

03_lowres_web.pdf.

Although projects are authorized and constructed individually, the ones that work 

synergistically are often given greater consideration for selection. For example, CWPPRA 

barrier island restoration projects are collectively rebuilding Louisiana’s first line of defense 

that can extend ecosystem benefits beyond the sum of their individual projects. This type 

of synergy is also seen within the Barataria Basin, where constructed projects are working 

together to restore the structural integrity of the Barataria Basin Landbridge, a critical platform 

that is undergoing high land loss rates. These projects are demonstrating how small- to midscale projects are working collectively to generate large-scale results.

After the historic Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, other restoration programs were 

developed. Although coastal land loss and hurricane threats continue, some future restoration 

will be provided by DWH funding. Contingent upon continued authorization and appropriation, 

the CWPPRA Task Force will continue to fulfill its role by implementing a science- and 

engineering-based program that extensively engages the public and serves as the Nation’s 

model for effective and efficient coastal restoration. 
xii

PROJECTS APPROVED FOR

PHASE I ENGINEERING AND

DESIGN 2013–15

Region 1 (Pontchartrain Basin)

• New Orleans Landbridge Shoreline Stabilization

and Marsh Creation

• Shell Beach South Marsh Creation

Total benefit - 511 net acres

Region 2 (Breton, Barataria, and Mississippi

River Delta Basins)

• Bayou Dupont Sediment Delivery Marsh Creation

• Terracing and Marsh Creation South of Big Mar

• Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation 

• Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration

Total benefit - 1,131 net acres

Region 3 (Atchafalaya, Terrebonne, and

Teche/Vermilion Basins) 

• North Catfish Lake Marsh Creation

• Island Road Marsh Creation and Nourishment

• West Fourchon Marsh Creation and Nourishment

Total benefit - 1,017 net acres

Region 4 (Calcasieu/Sabine and Mermentau Basins) 

• Cameron Meadows Marsh Creation and Terracing 

• South Grand Chenier Marsh Creation – Baker Tract

• No Name Bayou Marsh Creation and Nourishment

Total benefit - 1,154 net acres
xiii

1. CWPPRA will continue to design and construct coastal restoration projects 

in coordination with other Louisiana coastal restoration programs guided by 

public input. 

2. CWPPRA will continue to be an “incubator” of projects for other programs to 

construct, if CWPPRA lacks construction funding.

3. The CWPPRA Task Force stands ready to increase its coastal restoration 

effort to reestablishing a sustainable coastal Louisiana ecosystem with 

additional funding. 

4. CWPPRA will continue designing and constructing demonstration restoration 

projects to test innovative ideas and construction techniques to be used in 

larger projects. 

5. CWPPRA will continue to provide the appropriate level of project monitoring. 

The CRMS and project-specific monitoring programs increase the body of 

scientific data to evaluate the effectiveness of constructed projects and inform 

how we plan and design future restoration projects.
Habitats Restored by CWPPRA Have

Helped Endangered Species Recover

Bald eagle removed from

endangered species list

August 2007

Brown pelican removed from

endangered species list

November 2009

Louisiana black bear

proposed for delisting

May 2015

Wetlands Provide Activities for People

Louisiana is home to 20 State parks

and 24 national wildlife refuges.

There are 400 species of birds

that visit Louisiana each year 

that provide birding and hunting 

activities for people.

3,000 miles of shoreline provide 

fishing opportunities.

Waterways near the Louisiana coast 

accommodate boating, swamp 

tours, and other water activities.

xiv
Introduction

The traditional image of Louisiana’s wetlands 

depicts a grassy expanse of vegetation with 

shrimp boats and sea birds dotting the horizon. 

Louisiana’s coastal zone contains approximately 

37 percent of all coastal marshes and 45 percent 

of all intertidal coastal marshes in the lower 48 

States, but annually Louisiana is losing 80 percent 

of the entire Nation’s coastal wetlands. Since the 

1930s, coastal Louisiana has lost more than 1,883 

square miles (1.2 million acres), an area more than 

25 times larger than Washington, D.C. Couvillion 

and others (2011) estimated the average annual 

Louisiana coastal land loss rate from 1985 to 2010 

to be approximately 16.6 square miles. Louisiana’s 

coastal wetlands are rapidly converting to open 

water. 

Congress recognized the ongoing severe 

coastal wetland losses in Louisiana and the 

increasing impacts on locally, regionally, and 

nationally important resources when it established 

the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and 

Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in 1990 (Public Law 

101–646, Title III). Since its inception, CWPPRA 

has protected and restored almost 90,000 acres (138 

square miles) of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands in its 

first 25 years (1990 to 2015).

Over the last three decades, it has been clearly 

established that there is an imminent need to 

restore and protect Louisiana’s coastal wetlands 

in order to sustain the ecological and economic 

health of the Louisiana coastal zone. Louisiana’s 

wetlands provide a variety of benefits that serve 

the Nation across an array of economic sectors. 

Because of these benefits, the coastal wetland 

loss crisis in Louisiana is considered a matter of 

national concern. 

The Gulf of Mexico is a natural resource 

of vital importance that provides immeasurable 

benefits and services to citizens throughout the 

United States. The Gulf Coast has been and 

continues to be subject to a number of ongoing 

environmental challenges that have attracted 

significant attention from State and Federal natural 

resource managers and conservation interests 

(Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, 

2010). These challenges were further compounded 

in 2010 by the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil 

spill, which released more than 4.9 million barrels 

(270 million gallons) of oil into the gulf, affecting 

thousands of miles of shoreline, bayous, and bays 

(NOAA, 2015; Achenbach and Fahrenthold, 2010). 

Coastal Louisiana received the majority of the 

ecological impacts from that spill. Efforts to assess 

natural resource injuries resulting from the spill 

are ongoing and will continue until the full extent 

of damages is determined, restoration plans are 

designed and implemented, and the environment 

and public are made whole for injuries to natural 

resources and services resulting from the DWH 

oil spill. Even when the impacts of the oil spill 

are addressed, the work to save these vital coastal 

wetlands will not end. Ongoing issues include the 

following:
2

• The loss of coastal wetlands, barrier islands, 

and other habitats of the Mississippi River 

Delta and Chenier Plain—This loss is due 

to a combination of both naturally occurring 

and human-induced factors including 

storms (annual and tropical), subsidence 

(land sinking), construction of navigation 

and oil and gas channels, and leveeing of 

the Mississippi River for flood protection. 

Climate change (particularly sea-level 

rise) threatens to accelerate the loss of 

these habitats. 

• Erosion of barrier islands and barrier 

shorelines—The continued erosion of the 

coastal barrier island and barrier shoreline 

system undermines storm protection for 

coastal communities, threatens the beaches 

that support the local tourism economy, and 

affects numerous threatened, endangered, and 

rare species that rely on these barrier islands 

for habitat.

• Loss and degradation of estuarine habitat—

Estuaries of Louisiana’s coast (such as Breton 

Sound, Barataria Bay, and many others) 

provide nursery habitat for most of the fishery 

resources and support a nationally important 

oyster industry. These estuaries are impacted 

by a variety of stressors, including pollution, 

coastal development, energy development, 

erosion, water flow (hydrologic) alteration, 

and reductions in freshwater inflow.

• Imperiled fisheries—Several major 

commercially and recreationally important 

fish species are currently experiencing 

overfishing pressures or have been 

overfished. Additionally, contaminants such 

as methyl-mercury in fish, red tide organisms, 

and human pathogens in shellfish reduce 

fishery values and endanger human health. 

• Hypoxia (low oxygen) in the Gulf of 

Mexico—Hypoxia occurs when the dissolved 

oxygen concentration in the water column 

decreases to a level that results in the death of 

fish and shellfish and (or) in their migration 

away from the hypoxic zone. The northern 

Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Mississippi 

River is the site of the largest hypoxic zone 

in the United States (8.5 million acres) and 

the second largest hypoxic zone worldwide. 

This Gulf of Mexico “Dead Zone” is caused 

by input of excess nutrient pollution to the 

gulf from the Mississippi River. Freshwater 

and sediment diversions from the Mississippi 

and Atchafalaya Rivers may help reduce 

the hypoxic zone off Louisiana’s coast by 

channeling nutrient-rich waters into coastal 

wetlands, where the nutrients will be used by 

marsh and aquatic vegetation.

• Climate change—Our changing climate is 

already altering the physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics of our oceans, coasts, 

and adjacent watersheds. Increasing air and 

water temperatures, changing precipitation 

patterns, rising sea level, and ocean 

acidification will increasingly complicate 

efforts to restore or sustain the Louisiana 

coastal ecosystem. Plausible sea-level rise 

may be between 0.78 and 4.2 feet (0.24 to 1.28 

meters) in the next 100 years (CPRA, 2012). 

• Vulnerability of communities—Loss of coastal 

habitats may also increase the vulnerability 

of communities that lie farther inland from 

flooding caused by storm surges and heavy 

rain. Barrier islands and coastal wetlands have 

the potential to reduce storm surge, but this 

reduction is dependent on landscape and storm 

characteristics (Suhayda, 1977; Wamsley 

and others, 2009). Without these coastal 

habitats, coastal communities are increasingly 

vulnerable to storms. This vulnerability will 

likely intensify in coming years, as storm 

events are predicted to become more frequent 

and intense.

As part of CWPPRA, Congress established and 

directed the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation 

and Restoration Task Force (Task Force) to prepare, 

annually update, and implement a list of coastal 

wetland restoration projects in Louisiana to provide 

for the long-term conservation of wetlands and 

dependent fish and wildlife populations. In addition, 

Congress directed the Task Force to provide a 

scientific evaluation every 3 years on the effectiveness 

of the projects as required by Section 303 (b) (7) 

of CWPPRA. The purpose of this report is to meet 

this requirement. The following sections summarize 

projects selected for implementation since 2013 

and demonstrate the effectiveness and the relevancy 

of CWPPRA to address land loss in Louisiana’s 

coastal wetlands.
3

What Is Hypoxia?

Hypoxia is the lack of oxygen in the water column.

In the Gulf of Mexico’s Texas-Louisiana Shelf, hypoxia 

is defined as seasonally low oxygen levels (less than 

2 milligrams/liter). 

• What Causes Hypoxia?

Hypoxic zone results from excessive nutrients, 

primarily nitrogen, carried to the gulf by the 

Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers.

• How Large Is the Hypoxic Zone?

Hypoxic zone covers a 5-year running average

of 5,454 square miles in the northern gulf. 

• How Does Hypoxia Affect Fish and Wildlife? 

Due to an overabundance of nutrients, excessive algal 

growth (eutrophication) can result. Excessive demand 

for oxygen results in a decrease of dissolved oxygen in 

the bottom water and a corresponding loss of aquatic 

habitat in the water column and benthic layer. Mobile 

organisms leave the hypoxic zone; those that cannot 

leave die or are weakened. 
Wetlands Help Improve Water Quality

An acre of wetlands can store

1 to 1.5 million gallonsof floodwater.

Wetlands improve water quality

by trapping suspended solids and 

filtering other pollutants.

Wetlands can retain, remove, and transform nutrients

that might otherwise contribute to declining water quality.

Clean water is important 

for healthy fish, wildlife, 

and humans.

Coastal Wetlands and Nutrients

fertilizer runoff from 

agricultural fields

inflow from 

rivers or bayous

Coastal marshes filter excess nitrogen and phosphorus, thus helping to prevent algae 

blooms and maintaining oxygen in the water for fish and shellfish.

urban runoff air emissions from 

industrial plants

4
CWPPRA Overview

CWPPRA was initially authorized by Congress 

in 1990. Three additional authorizations have 

extended the program until the year 2019. This act 

provides approximately 70 to 90 million in Federal 

dollars per year to restore coastal wetlands. Fiscal 

year 2015 funding decreased 7.3 percent because of 

sequestration. The fiscal year 2015 funding amount 

was $78.6 million. Total Federal funding since 1990 

has been $1.6 billion.

The Sport Fish Restoration and Boating 

Safety Trust Fund (Trust Fund) is CWPPRA’s 

funding source supported by excise taxes on fishing 

equipment and small engine and motorboat fuel 

taxes. Funding for Louisiana CWPPRA projects 

is cost shared: a split of 85 percent Federal and 

15 percent State of Louisiana. Congress is currently 

considering Trust Fund reauthorization. The Trust 

Fund contributes 18.5 percent of its annual revenues 

to CWPPRA appropriations; that amount is divided 

as follows:

• 70 percent Louisiana CWPPRA program

• 15 percent Coastal Wetlands

Conservation Grants 

• 15 percent North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (to coastal States only) 

Five Federal agencies work with the State 

of Louisiana in planning and implementing 

CWPPRA restoration projects. The Federal 

agencies are Department of the Army—Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of the 

Interior—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), Department of 

Commerce—National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration—National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA-NMFS), and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA)—Region 6. 

CWPPRA annually identifies and selects 

projects for engineering and design through 

the Priority Project List (PPL) process. Project 

concepts are developed by Federal, State, and local 

government representatives and public stakeholders. 

All proposed projects have a designated Federal 

and local sponsor (Louisiana Coastal Protection 

and Restoration Authority [CPRA]). After initial 

planning meetings, the five Federal agencies, the 

State, and local parishes select the top 22 projects 

for preliminary evaluation; the CWPPRA Technical 

Committee (the committee that advises the Task 

Force) then selects 10 projects for more detailed 

evaluation. After this review, the Task Force 

typically approves four projects for detailed Phase 

1—Engineering and Design.

Upon completion of Phase 1—Engineering 

and Design, projects are selected for Phase 2—

Construction funding by the Task Force; the 

number of projects recommended to be funded for 

Phase 2—Construction is based upon the annual 

availability of construction funds. 

CWPPRA as a Project Incubator for 

Other Restoration Programs 

To capitalize on alternative funding streams, 

some projects conceptualized and designed by the 

CWPPRA program may be transferred to other 

restoration programs if CWPPRA lacks sufficient 

funding for construction. Examples of projects 

designed by CWPPRA that have been transferred to 

other programs include the Grand Lake Shoreline 

Protection (ME-21) project (transferred to the 

Coastal Impact Assistance Program [CIAP]) and the 

Chenier Ronquille Barrier Island Restoration (BA76) project (transferred to Phase III of the DWH 

Early Restoration Plan).

5
6

Grand Lake Shoreline Protection (ME-21) Project

CWPPRA designed the Grand Lake Shoreline 

Protection (ME-21) project (fig. 1), but funds were 

not immediately available for construction. The 

project consists of a 38,700-linear-foot segmented 

rock breakwater along the southern Grand Lake 

shoreline and a 5,700-foot breakwater at Tebo Point, 

La. CWPPRA transferred the 38,700-foot rock dike 

segment feature to the State, which constructed 

that portion with CIAP program funds. CWPPRA 

will construct the remaining 5,700-foot rock dike at 

Tebo Point and maintain the entire project. Dredged 

material from access canal dredging was placed 

between the rock and shoreline restoring marsh. 

Shoreline loss (11 to 32 feet per year) would be 

prevented, and marsh would be restored to benefit 

495 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh.
7

Figure 1. Grand Lake Shoreline Protection (ME-21) project features.
8

CWPPRA transferred the fully designed 

Chenier Ronquille Barrier Island Restoration 

(BA-76) project (fig. 2) to Phase III of the DWH 

Early Restoration Plan in 2015 as a “shovel-ready” 

project ideally situated to address injuries caused 

Chenier Ronquille Barrier Island Restoration (BA-76) Project

by the DWH spill. This project could restore and 

revegetate approximately 127 acres of beach/dune 

fill and approximately 259 acres of marsh creation/

nourishment (total 386 acres). 
9

Figure 2. Chenier Ronquille Barrier Island Restoration (BA-76) project features.
10

Projects constructed under CWPPRA may 

be expanded through the use of CWPPRA or 

other funding sources. These efforts result in 

expanded benefits and reduced costs to all parties 

by utilizing already in-place project infrastructure. 

Examples of expanded CWPPRA projects include 

Lake Hermitage Marsh Creation (BA-42) project 

(expanded by Phase I of the DWH Early Restoration 

Plan and by surplus project funds). The Bayou 

Dupont Marsh and Ridge Creation (BA-48) project 

is being constructed in partnership with Louisiana’s 

Long Distance Sediment Pipeline Project.

In general, projects are authorized and 

constructed individually, but they often work 

synergistically with one another. For example, the 

barrier island projects are collectively rebuilding 

Louisiana’s first line of defense that can extend 

ecosystem benefits beyond the sum of their 

individual projects. This type of synergy is also 

seen within the Barataria Basin, where constructed 

projects work together to restore the structural 

integrity of the critical Barataria Basin Landbridge 

landform (which is undergoing high land loss), as 

WPPRA Project Expansions Cand Partnerships

well as protect strategic marshes south of New Orleans 

(fig. 3). These projects are demonstrating how small- to 

mid-scale projects are working collectively to generate 

large-scale results.

How CWPPRA Fits Into the Current Coastal 

Louisiana Restoration Landscape

Louisiana’s coastal restoration landscape is 

very different from that in 2006. After the historic 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, other restoration 

programs such as the CIAP, Louisiana Coastal 

Area (LCA), and Louisiana Coastal Protection and 

Restoration (LaCPR) programs were being developed 

and implemented (fig. 4). These programs have either 

ended, had programmatic challenges that prevented 

them from being fully developed, or lacked sufficient 

funding to continue significant restoration efforts; 

nevertheless, CWPPRA has remained a consistent and 

indispensable source of restoration funding.

DWH coastal restoration funding programs 

include DWH Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

(NRDA), National 

Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation (NFWF) 

Gulf Environmental 

Benefit Fund, and the 

Resources and Ecosystems 

Sustainability, Tourist 

Opportunities, and 

Revived Economies of 

the Gulf Coast States Act 

(RESTORE Act). 

Other current 

non-CWPPRA coastal 

restoration programs in 

Louisiana include the 

Gulf of Mexico Energy 

Security Act (GOMESA) 

of 2006, the CIAP, and 

State-only restoration. 

The comprehensive 

LaCPR program was 

In engineering & design

Constructed

Figure 3. Barataria Basin Landbridge projects work synergistically to restore 

a larger area.
11

superseded by the joint Federal-State LCA program. 

Currently, the LCA consists of 15 near-term projects, 

3 programs, and 1 long-term study. Since other 

Louisiana coastal restoration programs exist, the Task 

Force approved the following CWPPRA roles in 

working with those programs for the protection and 

restoration of Louisiana’s coast:

1. As the only joint Federal-State restoration 

program with a regular recurring funding 

stream, CWPPRA will continue to design 

and construct coastal restoration projects in 

coordination with other Louisiana coastal 

restoration programs. CWPPRA will examine 

the near-term plans of other programs and 

channel projects to areas of need, consistent 

with the current State Master Plan (CPRA, 

2012).

2. CWPPRA will continue to be an “incubator” 

of projects to be transferred to other coastal 

restoration programs for construction. Some 

CWPPRA projects have been transferred to 

other programs, and some of the 22 projects 

currently in Phase 1—Engineering and 

Design are candidates for future transfer if not 

constructed by CWPPRA.

3. The Task Force stands ready and has a vision to 

increase its coastal restoration contribution to 

reestablishing a sustainable coastal Louisiana 

ecosystem with increased funding resources. 

CWPPRA has 25 years of restoration experience 

in designing and constructing more than 100 

coastal restoration projects approved by a 

multiagency Task Force. 

4. CWPPRA will continue to evaluate innovative 

technologies and techniques and test their 

applicability in coastal Louisiana by designing 

and constructing demonstration restoration 

projects. 

5. CWPPRA will continue to provide the appropriate 

level of project monitoring. The Coastwide 

Reference Monitoring System (CRMS) and 

project-specific monitoring programs increase 

the body of scientific data, allow us to evaluate 

constructed projects, and inform how we plan and 

design future restoration projects.
12

Selected Restoration Projects in Louisiana

Lou

The Louisiana Coastal Area Program (LCA)

The State of Louisiana Wetland Conservation and Restoration Program (Solely State Funded)

Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill Project

The Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP)The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)Berm to Barrier projects

The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)

Figure 4. Louisiana coastal restoration program projects.
13

Current CWPPRA Program 

Developments

Louisiana State 2012 Coastal Protection 

and Restoration Master Plan

The 2012 Louisiana Comprehensive Master 

Plan for a Sustainable Coast (Master Plan [CPRA, 

2012]) was unanimously approved by the State 

Legislature on May 22, 2012. The Master Plan 

charts Louisiana’s coastal restoration and protection 

course for the next 50 years. The Master Plan 

includes many large Mississippi River sediment 

diversions (up to 250,000 cubic feet per second) 

and large marsh creation projects (over 20,000 

acres each). The Master Plan was developed 

in coordination with a Master Plan Framework 

Development Team (FDT) that consisted of 

Federal, State, and local agencies, stakeholders, 

and nongovernmental organization (NGO) 

representatives. The Task Force, at its June 5, 

2012, meeting, modified the PPL process by 

requiring that future CWPPRA projects nominated 

be consistent with the Master Plan. The State and 

FDT are currently developing the 2017 Louisiana 

Comprehensive Master Plan, which will be 

completed in spring 2017.

CWPPRA Projects Reaching Their 

20-Year Lives

Current CWPPRA standard operating 

procedures provide for a 20-year life for all projects, 

after which time the project would be closed and 

all funding would end. This was decided because 

it was recognized that the amount of funding 

received would not allow the program to maintain 

projects indefinitely. Two of the 101 constructed 

projects will reach their 20-year lives in 2015, 

one in 2016, and six in 2017. The Task Force is 

currently reviewing projects nearing their 20-year 

lives to provide recommendations for closeout or 

continuance. The four possible future path scenarios 

established by the Task Force for projects reaching 

their 20-year lives are (1) close out, (2) close out 

and remove features, (3) transfer the project to 

another entity, or (4) extend the project life with or 

without operations and maintenance.

Sport Fish Restoration and Boating 

Safety Trust Fund

The Louisiana CWPPRA program currently 

receives approximately 13 percent (70 percent 

of 18.5 percent) of annual revenues from the 

Trust Fund, currently $78.6 million (fiscal year 

2015). The remaining 30 percent of CWPPRA 

appropriations is divided evenly between the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Coastal Wetlands Conservation 

Grant Program and the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NAWCA). The Trust Fund was 

part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) that was enacted August 10, 2005, 

which authorized Federal surface transportation 

and other programs for the 5-year period of 2005 to 

2009 that has been continued by Congress to 2015.

CWPPRA Reauthorization

CWPPRA is currently authorized until 

2019. It was reauthorized in 2004 from 2009 to 

2019 through amendment to the Dingell-Johnson 

Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c(a)). 

Reauthorization will be necessary to continue the 

program beyond 2019.

RESTORE Act 

In July 2012, in response to the DWH oil spill 

and other environmental challenges in the Gulf 

Coast region, Congress passed the RESTORE Act, 

which (1) establishes the Gulf Coast Restoration 

Trust Fund (Gulf Coast Trust Fund), (2) outlines 

a Gulf Coast Trust Fund use structure, and (3) 

establishes the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

Council (Council). Figure 5 depicts the Gulf Coast 

Trust Fund’s funding allocations (Gulf Coast 

Ecosystem Restoration Council, 2014). 
14

80% Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund

Clean Water Act Penalties 20% Oil Spill

Liability Trust Fund

35% Equally

distributed to

5 Gulf States

(AL, FL, LA,

MS, TX)

30%* Gulf

Coast

Ecosystem

Restoration

Council for

ecosystem

restoration

30% Impact

based

distribution to

5 Gulf States

(AL, FL, LA,

MS, TX)

2.5%*

Centers of

Excellence

2.5%* Gulf Coast

Ecosystem

Restoration Science,

Observation,

Monitoring, and

Technology Program

*Supplemented by interest generated by the Trust Fund (50% to Gulf Coast Ecosystem

Restoration Council, 25% to Science Program, 25% to Centers of Excellence)

Allocation of Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund

Figure 5. Allocation of Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund. (Source: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/

files/About%20the%20Council%20Fact%20Sheet%20Oct%202014_1.pdf.)
15

CWPPRA has protected and restored 

approximately 88,400 acres of Louisiana’s 

vanishing coastal wetlands in its first 25 years. 

Those restored swamps, marshes, and barrier 

islands/headlands and associated open-water 

habitats provide foraging, nesting, breeding, 

wintering, escape cover, and nursery habitat for 

a myriad of coastal fish and wildlife, including 

threatened and endangered, at-risk, and rare species, 

as well as commercially and recreationally valuable 

species and State and national fish and wildlife 

trust resources. 

Louisiana’s coastal wetlands provide habitat 

for hundreds of species of birds, mammals, and 

reptiles and a variety of freshwater and estuarinedependent fish and shellfish. Habitats restored 

through CWPPRA have aided in the delisting of our 

national symbol, the bald eagle, and the Louisiana 

State bird, the brown pelican, from the endangered 

species list. These coastal 

wetlands contain some of the 

most biologically diverse wildlife 

habitats in the Nation. Located at 

the termini of the Mississippi and 

Central Flyways, south Louisiana 

provides annual wintering habitat 

for more than 5 million waterfowl 

and habitat for Neotropical 

migrant birds. Table 1 lists some 

of the threatened and endangered 

and at-risk/rare species found in 

the Louisiana’s coastal zone.

Louisiana’s protected and 

restored coastal wetlands also 

provide habitat that benefits 

dabbling and diving ducks, geese, 

other migratory and resident 

birds, and mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians (table 2). 

Most of the economically important saltwater 

fishes and crustaceans harvested in Louisiana 

spawn offshore, and then the larvae and juveniles 

forage in highly productive estuarine areas in or 

adjacent to restored marshes that provide nursery 

habitat by accessing the estuaries during incoming 

tides. Those estuarine-dependent smaller and 

juvenile fisheries species (e.g., red drum, spotted 

sea trout, and Atlantic croaker) contribute to the 

estuarine food web by serving as prey for predators 

and highly migratory species (e.g., billfishes and 

sharks) (table 3).

Louisiana’s coastal wetlands provide habitat 

for the commercial trapping of the American 

alligator and furbearers (e.g., muskrat, mink, and 

otter) and natural areas for tourist activities such as 

bird watching, boating, swimming, and hiking. 

CWPPRA Projects Benefit Fish

and Wildlife Habitat

• 25,900 acres - fresh marsh/swamp

• 21,700 acres - intermediate marsh

• 19,000 acres - brackish/saline marsh

• 6,200 acres - barrier islands/headlands 

• 15,700 acres - combined coastal habitats

WPPRA’s Benefits to CFish and Wildlife
16

Table 1. Threatened, endangered, and rare species of the Louisiana coastal zone.

Coastal habitat Threatened/endangered species Rare species

Barrier islands/barrier headlands piping plover, red knot, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, 

loggerhead sea turtle

*, **snowy plover, Wilson’s plover, reddish egret, and 

gull billed tern

*American oystercatcher, Caspian tern, sooty tern, and 

brown pelican

**black skimmer, long-billed curlew, Hudsonian 

godwit, western sandpiper, stilt sandpiper, buffbreasted sandpiper, and short-billed dowitcher

Brackish or saline marshes Louisiana eyed silkmoth (petitioned for listing) *diamondback terrapin 

**seaside sparrowsaltmarsh topminnow (NOAA/FWS species of concern)

Fresh-intermediate marshes - swamps *bald eagle

**wood stork, little blue heron, mottled duck

Coastal marshes black rail (petitioned for listing) *Peregrine falcon, sand hill crane, glossy ibis

**king rail

Coastal bays/rivers West Indian manatee osprey

Atlantic sturgeon (Lake Pontchartrain - Breton Sound) *American swallow-tailed kite

*Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (2015).**U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf Coast Joint Venture (2012). “The Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) is a bird habitat conservation partnership that spans the coastal portions 

of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The GCJV mission is to advance conservation of important bird habitats through biological planning, implementation of habitat conservation activities, and evaluating the planning and implementation process through monitoring and research” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012).
17

Saving Wetlands Helps Threatened and Endangere

Louisiana is home to

25 threatened orendangered species

18 species reside in coastal zone habitats

Louisiana’s coast is deterioratiaverage rate of 1 football f

One of the biggest threats to these animals is coastal land loss at10,600 acres per year

CWPPRA is rebuilding wetlands to protect these species. Beach and marsh habitat is created with dredged material. New plants in these wetlands take root and provide food and shelter for fish and wildlife.

Since 1990, 100,000 acres of wetla

protected, created, or restored

550,000 acres have been enhanc
18

Table 2. Louisiana waterfowl, other migratory and resident birds, and mammals, reptiles, and amphibians benefited by CWPPRA projec

Dabbling ducks Diving ducks Geese Other migratory and resident birds Mamma

and am

mallard, mottled duck, 

gadwall, American widgeon, pintail, northern shoveler, green-winged teal, and blue-winged teal

lesser scaup, ring-necked 

duck, and several merganser species

white-fronted geese, Canada 

geese, and snow geese

brown and white pelicans cormorants and anhingasHerons: great blue heron, 

little blue heron, bitterns, green-backed heron, yellow-crowned night heron, black-crowned night heron, great egret, snowy egret, glossy ibis, whitefaced ibis, and white ibis

Others: American coots, rails, 

gallinules, shorebirds, terns, boat-tailed grackle, red-winged blackbird, eastern kingbird, northern harrier, belted kingfisher, and songbirds

Mammals: L

bear, nutrimink, riveswamp rabwhite-taile

Reptiles: Am

western cored-eared snapping tshell turtle

Amphibians

bullfrog, pfrogs, and 

Table 3. Commercially and recreationally important fisheries species benefited by CWPPRA projects.

Freshwater fisheries Commercially important fisheries Recreationally important estua

largemouth bass, crappie, bluegill, gar, blue 

catfish, and shad

crawfish and river and grass shrimp

Gulf menhaden, striped mullet, catfishes, gars, and 

freshwater drum 

brown and white shrimp, blue crab, Gulf stone 

crab, and the American oyster

spotted sea trout, white trout, red d

drum, Atlantic croaker, spot, sousnappers, mackerel, groupers, an
19

Wetlands Provide Habitat for Important Fisher

Wetland habitats provide food and shelte

for important fisheries species such as 

menhaden, shrimp, crabs, and oyster

that spend part of their life cycle in marshes

The CWPPRA program has been restoring coastal habitats that benefit coastal fisheries since 1990.

Over 61 2013 me

was landcommernearly $

More blue cra

Louisiana (38 m

than in any oth

Louisiana leads the Nation

in shrimp landings with 96.5 

million pounds in 2013.

Louisiana is #2 in the Nation in 

oyster production, valued at $45 million in 2013.
20

The techniques used in various projects depend on the problems being addressed and other site-specific 

factors, including project area landscape, substrate, wave climate, habitat type, and proximity to sediment 

and freshwater resources, major waterways, and open water. Most projects employ one or more of the 

following restoration techniques:

ouisiana Coastal LRestoration Techniques

Coastal Restoration Techniques

Freshwater Reintroduction

River Diversion via Siphons

Discharge Pipe for Marsh Creation

Marsh Creation Using Dredged Material

Shoreline Protection

Sediment & Nutrient Trapping/Terracing

Hydrologic Restoration

Marsh Management

Barrier Island Restoration Ridge Restoration

Vegetative Planting

Diversions
21

Barrier Island Restoration

Barrier island restoration projects are 

designed to protect and restore the features unique 

to Louisiana’s barrier island chains. This type of 

project may incorporate a variety of restoration 

techniques, such as the placement of dredged 

material to increase island height and width, the 

placement of structures to protect the island from 

erosive forces, and the placement of sand-trapping 

fences, used in conjunction with vegetative 

plantings to build and stabilize sand dunes.
Dredged Material Creates New Wetlands

CWPPRA has authorized the 

creation and restoration of

47,440 acres of wetlands.

Corps of Engineers Beneficial Use

placement of dredged materials has 

created over 29,000 acres of wetlands

in coastal Louisiana from 1976 to 2014

including CWPPRA-funded projects.

5 CWPPRA projects have used 

Beneficial Use of Dredged 

Materials as their method of 

restoration.

22

Marsh Creation

Marsh creation uses dredged material from 

dedicated dredging (via hydraulic dredge) from 

bays, rivers, or the gulf to restore or nourish existing 

marsh. The dredged material slurry is placed in a 

deteriorated wetland at specific elevations so that 

desired marsh plants will colonize and grow to form 

new marsh. For projects that are long distances 

from available sediment sources, the dredging 

technique involves the use of booster pumps to 

transport sediment greater distances. The technique 

also includes “marsh nourishment,” in which 

dredged material is placed over existing deteriorated 

marsh. The technique referred to as “beneficial use 

of dredged material” uses maintenance-dredged 

material from navigation channels “beneficially” to 

restore wetlands.
23

Freshwater and Sediment Diversions

Freshwater diversions use water control 

structures, gates, or siphons to regulate the flow 

of water. Freshwater is channeled from a nearby 

river or water body into surrounding wetlands. 

This infusion of water and its associated sediment 

and nutrients helps slow saltwater intrusion, slows 

or reverses the loss of marsh, and promotes the 

growth of new marsh. For sediment diversions, 

a gap (called a “crevasse”) is cut into a river 

levee, allowing river water and sediment to flow 

into nearby wetlands to mimic the river’s natural 

wetland-building processes. Sediment diversions 

promote the creation of new marsh in shallow openwater areas.

Shoreline Protection

Shoreline protection projects involve various 

techniques designed to decrease or halt shoreline 

erosion. Some techniques, such as foreshore rock 

dikes or revetments, are applied adjacent to or 

directly on the eroding shoreline. Other techniques, 

such as segmented rock breakwaters and wavedamping fences, are placed in the adjacent open 

water in order to decrease wave energy before it 

hits the shoreline and to promote the buildup of 

sediment.

Hydrologic Restoration

Hydrologic restoration projects involve 

restoring natural drainage patterns in an attempt 

to address problems associated with artificially 

altered salinity or water levels. On a larger scale, 

this technique may involve locks or gates on major 

navigation channels; on a smaller scale, it may 

involve blocking canals, cutting gaps in spoil banks 

that were created by canal dredging, or installing 

water control structures to control water levels and 

salinities. Other hydrologic restoration techniques 

maximize the benefits of freshwater diversions 

to ensure that water and sediment reach needed 

areas. These techniques can involve regulating 

water levels and direction of water flow to increase 

the dispersion and retention time of freshwater, 

nutrients, and sediment in the marsh.
24
Native Plants Create Healthy Wetlands

Wetland vegetation reduces erosion primarily by 

damping and absorbing wave and current energy 

and by binding and stabilizing the soil with roots.

Coastal wetland plant species are indicators

of soil and hydrologic conditions.

The amount of salt water in an area influences which plants 

grow there. Scientists often classify Louisiana marshes into 

four types: fresh, intermediate, brackish, and saline. Plants are the base of the food chain

and can build new layers of material on top 

of wetlands that support sustainability.

Site-appropriate plants are established to 

reduce erosion, stabilize the soil, and 

accelerate wildlife habitat development.

25

Sediment and Nutrient Trapping

Sediment and nutrient trapping projects create 

new land and protect nearby marshes by means of 

structures that are designed to slow water flow and 

promote the buildup of sediment. For example, 

shallow bay terraces involve dredging sediment 

from a shallow bay and constructing low ridges in 

patterns with gaps in shallow open-water areas to 

slow water flow and help trap sediment to rebuild 

and protect marsh.

Vegetative Planting

Vegetative planting projects are used both 

alone and in conjunction with barrier island 

restoration, marsh creation, shoreline protection, 

and sediment and nutrient trapping restoration 

techniques. This technique involves the use of 

flood- and salt-tolerant native marsh plants that will 

hold sediments together and stabilize the soil with 

their roots as they become established in a new area.
26
On average, a CWPPRA project can go 

from concept to construction in 3 to 5 years. This 

ability is a result of the congressional authority 

delegated to the Task Force to both authorize 

and fund restoration projects without having to 

seek additional authorization, which would delay 

project construction for many years. As a result, the 

project selection process quickly selects projects 

that have the highest construction feasibility 

and public support, thereby streamlining project 

implementation. The interagency CWPPRA 

model enables multiple agencies to distribute 

the project load, leading to faster and more 

efficient construction.

Given CWPPRA’s limited funding, the project 

selection process also generates more constructionready projects than the program can afford to build. 

The Task Force adopted the Cash Flow funding 

program in 1998 that involves a two-step funding 

process: Phase 1—Engineering and Design and 

Phase 2—Construction. Projects must thus compete 

for funding twice. There are currently 22 projects 

in Phase 1—Engineering and Design. Although 

Congress, in 2004, reauthorized CWPPRA through 

2019, the program will reach its capacity to 

authorize new projects within the next few years 

without reauthorization. This lack of capacity is due 

to the current commitment of future funding needed 

to construct existing authorized projects and to fund 

operations, maintenance, and monitoring for most 

constructed projects. The backlog of constructionready CWPPRA projects has provided opportunities 

to transfer some projects to other funding authorities 

for rapid implementation. The synergy thus created 

between authorities stretches restoration dollars, 

reduces redundancy, and implements projects faster 

since CWPPRA has already designed, prioritized, 

and publicly vetted all of its projects. CWPPRA, 

therefore, becomes an “incubator” for some projects 

transferred to other programs.

Significant ecologic, economic, and political 

changes have occurred in south Louisiana since 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005) and Gustav and 

Ike (2008), the DWH oil spill (2010), and more 

recently Hurricane Isaac (2012). Despite those 

changes, CWPPRA has continued to stay the course 

and effectively serve as the largest coastal wetlands 

restoration program in the State’s history in terms 

of total projects constructed and environmental 

benefits accomplished. The present-day relevance 

of CWPPRA lies in its unique ability to construct 

near-term, small- to mid-scale projects that meet 

local immediate restoration needs and its ability to 

work seamlessly with other authorities to implement 

ecosystem-level restoration. Projects constructed 

through CWPPRA either complement projects being 

planned through other authorities or address land 

loss in critical areas that have no other resources 

for restoration.

WPPRA Project CSelection Process

27
In 1990, the U.S. Congress enacted 

CWPPRA in response to the growing awareness 

of Louisiana’s land loss crisis. CWPPRA was the 

first Federal, statutorily mandated program with 

a stable source of funds dedicated exclusively to 

the short- and long-term restoration of the coastal 

wetlands of Louisiana. Between 1990 and 2015, 

121 restoration projects have been constructed or 

are under construction in the CWPPRA program. 

Additionally, there are 22 projects currently 

undergoing engineering and design (Phase 1). 

These projects include diversions of freshwater and 

sediment to improve marsh vegetation; dredged 

material placement for marsh and ridge restoration; 

shoreline protection; sediment and nutrient trapping; 

hydrologic restoration through outfall, marsh, and 

delta management; and vegetative plantings.

The Task Force authorizes projects by using 

a systematic approach that starts with an annual 

planning cycle to select new projects. All projects 

undergo detailed engineering and design before they 

get final approval to proceed to construction and 

long-term operations, maintenance, and monitoring.

The Task Force authorized 12 new projects 

between 2013 (PPL 22) and 2015 (PPL 24) for 

Phase 1—Engineering and Design, which if 

constructed could result in an estimated net 

benefit of approximately 3,813 acres of wetlands 

(table 4). 

In this 2013–2015 period, the Task Force 

also authorized five projects for Phase 2—

Construction that are expected to result in an 

estimated net benefit of approximately 2,309 

acres of wetlands (table 5). These five authorized 

construction projects are all marsh creation 

projects, one with a hydrologic restoration 

feature. 

During project planning, projects are 

placed in one of the four ecologic regions or 

in a coastwide category if the project affects 

multiple ecoregions. These ecoregions are 

Region 1 (Pontchartrain Basin), Region 2 (Breton 

Sound, Mississippi River, and Barataria Basins), 

Region 3 (Terrebonne, Atchafalaya, and Teche/

Vermilion Basins), and Region 4 (Mermentau and 

Calcasieu-Sabine Basins). Tables 4 and 5 exhibit 

all 17 projects (12 in Phase 1 and 5 in Phase 

2) authorized during this 2013–2015 reporting 

period. A map that illustrates these coastal 

regions with PPL 1–24 projects can be found at 

http://lacoast.gov/maps/allregions_ppl1-24_2015-

03_lowres_web.pdf. 

28

WPPRA Project Planning Cand Implementation
Table 4. CWPPRA projects authorized from 2013 to 2015 (PPL 22–PPL 24) for Phase 1—Engineering and Design.

Name Project 

number

Project 

priority 

list (PPL)

Date 

authorized

Total net acres 

(reestablished 

and protected)

Marsh 

benefited

Ecologic 

region

Bayou Dupont Sediment Delivery

Marsh Creation No. 3

BA-164 22 24-Jan-13 383 Brackish 2

Terracing & Marsh Creation South of Big Mar BS-24 22 24-Jan-13 303 Fresh to 

intermediate

2

North Catfish Lake Marsh Creation TE-112 22 24-Jan-13 401 Brackish 3

Cameron Meadows Marsh Creation and Terracing CS-66 22 24-Jan-13 264 Brackish to 

Intermediate

4

Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation BA-171 23 16-Jan-14 181 Saline 2

Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and 

Ridge Restoration

BA-173 23 16-Jan-14 264 Brackish 2

South Grand Chenier Marsh Creation—Baker Tract ME-32 23 16-Jan-14 393 Brackish 4

Island Road Marsh Creation and Nourishment TE-117 23 16-Jan-14 312 Brackish 3

New Orleans Landbridge Shoreline Stabilization 

and Marsh Creation

PO-169 24 22-Jan-15 167 Brackish 1

Shell Beach South Marsh Creation PO-168 24 22-Jan-15 344 Brackish 1

West Fourchon Marsh Creation and Nourishment TE-134 24 22-Jan-15 304 Saline 3

No Name Bayou Marsh Creation and Nourishment CS-78 24 22-Jan-15 497 Saline 4

Total = 12 projects Total Net Acres = 3,813

29
Table 5. CWPPRA projects authorized from 2013 to 2015 (PPL 22–PPL 24) for Phase 2—Construction.

Name Project 

number

Project 

priority 

list (PPL)

Date 

authorized

Total net acres 

(reestablished 

and protected)

Marsh 

benefited

Ecologic 

region

Bayou Bonfouca Marsh Creation PO-104 20 24-Jan-13 478 Brackish 1

Lost Lake Marsh Creation and

Hydrologic Restoration

TE-72 19 24-Jan-13 452 Brackish and 

Intermediate

3

South Grand Chenier Marsh Creation ME-20 11 16-Jan-14 414 Brackish and 

Intermediate

4

Cameron Creole Watershed Grand Bayou

Marsh Creation

CS-54 20 22-Jan-15 476 Saline 4

Oyster Bayou Marsh Restoration CS-59 21 22-Jan-15 489 Saline 4

Total = 5 projects Total Net Acres = 2,309

Examples of Recently Constructed Significant 

and Strategic Projects

The following three projects represent examples of 

significant and strategic marsh restoration through CWPPRA. 

URL: http://lacoast.gov/reports/gpfs/BA-42.pdf

Restoration Strategy: The original project goal was to restore 

549 acres, but additional CWPPRA funding allowed the Lake 

Hermitage project to construct the West Pointe a la Hache 

Marsh Creation (BA-47) project—an additional 246 acres 

for a total of 795 acres to be restored through the CWPPRA 

program. An additional 104 acres was created by DWH 

Early Restoration Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

(NRDA) program funding, and another 111 acres of marsh 

creation was constructed by State-only funds, bringing the 

total area restored to 1,007 acres (fig. 6). The marsh creation 

and 6,300-linear-feet of Lake Hermitage shoreline restoration 

were accomplished by using material dredged from a 

Mississippi River borrow area. The project is a good example 

of a multiprogram partnership among CWPPRA, DWH 

NRDA, and the State of Louisiana. 

30

• Approved Date: 2006

• Project Area: 1,846 acres (1,634 acres 

CWPPRA), 212 acres (State and NRDA DWH 

Early Restoration)

• Approved Funds: $38 million (CWPPRA only)

• Total Est. Costs: $50.3 million ($38 million 

CWPPRA plus $12.3 million State and NRDA)

• Net Benefit after 20 Years: 831 acres

• Status: Completed 

• Project Type: Marsh Creation 

• PPL#: 15

• Sponsors: USFWS and CPRA

Lake Hermitage Marsh Creation (BA-42) Project
31

Figure 6. Lake Hermitage Marsh Creation (BA-42) project map.
• Approved Date: 2009

• Project Area: 410 acres

• Approved Funds: $41.5 million

• Total Est. Costs: $42.2 million

• Net Benefit after 20 Years: 305 acres

• Status: Completed

• Project Type: Barrier Headland Restoration 

• PPL#: 16

• Sponsors: NMFS-CPRA

URL: http://lacoast.gov/reports/gpfs/CS-28-4-5.pdf

Restoration Strategy: The revised project (fig. 

7) restored an estimated 1,000 acres of brackish 

marsh on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge north 

of Brown Lake and in Unit 1A south of Hackberry, 

La. The original project goal was to restore 

approximately 462 acres of marsh in Cycles 4 and 

5 (north of Brown Lake) through the beneficial 

use of dredged material from USACE Calcasieu 

Ship Channel maintenance dredging. An additional 

412 acres of marsh creation was constructed in 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Unit 1A with 

funds from the Port of Lake Charles and surplus 

CWPPRA project funds, restoring a total of 874 

acres. Another 200 or more acres of marsh are 

expected to develop on project-constructed mud 

flats that have formed adjacent to the marsh 

creation cells by sediment flowing over retention 

dikes, resulting in more than 1,000 acres restored. 

Sediment from the ship channel was hydraulically 

pumped to the project site through the CWPPRAfunded permanent pipeline south of Hackberry to 

construct the marsh features in four cells. 

URL: http://lacoast.gov/reports/gpfs/TE-52.pdf

Restoration Strategy: The project restored an 

estimated 183 acres of beach and dune and 

another 227 acres of back barrier marsh (total 

410 acres) with dredged material from the Gulf 

of Mexico (fig. 8). The headland was undergoing 

shoreline erosion rates of more than 100 feet per 

year. This project helped reestablish the West 

Belle Pass headland by rebuilding a large portion 

of the beach, dune, and back barrier marsh. 

Approximately 10,000 feet of beach and dune 

was restored by using 2.8 million cubic yards 

of dredged sand, and 227 acres of marsh habitat 

was rebuilt by using 1.4 million cubic yards of 

dredged material. This project protects both 

West Belle Pass and Port Fourchon from erosion. 

Port Fourchon is an important oil and gas port 

for servicing Gulf of Mexico exploration and 

production rigs and platforms.

32

• Approved Date: 2011 

• Project Area: 1,000 acres

• Approved Funds: $10.3 million

• Total Est. Costs: $10.3 million

• Net Benefit after 20 Years: 1,016 acres

• Status: Completed

• Project Type: Marsh Creation (using Calcasieu 

Ship Channel maintenance dredged material)

• PPL#: 8

• Sponsors: USFWS, USACE, CPRA

Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation Cycles 4 and 5 (CS-28-4-5) Project

West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration (TE-52) Project
33

Figure 7. Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation (CS-28) cycles 1 through 5 project map. Note cycles 4 and 5 (CS-28-4-5).
34

Figure 8. West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration (TE-52) project map.
CWPPRA legislation contained two monitoring 

mandates: to evaluate the effectiveness of 

individual restoration projects and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the restoration program. From 1990 

to 2003, CWPPRA projects and nearby reference 

areas were monitored to assess project effects 

versus reference conditions. Although this approach 

worked well initially, finding appropriate paired 

project and reference sites became increasingly 

difficult. Additionally, the introduction of largescale restoration efforts reemphasized the need 

for a coastwide monitoring approach. The current 

CWPPRA monitoring program consists of projectspecific and coastwide monitoring.

Coastwide Reference Monitoring 

System (CRMS)

In 2003, the CPRA and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) received approval from the 

CWPPRA Task Force to implement CRMS 

as a mechanism to monitor and evaluate the 

effectiveness of CWPPRA efforts at the project, 

basin, regional, and coastwide scales. The CRMS 

network is currently funded through CWPPRA 

with additional funding provided by the State of 

Louisiana in excess of their standard 15% matching 

funds required by law. CRMS provides data for a 

variety of user groups, including resource managers, 

academics, landowners, and decision makers. 

Project-specific monitoring is continued outside of 

CRMS at a smaller, project-level scale. 

Approach and Design of CRMS

The CRMS approach gathers information 

from a suite of 391 sites that encompass a range of 

ecological conditions throughout the coastal area. 

Resource managers can compare the trajectories 

of changing conditions within both CRMS 

reference sites and CWPPRA project sites to better 

understand the performance of their projects and 

response to disturbance. The CRMS design not 

only allows for monitoring and evaluating projectspecific effectiveness but also supports large-scale 

evaluation of the cumulative effects of all CWPPRA 

projects throughout the coastal ecosystems of 

Louisiana.

Peer-reviewed standard operating procedures 

for data collection and data quality assurance 

guarantee consistency of CRMS data across habitat 

types. The CRMS network monitors all coastal 

habitats except barrier islands, which are monitored 

on a project-specific basis. CRMS monitoring 

parameters include salinity, water level, emergent 

and forested vegetation, surface elevation and 

vertical accretion, soil characteristics, and land-towater ratios. Data collection intervals range from 

hourly for hydrologic data to every 3 years for 

landscape assessments of land-to-water ratios. Site 

construction and data collection began in 2005, with 

the entire network operational by 2007. The active 

CRMS sites generate large amounts of data which, 

in turn, are used by the CRMS program to develop 

assessment tools and products for project evaluation 

and development, model improvement, scientific 

research, and adaptive management.

The CRMS Web Site

To efficiently deliver the large number and 

diverse sets of data-driven products developed by 

the CRMS program, a Web site (http://lacoast.gov/

crms) was designed as the “one-stop shop” for 

CRMS informational products, assessment tools, 

and data. Through a data-sharing partnership with 

the CPRA, all raw ecological data are available for 

download from the official CPRA online database, 

the Coastal Information Management System 

(CIMS) (http://cims.coastal.louisiana.gov), and 

may be categorized by project name, CRMS site, or 

station number. 

The CRMS Web site mapping interface allows 

the user to visualize changes in the Louisiana 

coastal zone from the small CRMS site scale, to the 

larger CWPPRA project scale, basin, and regional 

scales. This user-friendly interface allows for easy 

viewing of information including photographs and 

data summaries, along with the ability to download 

data or request graphics for each data type collected, 

and includes a report card. 

35

valuating the CWPPRA Program Ewith Monitoring Data
The CRMS report card uses data-derived 

ecological indices to determine the direction of 

change in the landscape, both positive and negative, 

for CRMS sites compared to other sites within 

the same marsh type (from fresh to salt marsh). 

Four primary indices are used in the report cards: 

hydrologic (water level and salinity), floristic 

quality (vegetation), submergence vulnerability 

(elevation change), and landscape (land loss). 

The CRMS report card features allow CWPPRA 

project managers to determine if specific projects 

are meeting their goals and how they respond to 

environmental and man-made disturbance. Given 

the substantial monetary investments in restoration 

and protection by the CWPPRA program, CRMS 

provides a robust monitoring system that enables 

multiple scale evaluations for a variety of user 

groups.

Evaluation Summaries of Selected 

CWPPRA Projects

To ascertain the science behind the CRMS 

monitoring data and the overall effectiveness of 

the restoration program, scientific evaluations of 

the following six CWPPRA projects (table 6) were 

chosen to be presented in this report.

36

Table 6. A few selected and monitored CWPPRA projects highlighted in this report.

Name Project 

number Federal sponsor Project type Location Construction date

East Mud Lake Marsh Management CS-20 NRCS Marsh Management Calcasieu Lake 1996

Bioengineered Oyster Reef 

Demonstration

LA-08 NMFS Shoreline Protection, 

Oyster Reef

Rockefeller Refuge 2012

East Marsh Island Marsh Creation TV-21 NRCS - EPA Marsh Creation Vermilion Bay 2010

North Lake Mechant Landbridge 

Restoration

TE-44 USFWS Marsh Creation and 

Shoreline Protection

Lake Mechant 2008

Bayou LaBranche Wetland Creation PO-17 USACE Marsh Creation Lake Pontchartrain 1994

Bayou Dupont Marsh Creation BA-39 EPA Marsh Creation Barataria Bay 2009
Project Description and Goals

The East Mud Lake Marsh Management (CS20) project, completed in June 1996, is designed 

to reduce fluctuations in salinity and water level 

while providing adequate water flow from adjacent 

marshes to create a water regime conducive to the 

establishment and persistence of marsh vegetation 

in a 7,207-acre project area north of Holly Beach, 

La. The Calcasieu Ship Channel allows large 

volumes of high-salinity water to infiltrate marshes 

in the Calcasieu/Sabine Basin. The combination of 

increased salinity and high water-level fluctuations 

in the project area stressed the vegetation and led to 

interior marsh ponding and loss of sediment. The 

NRCS and CPRA are the Federal and State sponsors 

for this project, respectively. Project features 

included 18 water-control structures and repairs to 

40,600 feet of levee and 5,000 linear feet of Mud 

Lake shoreline.

Two conservation treatment units (CTUs) 

were established. CTU 1 contains Mud Lake and 

is managed passively; CTU 2 is a large marsh 

area, northeast of Mud Lake, actively managed to 

encourage shallow open-water areas to convert to 

emergent vegetation (fig. 9). Managed drawdowns 

of water levels were conducted in CTU 2 for the 

first 2 years of the project life to promote vegetation 

expansion in open water areas of broken marsh and 

along shorelines (fig. 10). The goal of the project 

is to reduce wetland degradation by stabilizing 

hydrologic conditions to reduce vegetative stress 

caused by increased salinities and water levels. 

The objectives are to increase vegetative growth 

along shorelines and shallow open-water areas to 

decrease the rate of marsh loss, reduce water-level 

and salinity fluctuations to within acceptable target 

ranges for the establishment of brackish vegetation, 

increase soil accretion in CTU 2, and maintain 

fisheries abundance.

Project Assessment

The East Mud Lake (CS-20) project has been 

effective at decreasing the rate of marsh loss. Land 

loss rates decreased substantially after construction 

in CTU 2, decreasing from having the highest rate 

of land loss (-1.0% per year) among project and 

reference areas to being the only area to gain land 

through 10 years after construction (+0.2% per 

year), which included marsh loss from Hurricane 

Rita in 2005. The CS-20 project has been effective 

at increasing emergent vegetation in shallow openwater areas in CTU 2 (fig. 11). Dominant plant 

species composition changed over time to more 

salt-tolerant plants, especially in the project areas, 

from the brackish marshhay cordgrass (fig. 12) and 

three-corner bulrush to the more saline seashore 

saltgrass and leafy three-square bulrush. 

The East Mud Lake project has been 

sustaining its hydrologic objective of reducing high 

water-level fluctuations and maintaining salinity 

within acceptable target ranges for brackish marsh 

relative to reference areas. This water-level control 

has led to more consistent conditions for vegetative 

growth and surface accretion. The hydrologic 

modifications did not negatively affect fisheries, 

as the project achieved its objective to maintain 

fisheries abundance. Resident fishes (e.g., red 

drum) and crustaceans (e.g., grass shrimp) were 

generally more abundant in the project area, 

and transient fishes (e.g., speckled trout, Gulf 

menhaden, bay anchovy) and crustaceans (e.g., 

white shrimp, brown shrimp, blue crab) were 

generally more abundant in the reference area prior 

to and 5 years after project construction.

Accretion (soil elevation increase) in CTU 2 

has increased since the beginning of the project, 

thereby achieving the project’s surface elevation 

objective. The protected water conditions within 

the project area allow sediment to settle on the 

marsh surface rather than being exported by the 

strong outgoing tides. Thus, surface elevation 

increase in CTU 2 has outpaced relative sea-level 

rise (RSLR), whereas surface elevation change in 

Reference Area 2 (REF 2) is less than RSLR.

The project has achieved the main goal of 

preventing wetland degradation by reducing 

vegetative stress, thereby improving the abundance 

of emergent and submerged vegetation. This 

improvement has been achieved through water 

37

East Mud Lake Marsh Management (CS-20) Project (CWPPRA PPL 2)
38

Figure 9. Map of the East Mud Lake Marsh Management (CS-20) project, completed in June 1996.

Calcasieu Lake

(West Cove)

Mud

Lake

Calcasieu Ship Channel

Gulf of Mexico

LA 82

LA 27

CTU 1

CTU 2

Data Accurate as of March 25, 2015

Map Date: April 09, 2015

East Mud Lake Marsh Management

(CS-20)

Louisiana

Project

Location

Scale 1:75,000

Image Source:

2012 DOQQ Photography

1 0 1

Miles

1 0 1

Kilometers

Weir

Variable crest culverts w/ slots

Variable crest culverts w/ flagates

Culverts w/ flagates

Gated Culvert

Variable crest box structure

CRMS Site

Reference Area

CTU Boundary
management structures to reduce water levels and 

salinities and through adaptive management to 

allow for the flushing of water after major climatic 

events such as droughts and storm surges when 

salinities greater than acceptable levels occur 

outside of the project area. Large ecological 

changes over time are driven by climatic 

conditions (droughts, flooding, hurricanes) 

occurring on a regional scale; during “calmer 

times” between regional-scale events, differences 

among project and reference areas are more 

distinctive, as the project areas typically have 

more moderate (less fluctuations) water levels 

and lower salinity, thereby providing conditions 

that reduce vegetative stress.

The East Mud Lake project restores and 

protects habitat for rare and at-risk species (e.g., 

glossy ibis, black rail, Louisiana eyed silkmoth,

and diamondback terrapin) and Gulf Coast Joint 

Venture priority species (seaside sparrow and 

king rail), as well as wading birds and other 

marsh birds. The project also provides habitat 

for muskrat, raccoon, coyote, white-tailed deer, 

and the American alligator. 

39

Figure 10. Structure No. 5 in the northwest corner of CTU 2 provides managed hydrologic connectivity 

between the East Mud Lake Marsh Management (CS-20) project area and Calcasieu Lake (background), which 

is connected to the higher salinities and water-level fluctuations of the Gulf of Mexico via the Calcasieu Ship 

Channel. This view is looking at the interior “marsh side” stop log header that controls water levels within the 

managed area.
40

Figure 11. Land-water change analysis for East Mud Lake Marsh Management (CS-20) project from 1994 to 2000. Note marsh 

gains (green) within broken marsh and along larger ponds in CTU 2. The large swath of marsh loss (red) in CTU 1 was caused by a 

marsh fire that mostly recovered by 2006.
41

Figure 12. Photograph 

depicting healthy marshhay 

cordgrass marsh and a 

CRMS vegetative sampling 

site in the East Mud Lake 

Marsh Management (CS20) project area.

Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration (LA-08) Project (CWPPRA PPL 17)

Project Description and Goals

The Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration 

(LA-08) project, federally sponsored by the NOAANMFS, is testing the OysterbreakTM system patented 

by Oyster Restoration Advancement Technologies, 

LLC, as an alternative to rock breakwaters to 

prevent shoreline erosion. Weak soils along the 

Louisiana coastline are a prominent problem 

as the Gulf of Mexico and bays erode marshes. 

The 17-mile-long Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge 

shoreline (fig. 13) undergoes among the highest 

rate of erosion, 40 feet per year, along the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. The diminished shell hash beach 

is reworked by waves and rolled onto the marsh 

where it smothers and kills the vegetation, which 

then easily erodes into the gulf when the shell hash 

is rolled back by each successive winter storm. 

Subsequently, the water bottoms along the shoreline 

are old marsh platforms classified as very soft clay 

with a weight-bearing capacity too weak to hold the 

weight of rock used in traditional breakwaters. 

Oysterbreak, an artificial reef composed of 

interlocking concrete rings designed to break waves 

and provide habitat for oyster colonization, is less 

dense than traditional rock breakwaters. Two 

215-foot-long by 40-foot-wide Oysterbreak reefs 

separated by a 130-foot-wide gap were installed at 

the Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge southwest shoreline 

near St. Josephs Harbor Canal in February 2012 

(fig. 14A). The project goal is to reduce shoreline 

erosion, and its objectives are to (1) reduce wave 

energy reaching the shoreline by 50% during 

average conditions and (2) provide habitat for oyster 

colonization (fig. 14B). Each reef is composed 

of a different type of concrete to assess oyster 

colonization preference. Standard weight concrete, 

used for Oysterbreak–East, is being compared to 

OysterKrete©, a darker, more porous concrete 

designed to enhance oyster colonization, used for 

Oysterbreak–West. 

Project Assessment

Oyster settlement on the Oysterbreak structures 

was negligible a year and a half after construction. 

The designed elevation of the reefs was intended to 

match the average Gulf of Mexico sea level in this 

area; however, Oysterbreak–East was constructed 

0.4 foot higher than Oysterbreak–West because of 
natural gulf water bottom variability. Differences 

between the Oysterbreak reefs for shoreline 

change and wave attenuation are attributable to 

the elevation differences, as Oysterbreak–West is 

submerged 33% more often than is Oysterbreak–

East, as determined by water levels measured at a 

nearby CRMS site (2012–2013).

The shoreline erosion rate along the entire 

Oysterbreak protected area was 69% less than along 

the unprotected reference area through 1.5 years 

after construction. Within the Oysterbreak area, land 

formed behind the Oysterbreak reefs, while erosion 

continued around the ends and between the reef 

structures (fig. 15). 

Wave transmission was monitored behind 

each Oysterbreak reef and along the reference 

area 6 months after construction. The objective of 

reducing wave heights reaching the shoreline by 

50% was met by both Oysterbreak reefs. Waves 

were reduced 66% by Oysterbreak–West, 72% by 

42

Oysterbreak–East, and 36% as they approached the 

reference/unprotected shore due to its natural slope. 

Both Oysterbreak reefs are providing habitat 

for oyster colonization. Twenty months after 

construction, oysters are growing at a healthy rate 

(fig. 16). At the demonstration project midpoint, no 

significant differences in oyster productivity have 

been observed between the standard weight concrete 

and OysterKrete Oysterbreak reefs. 

The Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration 

project protects the gulf shoreline to benefit the 

threatened piping plover and red knot, at-risk 

species (diamondback terrapin, snowy plover, 

Wilson’s plover, and brown pelican), and Gulf Coast 

Joint Venture priority species (seaside sparrow, 

glossy ibis, and king rail). The project benefits 

shoreline and marsh habitat for other wading birds, 

shorebirds, and important higher salinity estuarine 

fisheries species (e.g., spotted sea trout, red drum, 

and Gulf menhaden), as well as blue crab and the 

American oyster. 
43

Figure 13. Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration (LA-08) project map.

Gulf of Mexico

St. Josephs Harbor Canal

Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge

Data Accurate as of March 25, 2015

Map Date: April 09, 2015

Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration

(LA-08)

Louisiana

Project

Location

Scale 1:45,000

Image Source:

2012 DOQQ Photography

1 0 1

Miles

1 0 1

Kilometers

Oysterbreak - East

Oysterbreak - West

Reference Wave Station

Incoming Wave Station

Project Wave Station

Oysterbreak - East

ME-18 Test Section

LA-08 Project Boundary

Oysterbreak - West
44

Figure 14. A, Oblique aerial photograph taken during low water about a year after construction of the 

Oysterbreak reefs at the Bioengineered Oyster Reef Demonstration (LA-08) project. Note the elevation difference 

(based on water inundation) between Oysterbreak–West composed of OysterKrete (lower) and Oysterbreak–East 

composed of standard weight concrete (taller). Also, note the new land that formed behind Oysterbreak–East 

after construction. B, Stacked, interlocking rings shown from behind Oysterbreak–East; note the waves crashing 

on the front of the reef and the calm water behind the reef.

A

B
45

Figure 15. Soil elevation changes in the Oysterbreak and reference areas of the Bioengineered Oyster Reef 

Demonstration (LA-08) project from October 2011 to July 2013. Note the loss along the reference shoreline and 

behind the ends of and between the Oysterbreak reefs.

Figure 16. Colonization 

of oysters on east end of 

Oysterbreak–East 20 months 

(1.7 years) after construction.
46

Project Description and Goals

In December 2010, the East Marsh Island 

Marsh Creation (TV-21) project, sponsored by the 

NRCS, EPA, and CPRA, was constructed to fill 

1,159 acres of shallow open water with material 

dredged from the adjacent East Cote Blanche Bay. 

Located in southeast Iberia Parish on the eastern 

end of the Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge, the project 

area (fig. 17) was historically relatively stable with 

a low land loss rate of -0.29% per year. Hurricane 

Lili (2002) caused these marshes to destabilize 

through erosion, which progresses by removing the 

marsh substrate. The marsh was restored by filling 

the shallow open water of previously eroded marsh 

areas with new sediment. The project objectives 

were to (1) create approximately 362 acres of 

emergent marsh in contained shallow open water 

and mud flats, (2) create/nourish an additional 797 

acres of brackish marsh with unconfined dredged 

sediment, and (3) reduce the loss rate of new and 

existing marsh in the project area by 50%. 

Project Assessment

Analysis of high-resolution 2012 aerial 

photography shows that the project has successfully 

met its marsh creation and nourishment goals. 

Before the project was constructed, <1% of the 

project area was classified as land. One year after 

project construction, 85% to 90% of the project area 

was classified as land (fig. 18). Surveys conducted 

1 year after construction indicated that the marsh 

is settling as expected and is near the target 

elevation for healthy brackish marshes of +1.7 feet 

(referenced to the North American Vertical Datum 

of 1988 [NAVD 88]). 

Coverage of emergent vegetation has increased 

over time in both the containment and nourishment 

areas (fig. 19). Heavy nutria herbivory damage 

caused a drastic decline in vegetative cover in 

2012, especially in the nourishment areas (fig. 

20). Analysis of vegetation data collected from 

CRMS reference sites on Marsh Island confirmed 

that nutria were prolific across Marsh Island in 

2012, causing widespread damage. A combination 

of nutria control by the Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries and a harsh winter, which 

impacted nutria populations, probably contributed to 

vegetative recovery.

Project area vegetation dominated by marshhay 

cordgrass and Olney’s three square bulrush 

recovered quickly by the following year and has 

increased in coverage since that time. 

Shoreline protection on the eastern edge of the 

project was implemented to prevent erosion from 

the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the containment 

dikes were gapped in several locations to allow 

natural tidal exchange and thereby increase 

vegetative cover after construction.

East Marsh Island Marsh Creation (TV-21) Project (CWPPRA PPL 14)
47

Figure 17. Map of the East Marsh Island Marsh Creation (TV-21) project, constructed in December 2010. 

East Cote Blanche Bay

Lake

Sand

Lake

Point

Lake

Tom

Lake

Michael

Lake

Blanc

Lake

Scat

Worm

Cove

Bayou Blanc

Data Accurate as of March 10, 2015

Map Date: March 31, 2015

East Marsh Island Marsh Creation

(TV-21)

Louisiana

Project

Location

Scale 1:75,000

Image Source:

2012 DOQQ Photography

1 0 1

Miles

1 0 1

Kilometers

Project Boundary

Marsh Creation

Marsh Nourishment

CRMS Site

Plug
48

Figure 18. Aerial view 

of the eastern half of 

the East Marsh Island 

Marsh Creation (TV-21) 

project, June 2011. The 

areas in the foreground 

are the containment area 

portions of the project in 

which dredged material 

was contained by 

earthen retention dikes. 

Figure 19. View of healthy marshhay cordgrass and chairmaker’s bulrush thriving within the nourishment area of 

the East Marsh Island Marsh Creation (TV-21) project in September 2013. 
49

Figure 20. Vegetative cover of the East Marsh Island Marsh Creation (TV-21) project. Note the 

impact of and recovery from nutria herbivory damage in 2012.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Containment area

Nourishment area

EXPLANATION

At construction Postconstruction

Vegetative cover (%)

Project Description and Goals 

The North Lake Mechant Landbridge 

Restoration (TE-44) project, completed in 2009, 

is located in Terrebonne Parish approximately 

15 miles southwest of Theriot, La. (fig. 21). The 

project, sponsored by the USFWS and CPRA, is 

intended to protect and restore the North Lake 

Mechant Landbridge and Small Bayou La Pointe 

Ridge, which have been threatened by continued 

shoreline erosion from Lakes Mechant and Pagie 

and by subsidence of interior marshes. These 

marshes, which undergo high subsidence rates 

estimated at 0.25–0.42 inches per year, form a 

critical landbridge barrier separating the fresh and 

intermediate marshes north of Bayou De Cade 

from the brackish waters and tidally dominated 

Lake Mechant system to the south (fig. 22). The 

project goals are to create 790 acres of intertidal 

marsh habitat in shallow open water suitable for 

intermediate marsh, nourish 40 acres of existing 

marsh, and maintain intermediate interior marsh 

vegetation for the project life. Project features 

include several earthen, rock, and sheet pile plugs; 

1 sheet pile weir; 1 rock-armored earthen dike; 11 

dredged material fill areas; and vegetative plantings 

of smooth cordgrass (fig. 21). 

Project Assessment

The North Lake Mechant Landbridge 

Restoration (TE-44) project nourished more than 

40 acres of existing marsh and exceeded its acreage 

goal with the creation of 850 acres within and 

surrounding the project’s boundaries (fig. 22). The 

goal to maintain intermediate marsh vegetation in 

the interior marsh has not yet been met. Although 

vegetative cover has increased from a broken 

natural marsh prior to construction to a solid created 

marsh postconstruction (fig. 23), the dominant 

species are seashore saltgrass (fig. 24) and smooth 

cordgrass, which are saline (salt) marsh species. 

This may be due to the higher salinity of the Lake 

Mechant dredged soil or the expansion of the 

planted salt-tolerant marsh vegetation. The project 

area is in a transitional zone where freshwater 

influences from the north may affect the vegetation 

along the project landbridge over time. The degree 

of influence can vary from year to year depending 

on environmental conditions. Reference Area 1 

lost 7 acres (-13.5%) and Reference Area 2 gained 

6 acres (+1.9%) from 2002 to 2012, whereas the 

project areas gained 890 acres of land (+64%) 

during that same time period (figs. 22 and 23).

North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration (TE-44) Project (CWPPRA PPL 10)
50

Figure 21. Map of the North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration (TE-44) project, completed in 2009.

Lake

Mechant

Lake

Decade

Lake Pagie

Raccourci

Bay

Data Accurate as of March 25, 2015

Map Date: March 31, 2015

North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration

(TE-44)

Louisiana

Project

Location

Scale 1:85,000

Image Source:

2012 DOQQ Photography

1 0 1

Miles

1 0 1

Kilometers

Project Boundary

Marsh Nourishment

CRMS Site

Marsh Creation

Borrow Site

Vegetative Plantings

Plug
51

Figure 22. Land-water classification for the North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration (TE-44) project area in 2002, prior to constructproject features.
52

North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration (TE-44)

Scale = 1:45,000 U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological SurveyNational Wetlands Research CenterLafayette, LouisianaandLouisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityThibodaux Regional Office

Prepared by:

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Kilometers

The land-water data were obtained from digital imagery (Z/I Imaging digital mappingcamera) with 1-meter resolution, acquired November 11, 2012. All areas characterizedby emergent vegetation, upland, wetlandforest or scrub-shrub were classified as land, while open water, aquatic beds and mudflatswere classified as water.

Data Information:

Lake Pagie

Lake Mechant

2012 Land-Water Classification

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act

Map ID: USGS-NWRC 

U.S. Fish and W

Federal Spons

Reference 

Area 1

Reference 

Area 2

Class

Total 

Project

Acres

Reference 1

Acres

180

2,2345,303

Reference 2 

Acres

791

135 470

Land 45 321

Water

7,537

 Parish

Project Loc

!

Terrebonne Pa

Fill AreasNourishment AreReference AreasProject Area

Figure 23. Land-water classification for the North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration (TE-44) project area in 2012. The marsh fill area outlinresulted in 850 acres of land gain, and the nourishment areas outlined in black resulted in 40 acres of land gain.
53

Figure 24. Vegetation in the North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration (TE-44) project fill area showing healthy stands of seashore smarshhay cordgrass, common reed, and goldenrod growing on the restored marsh.
54

Project Description and Goals

The Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation (PO17) project is a 436-acre marsh creation project that 

is located in St. Charles Parish, immediately south 

of Lake Pontchartrain (fig. 25). Federally sponsored 

by the USACE, it was the first restoration project 

constructed through CWPPRA in 1994 and was 

the first project to complete its 20-year monitoring 

lifespan in 2014. The marsh was created by using 

sediment that was hydraulically dredged from Lake 

Pontchartrain and pumped to the site via pipeline. 

The CWPPRA program recognized a need for this 

project because of the degradation of the Bayou 

La Branche wetlands, which has resulted from 

hydrologic alteration due to farming, Interstate 

10, railroad construction, hurricanes, subsidence, 

saltwater intrusion, and shoreline erosion. The 

purpose of this project was to create marsh habitat 

in an area that had largely converted from marsh to 

open water and had become increasingly susceptible 

to shoreline breaching, increased wave energy, 

and higher salinity inflow from the lake. The 

goals of the project were to (1) create 305 acres of 

habitat in shallow water conducive to the natural 

establishment of emergent wetland vegetation and 

(2) increase the ratio of marsh to open water in 

the project area to a minimum of 70% emergent 

marsh to 30% open water 5 years following project 

completion. 

Project Assessment

The Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation 

project has demonstrated that using dredged 

sediment to create marsh is an effective restoration 

strategy that can provide benefit beyond the 

20-year CWPPRA project lifespan (fig. 26). 

Prior to construction, the project area contained 

81 acres of land and 355 acres of water, while the 

reference area immediately east of the project area 

contained 12 acres of land and 504 acres of water 

(fig. 27). Postconstruction analysis of the project 

area has revealed that the amount of land created 

has not only been sustained over years but also has 

increased from 356 acres in 1997 to 408 acres in 

2012 (fig. 27), while the reference area has shown 

no significant change in the ratio of land to water 

over time. The land area increased by 327 acres, 

which is five times the amount of marsh present 

prior to project construction in 1994.

The goal of achieving a minimum of 70% 

emergent marsh was surpassed by 2012; however, it 

took longer than 5 years to attain. Habitat analysis 

conducted in 1997 indicated that only 51% of the 

project area was emergent marsh, while 29% was 

scrub-shrub habitat. 

During construction, sediment discharge was 

concentrated in the northern project area because 

of concerns over compromising the foundation of 

Interstate 10. This sediment discharge resulted in a 

higher localized elevation in the north that fostered 

the early development of scrub-shrub habitat. As 

the sediment settled and the land received greater 

inundation, much of this habitat transitioned to 

marsh. By 2012, emergent marsh had increased 

to 82%, while scrub-shrub habitat had declined to 

10% (fig. 28). The dominant marsh species in the 

project area since 2004 have been smooth cordgrass, 

saltmeadow cordgrass, and sturdy bulrush.

As of 2013, the created marsh had settled to 

a mean elevation of 1.2 feet NAVD 88, with the 

highest elevation still in the north and the lowest 

elevation in the central project area. This elevation 

is similar to the average marsh elevation of 1.3 

feet NAVD 88 that was surveyed in natural marsh 

surrounding the project area.

Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation (PO-17) Project (CWPPRA PPL 1)
55

Figure 25. Map of Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation (PO-17) project. This was CWPPRA’s first restoration project 

constructed in 1994.

Lake Pontchartrain

I-10

Illinois Central Gulf Railroad

Bayou La

Branche

Data Accurate as of March 25, 2015

Map Date: April 09, 2015

Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation

(PO-17)

Louisiana

Project

Location

Scale 1:30,000

Image Source:

2012 DOQQ Photography

0.5 0 0.5

Miles

0.5 0 0.5

Kilometers

CRMS Site

Culvert

Z-wall Bulkhead

Weir

Marsh Creation

Project Boundary

Reference Area
56

Figure 26. The Bayou 

La Branche Wetland 

Creation (PO-17) project 

area (2013) continues to 

support vigorous marsh 

vegetation more than 

20 years after project 

construction.

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1993 1997 2001 2012 1993 1997 2001 2012

Project Reference

Acres

Land

Water

EXPLANATION

Figure 27. Land-water classification of the Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation (PO-17) project and 

reference areas. The 1993 aerial photography was taken prior to project construction in 1994.
57

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological SurveyNational Wetlands Research CenterLafayette, LouisianaandCoastal Protection and Restoration Authority of LouisianaNew Orleans Regional Office

Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation (PO-17)

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act

±

Scale = 1:15,000

2012 Habitat Classification

Map ID: USGS-NW

Project Location

St. Charles Parish

Prepared by: Federal Sponsor:

Lake Pontchartrain

0 0.5 1 Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

§ ̈¦10

§ ̈¦10

TOTAL

Palustrine Emergent MarshEstuarine Emergent Marsh

Upland Forested

Estuarine Aquatic Bed

Upland Range

Estuarine Open Water

Upland Scrub-ShrubEstuarine Scrub-Shrub

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 

Class

Project

Acres

Reference

Acres

435 515

210

3112

306

25

355

Wetland Forested

Jetty

9070

498

0001

<1

<1 0

Reference Area

Project Area

Habitat data were derived from digital imagery (Z/I Imaging digitacamera) with 1-meter resolution, acquired November 9, 2012. Habare modified from "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater HabUnited States" (Cowardin and others, 1979). 

Data Information:

Figure 28. Habitat classification of the Bayou La Branche Wetland Creation (PO-17) project and reference areas using 2012 CRMS aerial photo2012, the project area had transitioned to primarily marsh, with some scrub-shrub habitat remaining at higher elevations in the north and on spoi
58

Mississippi River Sediment Delivery System−Bayou Dupont (BA-39) Project 

(CWPPRA PPL 12) 

Project Description and Goals

The Mississippi River Sediment Delivery 

System−Bayou Dupont (BA-39) project, completed 

in May 2010, was the first CWPPRA restoration 

project that used sediment hydraulically dredged 

from the Mississippi River and delivered through 

pipeline to restore marsh (figs. 29 and 30). The 

EPA and CPRA are the project’s Federal and State 

sponsors, respectively. The BA-39 project area is 

located within an eroding and subsiding section of 

the Barataria Basin Landbridge on the west bank 

of the Mississippi River (fig. 29) near the town 

of Myrtle Grove, La. Marsh and ridge habitat in 

this region has been hydrologically altered by 

the dredging of oil and gas canals and leveeing 

of the Mississippi River, which disconnected the 

area from riverine freshwater and sediment input. 

Construction of the Naomi Siphon in 1992 restored 

some flow of river water into the Barataria Basin 

and, as a result, has helped to moderate saltwater 

intrusion in the project area. The goals of the Bayou 

Dupont (BA-39) project are to restore/create 372 

acres and nourish 99 acres of emergent marsh in an 

area that had converted to primarily open water (fig. 

30). 

Project Assessment

The first postconstruction land-water analysis 

was completed in 2012 by using CRMS aerial 

photography. Of the 495 acres included in the 

analysis, 458 acres (93%) was classified as marsh 

and 37 acres (7%) as water (fig. 31). The water 

areas are largely due to ponding at lower elevations, 

primarily in Marsh Creation Area 2. Although not 

intended as part of the project design, these ponds 

provide waterfowl habitat. 

Vegetation surveys indicate that the project 

area has increased in mean total marsh cover 

from 42% in 2010 to 71% in 2014, with seashore 

paspalum, herb of grace, cattails, and saltgrass all 

being abundant species. Saltmeadow (marshhay) 

cordgrass is the dominant species in the adjacent 

natural marsh. Target marsh elevation (1.3 feet 

NAVD 88 at year 10) was based on the average 

elevation of saltmeadow (marshhay) cordgrass 

marsh in the area. This species has expanded in the 

project area in both cover and range, increasing 

from less than 1% cover in 2010 to 8% cover in 

2014 (fig. 32) and expanding from occurrence at 3% 

of stations in 2010 to 37% in 2014.

Firsthand observations and data collected from 

vegetation and elevation surveys indicate that more 

than 50% of the project area is at an elevation that is 

supporting or can support marsh habitat. Elevation 

survey data collected during October 2011‒January 

2012 indicated that approximately 48% of the 

project area had settled to an elevation between 1.5 

and 2.0 feet NAVD 88. About 27% of the project 

area, however, was still at a higher elevation 

between 2.0 and 2.5 feet NAVD 88. The Mississippi 

River Sediment Delivery System−Bayou Dupont 

project is only 5 years old. As the project area 

continues to settle and approach the targeted 

elevation of 1.3 feet NAVD 88, it is expected that 

water exchange will increase and the marsh will 

continue to transition towards a stable, productive, 

robust marsh community that more closely 

resembles the local natural marsh, containing tidal 

creeks, ponds, and healthy marsh. 
59

Figure 29. Project map of the Mississippi River Sediment Delivery System−Bayou Dupont (BA-39) project, completed in May 

2010. This was the first CWPPRA restoration project that used sediment hydraulically dredged from the Mississippi River.

Mississippi River

Little

Oak

Pond

Belair Canal

LA HWY 23

The Pen

Bayou Dupont

Cheniere Traverse Bayou

Data Accurate as of March 10, 2015

Map Date: March 30, 2015

Mississippi River Sediment Delivery System - Bayou Dupont

(BA-39)

Louisiana

Project

Location

Scale 1:150,000

Image Source:

2012 DOQQ Photography

2 0 2

Miles

2 0 2

Kilometers

Marsh Creation

Area 1

Marsh Creation

Area 2

Naomi Siphon (BA-03)

CRMS Site

BA-39 Marsh Creation

BA-39 Borrow Area

Long Distance Sediment Pipeline

(BA-43-EB) Project Boundary

BA-03c Project Boundary

BA-39 Project Boundary
60

Figure 30. The Mississippi River Sediment Delivery System−Bayou Dupont (BA-39) project area in 2013, looking 

west from the Plaquemines Parish flood protection levee, 3 years postconstruction.
61

Figure 31. Land-water classification of the Mississippi River Sediment Delivery System−Bayou Dupont (BA-39) project area. The 2012 CRMS ashows 458 acres of land within an area that contained primarily open water before project construction. 
62

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2010 2011 2014

Others

Eastern baccharis

Saltmeadow cordgrass

Southern cattail

Dwarf spikerush

Saltgrass

Broadleaf cattail

Herb of grace

Seashore paspalum, crowngrass

EXPLANATION

Year

Vegetative cover (%)

Figure 32. Annual mean cover (%) for each species of vegetation surveyed at Mississippi River Sediment 

Delivery System−Bayou Dupont (BA-39) project stations. While total cover is based on 100%, the sum of 

each species’ cover can be greater than 100% because of overlap.

Fish and Wildlife Benefits

of Selected CWPPRA Projects

The East Marsh Island, North Lake Mechant, 

Bayou LaBranche, and Bayou Dupont projects 

protect and restore brackish marshes, which 

provide fish and wildlife habitat for rare and 

at-risk species, Gulf Coast Joint Venture priority 

species, wading birds, and other marsh birds. 

They also provide habitat for mammals and the 

American alligator. Estuarine fisheries benefiting 

from those restored brackish marsh habitats 

include important recreational (e.g., spotted 

sea trout, red drum, and Atlantic croaker) and 

commercial (e.g., Gulf menhaden and brown and 

white shrimp) species. 
63

 The CWPPRA program has been actively 

rebuilding wetlands and helping to turn the tide on 

land loss for 25 years. Projects that have restored 

barrier islands, interior marshes, and swamps have 

all left a noticeable mark on the coastal landscape. 

A foundation has been laid with the implementation 

of CWPPRA, upon which subsequent restoration 

initiatives have been built. Several comprehensive 

restoration plans have capitalized upon CWPPRA’s 

public planning process, benefiting from the 

generation and wide acceptance of such plans through 

practice of a public involvement policy and 

interagency cooperation. Various government 

planning documents and feasibility studies 

have often capitalized on CWPPRAgenerated project concepts. Some projects 

that have been designed through CWPPRA 

have been adopted and constructed through 

other authorities. This type of synergy 

between funding vehicles is efficient and 

expedites project implementation. CWPPRA 

has constructed, or funded for construction, 

121 of 200 authorized projects that are 

protecting and restoring more than 88,000 

acres of coastal wetlands and ultimately 

benefiting 860,000 acres over a 25-year 

period. The CWPPRA program remains 

uniquely committed to the understanding 

and promotion of restoration science. 

CWPPRA is responsive in constructing 

projects relatively quickly, within 3 to 

5 years. CWPPRA builds cost-effective 

projects developed by an experienced 

interagency team of coastal scientists and 

engineers along with local government and 

citizen contribution to project nomination 

and development. CWPPRA has predictable 

funding through the Trust Fund.

The CWPPRA program is science-based 

on the CRMS and project-specific monitoring 

program. Together with a rich brain trust of 

local academia, program scientists collect 

and analyze data from CWPPRA projects 

to evaluate their environmental benefits and 

gauge project success. This scientific analysis 

helps guide managers to develop projects 

by using the cutting edge science to support 

successful restoration. 

CWPPRA constructs lower cost demonstration 

projects that “field-test” restoration techniques for 

future application in restoration projects. CWPPRA 

projects complement other large-scale restoration 

efforts (e.g., CIAP, Master Plan, DWH Early 

Restoration Plan, and the RESTORE Act).

CWPPRA is meeting an otherwise unfilled niche 

by building near-term projects in acute, and often 

highly strategic, areas of need. This continues to be 

CWPPRA’s greatest asset and contribution to turning 

the tide on Louisiana land loss.

CWPPRA’s Programmatic Benefits

• Proven Track Record of Project Construction–

Over 25 years, 200 approved projects benefiting more 

than 1,344 square miles (860,000 acres);

101 constructed (20 under construction).

• Responsive–CWPPRA projects constructed in

3 to 5 years.

• Interagency Approach–Cost-effective projects 

developed by an experienced interagency team

(5 Federal, 2 State agencies).

• Community Involvement–Local governments

and citizens contribute to project nomination

and development.

• Predictable Funding–Federal Sport Fish & Boating 

Safety Trust Fund funding to 2015 through fishing 

equipment and small engine fuel taxes.

• Fiscally Responsible–CWPPRA projects

are cost effective.

• Science Based–CWPPRA’s monitoring program 

(CRMS). Demonstration projects “field-test” 

restoration techniques for future restoration

project success. 

• Complementary–CWPPRA projects complement 

other large-scale restoration efforts (i.e., LCA, 

CIAP, State Master Plan, BP DWH Oil Spill Early 

Restoration, and the RESTORE Act).

C onclusion
64

References

Achenbach, J., and D. Fahrenthold, August 3, 2010, 

Oil spill dumped 4.9 million barrels into Gulf of 

Mexico, latest measure shows: Washington, D.C., 

Washington Post. 

Batker, D., S. Mack, F. Sklar, M. Kelly, A. 

Freeman, W. Nuttle, and R. Costanza, 2012, 

What Louisiana stands to lose, in Answering 

10 fundamental questions about the Mississippi 

River Delta report: National Audubon Society, 

Environmental Defense Fund, and National 

Wildlife Federation, Mississippi River Delta 

Science and Engineering Special Team, 37 p.

Couvillion, B.R., J.A. Barras, G.D. Steyer, W. 

Sleavin, M. Fisher, H. Beck, N. Trahan, B. 

Griffin, and D. Heckman, 2011, Land area change 

in coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 

3164, scale 1:265,000, 12 p. (Also available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3164/downloads/

SIM3164_Pamphlet.pdf.)

Couvillion, B.R., G.D. Steyer, H. Wang, H.J. Beck, 

and J.M. Rybczyk, 2013, Forecasting the effects 

of coastal protection and restoration projects on 

wetland morphology in coastal Louisiana under 

multiple environmental uncertainty scenarios: 

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 

67, p. 29–50.

CPRA, 2011, Economic activity/employment 

statistics relative to coastal Louisiana: Baton 

Rouge, La., Louisiana Coastal Protection 

and Restoration Authority, http://sonriswww.dnr.state.la.us/dnrservices/redirectUrl.

jsp?dID=4713719.

CPRA, 2012, Louisiana Comprehensive Master 

Plan for a Sustainable Coast: Baton Rouge, La., 

Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration 

Authority, 190 p. plus appendixes.

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, 2014, 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council fact 

sheet, http://www.restorethegulf.gov.

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, 

2010, America’s Gulf Coast—A long term 

recovery plan after the Deepwater Horizon spill, 

126 p.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 

2015, Rare animals of Louisiana: Louisiana 

Natural Heritage Program, http://www.wlf.

louisiana.gov/wildlife/rare-animals-fact-sheets.

NOAA, 2006, Coastal Change Analysis Program 

(CCAP) regional land cover: Charleston, 

S.C., National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Ocean Service, Coastal 

Services Center, accessed on September 12, 2011, 

at http://www.csc.noaa.gov.

NOAA, 2010, Coastal Change Analysis Program 

(CCAP) regional land cover: Charleston, 

S.C., National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Ocean Service, Coastal 

Services Center, accessed on October 24, 2013, 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov.

NOAA, 2015, Gulf spill restoration: Deepwater 

Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

Trustees, www.gulfspillrestoration.NOAA.gov/

oil-spill.

Suhayda, J.N., 1977, Modeling impacts of Louisiana 

barrier islands on wetland hydrology: Journal of 

Coastal Research, v. 13, no. 3, p. 686–693.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf Coast Joint 

Venture, 2012, Mississippi River Coastal 

Wetlands Initiative Area and Chenier Plain 

Initiative Area fact sheets, www.gcjv.org/

documents.php.

Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, J.M. Smith, J.H. 

Atkinson, and J.D. Rosati, 2009, The potential 

of wetlands in reducing storm surge: Ocean 

Engineering, v. 37 (2010), p. 59–68.
65

Abbreviations

BICM Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring Program

CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority representing the State of Louisiana

Office of the Governor–Coastal Activities

CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act

CRMS Coastwide Reference Monitoring System

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FDT (Master Plan) Framework Development Team

GCERC

 (Council) Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council

LCA Louisiana Coastal Area

NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act

NGO Nongovernmental organization

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NWRC (USGS) National Wetlands Research Center

PPL Priority Project List 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

A ppendixes

67

69

Appendix 1. Complete List of Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection 

and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) Projects Authorized Since 1990

The following Web site provides a complete list of authorized projects under the Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) since its implementation in 1990: http://www.lacoast.

gov/new/Projects/List.aspx.

Appendix 2. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and

Restoration Act (CWPPRA) Educational Videos

The CWPPRA Public Outreach Committee is composed of members from the participating Federal 

agencies, the State of Louisiana, other coastal programs, and nonprofit organizations. The committee is 

currently responsible for 

•	 formulating information strategies and public and formal education initiatives, 

•	 maintaining a Web site of complex technical and educational materials, 

•	 developing audiovisual presentations, 

•	 organizing exhibits, 

•	 disseminating publications and news releases, and 

•	 conducting special events such as project dedications.

The outreach coordinator manages the educational program by providing information and materials 

for classroom and other use throughout the State. The chairman and outreach coordinator serve on local and 

regional planning efforts and act as the liaisons between the public, parish governments, and the various 

Federal agencies involved in CWPPRA. To address the need for immediate action of wetland loss and 

educating the public, the CWPPRA Public Outreach Committee, in collaboration with Federal, State, local, 

and private stakeholders, has developed various outreach videos (http://www.lacoast.gov/new/Pubs/videos.

aspx). 

•	 Returning Marshlands to Magnificent Life - Hydrologic restoration techniques.

•	 CWPPRA - Rebuilding Coastal Louisiana - What is the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection 

and Restoration Act?

•	 Marsh Creation - Step by Step - CWPPRA’s efforts to save Marsh Island.

•	 Meet the CWPPRA Task Force - Task Force members explain why restoration is essential 

to Louisiana. 

•	 Louisiana Coastal Land Loss Simulation 1932 through 2010 - This USGS-NWRC video captures 

Louisiana coastal land loss issues via animation.

•	 Coastal Louisiana: Impacts of Hurricanes on Salt Marsh and Mangrove Wetlands.

•	 Effects of Sea-Level Rise on Coastal Wetlands in the Mississippi Delta - The effects of sealevel rise and other global change factors on coastal wetlands in the delta.

•	 The Floating Marshes of Louisiana: A Unique Ecosystem - Mississippi River Delta 

Plain floating marshes. 

•	 What Lies Beneath: Using Mangrove Peat To Study Ancient Coastal Environments and 

Sea-Level Rise. 

71

Appendix 3. Louisiana Coastal Threatened and Endangered 

Species, Fisheries, and Common Marsh Plants

73

Louisiana QuillwortIsoetes louisianensisEndangeredAdjacent to wetlands, River

Red-Cockaded WoodpeckerPicoides borealisEndangeredPine habitats adjacent to wetlands, primarily in St. Tammany ParishKemp’s Ridley Sea TurtleLepidochelys kempiiEndangeredOcean, BeachHawksbill Sea TurtleEretmochelys imbricataEndangeredOcean, Beach

Loggerhead Sea TurtleCaretta carettaThreatenedOcean, Beach

Pallid SturgeonScaphirhynchus albusEndangeredRiver

Piping PloverCharadrius melodusThreatenedBeach

Leatherback Sea TurtleDermochelys coriaceaEndangeredOcean, Beach

Red KnotCalidris canutus rufaThreatenedBeachGreen Sea TurtleChelonia mydasThreatenedOcean, Beach

West Indian ManateeTrichechus manatusEndangeredRiver, Estuary, Ocean

Louisiana Black BearUrsus americanus luteolusThreatenedBottomland hardwood, primarily in St. Mary & Iberia Parishes

Coastal Louisiana Threatened and Endangered 
Louisiana Fisheries Use Coastal Wetlands During Th

1-unfertilized egg & sperm cells

2-fertilized egg

3-trocophore larvae

4-veliger

5-pediveliger

6-early spat

8-adult oysters 7-later spat

1-egg

3-advanced larva

4-transforming prejuvenile

5-juvenile

6-adult

4-mysis

5-postlarva

Estuary 

6-juvenile

1-e

2-zoea

3-megalops

4-juvenile

5-adult

6-migrating female with eggs

74
Common Marsh Plants of Louisiana

Black MangroveAvicennia germinansSalineBulltongueSagittaria lancifoliaFresh, IntermediateGiant CutgrassZizaniopsis miliaceaFreshBroadleaf CattailTypha latifoliaFresh, Intermediate

Maidencane (Paille Fine)Panicum hemitomonFresh

California BulrushSchoenopletus californicusFresh, Intermediate

PickerelweedPontederia cordataFreshInland SaltgrassDistichlis spicataBrackish, Saline

Black NeedlerushJuncus roemerianusBrackish

Gulf CordgrassSpartina spartinaeBrackish, SalineMarshhay CordgrassSpartina patensIntermediate, BrackishGroundsel TreeBaccharis halimifoliaFresh, Brackish

Photographs courtesy of Larry Allain

75

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)

The 2015 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress