Preliminary assessment of the Louisiana Coastal Management Program

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

do
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL REsoURCES
Coastal Management Division
P -0. BOX 4-4487
BATON ROUGE*, LOUISIANA 70804-4467 ON RO
/V U-S-POSTAGE
VA
AT K, 79 7
2-3 21
LA H 41
85623

S' L r. E p
0 FF
C E,q
RE RCE
Ct"QEF C A
IS?5 Ift4 C TR
4 V r
IF V.J@a
U

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
OF THE LOUISIANA
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared under the
Coastal Zone. Enhancement Grants Program

Section 309
Coastal Zone Management Act

Ilk

PREPARED BY
The Coastal Management Division
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

Rodney E. Emmer & Associates, Inc.
Baton Rouge, La.

November 25, 1991

of
L

BUDDY ROEMER MARTHA A. SWAN
GOVERNOR
SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

November 27, 1991

Dear Preliminary Assessment Recipient:

The 1990 reauthorization of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
as amended, established under Section 309 a new voluntary Coastal Zone
Enhancement Grants Program which encourages federally -approved state
coastal management programs to seek to achieve one or more of eight coastal
management objectives. The states are encouraged to achieve these objectives
through changes to their coastal management programs. Louisiana has a
federally approved coastal management program, the Louisiana Coastal
Resources Program (LCRP), which is administered by the, Coastal Management
Division of the Department of Natural Resources (CMD/DNR).

As a first step in this process, CMD/DNR is seeking to identify priority needs
for improvement. The CMD/DNR is requesting public input regarding
Louisiana's most pressing coastal issues related to the following Section 309
objectives:

1. Protection, enhancement, or creation of coastal wetlands;

2. Preventing or significantly reducing threats to life and property by
controlling coastal development and redevelopment in hazardous areas,
and anticipating and managing the effects of sea level rise;

3. Attaining increased opportunities for public access;

4. Reducing marine debris by managing uses and activities that contribute
to marine debris;

5. Development and adoption of procedures to address the cumulative and
secondary impacts of coastal growth and development;

6. Preparing and implementing special area management plans;

7. Planning for the use of ocean resources; and

8. Adoption of procedures and policies to facilitate the siting of energy
facilities and government facilities and energy-related activities and
government activities which may be of greater than local significance.

The attached document, the "Preliminary Assessment of the Louisiana Coastal
Management Program", has been produced by CMD/DNR in order to address the
above enhancement areas. It has been provided to the public so that they may
review it and comment on the state's assessment of its priority needs for

COASTAL NIANAGEWNT DIVISION P.O. ROX 44497 BATON ROUGF.. I.OUISIANA 70804-4487

AN FQUAL OPPOR FUNITY FMPLOYF.R

improvement in the eight enhancement areas. From the Assessment,
CMD/DNR will develop a Strategy for addressing the identified high priority
areas. The Assessment and Strategy will provide the basis by which CI@M/DNR
will apply for grant funds from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The final
Assessment will be completed by January 10, 1992, and the Strategy will be
completed by February 28, 1992.

The CMD/DNR will hold public meetings about the Assessment document on the
following days in the following locations:

1. Tuesday, December 17, 1991, 7:00 PM - Lake Charles, Louisiana,
Courtroom A, Calcasieu Parish Courthouse, 1000 Ryan St.;

2. Wednesday, December 18, 1991, 7:00 PM - Morgan City, Louisiana,
Morgan City Council Chamber, City Court Building, Comer of Myrtle St.
and U.S. Highway 90; and

3. Thursday, December 19, 1991, 7:00 PM - LaPlace, Louisiana, Woodland
Room, Holiday Inn, 3900 Main Street, immediately south of the LaPlace
Exit of I-10 (Exit 209) and the LaPlace Exit of 1-55 (Exit 1).

The CMD/DNR invites you to attend one or more of the meetings and/or to
submit written comments, about the attached Assessment document. If you
would like to provide written comments, please send them to me at the address
listed on the front sheet of this packet. Additionally, if you have questions
about the Assessment process, please call Jim Rives at (504) 342-7591.

Sincerely yours,

Terry Howey
Director

attachment

UISIANACOASIT LMNE
A
.,984 FR CHANGE
1,956i''...-I.,97&@-4 LANO.COV
IE4 USF 'o y DATA
IV= WSNAT A
SWMW(AT I W W4MMAW '047SAWTEOLUTE DATA

ENERGY DIVISION GIS LABORATORY & CMDTECHNICAL SERVICES
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENTOF NATURAL.RESOURCES,- 1991

6QACRES CONiIGUQUS AREAS OF CHANGE NO NET LAND OR MARSH GAINfLOSS DURING 195ry-78 OR 1978-84
@SCALE LAND,OR FRESH MARSH IN 1978 SWAMP IN 1978
LOSS lg5%SIH
ONLY UNITS 6 978 BROKEN MARSH IN 1984
64. 6 ACRES RUB-SCRUB AND
5 a 5 10 0 m On @YH INTERMEDIATE MARSH IN'1978 SH REST IN 1978
MILES -2 LEGEND - , 1 97MB 984 El NATURAL WATER IN 1978-84 EFO
*100 HECTARES F] LAND OR VARSH BRACKISH MARSH IN 1978 Vauk AND
LO 510 UNITS OF GAIN, 1956 rO 1978 ARTIFICIAL WATER IN 1978 19
10, -31 ALL SIZES OR S SALINE MARSH IN 1978
El W9, 1978M lH984 AMPff 4078'L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. v

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

Section 309(a)(1) WETLANDS ............................................................................. 4
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 4
WETLANDS .......................................................................................... 4
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
WETLANDS ............................................................................... 11
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................. 14
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's WETLANDS
PROGRAM ................................................................................. 11

Section 309(a)(2) COASTAL HAZARDS ......................... ; ..................................... 16
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 16
COASTAL HAZARDS ............................................................................ 16
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
COASTAL HAZARDS ................................................................... 23
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................. 25
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's COASTAL HAZARDS
PROGRAM ...................... ............................ I .............................. 26

Section 309(a)(3) PUBLIC ACCESS .................................................................... 28
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 28
PUBLIC ACCESS ................................................................................. 28
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
PUBLIC ACCESS ........................................................................ 29
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................. 31
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's PUBLIC ACCESS
PROGRAM ................................................................................. 32

Section 309(a)(4) MARINE DEBRIS .................................................................... 33
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 33
MARINE DEBRIS ................................................................................. 33
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
MARINE DEBRIS ......................................................................... 33
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................. 35
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's MARINE DEBRIS
PROGRAM ................................................................................. 35

Section 309(a)(5) CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS .................................. 37
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 37
CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS .............................................. 37
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
ON CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS ................................ 38
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS .............................................. 39
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's CUMULATIVE AND
SECONDARY IMPACTS PROGRAM ................................................. 40

Section 309(a)(6) SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING ................................ 41
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 41
SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING .............................................. 41
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING ...................................... 43
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................. 44
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's SPECIAL AREA
MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROGRAM ........................................... 45

Section 309(a)(7) OCEAN RESOURCES ............................................................... 46
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 46
OCEAN RESOURCES ............. ............................................................... 46
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
OCEAN RESOURCES .................................................................... 50
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS .............................................. 50
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's OCEAN RESOURCES
PROGRAM ................................................................................. 50

Section 309(a)(8) ENERGY AND GOVERNMENT FACH=
SITING AND ACTIVITIES ............................................................................... 51
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 51
ENERGY ............................................................................................ 51
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
ENERGY ................................................................................... 51
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ............................................. 52
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's ENERGY PROGRAM ............................... 53
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES ................................................................... 53
CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES ........................................................... 53
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ................... ......................... 54
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's GOVERNMENTAL
PROGRAM ................................................................................. 54

REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 55
APPENDIX .................................................................................. Follows page 63

LIST OF FIGURES

1. South Louisiana parishes and the Act 361 Coastal
Zone Boundary .....................................................................................2

2. Coastal zone boundary of Louisiana .............................................................8

3. Disturbed acres for permits issued for vegetated
wetlands ........................................................................................... 12

4. Hurricane recurrence intervals and historic inland
storm surge limit with depths of inundation ................................................... 18

5. The 1 00-year floodplain ......................................................................... 20

6. Shoreline accretion/erosion rates and communities
imminently affected by sea-level rise ........................................................... 22

7. Public recreation lands and camp concentrations ............................................. 30

8. Nine hydrologic basins in coastal Louisiana as they
are frequently used in environmental management and
planning ............................................................................................. 42

9. Mineral resources off the Louisiana coast ..................................................... 47

10. Louisiana coastal and offshore oil and gas fields ............................................. 49

LIST OF TABLES

I Land Cover Change in Each Basin Between 1978
and 1984, in acres .................................................................................. 5

2. Land Loss per Hydrologic Basin, 1956-1978-1983 ........................................... 6

3. Occurrence and Severity of Natural Hazards in Louisiana ................................... 16

4. Data Collected from Four Years of Voluntary Beach
Cleanup ............................................................................................ 36

INTRODUCTION

The Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) becarne a fully functioning, federally-approved
coastal management program on October 1, 1980. This beginning was the culmination of a
process that began in Washington in 1972 with the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act
and which continued in Baton Rouge with the passage of the State and Local Coastal Resources
Management Act (SLCRMA) in 1978. Between 1978 and 1980 the Louisiana Coastal
Commission, which has since been abolished, developed the Coastal Use Guidelines (Guidelines),
which serve as performance standards for proposed coastal uses and activities. The state also
established the Guidelines and certain other procedures as regulations.

The basic policies of the SLCRMA call for a balancing of development and resource utilization
with conservation, preservation, and restoration of the coastal zone (Figure 1). The focus of the
program is primarily on combating wetland loss, which is now at an annual rate of between 35 and
60 Mi2. 'Other aspects of the program relate to regulating activities in open water and on elevated
natural features such as sand dunes and chenier ridges, as well as activities which have direct and
significant impact on coastal waters.

Further, the SLCRMA provided for state and local coastal management and that local management
would be on the parish level. Under the SLCRMA, prior to receiving its local coastal management
authority, a parish must develop a coastal management program, which must in turn be approved
on the state and federal levels. The state has full coastal management authority in those parishes
which do not have approved local programs and retains authority over certain uses (uses of state
concern) in parishes which do have approved programs. Nineteen parishes are at least partially
within the coastal zone boundary, and seven now have approved programs.

The Coastal Managem ent Division (CMD) of the Office of Coastal Restoration and Management of
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the agency responsible for regulating uses of state
concern, and approving and overseeing local coastal management programs. The local program
review and oversight function is carried out by the Local Program Section of CMD. The CMD
carries out its regulatory mandate through the efforts of the Permit, Consistency, and Enforcement
Sections. The Permit Section is responsible for regulating all the proposed coastal uses in the
coastal zone except those by federal agencies or deep-water port commissions. Examples of the
types of activities regulated by the Permit Section include the dredging or filling of wetlands or
open water areas, modification of water flow patterns, and alteration of barrier islands and
beaches. The Permit Section receives about 1,500 permit applications per year. To expedite the
process, the CMD has a Joint Public Notice process with the New Orleans District Corps of
Engineers. The Consistency Section is responsible for evaluating the activities of federal agencies
and deep water port commissions for consistency with the LCRP. It is also responsible for
commenting on activities taking place on federal lands within the coastal zone and the federal
waters off of the Louisiana coast. Examples of the types of activities evaluated by the Consistency
Section include offshore oil and gas development, flood control and navigation projects, and
coastal uses on federal wildlife refuges. The Enforcement Section is responsible for investigating
possible violations of the LCRP. Such violations include incidents of permit noncompliance, as
well as uses conducted without permits. The LCRP also mandates that the state must create and
maintain an information base, perform necessary research, and monitor the coastal zone. The
CMD carries out these functions with the Technical Resources Section, the Wetland Resources
Section, and the Field Investigations Section.

Fa@ F...-

-ftfaw @,qm

@mlol

-.If . . . . . . 'Khm BATON M@GE

ffr@.

LAKE CHARM
LAFIYETTE
L PWM*APMb

VMS

...........
vm,m

Ad 3M COMW Zm Bwnd"

0 10 2D 3D 40
W

92- 9w

Figure South Louisiana parishes and the Act 361 Coastal Zone Boundaty.

In 1990, Congress reauthorized the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) for five years. A new
voluntary enhancement grant was established by Section 309 of the CZMA, a mechanism that
encourages states to develop changes in any of eight areas. The results will lead to a more effective
state coastal zone program. The eight areas to receive attention include:

Section 309(a)(1) -Wetlands
Section 309(a)(2) -Coastal Hazards
Section 309(a)(3) -Public Access
Section 309(a)(4) -Marine Debris
Section 309(a)(5) -Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
Section 309(a)(6) -Special Area Management Planning
Section 309(a)(7) 7Ocean Resources
Section 309(a)(8) -Energy and Government Facility Siting and Activities.

To assist the public during the 309 process the CMD staff offers this assessment of the
enhancement areas. The purposes of the assessment are:

To determine whether coastal problems exist within each of the eight Section 309
enhancement areas, and, where they do exist, to evaluate their future, the extent to which
they are already being addressed, and their relative importance;

To provide the factual basis for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM), in consultation with Louisiana, to determine the priority needs for improvement
of state coastal management programs; and

To provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the state's identification and
justifications of priority needs, as well as possible means that Louisiana is considering in
addressing the identified needs.

A section on each enhancement area is divided into five parts: an introduction; a discussion of the
issue; a description of the existing programs that address that issue; an evaluation of the
effectiveness of each of these programs; and CMD's recommendations for improving Louisiana's
coastal zone management program. In compliance with OCRM's guidelines, the assessment
contains text, figures, tables, and appendix. More technical material and extensive data are
incorporated by reference. A bibliography directs the reader to many documents that contain more
detailed information.

All comments and suggestions should be sent to:

Dr. Terry Howey
Director
Coastal Management Division
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44487
Baton Rouge, La. 70804-4487
504-342-7591

Section 309(a)(1) WETLANDS

INTRODUCTION

Wetlands are "open water areas or areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater
at a frequencyand duration sufficient to support (and) ... do support a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (La. R. S. 49: 214.3 (3), and subsection 731
(a), Chapter 7, Title 43 La. Administrative Code). Wetlands, according to the state, are areas that
support aquatic vegetation or lands that are capable of supporting wetland vegetation under "normal
circumstances." This definition includes areas (hat Were once wetlands but now are open water as
a result of wetland loss caused by various natural or human factors. Coastal wetlands include
bottomland hardwoods, swamps, shrub/scrub, and fresh, intermediate, brackish, and saline marsh
habitats.

Bottomland hardwoods are important habitats for wildlife such as squirrel and white tail deer.
Swamps are essential for wildlife and nonmigratofy freshwater fisheries. such as catfish,
largemouth bass, and bluegill. Fresh and intermediate marshesare especially valuable for
alligators, waterfowl, nutria, deer, wading birds, and other wildlife. Marshes also provide habitat
for fisheries species such as the freshwater catfish and largemouth bass, and the estuarine
migratory species, menhaden and white shrimp. Brackish and saline marshes are prime nursery
areas for estuarine organisms, including white and brown shrimp, blue crab, and various finfish
(redfish and spotted sea trout). Some waterfowl, furbearers (muskrat), and wading birds use the
more saline environments, but their prime habitat occurs in fresher marshes.

This section describes Louisiana's coastal wetlands, presents the institutional programs now in
place, analyzes the effectiveness of these programs, and suggests changes.that may occur in the
CMD sphere of responsibility for addressing wetland issues.

WETLANDS

The Louisiana coastal zone provides a wealth of both renewable (fisheries, furs, and agricultural
products) and nonrenewable (mineral) natural resources. Louisiana's coastal wetlands contribute
over'30% of the U.S. commercial fisheries harvest and 66% of the Mississippi Flyway's wintering
waterfowl. Louisiana produces the greatest amount of furs of any state in the nation (Turner
1985). These renewable coastal resources are significant to the state and the nation (Louisiana
Coastal Resources Program 1980; Gosselink et al. 1979; Gagliano et al. 1981; Costanza et al.
1983; Turner 1985; and Day et al. 1986). Louisiana's coastal wetlands, which represent
approximately 41 % of the Nation's total coastal wetlands (Turner and Gosselink 1975), contain
60% of the estuaries and marshes along the Gulf of Mexico (Lindstedt 1989). It has been
estimated that the Louisiana coastal zone contains 3,233,000 ac of wetlands (Mossa et al. 1990).

Despite these statistics, Louisiana's coastal zone presently experiences the serious problems of
wetland loss, wetland alteration to more saline habitat, and water quality degradation. Land loss in
the coastal zone has been documented in the range of 0. 8% per year Q 5,5 5 8 ac/yr) (Gagliano et al.
1981; Turner 1985; Walker et al. 1987; Turner and Cahoon 1987). These rates have increased
from 6.7 mi2/yr in 1913, to 50.1 mi2/yr in 1980 (Gagliano et al. 1981), and decrease to
30.7 mi2lyr in 1983 (Dunbar and Kemp 1990). At the rate of 0.8% per year, the entire coastal
zone will be converted to open water by the year 2116 (or 125 years). Wetland losses translate to
losses in renewable resources such as commercial and recreational fishing, hunting, trapping, and
recreational coastal pursuits. Tables 1, 2, and A-1 through A-4 (Appendix) show the amounts of

Table 1- Land cover in each basin between 1978 and 1984, in acres (percentages in
parentheses). Numbers between 1978 and 1984 may not match because of
map registration problems and the differences in the nature of data types.

Ch far
rl:tn Delta plain Coest.4 Zone,
Sabina Cal" Mermarn Verall Total AEchaf Terra harstar "is$. R Pont Bret." Pearl I.E.1 Total
1978 "ter to 1984 108.106 144,233 279.892 411,960 9". 190 255.662 676.6b6 537.157 1.28.593 1.517.106 416A69 1.021 3.832.873 4.777,063
.&Car (34) (35) (49) (41) (65) (4 9 ) (47 ) (69) (68) (59) (3) (5, 9) ( &0
1978 marsh to 1994 10.720 7. W 23,648 9.435 50.398 9,413 67.B62 50.651 16,457 23.467 17.920 528 186.298 236.606
.&ter (3) (2) (3) (1) (7) (21 (4) (3) (1) (2) (2) (1) (3)
1978 IwA to 1984 5.477 1.763 5.936 2.273 15.3" 1.732 1,985 3@468 8@572 4,121 653 85 20.615 36.015
-star (2) (2) (1) (1) (1) MI (<I) (@I) (1) (@I) (<I) (<I) A@1) (-I)
1978 u,st*r to 1984 5,607 7,577 13,641 16.413 43.238 6.410 45,1.12 30.672 15.979 26.669 27,834 927 153.802 19 7, OLO
marsh (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (2) (3) (1) (4) (2) (2) (2)
1979 marsh to 1994 92.304 75,071 342,345 257.555 767.274 $@,617 375.183 249.548 53.674 332.686 179.940 ig.061. 1.298 113 2.065.987
marsh (29) (23) (42) (30) (31) (23) (27) (22) (9) (15) (25) (54) (20) (23)
1976 land to 1984 8.749 14.596 16.420 1,6.902 54,557 2.808 11.516 20. 4.2) 4.906 16.981 6.559 719 63@910 119.467
Bar h (3) (4) (2) (2) (2) (1) (1) (?) (1) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1)
1, 78 w:t.r C. 19" 11.015 13.690 10.245 6.113 41.D63 1.389 42.916 38,178 5.700 7.720 13.052 111 109,066 150.128
broken marsh (4) (4) (1) (1) (2) (<I) (3) (3) (1) 4<1) (2) (<I) (2) (2)
1978 marsh to 1984 50,126 29.756 67.736 24.320 171.940 7.721 121.458 115.988 7.740 28.218 25,608 715 301 44B 474 M
broken marsh (16) (9) (8) (3) (7) (2) (9) (10) (1) (1) (4) (2) (5) (5)
1978 land to 1984 3.047 3.750 4.230 1.387 12.415 185 1,629 2.145 671 65? 493 10 199 18,2(6
broken marsh (1) (1) (1) (<I) (1) (<I) (<I) (<I) (-1) (.1) (<I) (,I) f.11 (<I@
1978 &car to 1984 392 4zI 922 1.816 3,552 4.561 2.114 3,069 ISM 10,1150 1643 61 17.886 41,439
larbd (<I) (<I) (<I) (<I) (<I) (1) (<I) (,1) (3) (<I) (.1) (<I) (I) (<I)
1978 marsh to 1994 9.523 7.847 7.836 7.565 32.771 8.665 15.134 Ii. .670 14.326 33,979 6.286 723 93.76, 126.555
land (3) (2) (1) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2) (2) (1) (2) (1) (1)
1979 land to 1984 9.062 22.267 )5,121 110.637 177,0:6 7.457 11.017 71.215 SO.191 236.046 24,977 10.186 41 ? 268,8 594.374
l.r.d (3) (7) (4) (13) (2 (6) 3) (3 1 (7
Area compared 314.0 320.545 807.970 $63,271 2.313.073 3W619 1,379,092 1.137.182 612.696 2.238.200 721 .1.31 33,251 6.521.473 3.641.)46
Percentage hftqe (3)) (26) (19) (10) (18) M) (27) (25) (14) 47) (14) (11) (15) (16)

Lord I-ma per hy"logic fl@ 1966 1079 1983

Hyd'o"i. Lkwis
Sabine/cal"al" marmsitt" U.1te/Vo-1110. Chortlor FrOwn AtchalWay. T-.o-- B-Wl. u1sawUppi now. PontChativain W.I.. 0.4a. Pf.n cami.1 Z- total
W-(-) vy, wyr@ Walk "I ar" Wy, W&A Wy, ar" ivy, ..a WY, %IV, a" say, %ty,

Fmih Marsh
toss SSS36 S67042 31220 484697 26160 340560 2608.0 14S033 4, "4 46168 854753 1332450
tole 21718 236801 48512 307031 64963 166857 51063 391172 32288 2542 346605 653636
WwwoskmWO -3-sm .154% 2.50% - 1.64% 4.99% .2.30% 3.85% -3@30% 1.04% -426% 2 10% 2,32%
78183 -0-96% -2AS% 3.51016 .0.26% 1,25% _IA11% -3.14% .0.72% .0."% -&05% 1. 16% 1 45%

1958 2slose 127270 242498 560863 40010 336 122 273212 3648 235692 213120 1101812 1752675
$976 248368 isol" 107770 $38294 0 350264 340820 32224 215297 207024 IIS4918 1700911
% W"Onift ftqt -0.52% 226% -0.80% -0.10% -4.56% 0.21% 1,12% 35.60% -019% 0@0% 022% 010%
?8/83 -0.14% fAf% .0.46% -0.04% .4.30% 0.40% I-2W% 92.56% .032% -0.18% 0.30% 0.14%
FWQGI
1956 t273 7361 14832 236" 1003 15&25 222" 5611 102969 15262 179617 203183
1979 1597 6614 17661 25862 2049 167$8 28483 7444 106511 12390 173715 199577
invogain sorm 0.74% -0.45% 026% 0.44% 41M 0.27% -0s2% 1.40,y; -0,14% 0.85% OAS% -0.08%
7943 12M @0.61% -0-49% DIM 6.18% 0-47% A"% 2.6296 -0,12% -121% -0@ 10% -005%
Swamp
IUs 0 203 4001:1 40217 *0732 46840 33121 13658 203673 14090 361123 401340
1978 0 let 37032 Mill 63347 34227 236" 12000 180152 1751 306225 342425
% Wav9su, urn 0% 0.76% .0-34% -0.24% 0.33% -1.22% -1.30% -0-55% Os2% .3.98% .0-70% .067%
79j52 74 -0.19% -0.20% 0-36% .0-419% -IA2% -0-13% OA3% 565% 0. "% 042%
Shetilime-b
1958 1411 929 10233 12672 322 441 2254 3940 3547 839 11415 23986
1274 2761 3627 10193 16471 2012 12176 b703 2320 $350 1454 32026 48497
imaloWn 541M 4.2m 12.71% -0102% 1.41% 18.79% 121% 6.95% -186% 6.15% 333% 0-21% 4,60%
78ts3 7.47% 11.615% -0.01% 2.0^ 19.2,40% 156% 7.92% 0,45% 7 103% 11 @04% 626%
T.t.1
1956 370405 493714 338796 1211914 117$33 739444 601603 1710910 S94845 283472 2509720 3720634
1978 274424 437277 sill" t0224150 112471 600312 449767 92070 6425" 225170 2012182 3035046
"Wom Sam -1.29% -0.6m .0.37% -0.71% -019% -0.93% 1.15% _Z06% -0.40% .0.93% 0.2m 0@83%
76183 -0.34% .0-07% A21% -0.41% -0.18% -047% 0-99% -0.54D% .0.33% 1.32% @Ost% 0.53%

'AdW" from Ourtbar &1 0 (IOW)

W211C -2.01% 5.33 1.11 -7.74 .0.32 -7.73 -048 - 1@33 3.093 4.83 22.97 30.7

W'O. 10" 12094C 3409at ?i2m, 4954" 206M 49478C 593a.. $51" 1980., 3731" 14701&t 196484.

� "Woobvy, -0.24% -0-410% -0.21% -0.41% -0.18% -0.67% A99% @Qso% .0.33% 4.22% 059% .0.53%

� OWIP 1074-83 77% 32.1511016 4310% 4zllm 6-25% 27.96% 13.90% 75.70% 17AM 4144% 34.44% 38.14%

6krimpow x 6v7se 0.27 tL3S 0.67 0.50 0.92 *-?2 9411 0.24 Os3 059 0.66 063

Unaw 4, 0. Lirda". 0. Cahowt, Nd J. Simim IUD. E-Amr-or" Clorvowilibm &-A HAMM Chm" k- the Loukam Cos" Zarm. pp 167-2",IrL D, Cahmn wW C- Grain (als.) A Study c* WAmh mmagamare Practice in CO." L@@ FWal Rpmm
OWOW. j.. L, &*wA wd F- K"V NU loos. Lard Law flmm@ PAW 2 La. Claimer PliWL US C4,pa 0 Eighimmi. f0ar Obwm L& 2f pp . appenolk.
HWW Ogww 6W S" "" do me kWkde Wwt@dW* W offm nwwAVW tim"Wal Amas.
Farew Imblext C069my bWkdn al larem Wims Imat WLWW p1ma to bollowland
Oftwirom marsh bwWwo " cbffhkwdm of IftermedWair. br@lvh aral SaIrm ffilmh fyPaL
.. .. p j Ift 561118 lard law, Wakwit Py OA36 (63.6%) 0.0oll W by 9ft Qpw;dC b0lft n%WAPMM 1"Ca" Ow Lard 98K lar 1wal giur,. mult" by % ChArQ* and aW 0 wb) in ordar m oft* w w aw-w"k- CW it. 19W Ck'"r M .' "W I". ,k-

Table 2. Land loss per hydrologic basin 1956, 1978, 1983. (Clark 1990)

wetland habitat and habitat loss from 1956 through 1984 within each habitat and hydrologic unit of
the Louisiana coastal zone (Mossa et a]. 1990).

Some areas of the Louisiana coastal zone are losing land at a greater rate than the average. The
Barataria Basin in the Deltaic Plain is one example. From 1956 to 1978, a land loss of 18%
(216,000 ac) was noted. From 1978 to 1984, there was a 25% change in land cover, with 4%
(50,651 ac) consisting of marsh converting to open water (Mossa et al. 1990). Out of a total of
1,150,000 ac, 287,912 ac (25%) of Barataria Basin wetlands were lost during the period 1956 to
1984 (Mossa et al. 1990). Sasser et al. (1986) reported a 77.4% loss in wetland area in the
southwestern Barataria Basin from 1945 to 1980 (a decrease from 130,560 ac in 1945 to only
29,455 ac in 1980).

In analyzing changes in wetland habitats from 1956 to 1978, certain areas along the coastal zone
had high wetland loss rates (Frontispiece). Most land loss occurred in the interior marshes of
Cameron Parish east and west of Black Lake; in the interior marshes between Sabine and Calcasieu
Lakes; east of Lake Calcasieu; south of White Lake in Vermilion Parish; in the interior marshes
near the northern portion of Marone Point in southwest St. Mary Parish; northwest Terrebonne
Parish; central Terrebonne, Lafourche, and Jefferson Parishes; the mouth of the Mississippi River;
areas adjacent to the MRGO; and the northeast shoreline of Lake Pontchartrain (Frontispiece).
Coastal swamp and marsh losses are occurring throughout the Louisiana coastal zone except for
the Atchafalaya Bay region where land is actively being built by the prograding Atchafalaya Deltaic
system.

The areas of greatest fresh marsh loss from 1956 to 1978 were in the Breton Sound (-4.3%/yr;
94.6%), Barataria (-3.7%/yr; 81 % in 22 yrs), and Sabine-Calcasieu (-3.5%/yr, 77%) Hydrologic
Units (Figure 2). The Breton (-6%/yr, 36%), Barataria (-3.1 %/yr, 18.6%), and Mermentau
(-2.1%/yr, 12.6%) hydrologic units had large fresh marsh losses from 1978 to 1984 (Table 1).
Non-fresh marsh habitats (intermediate, brackish, and saline marshes) increased in most
hydrologic units from 1978 to 1983, except for the Atchafalaya (43%/yr), TecheNermilion (-
0.5%/yr), and Pontchartrain (-0.3%/yr) hydrologic units (Dunbar and Kemp 1990). Swamp
habitats experienced an average decrease of 0.4%/yr over all the coastal zone hydrologic units,
with the Breton Sound Hydrologic Unit experiencing a 5.7% annual swamp loss. Swamp
building is occurring in the Atchafalaya Delta Hydrologic Unit (+0.35%/yr) because of willow tree
development on the recent delta deposits. Shrub/scrub habitat gained in every hydrologic unit in
the coast, with the exception of the TecheNermilion and the Mississippi River units, at an average
rate of +6.3% annually from 1978 to 1983. Overall, however, wetland habitats experienced a net
0.53% annual loss of area from 1956 to 1983 (Table 2) (Mossa et al. 1990; Dunbar and Kemp
1990).

Land loss is caused by natural and human actions. Natural causes include'sea-level rise,
subsidence, lack of sedimentation, saltwater intrusion, muskrat and nutria "eat outs," tidal scour,
and wave action (Turner 1985; Walker et al. 1987). Man-made hydrologic alterations of the
coastal wetlands have accelerated these losses (Davis 1973; Gosselink et al. 1979; Craig et al.
1980; Turner et al. 1982; Scaife et al. 1983; Day et al. 1986). Human actions include canal
construction, dredging and filling, total impoundments, levees, and toxic discharges.

Two major coastal wetland problems in Louisiana's coastal zone are: (1) wetland losses or the
conversion of wetlands to open water, uplands, and other habitat types; and (2) wetland change to
more saline habitat types. Sasser et al. (1986) used the term "submergence rates" to refer to all
factors that combine to raise water levels and thereby increase "land sinking" in coastal Louisiana.
These factors are true sea-level rise, lack of sedimentation, and subsidence resulting from both
compaction and coastal downwarping (Sasser et al. 1986). Saltwater intrusion, storms, and
human-induced impacts also cause wetland loss and habitat changes. Furthermore, saltwater
intrusion is caused by human-induced hydrological changes such as leveeing the Mississippi River

C-mal Am IIA-v

et Akt

P()NICI 1A X14

CMCAS4U Or

VjKh4%K)14 )KIM NMI 1().4
AICIWAIA VA NAMAIAMIA S" 440

It %AWC WIat'.

Figure 2. Coastal zone boundary of Louisiana (Cahoon and Groat 1990).

and its tributaries, construction of canals and navigation channels, and by subsidence and sea-level
rise. Shoreline erosion caused by increased water levels, wave action, and boat wakes also
contributes to wetland loss. Pollutants from petroleum exploration and production often contribute
to wedand losses through oil spills, brine discharges, produced waters, and other chemical spills.
Animal "eat outs" may denude areas of vegetation, leading to eventual conversion of the site to
open water. Turner and Cahoon (1988) separate the causes of wetland loss into the following:
direct habitat change or alteration caused by human development activities; sea-level rise;
subsidence; hydrologic changes, which, in turn, are caused by saltwater intrusion; the leveeing of
coastal rivers; reduction in sediment sources; canalization; spoil banks; hurricanes/storms; increase
in fetch and boat wakes; major flood events; brine, drilling fluids, and oil discharges and spills;
and animal "eat outs."

Seven causes of submergence, or sea-level rise, that is, the vertical relationship between land and
water surfaces, are: eustacy (true sea-level rise); geosyncline downwarping; compaction of tertiary
and Pleistocene deposits; Holocene deposit compaction; localized consolidation; tectonic activity;
and subsurface fluid withdrawal (Kolb and van Lopik 1958; Adams et al. 1976 in Mossa et al.
1990). Human activities may aggravate some of the above, resulting in accelerated submergence.
The leveeing of the Mississippi River and subsequent channeling of sediments off the continental
shelf may be increasing the rate of geosyncline downwarping. Human-induced subsurface fluid
withdrawal results from either forced drainage activities which remove water just below the surface
or by petroleum or other mineral operations extracting products from below the surface (i. e., oil,
gas, and sulphur). As the water is removed, sediments compact because of the oxidation of
organics and the physical elimination of water and its supporting ability.

The average subsidence/submergence rates in the coastal zone are approximately 0.39 in/yr (3.3
ft/100 yrs). Louisiana subsidence rates are approximately six times the world average rate of
0.,065 in/yr. Subsidence rates along the Louisiana coast have ranged from a low of 0.048 in/yr
(0.4 ft/100 yrs) to a high of 0.75 in/yr (6.3 ft/100 yrs) (Gagliano and van Beek 1970; Ramsey and
Moslow 1987). Local subsidence rates could be as high as 4.7 in/yr (39 ft/100 yrs) or 12 times the
average coastal subsidence rates (Turner and Cahoon 1988).

Superimposed on all the factors contributing to land sinking is the degree of sedimentation or
vertical accretion. Average sedimentation rates are approximately 10 to 30% lower than
"submergence" rates, especially in the interior marshes. Baumann (1980) and Hatton (1981)
found sedimentation rates of 0.59 in/yr in riparian salt marshes, with only 0.26 in/yr to 0.36 in/yr
for inland salt marshes of the Barataria Basin. Turner and Cahoon (1988) calculated mean coastal
subsidence rates at 0.45 in/yr and sedimentation rates of 0.28 in/yr, creating a deficit or
submergence rate of 0. 17 in/yr (1.4 ft/100 yrs).

Sasser et al. (1986) indicated that "submergence rates" in the area of southwestern Barataria Bay
were 0. 11 in/yr from 1945 to 1956, and 0.5 in/yr from 1956 to 1980. This latter figure represents
a 430% increase in the rates of water-level rise in the southwestern Barataria Bay area. Since the
sedimentation rates are only 0.3 to 0.35 inlyr, the southwestern Barataria Basin marshes have a
sedimentation deficit of 0. 14 in/yr to 0.22 in/yr (14 to 22 in/l 00 yrs) (Sasser et al. 1986).

Submergence causes increased water levels, which may lead to saltwater intrusion. The dredging
of canals may increase the movement of saltwater from saline to fresher wetlands, thereby
contributing to saltwater intrusion. If the salinity increases suddenly in a fresh marsh or swamp,
the fresh vegetation may be killed; if salinity increases gradually, the fresh vegetation may change
through time to a more salt-tolerant group of species. With alteration of habitats, i.e., to more
saline wetland types, changes in wildlife and fisheries assemblages occur. Plant and animal
diversity has been found to decrease when fresher wetlands convert to more saline conditions. As
a result, the habitat value for wildlife decreases over that previously found under fresher
conditions. Of course, fresh marsh may convert to open water, resulting in decreased productivity

and diversity of the area's plants, wildlife, and fisheries. When the habitat maps produced by
O'Neil (1949), and Chabreck and Linscombe (1978, 1991) are compared, a general trend of the
increasing brackish and saline marshes, and the retreat of fresh and intermediate marshes can be
observed.

Major hurricanes and storms may accelerate wetland loss by increasing flooding and saltwater
intrusion in fresher areas. Muller and Fielding (1987) describe the hurricanes that struck the coast
from 1900 to 1986. Major floods can affect coastal vegetation by causing vegetation stress similar
to that which occurs in impoundment situations. Major flood events occurred in 1940, 1953,
1977, 1979, and 1983 (Mossa et al. 1990). In the past, some leveed areas have caused an
aggravation of hurricane impacts because high salinity waters trapped behind levees killed the
fresher wetland vegetation. Impoundments and semi-impoundments, with the proper design and
operation of structures, can expedite drainage after hurricanes and thereby reduce hurricane impacts
to the marshes.

Muskrat and nutria are the prime animal causes of wetland losses in coastal Louisiana because they
eat all of the vegetation within a specific area when their populations reach critical levels. The
nutria is an introduced species that is particularly prone to overpopulation. Ponds may form in the
unvegetated areas created by the animals which, if water levels remain high, may not revegetate.
The Alligatorweed Flea Beetle, by eating alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), has denuded
large coastal areas of this plant, which is a valuable animal food providing a basis for the formation
of flotant (floating) marshes. Both alligatorweed and the Alligatorweed Flea Beetle are also
introduced species.

Human-induced impacts in the form of levees along the Mississippi River, canals, dredge and fill
activities, urban and agricultural expansion, and urban and agricultural point and nonpoint
pollutants also are responsible for wetland loss and habitat change in coastal Louisiana. The
dredging of petroleum and navigation canals causes direct wetland losses and leads to increased
tidal input and physical erosion of area soils and wetlands. These canals, with their associated
spoil banks, alter the natural hydrology by stopping or hindering the "sheet flow" of water over the
marsh and causing impoundments or the accumulation of too much water in the marsh (Craig et al.
1979; Scaife et al. 1983; Deegan et al. 1984; Sasser et al. 1986; SCS 1987; van Beek 1989).
Canals increased from 1% of area to 10% in southwestern Barataria Bay or from 42 mi in 1945 to
312 mi in 1980 (Sasser et al. 1986).

Turner and Cahoon (1988) stated that canals and spoil banks in coastal Louisiana, which included
petroleum access canals, were responsible for 239,048 ac (8,877 mi) of direct impacts by 1978,
two years prior to the beginning of the LCRP. It was estimated that by 1985 the direct impacts of
pipeline and petroleum access canals and spoil banks in coastal Louisiana covered 192,000 ac
(7,130 mi) (Lindstedt and Nunn 1985 and Lindstedt et al. 1991). There may therefore be over
10,000 mi of navigation canals at the present time.'The CMD has no data concerning the indirect
impacts of these or other activities with the exception of Scaife et al. (1983), who indicated that
generally the indirect to direct impact ratio was 7.69 to 1. Craig et al. (1980) stated that canals
enlarge from 2 to 15% per year or may double every 5 to 35 years. Scaife et al. (1983) also
postulated that 89% of the total land loss in coastal Louisiana was due to canals of all types, and of
this 89%, 6.5% was direct loss and 50% was indirect loss resulting from petroleum canals (Scaife
et al. 1983). Unfortunately, this information is of little use in determining what secondary and
indirect impacts occur as a result of canals regulated by the LCRP because the studies are based on
research done on canals dredged prior to the implementation of the LCRP (and some even before
the Section 404 permitting process of the Corps of Engineers). Through its regulatory program,
CMD has required that canal and spoil bank widths be standardized and that canals be plugged on
abandonment. The program has also regulated the siting of canals to avoid hydrologic, salinity,
and erosion impacts, but there has been no research on the indirect impacts of canals that were so
constructed. In any event, the major contributors to wetland losses are the large navigation canals,

such as the Mississippi River Gulf outlet (MRGO), the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), the
Freshwater Bayou Canal, the Houma Navigation Canal, and the Calcasieu Ship Channel.

Oil spills destroy wetland vegetation as well as wildlife and fisheries resources, and brine
discharges may cause coastal wetland losses if spilled or leaked into adjacent wetlands. Oil spills
and brine discharges contribute directly to coastal wetland loss and habitat change by covering
vegetation, coating beaches and shorelines, and changing the water quality. The extent of the
threat of these types of activities on wetland loss and habitat change in Louisiana is relatively low.
Dredging and filling, sea-level rise, and submergence are the major threats to coastal wetlands.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON WETLANDS

The Louisiana response to coastal wetland loss, habitat change, and pollution includes the
following regulatory and restoration activities and programs. The Department of Natural
Resources, Office of Coastal Restoration and Management, administers the Louisiana coastal
management and restoration programs. In the LCRP (La. R.S 49: 214.21-214.41) within the
CMD, coastal use permit applications are reviewed for projects that may cause significant impacts
on the coastal zone. The LCRP depends on existing Coastal Use Guidelines and rules for the
review of permit applications. For example, in the case of developments, CMD determines if the
project is of minimal size, if alternative locations have been considered, whether restoration is
practical and mitigation is necessary, or when the best practical techniques should be employed.
The purpose is to have a project with minimal adverse impacts on the surrounding wetlands.

Ile LCRP also has enforcement and federal consistency programs that complement the permitting
program. Other CMD programs provide support for the regulatory aspects of the program. These
include the technical services, wetland resources, public information, field investigations, local
coastal programs, special area management plans, and administrative programs.

The CMD receives approximately 1,500 Coastal Use Permit (CUP) applications annually. Only
50% of these applications require coastal use permits. The majority of the applications that do not
require permits are for uses exempted from the state program. Examples of activities that are
exempt are uses located outside of the coastal zone boundary, in fastlands, on areas above 5 ft
MSL, or are single family residences or camps. Some of the other activities which do not require
permits have been determined by the CMD to have no direct and significant impact on coastal
waters or are covered by a Corps of Engineers general permit found to be concurrently consistent
with the LCRP. The impact of those projects which are exempt, or for which permitting is not
required, is not known at this time because the CMD has not been keeping records of the area
disturbed by these projects. However, most of these exempt projects have very little adverse effect
on coastal waters because they are located in areas separated from tidal influence (i. e., fastlands)
or they do not involve any dredging or filling of coastal wetlands. In 1990, the total area disturbed
or altered by permitted adverse projects was one-tenth of that in 1982 (196 ac in 1990 vs 1925 ac
in 1982) (Figure 3), partly because of regulatory activities and partly because of a reduction in
applications due to a downturn in the state's economy.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers regulates activities affecting wetlands through the
Section 404 permitting process. In conjunction with the Corps' Section 404 and Section 10
permitting program, the overall adverse impacts-of many of these activities have been minimized by
the CMD requiring the reduction in the size of projects, the use of best practical techniques, and
mitigation. In addition to regulatory protection, annual congressional appropriations support large
Corps' restoration projects, such as freshwater diversions, shoreline protection, and marsh
creation. The Corps is able to do more restoration projects in conjunction with maintenance
dredging projects for navigation. The Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion project and marsh
creation along the Houma Navigation Canal are examples of two recently completed projects of

Acres

3000

2500-

2000 1925.4

1747.2

1452.7
1500-

1000-

660.9

500- 448.5
308.6 355.3

0
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Figure 3. Disturbed acres for permits issued for vegetated wetlands.
.6

this nature. In the near future, the Corps and other federal agencies will have additional coastal
restoration funding from the Breaux Act (see below).

In addition to the regulatory solutions, state, federal, and local agencies have been increasingly
involved in the implementation of various types of coastal restoration projects. The state's Coastal
Restoration Program operates on a maximum of $25 million annually for these projects. The
federal Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (Breaux Act), currently in its
first year, will provide up to $32 million annually in restoration projects for coastal Louisiana.
Additionally, coastal research concerning the causes of wetland problems, special wetland
interagency projects, and public relations and exchange of information all assist these other
programs in helping to solve or reduce Louisiana's coastal wetland problems by acquiring and
disseminating more scientific information.

Louisiana's Coastal Restoration Program is called the "Coastal Wetlands Conservation and
Restoration Plan" (La. R.S. 49:214.1-214.20). The plan includes the establishment of the Coastal
Restoration Authority within the governor's office, a Coastal Restoration Task Force, and the
"Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Fund." Funding of the Restoration plan is derived from
oil and gas revenues and can be no higher than $25 million per year. Four basic projects may be
funded through the coastal restoration program: (1) freshwater, sediment, and nutrient diversioln
projects; (2) wetland management projects; (3) marsh restoration, sediment, and low-cost shoreline
protection projects; and (4) gulf shoreline protection projects. In 1990/9 1, the legislature approved
35 projects, and in 1991/92, 50 projects. Completed projects or those presently under construction
include: the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion; LaReussite Freshwater Diversion; West Point a la
Hache Freshwater Diversion; Holly Beach Shoreline Protection; Lake Salvador Shoreline
Protection; Yellow Bayou Shoreline Protection; Central Wetlands Pump Outfall; Soil Conservation
Service Vegetative Plantings; Falgout Canal Marsh Management; Bayou LaCache Marsh
Management; Queen Bess Island Restoration; Wine Island Restoration; Violet Siphon; Bohemia
Siphon; Cameron Creole Watershed Project; Sabine Vegetative Planting; Pecan Island Freshwater
introduction; LaBranche Shoreline Protection; Barrier Island Sediment Capture; and Pass a Loutre
Sediment Diversion Projects (Coastal Restoration Division 1991). This program also provides
state matching funding for Corps of Engineers' restoration projects. The above coastal restoration
projects totaled $25,579,730, with the Corps of Engineers providing $4,700,000 (18.5%) or most
of the funding for large diversion projects. Louisiana, with the passage of the 1981 Coastal
Restoration Trust Fund, has attempted to begin some state-sponsored projects involving barrier
island restoration, Mississippi River Freshwater Diversion Projects, vegetative plantings, and
wetland management (Chambers and Clark 1986; Spicer et al. 1986; deMond et al. 1985).

The Breaux Act (PL-101-646; Title 111), which passed Congress in November 1990, provides
annual funding of up to $32 million for coastal restoration efforts in Louisiana and should result in
the development of the "Comprehensive Coastal Restoration Plan" at the end of three years (by
1993). Currently, a Task Force comprised of federal and state agencies is developing a list of
projects to submit to Congress by November 1991.

Special interagency teams, composed of personnel from state, federal, and local agencies with
coastal expertise, have been and continue to be effective in conceiving, implementing, and
evaluating various special wetland projects that may have contributed to a reduction in the rates of
coastal wetland losses. Some of these projects include the Bayou Penchant Working Group, the
Soil Conservation Service Sabine-Calcasieu River Basin Study, the Cameron-Creole Watershed
Advisory Committee, the EPA Non-Point Source Pollution Committee, the Terrebonne-Barataria
National Estuary Program, and the Gulf of Mexico Initiative.

The Department of Natural Resources and the LCRP do not have any coastal land acquisition
programs by which special areas in the coast can be preserved. However, mitigation funds are

sometimes directed towards the Louisiana Nature Conservancy, which does use.these funds to
acquire coastal wetlands and other special habitats.

The CMD is involved in several coastal research projects to determine the causes and effects of
various coastal wetland processes that may relate to future coastal protection activities and the
avoidance of adverse impacts from permitted projects. Some of the more recent studies include the
Mitigation Project Study; Fastland Delineation Study; Spoil Island Vegetation Study; Study of the
Use of Run-off Discharges in Coastal Louisiana for Wetland and Water Quality Enhancement;
Spoil Bank Management Study; A Study of Marsh Management Practice in Coastal Louisiana; five
staff marsh management fisheries studies; three contract wetland management fisheries studies;
Marsh Management Sedimentation Study; Vegetational Analysis of the AVOCA Island
Management Plan; Parish Mitigative Projects List; Lake Pontchartrain Basin Special Management
Area Environmental Management Unit Mapping Project; Oil Spill Contingency Planning Review
and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Planning; and other staff reports and studies.

The Louisiana Legislature passed Act 1040 of 1990, which provides for mandatory compensatory
mitigation for projects permitted under the coastal use permitting program. The Act requires
mitigation for any impacts to vegetated wetlands and establishes that mitigation banks may be
created. Once implemented, the Act will have uniform standards for determining impacts and
mitigation, and mitigation costs should become less variable; but its rulei have not yet been
promulgated. However, the CMD has been requiring mitigation for the unavoidable impacts of
most uses on a case-by-case basis since the beginning of the coastal use permitting process, and
this has not been limited to impacts to vegetated wetlands.

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

In 1990, the total area disturbed or altered by permitted adverse projects was one-tenth of that in
1982 (196 ac in 1990 vs. 1,925 ac in 1982), and one-fourteenth (196 ac vs 2,735 ac), of that
permitted to be disturbed in 1983. The highest permitted disturbed area was 2,735 ac in 1983.
The reasons for this decrease in permitted disturbed area are the Geologic Review Program, decline
in activity in the petroleum industry after 1983, permit review procedures, and mitigation
programs. The permitted disturbed area fell from 2,735 ac to 1,747 ac in 1984, the first full year
after the directional drilling review.

Of a total of 1,069 (119/yr) investigations by CMD during the period from 1983 to 1991, 61%
were determined to be violations. There is no existing information to provide an analysis of the
relative impacts in terms of area disturbed by these unpermitted activities. Most cases involved
non-compliance with permit conditions. The disturbed area for these projects is confounded with
the permitted area discussed above. Violation cases are frequently resolved by complete or partial
restoration of the area or by the performance of mitigation activities which equal or exceed the
violation's adverse impacts. A strong enforcement program within the CMD helps to ensure a
strong permitting program.

A total of 85 coastal wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement projects (listed individually in
the previous subsection) have been approved from 1990 to 1992 for implementation through the
Coastal Restoration Program. These projects, begun in the 1990/1991 fiscal year, are projected to
benefit coastal wetlands by preservation, enhancement or creation activities (over 306,275 ac), the
equivalent of 9.5% of the present coastal wetlands, or 3.7% of the total coastal zone. The Corps
of Engineers has provided most of the funding'(see previous subsection) for large freshwater
diversion projects such as Caemarvon. The Caernarvon, LaReussite, and West Point a la Hache
freshwater diversions are projected to help preserve and enhance over 62,800 ac of coastal
wetlands. This figure is part of the above total for the Coastal Restoration Program. Thus, a

significant amount of coastal wetlands may be protected by these state, federal, and local
restoration programs.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's WETLANDS PROGRAM

The possible methods to address the Wetland issue are as follows:

Strengthen the present permit and enforcement regulations to make them
less ambiguous and clearer to understand;

Promulgate and implement the Mitigation Act Rules for Act 1040 entitled "Mitigation of
Coastal Wetland Losses," which was approved by the state legislature in 1990;

Revise the Coastal Use Guidelines to reduce ambiguous and unclear language, and add
new guidelines in areas such as wetland management where additional guidelines may
be needed;

Draft federal consistency regulations which would include wetland standards;

Evaluate the present "fastland" and "Coastal Zone Boundary Definitions," and other
exemptions under the present program to determine whether exempt activities are
causing impacts to coastal resources;

Increase the number of general permits to make their processing more efficient by
shortening the review time for these types of activities and by freeing the staff to work
on projects with significant impacts;

Increase cooperation with other state, federal, and local agencies in joint projects which
assist in the preservation, enhancement, or restoration of coastal wetlands;

Develop regulations based on research programs concerning coastal wetland losses and
habitat changes; and

Develop regulations based on research concerning alternative technologies for the
mitigation of adverse impacts caused by permitted activities.

Section 309(a)(2) -- COASTAL HAZARDS

INTRODUCTION

Coastal hazards manifest themselves as either natural phenomena or human-related incidents.
Natural hazards are those extreme or rare geologic, atmospheric, and hydrologic events that
adversely impact human life, property, or activity (Lander et al. 1979; Organization of American
States 1987). Natural hazards, by definition, cannot exist apart from human activities and the
choices in adjustments to the events (White 1974). Because of this interaction between the social
and natural systems, humans may modify the location, occurrence,and magnitude of natural
processes and in turn the vulnerability of an area. Development through its implementation
(drainage, dredging, extraction, construction) modifies the forms and processes that compose the
coastal systems. Change in itself is not always detrimental; but unwise use of the coastal zone can
result in a short- and long-term commitment of resources that may be better allocated to more
productive programs. This section identifies the natural and human-related hazards that exist in the
Louisiana coastal zone, describes the location and magnitude of these hazards and the communities
placed at risk, summarizes the interrelationships among natural hazards and people, identifies
government programs dealing with these hazards, and finally, suggests changes to the existing
CMD program. Through this analysis CMD hopes to develop parts.of its program that contribute
to the prevention or significant reduction of threats to life and destruction of property. Such an
undertaking can be achieved by eliminating development and redevelopment in high hazard areas,
managing development in other hazard areas, and anticipating and managing the effects of potential
sea level rise.

COASTAL HAZARDS

Of the 15 most common natural hazards in the United States (Table 3) the Louisiana coastal zone is
seriously affected by eight.

Table 3. Occurrence* and Severity,of Natural Hazards in
Louisiana.

SignMeant Occurrence Rare to Never
Hurricane Greatest impact Avalanche
Storm surge Drought
Flood Earthquake
Unstable soil Landslide
Coastal Erosion Tsunami
Tornado Volcano
Windstorm Winter storm
Wildfire Least impact

*Source: Ile Council of State Governments 1979; Gale and Cortner
1987.

All of the hazards that occur in Louisiana are described because it is only through a complete
understanding of the issues that an effective program can evolve. At this time Coastal Management
Division guidelines apply to those actions that contribute to the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare. The hazards to which the CMD can most effectively apply its authority

include: hurricane damage; storm surge; floods; unstable soils; and coastal erosion. Tornadoes,
windstorms, and wildfires are discussed to inform the public of the problem.

Hurricane season extends from June through November with the greatest number of storms
expected during the first two weeks of September. Hurricane force winds exceed 74 mph and may
extend 100 mi from the center. Extreme gusts may exceed 200 mph at a distance of 20 to 30 mi
from the eye (Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness 1985). Figure 4 shows the
vulnerability of the Louisiana coast to hurricanes. Southwest Louisiana between the Calcasieu
River and Freshwater Bayou and Southeast Louisiana between Southwest Pass of the Mississippi
River and the Orleans - St. Bernard parish line have the highest recurrence interval for a hurricane
along the Louisiana coast. It must be recognized that these sections of the coast are arbitrary and
do not confine or limit the zone of impact or extent of damages from any storm. Most hurricanes
approach the Louisiana coast from the south or southeast and cross the shoreline at a high angle
before moving inland. Thus, the worst damage can be expected in the right front quadrant,
normally the northeast quadrant, and out approximately 50 mi. Occasionally, however, a storm
will parallel the shoreline, lingering for days and causing unexpected damages. Such was the case
in 1985 when Hurricane Juan looped, twice south of Morgan City before paralleling the shoreline
and crossing the mouth of the Mississippi River and continuing to the east.

General destruction of the physical, biological, and cultural elements follows the path of a
hurricane. Eroded barrier islands and beaches may retreat over 100 ft under the pounding of storm
waves. Rising water and high winds destroy wetlands resulting in open water bodies and toppled
trees. Camps that are not demolished float from their foundations and may be found miles from
their original location. Levees are topped and highways, bridges, and infrastructure (water,
sewage, and power lines) require extensive repair or replacement. The aftermath of a hurricane
means the despoilment of the natural systems and a cost of billions of dollars in property damage
of residential and commercial damage.

Several storms have become milestones when discussing the impacts of hurricanes on Louisiana
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1972). The 1915 storm pushed water levels to 13 ft at Fernier
Beach and 12 ft at Pointe a la Hache. Over 25,000 homes or structures were damaged or
destroyed in New Orleans when the City flooded to a depth between I to 8 ft. Four decades later,
the 1947 storm flooded almost all of southeast Louisiana. Many parts of Jefferson Parish were
under 6 ft of water, and Moisant Airport (now New Orleans International Airport) had 6 in of
water on the runway and could not operate. After a much shorter hiatus, Hurricane Audrey,
probably t1ie most tragic, occurred in June 1957. Audrey crossed the Cameron coast placing
12.4 ft of water in the town of Cameron and 8.5 ft of water in Morgan City over 100 mi to the
east. Many people could not escape the rising water, and 556 died. Water from Hurricane Betsy
(1965) covered 2.5 million ac; fatalities numbered 81; and damages exceeded $2 billion. Although
Hurricane Camille (1969) expended most of its fury on the Mississippi coast, Louisiana east of the
Mississippi River was heavily damaged by a storm surge of over 11 ft.

Hurricanes can not be discussed without reference to storm surge, as they are inseparable. Storm
surge is the'rapid rise of water above mean sea level produced by a hurricane (Strahler and Strahler
1984). Surge is the result of low barometric pressure in the eye, wind setup, and wave setup.
Most of the damages and loss of life are directly attributable to storm surge and the failure of
individuals to evacuate in a timely fashion. Figure 4 is a composite that shows the inland extent
and maximum inundation along the Louisiana coast as a result of hurricane flooding. No part of
the study area is immune from hurricanes.. Within the 19 parishes in the Louisiana Coastal Zone
live an estimated 2,050,000 people. Like the other parts of the country, the Louisiana population
is getting older, a significant issue if evacuation is required before a storm.

HURRICANE RECURRENCE INTERVALS IN YEARS
Section of Wind Speed
Coast 74- 124 mph 125 + mph
A 12 28

17 85
C 17 0

D 0
E 7 42 IATCM NOUM

F 10

17 85

A '01
7A f
..........
::Max

FD)

Liatt of San &Nve

. .. .......
-IL7
0 10 Z) 3D 40
Miles M

Figure 4. Hurricane recurrence intervals and historic inland storm-surge limit with depths of innundatio
(Sources: USACE 1972; Carter 1988).

Gulf surges can occur during other times of the year, directly affecting the low interdistributary
wetlands and impinging onto the more populated natural levees of the Mississippi River and its
abandoned distributaries. Along the entire coast, persistent onshore winds contribute to flooding.
South and southeast winds in the spring and summer build water elevations in the estuaries. In the
case of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, upland runoff is prevented from entering the lakes, a
particularly regular problem in the lower Amite River Basin to the west of Lake Maurepas. In the
Spring of 1991, the low-lying coastal areas south of Houma flooded, as did the Barataria Basin
and the area around Lake Palourde. Strong and unrelenting south winds caused backwater
flooding by preventing runoff from heavy precipitation or pushed Gulf waters into the bays and
estuaries, flooding roads, yards, and fields.

Floods (Figure 5) in the coastal zone may be the result of hurricanes, storms, onshore winds, or
heavy precipitation either in the wetlands or on adjacent uplands. The first three are discussed
above. This section focuses on precipitation and runoff either in the state or in the watersheds that
directly affect the coastal zone. Spring floods from the Mississippi River are contained by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control levees and spillways. The levees work so well that
they prevent annual introduction of freshwater and sediment into the low-lying interdistributary
basins, a primary cause for wetland loss throughout the coastal zone (Turner and Cahoon 1987).
However, concern has been expressed about the causes of flooding in Terrebonne Parish, as flow
on the Lower Atchafalaya River increases, and about the need or advisability of constructing a
levee at Avoca'lsland. Interested parties are meeting on this project and may eventually arrive at an
acceptable solution. Another example of flooding in the coastal zone is the problem in east
Cameron Parish. This part of Cameron receives water from the Mermentau River watershed, the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Bell City Drainage Ditch south of La. Hwy. 14, and the Calcasieu
River. When the water is high in these four tributaries, the lowlands are flooded (GSRI 1986).

Precipitation in Louisiana results from storms commonly associated with polar fronts, squall lines
and tropical fronts, tropical weather systems, and showers and thunderstorms (Muller and Willis
1983). Heaviest rains accompany thunderstorms; for example, on February 5, 1955, 1 in of
precipitation fell in five minutes in New Orleans, a rate of 12 in/hr. Fortunately, thunderstorms are
of short duration and never approach this total even though flooding may result. Occasionally
thunderstorms produce high winds which contribute to the damage within a community.

A final meteorological phenomenon, the tornado, that can cause problems in coastal Louisiana.
Tornadoes are small (300 to 1500 ft in diameter at its lower end) but very intense low pressure
centers.. Their winds circulate in a counterclockwise direction and may reach speeds in excess of
250 mph. Tornadoes form in advance of cold fronts or in association with hurricanes, and are
most frequent during the spring and summer; however, they may occur at any time. Although
tornadoes only occasionally penetrate the coast, they can be very destructive when they do occur.
Winds uproot trees, demolish trailer parks, and damage structures.

The term "unstable soils" in Louisiana refers to land subsidence or "the loss of surface elevation
due to removal of subsurface support" (National Research Council 1991). Subsidence is caused
by crustal deformation; sediment compaction; withdrawal of groundwater, petroleum, and
geothermal fluids; and dewatering of organic soils. Natural movement along faults and human
caused fault movement have occurred in the coastal zone, but they are rare events. Most
subsidence problems result from unstable soils. Subsidence in this regard refers to the lowering of
surface elevation as a result of the drainage of wetlands soils, that is, those characterized as very
poorly drained, having mucky surface and underlying material, and low strength. Unstable soils
are most commonly found in the interdistributary basins and the Chenier Plain. When these soils
are drained the surface subsides because of "(1) shrinkage caused by desiccation, (2) consolidation
from loss of the buoyant force of groundwater or from loading, (3) compaction, and (4)
biochemical oxidation" (SCS 1983). Initial subsidence takes place during the three years after

Tom ROUGE
., *' . X
f

AMCW@
UUM CHANLMI 0
LAFAYf"I 0
................
%

..........

... ...... .

4-4:;-Xam

...........

..................
..... ........

............
...........
......... . . . ..... V.........................
.................. .
P
100 Year Floodplain
...........

..... . ....
0 10 M 30 40

Figure S. The 100-year nood plain (Source: Emmer et al. 1983)
f

drainage. Approximately 50% of the thickness of the organic material above the groundwater will
be lost. Shrinkage continues after initial subsidence at a rate of 0.5 in to 2 in/yr. For example, in
Jefferson Parish the total subsidence potential in some areas is 144 in (SCS 1983). Subsidence
places severe limitations on urban uses. Pilings must be used to support foundations so that slabs
will not crack and/or tilt; however, this does not help the utility lines, patios, sidewalks, and
driveways which are not supported. They may be displaced to the extent that they are no longer
serviceable or must be replaced. Most of the Louisiana coastal zone is affected by unstable soils.

Sea-level rise contributes to the relative rate of subsidence. Estimates for the global rate of sea-
level rise by the year 2100 range from 22 to 144 in (Titus 1989). Such a significant rise in sea
level when combined with the many factors that contribute to subsidence (geosyncline
downwarping, compaction of sediments, consolidation of materials, tectonic activity, and fluid
withdrawal) will have a devastating effect on the low-lying coastal zone (Penland et al. 1989;
Ramsey and Penland 1990). Several problems expected as a result of sea-level rise include
community inundation, an increase in the frequency and severity of storms and storm surge,
accelerated shoreline erosion, inundation of wetlands and wetland loss, modification of coastal
processes, and damage to shoreline structures and land uses (Klarin and Hershman 1990). Coastal
communities, particularly outside levee systems, will be affected (Figure 6).

Coastal erosion is a dominant process along the Louisiana shoreline (Figure 6). Several studies
have investigated the history and causes of erosion (Coleman 1966; Frazier 1967; Mendelssohn et
al. 1987; Morgan et al. 1958; Nummedal et al. 1984; van Lopik 1955; Wicker et al. 1989a and
1989b). Causes include: diminishing sand supplies; relative sea level rise; storms; human actions,
such as jetties and navigation canals; tides; and mean annual nearshore wave energy. Barrier island
degredation is a common phenomenum as deltas shift from one course to another. The barrier
islands and beaches from the Mississippi state line to Atchafalaya Bay are eroding except for two
sections, one at the eastern end of Grand Isle and the second at the western end of Timbalier
Island. Along the Chenier Plain, accretion is occurring from the vicinity of Marsh Island west
approximately 25 mi into Vermilion Parish and in Cameron Parish from the Mermantau River to
west of the Calcasieu River. Rates of erosion range from almost 57 ft/yr in the Fourchon region to
10 ft/yr in sections of Grand Isle. Where accretion does occur it is significantly less, that is, from
a high of 30 ft/yr on eastern Grand Isle to 8.5 A/yr in Cameron Parish. Accretion is in response to
the progradation of the Atchafalaya River and the ready supply of sediment to be swept along the
Vermilion and Cameron shoreline.

Finally, wildfires are a sign of late fall and winter, when trappers traditionally bum the marsh to
encourage new growth of vegetation. These fires usually do not directly impact communities, as in
the burning of homes or other structures; however, smoke contributes to the presence of smog.
One of the most infamous regions was the eastern end of the Lake Pontchartrain estuary, primarily
in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. Several major accidents found their origin in the thick smog
that blinded drivers on Interstate Hwy. 10. In addition, smoke adds to air pollution, particularly in
an area where air quality is already low. The practice of burning is on the decline because of a loss
of wetlands serving as habitat for furbearing animals, stricter enforcement by state and local
authorities, and the acquisition of most of eastern Orleans Parish for the Bayou Sauvage National
Wildlife Area'

The impact of natural hazards on the population and economy of the Louisiana coastal zone, as
defined by Act 361 of 1978, as amended, is minimal. At first it appears that Louisiana is in a very
fortunate position until the reality of the situation is understood. The inland boundary of the
Louisiana coastal zone is drawn in a manner that excludes, for the most part, cities, towns, and
industrial complexes, except for metropolitan New Orleans and the river parishes between Baton
Rouge and New Orleans. These two areas, however, are little affected by the CUP process, and
subsequently the coastal guidelines, because most industries and much of the commercial and
residential developments are on lands above 5 ft in elevation or are within fastlands. Only when

.........

P
MNC Ewww
ow

F SEM M LVA
WAD OF

WISH @A
dr:

U
H KBERR

DES ALL
JOHNSON BA GRON OASTAL Cr%
HOLLY MACId i"OLE
A
LAF
Q2.
%

,till LK
Av"e mte of shoreline ChwV CHN"
13 0
A AC I N
I I -S ft/yr 611.m
13tr
16.4 ft/yr
5 Foot Contour Line \2
49.2 ft(yr
2D 3D 9.8
AID
10 "1 1 1 Mks 16.4 f1v/yr A E 37.4 ft/yr
J 23 39A ft/)T

Figure 6. Shoreline accretion and erosion rates and communities imminently affected by sea4evel ris
e
(Sources: McIntire et al. 1975; Wic
ker et al. 1989).

projects have a direct and significant effect on coastal waters will the CMD initiate the CUP
process.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON COASTAL HAZARDS

Coastal hazards are addressed by the federal, state, and local levels of government. Several federal
programs influence the presence of projects in coastal high hazard areas. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the Flood Insurance Administration oversee the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP sets requirements for structures and activities within the
100-year floodplain in participating communities. For example, habitable structures must have
their first floor at or above the 100-year flood level. In lower Plaquernines Parish some structures
may be as much as 18 ft above ground level. Commercial structures may be flood-proofed to
prevent or reduce damages from inundation. The Community Rating System (CRS) is a second
program within the perview of FEMA that encourages governments to directly confront
development in flood prone areas. A community can take actions that result in up to a 50%
reduction of premiums paid by flood insurance policy holders. Selected actions a community may
undertake include: maintenance of elevation certificates; advising people of the flood hazard, the
availability of flood insurance, and/or flood protection measures; advising prospective property
purchasers of the flood hazard; having local libraries maintain and publicize documents on flood
insurance, flood protection, and floodplain management; and implementing higher regulatory
standards than required by the NFIP.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has constructed an extensive hurricane levee protection
system, particularly in southeastern Louisiana. Levees are constantly monitored and have been
upgraded. Today some levees may be 17 ft MSL or more. The Lower Mississippi River flood
control network of diversions, levees, and flood water retention areas is one of the most massive
public works projects in the nation. Levees effectively keep freshwater and sediment from entering
the interdistributary basins. The Corps also studies coastal erosion to determine whether a project
is feasible and possible. When Congress appropriates funds and a local sponsor is identified, the
Corps will help stabilize a shoreline. In the case of Grand Isle, the Corps' dune restoration and
beach enhancement project reestablished the shoreline and provided a buffer against storm surge.
Attempts are being made to stabilize the barrier islands and beaches through hard and soft
engineering practices. In the summer of 1991, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed its
dune creation and beach restoration project along the Grand Isle shoreline.

Under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, as amended, the U.S. Department of
the Interior has identified the development status of coastal barriers. The purpose of the CBRA is
to: minimize loss of life; reduce/eliminate wasteful expenditure of federal revenues; and minimize
damage to natural resources (fish and wildlife) that results from development of barriers. The Act
prohibits federal flood insurance for new construction or substantial improvements on undeveloped
barriers. In addition, federal financial assistance (loans, grants, guarantees, subsidies, and other
assistance) and expenditures (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers structural development projects;
highways; bridges; and housing) are prohibited on undeveloped barrier islands.

The last programs to affect development in coastal areas are federal regulatory activities. The
Corps of Engineers administers the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (33U.S.C.A.1251-1376), a
program that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States,
including coastal waters, wetlands, and navigable waters. Common activities requiring permits are
beach nourishment, boat ramps, bulkheads, dams, dredge spoil disposal, fill levees, piers, and
roadfill. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33U.S.C.A.401-406) authorizes the Corps to
protect navigable waters from obstruction and pollution. Permits must be obtained from the Corps
for dredge and fill activities in navigable waterways. Through the Clean Water Act, Section 404(c)
(40C.F.R.231) the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to veto a Corps Section 404

permit if the adverse impacts on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas
(including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas are unacceptable. Under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33U.S.C.A.1341) Louisiana may deny a certification if the
applicant doe not demonstrate to the state's satisfaction that a project complies with state water
quality standards for effluent limitations on discharges. When the state denies certification of a
project, then federal agencies cannot issue permits or licenses. States can place conditions on
certificates to protect wetlands and thereby minimize the. use of these areas for intensive
development subject to coastal hazards. The review and comment authority granted the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service through the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. By protecting habitat and discouraging the modification of wetlands,
these two agencies help reduce encroachment of development onto high-hazard areas.

At the state level, the SLCRMA of 1978, as amended, is the program that comes closest to
addressing the many aspects of coastal hazards. The SLCRMA has as its declared policies:

(1) To protect,....the resources of the state's coastal zone.

(5) To develop and implement a coastal resources management program which
is based on consideration of our resources, the environment, the needs of
the people of the state,... .

These two goals allow the CMD a degree of latitude for considering coastal hazards through its
permit application review process. The first goal applies to programs designed to confront
shoreline erosion, the protection and enhancement of wetlands to buffer storm surge and serve as
storage areas for floodwaters. Goal 2 addresses the importance of the environmental components
to the CMD, which considers unstable soils, earthquakes, and meteorological events as part of its
decision-making procedures. The CMD presently addresses natural hazards through the
implementation of specific Coastal Use Guidelines. The most applicable Guidelines include: 1.6a,
b, c, 1, r, and s; Guideline 1.7i, s, and t; Guidelines 5.2, 5.9, 6. 1 b, 6.2a, and 6.4 (Appendix).
These guidelines authorize CMD to evaluate construction of of project, the effect it will have on
barrier islands, and on the value of wetlands.

Other state agencies, such as the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), through
its review and comment authority, strives to protect wetlands, thus buffering storm surge and
reducing coastal erosion. Parishes and municipalities learned that unregulated construction on
unstable soils is not in the public's best interest. Mitigation is now required for construction; for
example, Jefferson Parish requires pile foundations to support the load of the building and flexible
connectors for gas lines. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has
attempted to control erosion along the Cameron Parish coast to protect La. Hwy. 82 between Holly
Beach and Peveto Beach. Jetties and groins are examples of hard practices found along the coast
that inevitably cause erosion in the downdrift direction. The Office of Emergency Preparedness
plays its part in its program through the coordination of civil defense and emergency evacuation
plans and hurricane preparedness activities.

Some local governments actively consider coastal hazards. Terrebonne Parish used spoil from the
Houma Navigation Canal to build part of the Isles Dernieres at Wine Island Pass. To the east sand
has been placed along the Fourchon shoreline to restore dunes and the beach. To help retard
erosion the Fourchon Port Commission sponsored the construction of cement-filled tubes, the
boudan bags (Edgerton 1991). But many attempts by human intervention in natural processes are
not successful. It is estimated that 10% of the total barrier island area was directly lost, as a result
of unsuccessful projects (Mendelssohn et al. 1987). A third example of local involvement is
Jefferson Parish and its requirements for flexible utility connections to structures on unstable soils.
Most parishes follow the Southern Building Code which standardizes protection of the public
health and safety.

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

No detailed studies of the effectiveness of existing programs on coastal hazards is known to exist.
However, some generalizations about federal and state hazard-related programs can be made based
only on observations. In order to receive flood insurance new structures must be elevated or
flood-proofed. All of the parishes and communities in the coastal zone participate. In some cases
housing units have been raised to 18 ft above the ground surface, causing unhappy responses from
residents. Informants from lower Plaquernines Parish say the NFIP has severely retarded
development, but this does not seem to be the case in other parts of the coastal zone. The National
Flood Insurance program seems to be a very effective method of reducing coastal flooding
damages by causing buildings to be raised. But the NFIP has apparently not significantly
restricted development. Residences and camps are under construction throughout the coastal zone.
The Community Rating System is in its first year of full implementation. Many communities in the
coastal zone have submitted applications for a rate reduction, but to date no evaluation on the
effectiveness of the CRS has been completed.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hurricane protection levee system has for the most part kept
hurricane storm surge from entering populated areas. The present levee and pump system has not
really been tested since 1969 and 1965, dates of the two most recent large storms. But at that time
the Plaquernines Parish levees were topped as were portions of the levees in Orleans, St. Bernard,
and other coastal parishes. Mainline Mississippi River flood control levees have not been topped
or failed for more than 50 years. The 1973 flood came very close to overwhelming the system
when the Old River Control Structure nearly failed and bank slumping required several levee set
backs. The levee system has prohibited annual overflow, thus reducing the quantity and quality of
water and sediment into the interdistributary basin. This issue is discussed in more detail in the
sections on cumulative/secondary impacts and wetlands.

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act seems to be one of the contributing factors in slowing, if not
stopping, development on barrier islands and beaches. The CBRA will have minimal effect in
Louisiana because of the absence of access routes to barriers. No study is known to analyze the
impact of CBRA on Louisiana.

The Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit process has reduced the encroachment of development
onto coastal high-hazard areas because both programs focus on wetlands and coastal waters. The
effect of Section 10 actions is not known. The EPA Section 404c responsibility has been applied
to coastal Louisiana and proved very effective. For example, EPA declared the Bayou au Carpe
wetlands of significance and under Section 404(c) protected the estuarine wetlands from drainage.
Water quality certification (Section 401) can delay a project, but is not known to have stopped any.
The USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the LDWF review and comment on
federal and state permit applications. All three agencies have been effective in protecting wetlands
by requiring mitigation (avoidance of wetlands, reduction in scope of a project, and
compensation). Thus, development has been restricted from the most flood prone and dangerous
areas of the coastal zone. But agency actions are undertaken primarily to conserve and protect
wetlands from the discharge of dredge and fill material, and to reduce dredging, not protect the
public health and safety.

Four major constraints inhibit the CMD's application of its coastal use guidelines to all parts of the
legislatively defined coastal zone, thus limiting the effectiveness of the whole program. First,
activities on land 5 ft or more above sea level or within fastlands do not require a permit unless
they have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. Second, some uses may occur on lands
below 5 ft MSL but are exempt from the permitting process. Examples include agricultural,
forestry, and aquaculture activities on lands consistently used in the past for such activities;
construction of residences or camps; and activities that do not have a direct and significant impact

2 6:

on coastal waters whether inside or outside the coastal zone boundary. The CMD only becomes
involved with potential uses, that are not within the, coastal zone if these activities have a "direct and
significant impact on coastal water." The meaning of "direct and significant impact on coastal
water" is not clear and no standards or other criteria. have been established for implementing this
part of the CMD jurisdiction. The coastal document uses the phrase "to the maximum extent
practicable" in 44 of 94 provisions, for evaluating projects (Houck 1983). Houck (1983) makes a
case, for the tendency of this- phrase, to be, used for maintaining a development posture in the coastal
zone rather than equitably considering conservation during analysis.

The Louisiana, Department of Wildlife- and Fisheries. has review and comment responsibilities on
federal" and state- permits. The negative impacts of 'coastal hazards are reduced because the LDWL
protect wetlands and coastal waterbodies.

Flbod[s, continue to plague cities throughout the coastal zone... Runoff from heavy rains collect in
low-lying sections of New Orleans,, Jefferson Parish,. and most parishes because the pumps are too
small to handle the intense@ precipitation., South and east winds prevent riverine flood waters from
discharging into lakes and estuaries, thus causing backwater flooding a-long. the lower reaches of
water courses. As many studies, have concluded, structural solutions for flood damage are not the
complete answer. Nonstructural programs must be part of a. package for, reducing flood damage, a
philosophy that is only partly accepted by decision-makers and coastal residents.

Across the% state several deficiencies remain. Neither state agencies, parishes, nor local
governments are known to consider geologic hazards (faulting or regional. subsidence) when.
considering development. Setback limits on eroding shorelines- (canals, bayous, rivers, lakes, or
beaches) are unknown. Burning the marsh is restricted, but still occurs.

POTENTIAL CHANGE& TO CMD's. COASTAL HAZARDS PROGRAM

Some possible methods. to address the Coastal' Hazards issue are as follows:

Initiate a closer working relationship with the FEMA through the Flood Insurance
Administration by developing a MOU with the Louisiana Floodplain Management
Section, Louisiana Department of Transportation and. Development;

Initiate a public education program concerning coastal hazards,, the nature of coastal
hazards, and. the means to avoid or prevent them;

Assure that natural and human-related hazards are incorporated into the review process
on CUP applications. This would, involve permit applicants completing a form attesting
to the presence or absence of natural hazards within their project location and describing
in writing how impacts of hazards would be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable
level. These plans would be reviewed by the state agencies with whom they have
Memoranda of Understanding or Agreement;

Prepare an analytical report on the issues and problems of restricting direct permitting
authority to those activities that occur below the 5-ft contour and outside fastlands and
develop appropriate management practices;

Initiate a public and agency review of the existing state guidelines and their application
to coastal hazards. If it determines it is necessary for better protecting the public health
and safety, changes could be recommended to the guidelines;

Investigate the effects of sea-level rise on the coastal zone to develop a method for
confronting the issue of sea-level rise as it may affect permitting of activities in the
coastal zone; and

Coordinate with the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness to assure that projects
seeki ng coastal use permits would have minimal susceptibility to coastal hazards and
would not have a negative effect on hurricane evacuation plans.

Section 309(a)(3) -- PUBLIC ACCESS

INTRODUCTION

Incoastal Louisiana (Figure 1), the public access refers to the ability of the average individual to
use shorelines, coastal waters, and,coastal wetlands. Shorelines are the interface between land and
water, as represented by sand beaches (the area between high and low tide) and wetlands (Burk
and Associates, Inc. 1978). Wetlands are:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency @and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas
(EPA 1980; USACE 1986).

Beaches offer the opportunity for traditional activities, such as walking, surf fishing, and
swimming. Wetland shorelines are no( suitable for (hese activities, but can be used for fishing and
crabbing. Coastal waters and wetlands are used for hunting, crabbing, fishing, trapping, and
boating. The purpose of this section is to describe the way people use coastal beaches, waters, and
wetlands, to determine the effectiveness of existing programs, and to propose -possible changes to
the existing coastal program. Through this analysis CMD hopes to attain increased opportunities
for public access, taking into account current and future public access needs to coastal areas of
recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological, and cultural value.

PUBLIC ACCESS

Within the top ten ranked recreational undertakings the one consumptive use is fishing, a sport
enjoyed 61,508,445 times in 1985, the most recent year for which information is available (Office
.of State Parks 1989). Durin 'g the summer of that year an estimated 45.5% of Louisiana citizens
went fishing. Louisiana's coastal waters and wetlands provide the resource base for most of these
trips.

In many parts of the country the concept of public access is usually limited to thoughts of bdaches
and how vast interior populations can reach land use these ribbons of sand. The Louisiana situation
is significantly different because of the state's geologic history as a deltaic plain.

Louisiana has an abundance of natural shoreline; however, the majority of this
shoreline is marsh, as is the area behind the shore. The marsh terrain, more than
any other factor, hinders public access to the coastal shorefront and discourages the
use of the shorefront for typical beach activities (i.e., bathing, wading, sun bathing,
walking, and surf fishing). To a lesser extent, the small number of public beach
areas and conflicting development along the shorefront discourage public use of the
coastal shore. Both public and private shorefront recreational development is
hindered by the marsh terrain which limits the amount of useable beach and access
to it (Burk and Associates 197 8, p. 10).

Nothing has changed since this report was prepared in 1978.

Recreation in Louisiana is furnished by both tile public and private sectors of the economy.
Several large federal and state recreational areas devoted to hunting, fishing, and related uses.
Statewide, local governmenis Supply less than 9% of the campsites and less than 2% of the hunting
acreage. Non-profit groups dim furnish S0111C aCCCSS 10 tile Outdoors include the YMCA, church
camps, and hunting clubs. Commercial facilities concentrate on those activities that are profitable,
such as tent and trailer camping facilit ics. The federal and state facilities are fewer in number, but

have greater acreage and are directed toward the more primary types of recreations, such as hunting
and camping.

The public accesses the coastal waters and wetlands in several ways. First, federal, state, local,
levee board, and private boat launches are found throughout the coastal zone. Government
launches are improved ramps with parking areas, sometimes with sanitary facilities and piers, and
almost always with trash barrels. Commercial launches, in addition to ramps and usually parking
(many times very limited), include electric hoists, bait, groceries, restaurants, and sanitary facilities
(occasionally primitive). To supplement these access points numerous federal, state, and local
highway crossings of major waterways have unofficial boat launches, that is, tracks cleared of
vegetation, rutted banks, and parking next to the highway. For example, along Interstate Hwy. 10
between the La. Hwy. 22 Exit in Ascension Parish and the U.S. Hwy. 51 Exit in St. John Parish
every intersection with a major bayou or canal is accessible by small boat carried on either the back
of a pickup truck or on a small trailer.

Second, state and parish roads that cross the wetlands provide opportunities for using the wetlands
and coastal waters. Seasonally, favored spots attract crowds of families and individual
recreationists who fish, shrimp, and crab for an entire day. Selected examples of the more heavily
utilized locations include La. Hwy. 27 south of Hackberry in Cameron Parish; La. Hwy. 82 north
of Pecan Island in Vermilion Parish; La. Hwy. I south of Leesville in Lafourche Parish; the
Fourchon area at the terminus of La. Hwy. 3090; and along La. Hwy. 434 south of Lacombe in
St. Tammany Parish. These areas are for the most part inadequate. Highway locations are unsafe
because cars park within the right-of-way on very narrow shoulders, or, in some instances, on the
roadway; individuals fish and crab from bridges that were not designed for such uses and are not
wide enough to accommodate the conflicting uses of recreation and vehicular travel; children play,
near and on the roadway; and no sanitary facilities exist. It can be said without reservation that'
people will fish and crab anywhere in the coastal zone where there is access to water,, whether or
not it is safe.

Third, the public benefits from the coastal zone when they construct camps and permanent homes
on leased land or on parcels they own (Figure 7). Camps are "seasonally occupied recreational
dwellings" (Gary and Davis 1979, p.2) that are used by a significant population for day or
overnight use of the coastal wetlands. Gary and Davis (1979) counted 10,220 camps; 17% are in
the Chenier Plain, mostly in clusters such as Holly, Rutherford, and Constance beaches, and the
remainder in the Deltaic Plain, of which approximately 3,500 are accessible only by water.
Figure 7 shows the distribution of the largest clusters of dwellings. Structures range from single
rooms that serve all functions to larger multistory buildings having several rooms, including a
kitchen and bathroom. Along the roads water is for the most part from a central treatment system,
while in the marsh freshwater is from cisterns. Sanitary facilities may only be a pipe leading into
the marsh or adjacent water body behind the camp. Camps have been cited as a major contributor
to estuarine water pollution problems and the necessity to close shellfish beds. Pilings raise the
living area above anticipated storm-surge levels because of concern for the threat or as mandated by
the NFIP. Some buildings may be as high as 18 ft above the parking area and lawn, which flood
during high tides, for example in south Terrebonne Parish. These units provide important access
to coastal Louisiana when they serve as bases for fishing and hunting.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON PUBLIC ACCESS

Federal, state, and local agencies furnish public access. Federal agencies have take specific actions
to provide public access of selected holdings. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has boat ramps,
interpretative walks, and allows bird watching, nature study, walking, hunting, fishing, and
crabbing on most of its property (Figure 7). On the Sabine Wildlife Refuge is a one-mile walkway
into the marsh. The Jean Lafitte National Park, composed of several satellite units,

Figure 7. Public recreation lands and camp concentrations (Sources: Gary and Davis 1979; Reinhart,Rouse and Reggio 1986).

3 1

provides access to the wetlands along interpretative walks, canoe trails, and a visitors' information
center. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with St. Charles Parish, is developing
a master recreation plan of the Bonnet Carre Spillway just west of New Orleans. 'Me plan will
include shooting zones, fishing areas, camping sites, and an improved boat ramp.

At the state level, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries builds and maintains boat
ramps on its management areas, has interpretative walks into the wetlands, such as in the Joyce
Wildlife Management Area (Tangipahoa Parish), has cabins for rent, and allows camping, trailer
hookups (Grand Isle State Park), hunting, fishing, and crabbing on much of its property. The
Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism oversees the state parks and
commerative areas. Several of these have furnished cabins for rent to the general public (Bayou
Signette in Jefferson Parish), campgrounds (Cypremort Point State Park), boat launches (Fort Pike
Commerative Area), comfort stations, and picnicing facilities. The Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
incorporates boat launches into the interstate highway rights-of-way. Two large launches are along
Interstate Highway 55, one in St. John Parish and one in Tangipahoa Parish. Unfortunately,
neither have comfort stations. Local governments in conjunction with levee boards support parks
and build and maintain boat launches. Orleans and Jefferson Parishes best exemplify this
relationship.

Distributed throughout the coastal zone are examples of projects that, although not primarily
designed for public access, still furnish a chance to use the coastal zone. The Corps of Engineers'
beach restoration program on Grand Isle, although primarily for hurricane protection, serves the
public for swimming, walking, fishing, and crabbing. A similar cases occurs in the Fourchon area
at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche. The Port Commission has a beach restoration program for the
protection of inland development. This is one of the few stretches of sandy shoreline that is
accessible by automobile. As a consequence the beach is heavily used by campers, surf fishers,
and crabbers throughout the year. A recreationist must travel to Cameron Parish before again
being able to access approximately 26 mi of barrier beach shoreline by automobile. Along the
Cameron Parish shoreline the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development is vying
to restore the beach to prevent erosion of La. Hwy. 82 west of Holly Beach.

One of the most significant recreational issues confronting the state is protecting the natural
environment from destruction (Office of State Parks 1989). The CMD does not build, operate, or
maintain facilities for public access into the coastal zone. It assesses areas for public access and
recreation based on the following considerations: the need and priority of islands; the provision of
increased physical and visual access; the natural and cultural features; the needs of urban residents;
and the present supply versus future demand for public facilities (Louisiana Coastal Resources
Program 1980).

The role of the CMD is the protection of the renewable resource base, one of the most significant
recreation issues confronting the state (Office of State Parks 1989). The CMD undertakes its
responsibilities through the implementation of the following Coastal Use Guidelines: 1.6 1; n; p; q;
1.7 e; p; q; 1.9; 3.7; 3.8; 5.2; 5.3; 5.6; 6.5; 6.8; and 6.9 (Appendix). Most of the Coastal Use
Guidelines are applicable to the conservation, preservation, and/or rehabilitation of wetlands. The
ones referenced above seem most directly applicable to this report.

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

The present programs do not provide adequate access to the coastal wetlands, coastal waters, or
shorelines. According to the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) (Office of
State Parks 1989) Louisiana does not have sufficient boat launches. Acreage for public hunting
should be increased. An insufficient number of beaches are accessible by automobile. During the
summer Grand Isle State Park is usually filled to capacity.

Effective programs providing access to the coastal zone include the Corps of Engineers' hurricane
protection program for Grand Isle, which relies on beach restoration, and by coincidence is
effective in providing public access. In the Fourchon area the Port Commission's beach program
also is designed for protection of inland development, but, by its very existence, provides public
access. The Cameron shoreline maintenance program allows for limited public access. Erosion is
a. primary problem in each in these areas. As a result public access exists only for that period of
time that the sand remains as a beach.

The CMD's permit procedure and implementation of coastal use guidelines are effective
mechanisms for protecting wetlands, although there is some conflict of opinion (Houck 1983).
The wetlands section and cumulative/secondary impacts section of this report describes the
accomplishment of CMD in addressing these two issues to the benefit of the public.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAM

Some possible methods to address the Public Access issue are as follows:

Develop and implement a plan to, improve public access to the coastal wetlands, water
bodies, and shorelines through, the Louisiana regulatory, statutory, and legal system;

Develop policies that would require public access be made a part of any mitigation
measures applicable to a permitted project which threatened to reduce access;

Update the 1978 public access document;

Designate public access sites as Areas of Particular Concern, Areas for Preservation or
Restoration, or special management areas;

Develop and incorporate into the LCRP an education program on public access by
developing maps, brochures, and other written materials as well as a slide presentation
and script that could be distributed to schools, fraternal organizations, service groups,
and the general public;

Advise other agencies on incorporation of public access facilities into their coastal
projects so the state derives unanticipated benefits such as those associated with the
Department of Transportation and Development coastal erosion program; and

Work with the Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism to determine where
access needs are greatest and then work within the limits of the coastal program to
encourage greater access.

Section 309(a)(4) - MARINE DEBRIS

INTRODUCTION

The people of Louisiana use the coastal zone and nearshore waters for recreation year around. In
the winter, redfish are in the marsh and ducks are in ponds, In the spring fishing takes over with
boating and skiing entering in June. By the time summer arrives camping, swimming, boating,
and crabbing bring people into the water and onto the marsh. In the fall people are fishing and
hunting. Commercial fishing and trapping and oil and gas extraction, both onshore and offshore,
occur throughout the year. As a result of these activities, a tremendous amount of trash is
generated and unfortunately not brought back to land for proper disposal. Marine debris is the
litter and trash that accumulates along the beaches and waterways of the coastal zone. This section
describes the problem, then characterizes the existing programs, discusses the effectiveness of
existing programs, and finally, proposes the changes the CMD could make to its program.

MARINE DEBRIS

The presence of marine deb ris on Louisiana's beaches and in coastal waters has economic, health
and safety, and ecological impacts. Loss of tourist dollars from visitors finding debris-strewn
beaches unappealing; expenditure of scarce tax dollars for beach cleaning; fouling of cooling
intakes and propellers of recreational and commercial vessels; potential injury to beach users who
encounter broken glass, rusting metal, or containers of toxic, hazardous, or unknown chemicals;
and the injury and death of marine life are all impacts of marine debris.

An 18-month study of marine debris in coastal Louisiana has determined that from 2590 to 23,154
items/mi litter the beaches (Lindstedt and Holmes 1988a). Plastic items constitute 47% of the
items, polystyrene 16%, glass 10%, metal 7%, rope 7%, paper 7%, and other items 6%. These
amounts vary by season, location, and accessibility to the beach. By grouping identifiable marine
debris into waste types, possible origins may be inferred. Beverage-related items constitute 40%
of identifiable (groupable) waste items; operational wastes 2 1 %; galley wastes 15%; personal items
I I %; and fishing items 6%. About 25 to 55% of all litter could be categorized in this way.

Except for the contributors of drink-related wastes, which is potentially everyone, the main
contributors of marine debris appear to be offshore users, including recreational and commercial
fishermen, the oil and gas industry and their service industries, and the maritime shipping industry.
These groups may be individually accountable for only a small number of items specific to them,
but galley, operational, and cargo wastes, and personal items probably come from all three
sources.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON MARINE DEBRIS

Nationally, marine debris has been attacked by federal legislation, particularly the Ocean Dumping
Act, part of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and the Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987. The Ocean Dumping Act provides for domestic
implementation of the London Dumping Convention. Among provisions outlawed are the
common practice of transporting wastes for disposal in the high seas--beyond the 3-mi limit. The
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act implemented Annex V of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Treaty--commonly called MARPOL. This
treaty and the resulting federal legislation prohibit vessels from disposing of plastics, and regulate
the distance from shore that other types of garbage may be dumped. The United States Coast
Guard is responsible for enforcing Annex V in U.S. waters.

Within the Gulf of Mexico marine debris has received additional attention. Federal legislation
applicable to federal waters is applicable, plus the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service (MMS), which regulates oil and gas activities in the federal waters of the
U.S., has a regulatory role. The MMS has issued OCS Orders on trash and debris to all lessees
and operators of federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico OCS region. The OCS Orders
prohibit deliberate discharge of containers and other similar solid waste materials in the marine
environment and require identifying marks on material weighing more than 40 pounds. Minerals
Management personnel have been active in organizing and participating in beach cleanup activities
and have adopted a mile of beach for periodic cleaning in Lafourche Parish.

In 1988, the EPA initiated its Gulf of Mexico Program to devise a strategy for protecting and
enhancing environmental quality within the gulf. The program has identified issues that are
pervasive and need immediate attention. Among them is marine debris.

At present the LCRP does not specifically address marine debris nor the impacts of mari *ne debris
through the Coastal Use Guidelines, which were established pursuant to the SLCRMA of 1978.

The CMD lacks the jurisdiction to enforce existing state anti-litter laws and has no regulatory
authority over permitted sanitary or hazardous landfills. Nevertheless, it has funded research to
quantify the presence of marine debris on Louisiana's coast and has cooperated with other state and
federal agencies in supporting beach cleanups and publishing summary reports on cleanup results.
The CMD has also funded publication of technical reports on the presence of marine debris on
Louisiana beaches and a public information brochure on the problern of marine debris. And,
finally, the CMD has sponsored speakers to address private groups and attend and make
presentations at regional and national meetings dealing with marine debris.

Several state agencies are also involved with public education about litter and marine debris. The
Adopt-A-Beach program, sponsored and coordinated by the Louisiana Litter Control and
Recycling Commission (LLCRC), Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, encourages
private groups to periodically clean selected stretches of Louisiana's beaches. The LLCRC also
has been the lead state agency in coordinating state participation in the national annual beach
cleanups in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

The Louisiana law (La. R.S. 25:1101-1116) that created the LLCRC also requires that it coordinate
the various government and private organizations that deal with litter control and recycling, and
encourage, organize, and coordinate voluntary campaigns to focus public attention on litter control
and recycling. This statute established fines for littering, including littering from water vessels,
and requires that owners of parking lots provide and maintain litter receptacles, which must be
maintained by the state or local agency havingjurisdiction. Public and private boat launches, and
marinas both inside and outside the coastal zone are also included under the requirement.

The LDWF also promotes public education about litter, trash, and marine debris aimed specifically
at recreational fishermen and boaters. The Enforcement Division of the LDWF is the primary state
agency mandated to enforce the anti-litter laws on the state's waterways. Post certified agents may
issue citations to anyone littering or discarding material into state waters. This restriction also
applies on public lands and private property not owned by the individual. The Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police, may also issue citations for
littering as may any parish sheriff.

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Office of Solid and Hazardous
Wastes, regulates the disposal of wastes in sanitary landfills and hazardous waste disposal sites.
Marine debris collected during beach cleanups and not separated for recycling becomes solid waste
and must be disposed of in accordance with regulalions administered by this office. Some items
that wash ashore in coastal 1-ouisiana, sucli as 55-gallon drunis with petroleum products,

chemicals, or unidentified contents, are considered hazardous and, if reported, are removed by the
DEQ Hazardous Waste Emergency Response group. The Local Programs and Public Participation
Division of DEQ promotes public education of the waste disposal problem and the need to recycle
to reduce the waste stream. The Division works with parishes to establish local recycling
programs. Although it is not directly related to marine debris, recycling in the coastal parishes
could reduce the waste stream and consequently the amount that becomes marine debris.

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Marine debris, litter, and recycling are currently under the jurisdiction of at least three other state
agencies. These agencies have funding and staff whose jobs are to promote waste reduction and
recycling efforts, promote and coordinate anti-litter campaigns and cleanups, and to enforce
existing state and federal anti-litter laws. The CMD has no staff available for such activities nor the
jurisdiction to be involved in any capacity other than continuing the role of cooperating with the
other state agencies and user groups.

The data collected from four- years ofvolunlary beach cleaDups along coastal Louisiana shows no
conclusive trends that marine debris is either diminishing or increasing (Table 4). The percentage
of plastic items collected has decreased since 1988. The percentage of collected items identified as
galley wastes and operational wastes has decreased. Such trends may reflect the implementation of
the MARPOL Treaty and resulting federal legislation. All data derived from voluntary beach
cleanups should be viewed with extreme caution. Numerous factors such as meteorological
conditions, accessibility of beaches, dedication of volunteers, and sampling and recording
procedures are all problems that plague accurate data collection. Nevertheless, the statewide beach
cleanups and Adopt-A-Beach program have contributed to public awareness of the marine debris
problem.

The enforcement of Annex V ol.'MARPOL and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control
Act of 1987 should significantly reduce the deliberate disposal of plastics and other materials at
sea. Designation of the Gulf of Mexico as a "special area" -- a provision of MARPOL -- could
further reduce disposal of wastes in the gulf, The MMS OCS Orders regulating oil and gas
activities should eliminate all debris disposal frorn (hat industry in the gulf; of course, there will
always be some accidental loss, The desire ofthe Offshore Operators Committee to eliminate their
industry as a source of marine debris and their worker education efforts have and will continue to
be effective. Public education of the problem and a IVS1.1hing change in attitude about the social
acceptability of litter will provide the most effective solution. User industries, and environmental
and sportsmen groups all have sponsored education efforts within their ranks. Such education will
eventually increase awareness and change attitudes. The enforcement of existing state laws that
fine persons convicted of littering in the marine environment Could significantly affect attitudes and
consequently reduce marine debris.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM

The CMD does not have a formal Marine Debi-is Program and proposes no changes to this status.

Tabit 4. Data Coll,ectedfram Four Years of Voluntary ReathCfeanup.

3
119,187 19,88 119,189 1990

V-61unteers 3251+ 2700 3450 4414

Data Cards 412 ? ? 592
OT
used f
analy'sis

Pounds,df 4,00,000 11,180,1000 110,1000 250,000
@debns

Miles cleaned -.60+ 77 67 '76

-1 -01 '70.53 166.104
9b of astic 42 7-4.42
ems (4th) (3.Td) (6th) -.nationally
'it

1% 4 Galley 1119 15@ 31 13.97 9-39
'wastes I'so (Ist)
(2nd),nationally

perational 11 3-24 -3-:3 3.42
,wastes @Qrd) @,(2nd) ,(.3rd) nationally

1% fishmm.g/Boat 4 7.5.5 4 L 4
&Conunerdal
Fishing wastes

Rased,,on standard
indicatoritems

Source.: 'LindstedtandRdImes 1'9,88b,; @O'Bara,119,,8,9,;;O'.,Hara',I,-990; Bierce.and O.Hara 1,991.

Section 309(a)(5) -CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS

INTRODUCTION

The Louisiana coastal zone is the site of many and varied uses, ranging from conservation projects,
such as wildlife management areas, to intensive development, such as platform building yards or
industrial complexes. Each of these actions occurs in a specific place and time, which may be
limited in scope and extent, and thus not appear to have much of an impact on the natural and
cultural systems. However, when individual uses are considered in total, they may actually have
heretofore unrecognized adverse impacts that build until they become significant. In addition, any
activity may be accompanied by associated development or elements that have an impact on the
coastal zone. The term "cumulative impacts" describes the former issue, while the term "secondary
impacts" denotes the latter. For purposes of this report cumulative impacts are "impacts increasing
in significance due to the collective effects of a number of activities." (Louisiana Administrative
Code Section 701, Chapter 7, Volume 17). "Secondary impacts" are "those impacts that result
from uses ancillary to, or as a consequence of, an initial development " (Louisiana Coastal
Resources Program [LCRP] 1980, Appendix m). In this section, cumulative and secondary
impacts are considered together as the term "cumulative /secondary impacts." The following
subsections discuss the types of cumulative/secondary impacts existing in the coastal zone. Then,
the existing programs that address these impacts are presented and then evaluated for their
effectiveness. Finally, the CMD proposes several ways for improving the state's coastal zone
program.

CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS

Cumulative/secondary impacts are the result of many of the common activities in the Louisiana
coastal zone. The primary focus of the CMD has been to address these impacts to wetlands and
those causing water pollution. These activities include, but are not limited to:

Navigation and flood control projects
Hydrocarbon extraction
Interaction of two or more unrelated activities, and
Single family residences and homes.

Each of these activities is discussed in more detail below.

Navigation and flood control projects result in the most severe cumulative/secondary impacts on
the wetlands. Construction of major navigation canals, such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
(MRGO), the Houma Navigation Canal, and Freshwater Bayou'cause direct conversion of
thousands of acres of wetlands to open water, cover thousands of acres with spoil, isolate
wetlands from historic hydrologic interchange, and allow for the introduction of saltwater into
freshwater areas (Turner and Cahoon 1987; Wicker et al. 1989). Jetties constructed to restrict
channels through the nearshore shoals result in deposition on the updrift side and significant
erosion of beaches and wetlands on the downdrift side (Wicker et al. 1989). Navigation channels
stimulate port developments, which in turn require filling of wetlands. The most easily recognized
areas are along the Houma Navigation Canal, at the southern extent of Bayou Lafourche (Port
Fourchon), and in the vicinity of Morgan City and Bayou Boeuf. Finally, canals allow for
saltwater intrusion, a significant problern in St. Bernard Parish where the MRGO allowed saltwater
to penetrate into a cypress swamp. The swamp has since been replaced by broken marsh and open
water.

Flood protection projects have historically converted wetlands to drained lands for residential,
commercial, and industrial development. All of Orleans Parish, except for the eastern extreme, is

surrounded by hurricane protection levees. East Jefferson Parish is completely enclosed. Many
drainage districts and levee districts throughout the coastal zone, such as those existing and
proposed in Terrebonne Parish, eventually lead to the destruction of wetlands. By building levees,
flow and migration routes are blocked, reducing the habitat available for estuarine -dependent
species. Levees and spoil banks also cover wetlands and shallow water bottoms, reducing even
further the needed habitat.

Extraction of hydrocarbons usually requires the drilling of several wells, the installation of
pipelines, and the construction of support and production facilities. Historically, oil and gas fields
looked like a "spider web" of canals or roads, following only a master plan for accessing the
resource. Pipelines, whether from well to production facility or from the field to the refinery, ran
directly from one point to another without regard for surface features (Emmer 1989). In addition,
competitors showed little, if any, cooperation for sharing pipelines, pipeline corridors, access
canals, or production facilities. The overall consequences were cumulative/secondary impacts that
devastated many areas of the coastal zone (Turner and Cahoon 1987). Saltwater migrated far into
the estuaries that were originally fresh. Flow was blocked and migratory fish routes dammed.
Spoil and development covered wetlands and lakes.

Because so many users are in the coastal zone operating without regard to or knowledge of what
others have done or will do, projects do not, many times, operate in isolation. When seen as a
single element, detrimental impacts may not result, but when intersecting with other actions,
significant problems may result. For example, an access road constructed for a new oil well may
link to a levee that is part of a wetlands management area. The access road can cause unintended
impoundment of wetlands and in the long term an evolution of the area from vegetation to open
water.

Finally, the expansion of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational areas into wetlands
usually results in the filling of wetlands. Runoff from intensive development may adversely
impact wetlands by introducing sediment during construction; chemicals from lawns, roadways,
parking lots, and vehicle washing stations; and s6lid waste, such as dumps and landfills. With
these types of development arises the need for the treatment of sewage. Camps and structures in
more rural areas rely on either septic tanks, which -do not work as designed or are not maintained,
or simply discharge water and solids into the bayou or onto the wetlands. Untreated or under
treated sewage has become such a problem in Terrebonne, Lafourche, and Plaquemines Parishes
that oyster beds have been closed.

As stated in the beginning of this section, there are activities other than those. specifically listed
above which cause or contribute to cumulative/secondary impacts.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON CUMULATIVE AND
SECONDARY IMPACTS

Cumulative/secondary impacts are evaluated when individual activities are reviewed for compliance
with the CMD's regulatory standards in permit, consistency, and enforcement cases. The CMD
relies on staff experience (Regional Coordinators in the Permit and Enforcement Sections maintain
an overview of activities in their areas) and data from the Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
the Permit Tracking System, permit records, and field inspections (if appropriate) to provide the
information needed to evaluate the cumulative/secondary impact potential of a proposed use.
Additionally, the staff coordinates activities with other regulatory agencies, thereby assuring that
these impacts are considered on a project-by-project basis rather than on a regional basis. The
process involves applying the Coastal Use Guidelines in concert with staff expertise. For
example, the CMD would require a change in the orientation of a proposed oil and gas canal project
to avoid creating an impoundment by preventing its spoil levees from connecting to existing levees.

The CMD arrives at its position because Guidelines 1.7 1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.9, 4.1, 4.3, and 10.4
(Appendix) provide information concerning disruption of water movement. The staff s regulatory
experience and the CMD's database are used to evaluate alternative measures. Consistency of
results is overseen by the Section Managers, who are involved in the review process as well.

Special management area designation provides for the planning of long-term cumulative impact
avoidance or abatement on a regional basis. The Maurepas-Pontchartrain Basin is under
consideration as a special area, and cumulative impact avoidance has been raised as an issue. The
two existing Special Management Areas, Marsh Island and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, are
managed under plans developed prior to the approval of the LCRP. Thus, uses within both areas
are regulated primarily by their respective management agencies, the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), and the Louisiana Offshore Terminal Authority. The CMD is
considering using special management to develop long-term management strategies for dredged
material disposal areas associated with Corps of Engineers' navigation projects. The existing
methods used by the CMD to control the impacts referred to in the preceding section are
summarized below,

Navigation and flood control projects are addressed through the consistency review process. The
Consistency Section undertakes a thorough review of each proposed new project and evaluates the
way in which it will interact with existing activities, and it engages in pre-project planning with the
agencies constructing the project. However, frequently, the Army Corps of Engineers has been
unwilling to consider impact reduction techniques which would either increase the cost of a project
or delay its implementation. The small staffing level of the Consistency Section has contributed to
planning difficulties.

Oil and gas field development projects are handled through the permit process. The Permit Section
undertakes a thorough review of each proposed new project and evaluates the way in which it will
interact with existing activities. One area of special emphasis that is encouraged and required in
some cases is the sharing of existing access routes and the pooling of facilities.

Directional drilling from existing disturbed areas is not the only method to reduce impacts, By
applying the Geologic Review Procedure, the CMD has been quite successful in reducing direct
impacts as a result of oil and gas access (Johnston et al. 1989) from an average of about 5 ac per
canal in 1982 to about 2.5 ac in 1988. Although the CMD has used this process to reduce
cumulative/secondary impacts, there are no available quantitative data to verify this statement.

Construction of single-family residences and camps are exempted from the CUP requirements.
This exemption does not apply to dredging or filling activities extending beyond the construction of
the home foundation and driveway. No available quantitative data exist on the extent of impacts
caused by these exempted uses.

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Based upon its regulatory experience of eleven years, the CMD believes that its use of the existing
Coastal Use Guidelines is successful in regulating cumulative/secondary impacts; however, as
previously stated, the Army Corps of Engineers has not been fully cooperative with the CMD in
addressing the cumulative/secondary impacts of navigation and flood-control projects.

For oil and gas activities, the Geologic Review Procedure is used not only to evaluate individual
projects, but also to insure that long-term field development is planned in a manner that will
minimize cumulative impacts. This planning is done by requiring applicants to pick centralized
locations for field development, and by conditioning permits to require that subsequent
development activities be located in the corridor so established. The continued exploitation of
11mature" oil fields that were developed prior to the regulatory process remains a problem, as does

the continued industrial impact on wetlands, because impact avoidance apparently was not a
component of the original planning process.

Interconnections of two or more unrelated activities, particularly if they are. handled by different
sections of the CMD, are among the most difficult to control. Information sharing between
sections is a problem because each section keeps its own data base, and the loss of experienced
staffers has resulted in a loss of institutional memory. Identifying interaction among uses is not
difficult if these uses are subject to the review of just one section. However, they still may be
difficult to regulate because applicants may not wish to cooperate with each other to reduce
impacts.

Because they are exempted activities, the CMD's ability to deal with cumulative/secondary impacts
resulting from the construction of camps and residences or the interaction of them with other
activities is limited. Subdivisions, or multi-family construction, are not exempt. Unfortunately,
there have been some instances in which large-scale developments have been initiated one house at
a time in order to avoid the permit requirement. Further, much development that affects water
quality occurs in areas outside of the Coastal Zone and is consequently outside of the jurisdiction
of the LCRP.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY
IMPACTS PROGRAM

Some possible methods to address the cumulativelsecondary impact issues are as follows:

Develop a Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for dredged material disposal for
each individual project which would deal with some of the cumulative/secondary
impacts and consider the development of special management area status for certain
navigation and flood, control activities;

Evaluate the Geologic Review Procedure and the feasibility of requiring the use of
innovative technology as part of the state's strategy in dealing with this issue (it may be
necessary to provide incentives to get industry. cooperation in the latter);

Because construction of single-family residences and camps are exempted from coastal
use permitting, it is not likely that regulatory authority over such uses will be obtained.
However, evaluate present agreements between the CMD and the Department of Health
and Human Resources. (This could determine whether closer cooperation between
their respective agencies would alleviate the problem); and

Evaluate data gaps identified in the Assessment and determine whether further study of
the effects of cumulative/secondary impacts is warranted, and, if so, develop
techniques to manage them.

Section 309(a)(6) -- SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING

INTRODUCTION

A Special Management Area is a definitive portion of the coastal zone that can be shown to possess
unique and valuable characteristics that need special management (Louisiana State and Local
Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended). The act establishes two Special
Management Areas (Figure 8): Marsh Island and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP)
complex. Special area management is a vehicle for resolving conflicts among competing users in
the coastal zone while at the same time protecting the renewable resources. With implementation of
a special area management plan, multiple use of the coastal resources may be possible. The
purpose of this section is to summarize historic attempts at Special Area Management Planning
(SAMP), to describe similar efforts at regional planning because of their potential conflict with the
SAMPs, to discuss the effectiveness of these programs, and to present the CMD's proposals for
enhancing the state's program.

SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Since 1978 two attempts have been made by the CMD to establish SAMPs. The first began in the
early 1980s when the CMD initiated a SAMP for the Lakes Maurepas-Pontchartrain Basin of
southeast Louisiana. After the preparation of background information, a series of meetings began
in 1984 when Governor Edwards appointed a task force of representatives from the eight parishes
in the basin that were in the coastal zone, plus representatives of federal and state agencies, special
interest groups, and the private sector. The Task Force functioned as an advisor to the Secretary of
the Department of Natural Resources. The process was designed to encourage resource use
planning beyond the parochial realm of particular groups or agencies and to place the more
important issues in their regional context. After meeting for approximately five years the process
lost momentum and was not reconstituted by Governor Roemer. No decisions have been made on
SAMP for the Lakes Maurepas-Pontchartrain Basin.

In the late 1980s the Barataria Basin received consideration for a SAMP. Governor Roemer
appointed a working group of representatives from parishes within the basin, federal and state
agencies, special interest groups, and the private sector. A facilitator was retained to oversee the
meetings during the one year allowed for the process. A draft document with recommendations
was prepared within the time allocated, but the decision was made by the CMD to withdraw this
effort in favor of the National Estuary Program (NEP) which was designated for this area during
the SAMP process.

In addition to the attempt at two new SAMPs, there have been three other initiatives to create
regional coordination of activities within the coastal zone. The NEP is an EPA-funded effort
applied to develop a regional plan for the Terrebonne-Barataria Estuarine Complex. National
estuaries are systems that are considered to be nationally significant and that are threatened by
pollution, development, and overuse. An NEP is designed to promote the development of
comprehensive plans to protect and improve water quality and enhance living resources within the
defined area; in other words, the NEP ensures the ecological integrity of the estuarine system.
This process is in the first year of the five-year effort. Policy and Management Committees have
met on several occasions and are preparing the schedule of events for the process. Nominations
are being made to the Scientific/Technical, Citizens Advisory, and Local Governments
Committees.

A regional coordination effort is ongoing in southwest Louisiana. The Calcasieu Estuary
Environmental Task Force was established by Executive Order No. ER 89-35, which was signed

cam

LIMM

0
0 0
0 0 0 'Op-
0 00
0 00
0 0

AU-
000 0
0000
0000
cam
00000000
OU
0 00
% CO
V- 0

0
0 U
000
MOTiMMOM/ V) 00
-0. 000
% 00
0
04C4'
() 0
1 rw,^ 0 0 000
000
n 00
900('00
00000000y,
000000000 0
SpecialArea Managernen Plan 000000ons
UO
0,C)OOO 00
rl-7/1 0 0
Coastal kicnagemerit DIvIsion 0 f&iWOM-140 0
Calcasleau Estu.. 0C - 0
Departmnt of Natural Resources Environmental Task Force OU066660OU 666000 0 0
0000czjj@jooooo 0
00 UU 00 0 0
P000 Nartional Estuary Program 66 0 0 0
0 0 00
Lake Pontchartrain Basin 0 00 0
000
000 0
00 0
Foundation Program .Op

0 10 20 3D 40 V
I miles (lo flann Offs

Figure 8. Nine hydrologic basins in coastal Louisiana as they are frequently used in environmental M.
(Source: Boesch et al. 1989). anpgen

by Governor Roemer on November 3, 1989. The Task Force is an advisory panel on pollution in
the Calcasieu River estuary. The responsibilities of the Task Force are (Section 2) to:

A. Act as a liaison between the general public and state agencies regarding the
pollution of the Calcasieu River estuary system by holding public hearings
and receiving public input regarding public concerns, sources of pollution,
and possible solutions.

B. Meet and work with the state agencies regarding the scope and effect of their
actions, the concerns and ideas of the citizens; and generally advise such
agencies concerning the environmental integrity of the system.

C. Monitor the actions of the state agencies and advise the general public with
regard to those actions.

Seventeen members representing local governments and special interest groups compose the Task
Force. An advisory group is composed of one member of the southwest Louisiana Legislative
Delegation; one representative from each of the Departments of Environmental Quality, Health and
Hospitals, Wildlife and Fisheries, and Justice; and Region VI, the Environmental Protection
Agency. Annual reports are submitted to the Governor. Interestingly, neither the Governor's
Office nor the Department of Natural Resources is represented in the advisory group.

Finally, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation is about to begin a coordination and planning
effort for Lake Pontchartrain and the surrounding uplands. By Act 716 the 1989 Louisiana
Legislature authorized the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission (the Commission) to
undertake activities for the restoration and preservation of the environmental and ecological balance
of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. In response to this act the Commission prepared for the
establishment of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (the Foundation) located in Jefferson
Parish. The Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that became active in September 1989, is
governed by a 13-member Board of Directors composed of representatives from the Departments
of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Fisheries, Environmental Quality, and Health and Hospitals;
and representatives from Orleans, Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, and St. John
Parishes. Each member who serves a three-year term has some technical, ecological, or
environmental expertise related to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin.

The purpose of the Foundation's project is to bring the decision-makers (federal, state, and local
governments) and special interest groups within the basin together to develop a comprehensive
basinwide resource conservation and enhancement plan. The suggested strategy will establish a
philosophy for a conservation and rehabilitation program for the waters, adjacent uplands, and
wetlands. Realistic long-term goals for the next 20 years will guide the development and
implementation of a short-term strategy for the next five years. Setting a 5-year strategy allows for
periodic evaluation of program accomplishments and provides the opportunity for adjusting the
goals and directions of the program as needed so the effort is completed in a timely fashion. Initial
public meetings were held in October 1991. Decision-makers will have their first meeting in
January 1992. The final plans should be completed by the fall of 1992.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT AREA PLANNING

The State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, has as its declared
policies:

(1) To protect, ... the resources of the state's coastal zone.

(3) To support and encourage. multiple use ofcoastal resources consistent with
the maintenaryce and enhancement of- renewable- resource -management -and
productivity,

(4) To employ procedures -and. practices that resolve conflicts among competing
uses within the.coastal zone ...

'Section,213.10 of Act 361 of 1978, as amended, provides for the creation of special area
:management. The LOOP and,Marsh Island areexisting,special management areas; the Maurepas -
,Pontchartrain Basin is still. beingconsidered for SAMO;,and, as.stated previously, continued action
on the Barataria Basin SAMPhas been terminated in favor -of the'NEP.

EffECT-WENESS OVEXISTING PROGRAMS

Planning is a process.that begins with. determining thebasic goals for thecommunity; second,
@@presenting an analysis.6f,the-.physical,,cultura'l, and institutional characteristics of thecommunity
.and the trends related to each element;..,third, @presenting -policies indicating how and in what
-direction the community. could develop- and-at -what pace; fourth, proposing effective methods , for
-implementing the plan;. and-finally,:m. onitonng-th-e-plans and making-suggestions for improving the
plan --as.necessary. Numerousarticles review the authority ofLouisiana and local governments to
control land use in Louisiana (Conner 1977; Forman .1-980; Hershman and Mistric 1975-76;
Hershman and Fontenot 1-976; Livaudais,19.82; Marcel,and Bockroth 1980; and Midboe et al.
.1-97.6) and,discuss.,and.descnbe.environmentaI regulations-that apply to the coastal zone (Emmer
'1984; Houck 1983). The CMD -evaluated the status of @the local-state coordination process for
-.managing coastal development (Emmer and Thayer 1989). Planning is-possible in Louisiana and
ds required when planning commissions exist. Enuner-et,al. (1990), after evaluatingthe planning
process incoastal Louisiana, concluded.that planning is-reactionary rather than anticipatory. When
mandated by -federal and -state governments, some form of planning follows, such as with the
NFIR However, planning is not a @hi h priorit i local decision-makers; morepressing
9 y item among
day--to-day, issues, ..such -as schools, -roads, and landfills, demand their attention.. The general
-public believes planning tells them what to do with their. land. Local planning is not universally
.accepted by the general public. Regional planning, suchus a,SAMPjs even less likely tobe
effective in its existing format.

TheLOOP and Marsh Island SpecialManagement Areas appear to be -functioning as designed.
The Maurepas-Pontchartrain Basin,SAMP.,procedure never seemed to attract widespread support
among the parishes,and.speci@al,interests in the basin. Unfortunate 4 timin-g also.contributed to the
demise,of the effort. During the,-organizational phase a,,dispute over the impact of-shell dredging in
'the lakes. developed. The protraction of that issue, the,concern of some interests about excessive
regulation, personal.animosities with roots in past contacts, and -an underlying distrust of the
process and each other by many of -the task force Tepre'sentatives contributed to less than
satisfactory results. Processing of the Maurepas-Pontchartrain Basin SAMP is ongoing, and the
CMD has made no decision whether to designate the basin as a SAMP. The Barataria SAMP effort
,learned from the Maurepas-Pontchartrain SAMP. A facilitator was retained; the meetings were
:structuredand conducted in a formal manner; personal clashes were eliminated or contained to an
.acceptable professional level; and -accountability was stressed and achieved. More was happening
--in-the basin that would.affect the Barataria.SAMP process.and the processwas terminated in favor
.of ihe NEP.

At this time it appears that SAMP when applied to a.large watershed such as the Maurepas-
Pontchartrain Basin does not -work. However, when the SAMP procedure.is used to address
specific issues and a particulararea, its,,chances.for successare enhanced. Thefutureof.SAMP
:seems to be in the narrower-realm of individual-pr9jects.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's SPECIAL AREA
MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROGRAM

Some possible methods to address the Special Area Management issue are as follows:

Actively support the planning effort by the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation and
incorporate it into the LCRP when complete; and

Seek specific projects that could be designated as SAMPs, for example, the shorelines
of navigation channels for the management of dredged material, and incorporate them
into the LCRP.

4:6

Section 309(a)(7) -- OCEAN RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

'This section describes the non-fuel mineral resources and the hydrocarbon resources within the
nearshore water and on the Federal OCS. Base&on available information, areas of important
-concentrations include sand, shell,sulphur, salt, and hydrocarbons. The following characterizes
.the mineral resource activities that exist, in addition to any potential reserves thatmay be present in
aqj,ace,nt areas. Most of the information isprovided by industry (oil & gas) and much remains
classified; however, sufficient data allows for a basic understanding of the resources within the
region,. Second, this section reviews the effectivenessof existing programs over the resources,
and finally presents activities @CMD.could undertake.

OCEAN RESOURCES

Sand t(recurved spit and,spit platform deposits, distributary and,tidal channels, ebb and flood tidal
deltas, beach ridges,and inner sbeitfshoals) is the most abundant aggregate mineral resource
w
ithm the studyarea (Johnet al. 1989).. Deposits near the Mississippi River are approximately
i
13 mi wide, whilethose off the western Louisiana coast are more than 113 miacross. Areas
considered aspotentiaLsand resources include: Ship Shoal, Trinity'shoal, Cat Island Pass and
.associated tidal deltas, andthe tide channels of Barataria Pass/Grand Terre area (Figure 9).

These areas could serveas long-term sand resources for beach restoration programs, depending on
both,transportation and dredgingcosts. Presently, boththe Ship (up to 3,937,007,874 ft3 of fine
.sand), and Trinity Shoals @(over 6,561,679,790 ft3 of fine sand) are considered the largest and
m ost feasible sand resources available within the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Trinity Shoal, the
westernmost member of theHolocene groupof inner shelf shoals, parallels Marsh Island and is 25
mi offshore. Deposits are 19 rrdlon@g and 3 to 6mi across in 23 to.33 ft of water. Even though the
Trinity Shoal is a potential sand resource, some of the channels maybe covered by more than 65 ft
of overburden. The deposits, therefore,are considered anunlikely.sand source for extraction
(Johnet,al. 1989). On the other hand, the Ship Shoal has the highest potential for extraction
because no overburden needs removal. Ship Shoal, the largest and easternmost member of the
Holocene group of inner shelf shoals, is about 31 mi long and 3 to 8 mi wide. Water depths range
from 23 to 29.5 ft on the -eastern side to 6.5 to 23 ft on the western perimeter. The sands are 13 mi
south -of and parallel to Isles Dernieres. [email protected] Island Pass and associated tidal deltas
.(6,561,679,'790 ft3 of sand) are located within Terrebonne Bay between the Isles Dernieres and
Timbalier Island. The area is 13 mi longand 8 mi wide.. The Barataria Pass/Grand Terre Tidal
Channels (over 1,148,293.,963 W of sand) are south of Grand Isleand Grand Terre. Deposits
begin along the eastern endofGrand Isle and parallel the -shoreline to the western end of Grand
Terre. Deposits are up to 6 mi longand just over 2 mi wide (John.etal. 1989).

Historically, clam and oyster shells constituted a valuable mineral resource. Shellsserved as
aggregate in constructionand as a source of calcium carbonate in lime manufacture, acid
neutralization, water purification, petrochemical production, fi Ite r media,pharmaceutical needs,
poultryfeed, and as cultchmaterial -for oyster production. However,resulting adverse ecological
effects associated with the dredging operation.forced industry closure (USACE 1987a; 19-87b).
Even thou,gh operations ceased., the shell industry basidentified reserves in the East Cote
Blanche/Atchafalaya/Four League Bay estuarine system covering about 40 mi within the
Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region. These concentrations of @shell reserves appear as scattered
pockets generally paralleling the shoreline. To the east Lake Pontchartrain could be reopened for
-shell dred.gin,g operationsif the pending lawsuit wouldbe lifted (USACE 1987a; 1987b).

Pcm

Lw ff@

Sholl Operstiqns
WON IOU" (reserves)*

N... ...
tAKE CHAKS L
!IAFAYME
wf

ff-m
%/
NEW 0 4

Shelf Operations
3%
(reserves) A

"Ioltm Crry

HOUMA

I Barataria Pass
(Send) ..*0
0
0 10 2D 30 40 Trinity Shoal b
I Mks (Sand) I., We aftiads
:-*#-*.- - Sulphur Mine
Ship Shoal @;t I;land Pass
(Sand) (Sand)

Figure 9 Mineral resources off the Louisiana coast (Sources: John et al. 1989; USACE 1987a and 19
1990; 1991).

Sulphur or brimstone,,, is a highly versatile etc rnen4. Its applications:are: so, widespread that they
contribute and are utilized in such products as fertilizer, paper-making, pigments, petroleum.
refining, pharmaceuticals, metallurgy, fibers:, and the list goes on. In the United States,. about I I
million, tons are consumed annually!,, about 1,00 pounds per person. The Frasch process,. the use of
super-heated water to liquify the: sulffir for extraction (Carpenter et al. 19.88), is the method by,
which sulphur is minedi within thest areas., Nearly, 90%, i& converted to. sulfuric acid, the
remaining is, used in, ele,@menta4 form. or in. various, chemical compounds (Freeport McMoRan
199ft), During 19,85,, Lou:isi-ana. and:, Texas, accounted for 43% of all sulphur, production
(Carpenteret al.. 1988).,

Freeport. Sulphur Conipany currently has, two. active, sulphur, mines. The Grand Isle and Caminada
sulphur mines are near Grand, Isle. The Grand Isle. mine has, been in operation since 1960 and has
produced more than 25,000,,000 long, ton.s. The Canii,nada mine began in 1968; however,
operations ceased in. 1969; due to economic conditions. Mining operations were reactivated in 1988
and@, operations, continue. (Freeport McMoRait 19,90N.. In 1,942 when operations begin, the Main
Pass, Mine. in 210- ft, of wawr cast of the, Mississi Ippi River will produce, more sulphur than the
Garden., Island Bay and Grand Isle, -Mines, combined. Basically,. it is the largest existing Frasch
sulphur reserve in North. America and one: of the; largest oil and natural gas discoveries in the Gulf
of Mexico..,. (Freeport McMIoRan, l9,90,.c,);.. Fretport.S,ulphur- Conipany and, its joint venturers have
six other sulphur. leases in the Gulf which will be. explored (Freeport McMoRan 1990a). The other
active, participant in offshore sulphur development is the, Pennzoil Sulphur' Company', which is
explo ding three.. active, leases..

The, economic impact on Louisiana from, the Main Pass Sulphur Mine, as pertains to the life of the
mine will be more than $34 billion. During. the A-year span, an estimated tax revenue of over
$8,00, million will provided to. the state,, as another $1.3 billion will be given to the federal
government. Total, employment for construction will be 21,274 workers. The, payroll generated
over the, life of the. mine- willbe@ i-nore. than $1.5 billion. Construction alone will account for more
than. 5 million man hours, which is stated, by Freeport to have the equivalent of 1,330 people
working two years (Freeport McMoR,an 19r9Oc-). As of now, three Louisiana. engineering
companies are the principal contractors (Freeport McMoRan 1991)@.

There are two active salt operations offshore.- Freeport McMoRan owns both mines--the Grand
Isle and Caminada Sulphur Mines. However, the salt extracted, is not utilized and. distributed for
sale, but rather used internally in the F@asch. process for extracting sulphur..

Finally, heavy mineral, placers of cominerciall value, inay have potential in the@ western. Louisiana.
inner continental shelf n well as in the eastern, Louisiana shelf near the Chandeleur Islands. More
information is needed to, evaluate correctly the opportunitie& that may exist off the Louisiana coast.

There is estimated 1.78 billion barrels. of oil and 28.57 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in proven
hydrocarbon reserves in the outer continental slielf (OCS) off Louisiana. Reserve estimates change
from year to year beeause of new discoveries, revised estimates of producing fields, new
forecasting techniques, computer models,, and, production. Since 1953, there has been 7.5 billion.
barrels of oil produced in the Louisiana OCS', with a market value of $91.8 billion and a royalty
value-, to the U. S.. Government, of $44.9 billion., For the same period of time, OCS gas
production was 72.8 trillion. Mcf's (e.g., thousand Cubic feet) with a market value of $89.5 billion
and a royalty value of $14.5 billion. OCS. oil. production peaked in 1984 and OCS gas production
peaked in 19,83. There is. a trend toward exploration and development in deeper waters. Figure 10
shows oil and gas fields, in, the coastal. zone as, well as the OCS.

TEXAS
LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI
I
mo
BATON ROU 3
-C
*LAKE CHARLES -7>
LAFAYETTE
LOUISIANA
COASTAL -
NEW ORLEANS P
ZONE 7 F
S
S
MORGAN CITY
WATE
4 HOUM
A

A jr4VIV tl-., 99
40

1981
Key
G 0
0 50 m E X Oil and Gas Prod
KM G U L F 0 F
0 50
ml
E

Figure 10. Louisiana Coastal and offshore oil and gas fields (Source: Lindstedt et al. 1991)

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON OCEAN RESOURCES

At the Federal level,the is the primary federal representative over seeing activities in federal
waters off the Louisiana coastal zone.

The State and Local Coast Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, has as its declared
policies:

(1) To protect,....the resources of the state's,coastal zone.

(5) To develop and implement a coastal resources managment program which
is based on consideration of our resources, the environment, the needs of
the people of the state,...

The CMD does not have direct control over activities in federal waters. However, it can address
environmental convern through the consistency review process and where activities related to
programs in federal waters come onshore, such as where they cross barrier islands or beaches. In
addition, the CMD can imflence the location and installation of transportation networks where they
cross the coastal zone as well as the placement and operations of onshore support facilities. The
CMD undertakes its responsibilities through the implementation of the following Coastal Use
Guidelines:1.6;l; m; q; and r; 1.7 e; and s; 3.4; 3.5; 3.7; 3.8; 3.12; 3.15; 5.5; 6.5; 6.7; and
6.13(Appendix).

Other state agencies involved with offshore minerals include the Office of Mineral Resource of the
Department of Natural Resources which leases hydrocarbons in state waters, the Louisiana
Geological Survey (LGS), which evaluates potential areas for gravel, shell; and other mineral
deposits, and the LDWF with responsibilities for shell dredging.

EFFECTIVENESS 0F EXISTING PROGRAMS

The existing MMS program does not adequaqtely consider the onshore impacts of OCS mineral
extraction on coastal Louisiana. The MMS should be more responsive to local needsand desires.

The CMD program addresses impacts in offshore waters,through the federal consistency review
process.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's OCEAN RESOURCES PROGRAM

Other than those measures already listed in,the energy portion of Section 309(a(8), CMD could
develop a plan for the use of existing onshore infrastructure platform fabrication yards,supply
bases, heliports, pipe storage yards, pipeline corridors, and industries to support ocean-resource
activities.

SECTION 309(a)(8) ENERGY AND GOVERNMENT FACILITY SITING AND
ACTIVITIES

INTRODUCTION

The Louisiana coastal zone and the OCS are two of the most productive hydrocarbon areas in the
world. As a result of intensive activity beginning earlier in this century, the industry has had a
significant economic, physical, and cultural impact on the state. Debate continues on the exact
extent of negative environmental impacts that can be traced to the exploitation of hydrocarbons.
Everyone does, however, acknowledge that canals, spoil banks, and pipelines do impact coastal
areas and that associated support bases, commercial enterprises, and residential developments do
also. In addition to oil- and gas-related activities, government contributes also to the modification
of coastal systems. Presently, the LCRP addresses energy and government-facility siting
activities as two separate issues. Thus, they are treated separately in this section. Each issue is
described, then existing programs that address the issue are discussed, the effectiveness of the
programs is evaluated, and finally, CI@M's proposed changes to the state's program are presented.

ENERGY

The development of the oil and natural gas resources occurring in the Louisiana Coastal Zone plays
a critical role in the economic viability of both coastal communities and the state as a whole.
Louisiana is one of the top three states in terms of energy exploration and production. The
exploration for and production of these resources has required the siting of an extensive array of
energy-related facilities in the coastal zone. Such facilities include drilling and production
platforms, an offshore oil port, Strategic Petroleum Reserve facilities, onshore facilities, assembly
yards, storage depots, crew bases, tank farins, refining complexes, gasification facilities, and a
vast network of pipelines.

A CMD study determined that approximately 68% of all CUP applications received during a typical
year are related to the oil and gas industry. Oil- and gas-related permits account for approximately
92% of all industrial CUP applications. Oil- and gas-related activities, including those in the OCS,
account for about 60% of the consistency determinations made by the CMD. Since the inception of
the program, the CMD has reviewed 5,307 applications involving drilling rigs. Of these, 2,398
required the dredging of a canal and/or slip, and 786 required the construction of a boardroad
and/or drilling pad. Installation of pipelines was a component activity of 3,859 permit
applications. Production and heater platforms were proposed in 1,227 applications. These
numbers should be considered to be conservative estimates of the total number of energy facilities
authorized, as many of the applications were for more than one well site, multiple flowlines, etc.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON ENERGY

Energy activities are specifically addressed in the Coastal Use Guidelines, which were established
pursuant to the SLCRMA of 1978, in the "Guidelines for Oil, Gas and Other Mineral Activities"
(Guidelines 10.1-10.13). These guidelines generally call for allowing energy extraction,
production, transmission, and refining activities provided that appropriate steps are taken to reduce
environmental impacts and conflicts with other uses. Other guidelines (for example, the generally
applicable guidelines (Guidelines 1. 1 - 1. 10), the linear facility guidelines (Guidelines 3.1 - 3.16),
and the dredged spoil guidelines (Guidelines 4.1 - 4.6) are applied to individual energy activities as
applicable. The SLCRMA (Sec. 214.31) intended that certain aspects of energy extraction,
production, and transmission in the Coastal Zone would not require CUPs, but instead would be
regulated by the Office of Conservation, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, through the
"in-lieu" permit process. The CMD reviews and makes consistency determinations for oil and gas

activities,on "Federally excluded lands." These activities are considered as Federal Licence and
Permit (FLP) activities (Subpart D of 15 CRR'930.50-,66). These areas are primarily in wildlife
refuges operated by the USFWS.

The determination of whether, the construction,of an energy facility is consistent with the Coastal
Use Guidelines,and thus,permissible, follows a systematic process. TheCMD staff evaluates and
balances the probable benefits of the proposed facility and its associated activities against potential
adverse impacts,on the, environment and the socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding area.
Consideration of feasible alternative sites and techniques is a major component of the permitting
process with a general philosophy of "avoid impacts where possible,minimize impacts as much
as practicable and mitigate for unavoidable impacts." Since mid-1982, the CMD, has employed the
"Geologic Review Process" to reduce environmental impacts associated with the siting of new oil
and gas wells. This process normally consists of a meeting with representatives from the company
proposing the activity, the CMD, various state and federal agencies, and the CMD contract
personnel (a geologist and a petroleum engineer from the Louisiana Geological Survey) who
independently assess the geologic, engineering, legal, and economic factos relating to the
proposed site and any available alternative locations. Generally, a Geologic Review meeting is
only held when the proposed activity will impact vegetated wetlands. A CMD study found that
approximately 13% of the permit applications for drilling oil and/or gas wells undergo the Geologic
Review Process.

The CMD has developed four General Permits to expedite teh permitting of energy-related
activities. These allow for the installation of pipelines in spoil banks and road berms, the
construction of minimum-sized parallel slips off of existing oil and gas acess canals, the
construction of minimum-sized ring levees adjacent to existing board roads, and the removal of
existing pipelines. The General Permits authorizing parallel slips and ring levees require that
Geologic Review meetings be held prior to project authorization if the proposal will impact
vegetated wetlands. The CMD also has determined that under certain known conditions several
energy-related activities have "No Direct and Significant Impact" to coastal waters. These activities
and conditions are summarized in the Appendix.

Consistency determinations are reviewed for oil and gas activities on "Federally exclueded lands."
These activities are considered as FLP activities (Subpart D of 15 CFR 930.50-.66). These areas
are primerily in wildlife refuges operated by the SUFWS. For FLP consistency review on
federally excluded lands, the Division participateds in geologic review meetings for these projects,
which are called at the NODCE's discretion and review is coordinated with the refuge manager to
insure that his concerns are satisified by the applicant. The CMD's concerns focus primarily on
impacts to Louisiana waters, however, CMD does review OCS Plans of Development and
Exploration, Mineral Lease Sales, and pipelin siting.

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

A indicated in Section 309(a)(1), CMD has seen a reduction in the amount of wetland area
disturbed by permitted activities from 1983 to 1990 (Figure 3). Much of this reduction is related to
the Geologic Review Procedure,which has resulted in a reduction in the size of the average oil and
gas canal from more than five acres in 1982 to about two and a half acres in 1988 (Johnston et al.
1989). Further, in order to facilitate energy activities that cause little or no environmental impact,
the CMD has developed four general permits for energy activities. Also the In-Lieu Permitting
procedure that CMD has developed with the Office of Conservation provides for expeditious
interagency processing of oil and gas drilling activities.

With respect to energy activities in federal waters, the State basrecently initiated a more aggressive
program to insure the protection of coastal resources. The recent law suit concerning Lease Sale
135 and the multi-agency effort to assess MMS's proposed 5-Year Leasing Plan are examples of

the increased interest in the OCS energy related activities. However, it is the position of CMD that
the existing MMS Program does not adequately address the adverse onshore impacts of OCS
energy related activities. CMD has requested that MMS give additional consideration to the
adverse socioeconomic, physical and ecological impacts that result from the boom-bust cycles of
OCS energy related activities. Also, MMS should recognize the potential adverse impacts caused
by the installation of pipelines in the OCS.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's ENERGY PROGRAM

The CMD's existing policies and programs related to this issue are adequate. Consequently,
CMD recommends that it continue to address, through studies, the specific impacts resulting
from energy-related activities, to find new and innovative ways to avoid and reduce such
impacts, to find suitable mitigation measures to offset unavoidable losses, to develop additional
general permits, and to evaluate the success of both impact minimization and mitigation
techniques.

GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES

State and local governmental facilities over which the CMD exercises some type of oversight
include such things as highways and roadways, governmental buildings, flood protection levees,
sewerage treatment facilities, some landfills, airports, port facilities, state parks and state wildlife
management areas.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS ON GOVERNMENT
FACILITIES

The SLCRMA, in See. 214.32 B, deals with the issue of governmental activities:

Any governmental body undertaking, conducting, or supporting
activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall ensure that such activities shall be
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the state program and any
affected approved local program having geographical jurisdiction over the action.

The CMD reviews the construction of new and the expansion of existing Federal installations,
pursuant to the CZMA and as Direct Federal Action consistency determinations (Subpart C of 15
CFR 930.30-.44). Of the 74 Direct Federal Actions (DFAs) reviewed from April 1990 through
March 1991, nearly all were related to federal installations of one form or another. Federal
facilities of significance are the possessions of the U.S. Coast Guard, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Navy, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Park Service,
USFWS, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Although some acreage is for installations and
their potential expansion (e.g. U. S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, NASA), most acreage is for
habitat/wildlife preservation and recreation. In addition, substantial acreages have been obtained
for easements associated with U.S. Corps of Engineers flood control, hurricane protection, and
freshwater diversion projects.

Proposed construction activities associated with state and local governmental facilities are treated as
standard CUP applications and are reviewed pursuant to the permitting requirements of the
SLCRMA and the applicable Coastal Use Guidelines (Appendix). Some of these guidelines are
applicable to all uses (Guidelines 1.1 - 1.10), guidelines for levees (Guidelines 2.1 - 2.6),
guidelines for linear facilities (Guidelines 3.1 - 3.16), guidelines for dredged spoil disposal
(Guidelines 4.1 - 4.6), guidelines for surface alterations (Guidelines 6.1 - 6.14), and the
guidelines for waste disposal (Guidelines 8.1 - 8.9). These projects are reviewed in a manner
similar to the CUPs review process, in which the impacts of the proposed activity are examined in
relation to the Coastal Use Guidelines. Virtually all guidelines are applicable with the possible

exception of Guideline 6.11 (surface mining and shell dredging). The term "Maximum Extent
Practicable" (MEP) qualifier is applied to federal projects [ 15 CRF 930.39(c)] of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) consistency regulations.

Close coordination exists among CMD, the sponsoring agency, and state and federal resource
agencies. Any dredge and fill activity associated with a facility siting must obtain a Section 401
"Water Quality Certification" from the Water Resources Division of DEQ. This program is under-
staffed and overloaded, and existing 401 certification regulations are weak. The DEQ is in the
process of developing regulations that should give the program firm direction. The State's Scenic
Streams Program, administered by the LDWF, designates waterways as waters of special
significance. This designation is recognized under the Clean Water Act. Under the 404 permitting
process various state agencies such as Wildlife and Fisheries; Environmental Quality; Human
Resources; Transportation and Development; and Culture, Recreation and Tourism have the
opportunity to comment in response to public notices. These comments are often coordinated with
CMD's consistency determination. The CMD has MOU's with most other State agencies.

EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
The review of civil works projects, particularly water resources development projects, are among
the greatest challenges for the CMD. These projects, inclusive of maintenance, often are
multimillion-dollar projects, involving dredging and deposition of millions of cubic yards of
material, and impacting hundreds to thousands of acres of coastal habitats (Water Resources
Development in Louisiana 1989). Consistent with other Division regulatory policy, the Division
seeks a sequence of avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts resulting from these projects.
Strong emphasis is placed on developing beneficial use and resource enhancement components for
these projects. Beneficial use aspects are often more feasible, given the typically broad scope of
these projects. Although the CMD has made considerable advancement in this -area, additional
programmatic development is called for. Participation in planning at a stage in which the nature of
the design of the project can still be influenced is the key to managing these Direct Federal Action
projects. To this end, the CMD is pursuing early involvement in the reconnaissance phase of
planning; participation in advanced review of navigation maintenance projects, particularly Long
Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for dredged material; and participation in steering/advisory
committees for comprehensive basin management and estuary management plans. Unfortunately,
at present, the CMD's involvement in many projects is limited to review of consistency
determinations just prior to the time of implementation by the federal agency rather than earlier in
the planning process.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CMD's GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

Some possible methods to address the Government Siting of Facilities issue are as follows-

Increase involvement in federal navigation projects during the review
and consistency determination, with emphasis on the use of Long Term Management
Strategies for the creation of wetlands and bank stabilization with dredged material;

Update agreements with other State agencies to assure a more unified response to
proposed facility siting;

Formally develop a state interagency review committee; and

Include Federal facility siting in the development of SAMPs and watershed/estuary
plans.

REFERENCES

Adams, R. D., B. B. Barrett, J. H Blackmon, B. W. Gane, and W. G. McIntire 1976 Barataria
Basin: Geologic Processes and Framework. Sea Grant Publication No. LSU-T-76-006.
Baton Rouge, LSU, Center for Wetland Resources. 117 pp.

Algermissen, S. T. 1969 Seismic Risk Studies in the United States. In: World Conference of
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chili. January 13-18.

Algermissen, S. T., and D. M. Perkins 1976 A Probabilistic Estimate of Maximum Acceleration
in Rock in the Contiguous United States.

Baumann, R. H. 1980 Mechanisms of Maintaining Marsh Elevation in a Subsiding Environment.
M. S. Thesis, LSU, Baton Rouge, LA.

Berry, W. L., and G. J. Voisin 1989 One Company's Experiences with Wetlands Conservation.
In: W. G. Duffy and D. R. Clark (eds.). Marsh Management in Coastal Louisiana: Effects
and Issues - Proceedings of a Symposium. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and La. Dept. of Natural Resources. FWS Biological Report 89(22). 378 pp.

Bierce, Rose and Kathy O'Hara (eds.) 1991 Cleaning North America's Beaches: 1990 Beach
Cleanup Results. Washington, D.C.: Center for Marine Conservation. 291 pp.

Broussard, L. 1988 Report on Current Marsh Management Engineering Practices. SCS Report
prepared for the La. DNR Coastal Management Division, NOAA Grant No. NA-87AAH-
CZ047. 43 pp + Appendix.

Burk and Associates, Inc. 1977 Recreational Potential Proposed New and Expanded Sites for
Recreation Along the Louisiana Coast. Prepared for the Coastal Resources Program,
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. February. 9 pp.

Burk and Associates, Inc. 1978 Louisiana Shorefront Access Plan. Prepared for the Coastal
Resources Program, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. August.
127 pp.

Carpenter, G., et al. 1988 Sulphur and Salt Leasing: Summary of Issues. OCS Report, Minerals
Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans. pp. 7-15. @

Chabreck, R. H. and G. Linscombe 1978 Vegetative Type Map of the Louisiana Coastal
Marshes. La. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, New Orleans, LA.

Chabreck, R. H. and G. Linscombe 1991 (in preparation) Vegetative Type Map of the Louisiana
Coastal Marshes (1988). La Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA.

Chambers, D. R., and D. R. Clark 1986 Coastal Wetland Mitigation Techniques: Louisiana. La.
Geological Survey and Coastal Management Division, La. Dept. of Natural Resources, In:
Proceedings of the Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. National Wetland
Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses, New Orleans.

Clark, D. R. 1989 A Review of the Fina LaTerre Management Area, Theriot, Louisiana, with
Recommendations for Management. Msc. paper, Coastal Management Division, La. Dept.
of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge. 13 pp.

56
Clark, D. R. 1990 Land Loss Iper Hydrologic Basin, 1956, 1978, 1983. Unpublished tables
which compile data from Mossa et al. (1990) and Dunbar et al. (1990). La. Dept. of
Natural Resources.

Clark, D. R., and R. Hartman 1990 Engineer ing and Construction Techniques of Marsh
Management Structures. Chapter 5 In: D. R. Cahoon and C. G. Groat. (eds.), A Study of
Marsh Management Practice in Coastal Louisiana, Volume 11: Technical Description. Final
report submitted to the Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No.
14-12-0001-30410. OCS Study/MMS 90-0075. 637 pp plus appendices (pp 87 to 153).

Clark, D. R., J. deMond, P. Bourgeois, J. Barras, and B. Blackmon 1988 A Review of the
Louisiana Coastal Resources Marsh Management Program. Paper presented at the Marsh
Management in Coastal Louisiana: Effects and Issues Conference, Sponsored by the La.
Dept. of Natural Resources and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Baton Rouge, LA.

Clark, D. R., J. Barras, and M. Swan. 1989. Land Loss and Habitat Change in the Fina La Terre
Mitigation Bank Management Plan from 1984 to 1988 Using Classified Landsat Satellite
Imagery with a Comparison between earlier Classifications and Photointerpreted Digital
Data. Wetland Resources Section, Coastal Management Division, La. Dept. of Natural
Resources, OCRM Grant No. NA-88-AA-D-CZI 19.

Coastal Environments Inc. 1990 Coastal Wetland Conservation and Restoration Plan. Fiscal Year
1990-1994. Report for the La. Dept. of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division,
Baton Rouge, LA. 124 pp.

Coastal Restoration Division 1991 Coastal Restoration. Accomplishments, Fiscal Year 199 1.
Coastal Restoration Division, La. Dept. of Natural Resources. 3. pp.

Coleman, J. M. 1966 Recent Coastal Sedimentation: Central Louisiana Coast. Coastal Studies
Institute. Technical Report No. 29. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
73 pp.

Conner, W. H. 1977 Public Administration of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands: 1820 to 1976.
Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. LSU-T-77-001,
Coastal Management Series. 66 pp.

Costanza, R., C. Neill, S. G. Leibowitz, J. R. Fruci, L. M. Bahr Jr., and J. W. Day Jr. 1983
Ecological Models of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region: Data Collection and
Presentation. FWS/OBS-82/68, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological
Services, Washington, D.C.

Cowan, J H. Jr., R. E. Turner, and D. R. Cahoon 1988 Marsh Management Plans in Practice:
Do they work in Coastal Louisiana, U. S. A? Environmental Management 12(l):37-53.

The Council of State Governments 1979 The States and Natural Hazards. Lexington, KY.
99 pp.

Craig, N. J., R. E. Turner, and J. W. Day, Jr. 1979 Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana.
Environmental Management. 3:133-144. -

Craig, N. J., R. E. Turner, and J. W. Day, Jr. 1980. Wetlands Losses and their Consequences in
Coastal Louisiana. Z. Geornorph. N. F.34:225-241.

Day, J. W. Jr., R. Costanza, K. Teague, N. Taylor, and R. Day 1986 The Effects of
Impoundments in the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Report to the La. Geological Survey, La.
Dept. of Natural Resources. 104 pp.

Davis, D. W. 1973. Louisiana Canals and Their Influence on Wetland Development. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 199 pp.

Deegan, L. A., H. M. Kennedy, and C. Neill 1984 Natural Factors and Human Modifications
Contributing to Marsh Loss in Louisiana's Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. Environmental
Management 5:519-528.

de Mond, 1. D., D. R. Clark, and B. E. Spicer. 1986. A Review of Wetland Restoration,
Enhancement and Creation Practices in the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Coastal Management
Division, La..Dept. of Natural Resources, and State Soil and Water Conservation
Committee, La. Dept. of Agriculture. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Wetlands
Restoration and Recreation Conference, Tampa, FL.

Doyle, H. W. 1972 Sediment Transport in a Mississippi River Distributary: Bayou Lafourche,
Louisiana. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2008. U. S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D. C.

Dunbar, J., L. Britsch, and E. Kemp 111 1990 Land Loss Rates. Report 2, Louisiana Chenier
Plain. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, LA. 21 pp + appendices.

Edgerton, L. T. 1991 The Rising Tide: Global Warming and World Sea Levels. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press. 140 pp.

Emmer, R. E. 1984 Chapter 7: Environmental Regulatory Programs Applicable to the Coastal
Zone, Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin. In: R.E. Emmer, et al., Environmental
Characteristics of the Pontchartrain-Maurepas Basin and Identification of Management
Issues. Coastal Management Division, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton
Rouge. October.

Emmer, R. E., A. Rheams, and F. Wagner 1990 Offshore Petroleum Development and the
Comprehensive Planning Process. Prepared under MMS Contract 14-35-0001-30470 by
College of Urban and Public Affairs, University of New Orleans for Minerals Management
Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans. 63 pp.

Emmer, R. E., and R. Thayer 1989 Louisiana Coastal Resources Program: Liaison with
Approved Local Coastal Programs. Recommendations for Improved Intergovernmental
Relations. Coastal Management Division, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.
Baton Rouge.

Emmer, R. E., K. Wicker, D. Earle, D. Roberts, L. McKenzie, and P. Xander 1990 Alternative
Uses for Abandoned or Underutilized OCS-related Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.
Prepared for Minerals Management Service, New Orleans. In draft form and for review.

Fisk, H. N. 1943 Geological Investigation of Faulting at Vacherie, Louisiana. Vicksburg, MS.:
Mississippi River Commission.

Forman, W. H. 1980 Louisiana Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978. Louisiana Bar
Journal. 28:91.

Frazier, D. E. 1967 Recent Deltaic Deposits of the Mississippi River: Their Development and
Chronology. Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies. Vol 17, pp.
287-311.

Freeport McMoRan 197& Sulphur: Ally of Agriculture and Industry. New Orleans. pp. 1-3.

Freeport McMoRan 1990a Freeport Sulphur. New Orleans. pp. 1-14.

Freeport McMoRan 1990b Annual Report. New Orleans. 7 pp.

Freeport McMoRan 1990c Main Pass Update 1. New Orleans. I pp.

Freeport McMoRan 1991 Main Pass Update 2. New Orleans. I pp.

Gagliano, S. M., and K. M.. Wicker 1988 Processes of Wetland Erosion in the Mississippi River
Deltaic Plain.. Proceedings of the Conference on Marsh Management in Coastal Louisiana:
Effects and Issues. W. Duffy and D. Clark (eds.), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and La.
Department of Natural Resources, Slidell and Baton Rouge.

Gagliano, S. M., and J. L. van Beek 1970 Geologic Geomorphic Aspects of Delta Processes:
Mississippi Deltaic Systern.. Hydrologic and Geologic Studies of Coastal Louisiana,
Report 1. Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Gagliano, S. M., K. J. Meyer-Arendt, and K. M. Wicker 1981 Land Loss in the Mississippi
River Deltaic Plain. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies.
31: 295-300.

Gale, R. D., and J. J. Cortner (eds.) 1987 People and Fire at the Wildland/Urban Interface A
Sourcebook.. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 71 pp.,

Gary, D. L. and D. W. Davis 1979 Recreational Dwellings in the Louisiana Coastal Marsh. Sea
Grant Publication No. LSU-T-79-002. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 80 pp.

Gosselink, J. G., C. L. Cordes, and J. W. Parsons 1979 An Ecological Characterization of the
Chenier Plain Coastal, Ecosystem in Louisiana and Texas. Vol. 1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Program. FWS/OBS-78/09. 302 pp.

Gulf South Research Institute 1986 Flood Control in Louisiana A Report of Flood Problem
Areas and Damage Reduction Measures. Submitted to the Joint Committee on
Transportation, Highways and Public Works. Baton Rouge, LA. 166 pp.

Hartman, R. D., D. R. Cahoon, and S. Liebowitz 1988 Development of Management Strategies
for Barataria Basin. Final, Report, DNR Interagency Agreement 21911-88-11, La. Dept. of
Natural Resources, Coastal Management Division, Baton Rouge-. 133 pp.

Hatton, R. S. 198 1. Aspects of Marsh Accretion and. Geochemistry, Barataria Basin, Louisiana.
M. S. Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Hershman, M. J., and M., M. Mistric 1975-76 Coastal Zone Management and State-local
Relations under Louisiana Constitution of 1974. Loyola Law Review (Louisiana)..
22.273-300.

Hershman, M. J., and D. R. Fontenot 1976 Local Regulation of Pipeline Sitings and the
Doctrines of Federal Preemption and Supremacy. Louisiana Law Review 36:929-945.

Houck, 0. A. 1983 Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies.
Tulane Law Review 58(l):3-168.

John, C. J. et al. 1989 Preliminary Assessment of Non-Fuel Mineral Resources in the Louisiana
Continental Shelf. Minerals Management Service and the Louisiana Geological Survey.
Baton Rouge.

Johnston, J. E., J. D. Rives, and D. M. Soileau 1989 Geologic Review: Better Regulation
Through Interagency Cooperation. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and
Ocean Management, Charleston, SC.

Klarin, P., and M. Hershman 1990 Response of Coastal Zone Management Programs to Sea
Level Rise in the United States. Coastal Management, Vol. 18, pp. 143 - 165.

Kolb, C. R., and J. R. Van Lopik 1958 Geology of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain,
Southeastern Louisiana. Technical Report No. 3-483. Waterways Experiment Station,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 120 pp.

Landner, J. F., R. H. Alexander, and T. E. Downing 1979 Inventory of Natural Hazards: Data
Resources in the Federal Government. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and Geological Survey. 122 pp.

Lindstedt, D. M., and J. Holmes 1988a Litter in Coastal Louisiana. Report submitted to
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Division, Baton Rouge.
29 pp.

Lindstedt, D. M. and J. C. Holmes, Jr. 1988b September Sweep: Louisiana's 1987 Beach
Cleanup. Baton Rouge, LA. DNR/CMD. 35 pp.

Lindstedt, D. M. and L. L. Nunn 1985 Petroleium development in Louisiana's coastal zone and
an overview of impacts. IN: 0. T. Magoon, H. Converse, D. Miner, D. Clark, and L. T.
Tobin (eds.). Coastal Zone '85: Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Coastal and
Ocean Management. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 2, pp. 1410-
1416.

Lindstedt D. M. 1989 Louisiana Oil and Gas Facts. La. Geological Survey, School of
Geoscience, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Interagency Agreement No.
21913-89-21, La. Dept. of Natural Resources. 12 pp.

Lindstedt, D. M., L. L. Nunn, J. C. Holmes, and E. E. Willis 1991 History of Oil and Gas
Development in Coastal Louisiana. Resource Information Series No. 7. Louisiana
Geological Survey. Baton Rouge. 131 pp.

Livaudais, J. D. 1982 Conflicting Interests in Southern Louisiana's Wetlands: Private Developers
versus Conservationists, and the State and Federal Regulatory Roles. Tulane Law Review.
56(3):1006-1034.

Louisiana Coastal Resources Program 1980 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
NOAA, Office of Coastal Resource Management, and the La. Dept. of Natural Resources,
Washington, D. C., and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 190 pp. + appendices.

Louisiana Geological Society 1991 History of Oil and Gas Development in Louisiana,
Resources Information Series No. 7. Baton Rouge, LA.

Louisianar Office of E m emergency Preparedness 1985 Southeast Louisiana Storm Surge Atlas.
Department of Public safety, Baton Rouge, LA. 50pp.

Marcel, K. W and J. T. Bockrath 1980 Regional "Governments and Coastal Zone Management
in Louisiana. Louisiana Law Review 40(4):887-906.

May,J.et.al.1984 Geological Investigation of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain,. Waterways
Experiment Statfon, U.,S. Army Corps of Enginieers, Vicksburg, MS.(set of land loss
maps of the deltaic plain).

Mendelssohn, 1. A., S. 4 Penland, W. H. Patrick, Jr. 1987 Baffier Islands and Beaches of the
Louisiana De1taic Plain. Prepared for,the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.
356 pp.

Midboe, K. D, E.Easterly, D. Dahon, and J. Bbckrath 1976 Legal Authorities; for Control of
Land Uses in Coastal Louisiana. Louisiana State University,Sea Grant Legal Program,
Baton Rouge, LA. 38,pp.

Minerals Management Service 1988 Federal Offshore Statistics: 1988. OCS Report MMS 89-
0082. Washington, D.C.. 102 pp.

Morgan,J.P.,L.G. Nichols, and M. Wright 1958 Morphological Effects of Hurricane Audrey
on the Louisiana Coast. Coastal Studies Institute Technical Report No. 10. Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge. 53, pp.
Mossa, J. D, M. Lindstedt, D. Caboon,and J.Barras 1990 Environmental Charactaistics and
Habitat Change for the Louisiana Coastal Zone. In: D. R. Cahoon and C. G. Groat (eds.),
A Study of Marsh Management Practice n Coastal Louisiana, Volumes I to 111. Final
Report,submitted to,the Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No.
14-12-0001-30410. OCS Study/MMS-90-0075. 637 pp + appendices.

Muller, R. A., and B. V.Fielding 1987 Coastal Climate of Louisiana. Pages 13-29 in R. E.
Turner,and D. R. Cahoon (eds.), Causes of Wetland Loss in the Gulf of Mexico. Vol. 2:
Technical Narrative.Final Report., submitted to the Minerals Management Service, New
Orleans, Contract No. 14-12001-30252, OCS Study/MMS 87-0120. Center for wetland
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Muller, R. A., and J. E. Willis 1983 New Orleans Weather 1961 - 1980: A Climatology by
Means of,Synoptic Weather Types. Misc. Publicatian 83-1, LSU School of Geoscience.
70 pp.

National Research Council 1991 Mitigating Losses from Land Subsidence in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press., 58 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmosphaic Administration, arid Coastal Management Section 1980
Louisiana Coastal 32 Resources Program Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Appendix d, Shoreline Access and Protection. Baton Rouge, LA.

Nummedal, D., et al. 1984 Shoreline Evolution Along the Northern Coast of the Gulf of Mexico.
Shore and Beach 52 (1):11-17

0Hara, KJ. 1989 Trash On America's Beaches: A National Assessment. Washington, D.C.:
Center for Marine Conservation. 30 pp

O'Hara, K.J. 1990 Cleaning North America's Beaches: 1989 Beach Cleanup Results.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Marine Conservation. 3 10 pp.

O'Neil, T. 1949 The Muskrat in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes. La. Wildlife and Fisheries
Commission, New Orleans. 159 pp.

Office of State Register 1990 La. Administrative Code. Volume 17. Natural Resources, Chapter
7, Coastal Management. Governor's Office, Division of Administration, Baton Rouge,
LA. pp 51-106.

Organization of American States 1987 Natural Hazards Risk Assessment and Disaster Mitigation
Pilot Project in Latin America and the Caribbean Basin. Course on The Use of Natural
Hazards Infon-nation in The Preparation of Investment Projects. Volume I Course Manual.
Department of Regional Development, Washington, D.C. 121 pp.

Penland, S., K. E. Ramsey, R. A. McBride, T. F. Moslow, K. A. Westphal 1989 Relative Sea
Level Rise and Subsidence in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal Geology
Technical Report No. 3. Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, LA. 65 pp.

Pezeshki, S. R., R. D. DeLaune, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1987 Response of Sgartina 1)atens to
Increasing Levels of Salinity in Rapidly Subsiding Marshes of the Mississippi River Deltaic
Plain. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 24: 389-399.

Ramsey, K. E., and T.F. Moslow 1987 A Numerical Analysis of Subsidence and Sea Level
Rise in Louisiana. Pages 1673-88 in Coastal Sediments. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Ramsey, K. E., and S. Penland 1990 Sea-Level Rise and Subsidence in Louisiana and the Gulf
of Mexico. Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 39:491 - 500.

Sasser, C. E., M. D. Dozier, and J. G. Gosselink 1986 Spatial and Temporal Changes in
Louisiana's Barataria Basin Marshes, 1945 - 1980. Environmental Management 10 (5):
671-680.

Scaife, W., R. E. Turner, and R. Costanza 1983 Coastal Louisiana Recent Land Loss and Canal
Impacts. Environmental Management 7:433-442.

Soil Conservation Service 1983 Soil Survey of Jefferson Parish Louisiana. Department of
Agriculture, Alexandria, LA. 95 pp.

Soil Conservation Service 1989 Third Annual Fina LaTerre Marsh Management Monitoring
Report, 1988. Report prepared for the Coastal Management Division, La. Dept. of Natural
Resources. NOAA OCRM, Grant No. NA-88-AA-D-CZI 19.

Soil Conservation Service 1989. Amoco Production Company, West Black Lake Management
Area 1989 Monitoring Report. Report prepared for the Coastal Management Division, La.
Dept. of Natural Resources. NOAA OCRM, Grant No. NA-88-AA-D-CZI 19.

Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Amoco Production Company, West Black Lake Management
Area 1989 Monitoring Report. Report prepared for the Coastal Management Division, La.
Dept. of Natural Resources. NOAA OCRM, Grant No. NA-89-AA-D-CZ172.

Soil Conservation Service, and the Lafourche-Terrebonne Soil and Water Conservation district
1987 Watershed Plan and Environmental Assesment for Watershed Protection, West
Fork Bayou L'Ours Watershed, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Environmental Assesment
prepared under P.L. 83-566 (Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act) and P.L.
91-190 (NEPA), Thribodaux and Alexandria, LA. 49 pp + appendices.

Spicer, B. E., D. R. Clark, and J deMond 1986 Marsh Management and the Louisiana Coastal
Resources Program. Msc. publication of the Coastal Management Division, La. Dept. of
Natural Resources. 33 pp.

Strahler, A. N., and A. H. Strahler 1984 Elements of Physical Geography. New York: John
Wiley & Sons. 3rd ed. 538 pp.

Titus, J. G. 1989 The Causes and Effects of Sea Level Rise. Chapter 12 in: D.E. Abrahamson
(ed.), The Challenge of Global Warming. Washingtion, D.C.: Island Press pp. 161-
195.

Turner, R. E. 1985 Coastal Land Loss, Canals, and Canal-Levee Relations in Louisiana
Biological Report 85(14). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell, LA. 58 pp.

Turner, R. E., and D. R. Cahoon (eds.) 1987 Causes of Wetland Loss in the Coastal Central
Gulf of Mexico. Volume I: Technical Narrative. Final report submitted to Minerals
Management Service, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study/MMS 87-0119. 32 pp.

Turner, R. E., and D. R. Cahoon (eds.) 1987 Causes of Wetland Loss in the Coastal Central
Gulf of Mexico. Final Report submitted to the Minerals Management Sercice, New
Orleans, Contract No. 14-12-0001-30252, OCS Study/MMS 87-0119/ Center for Wetland
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Turner, R. E., R. Costanza, and W. Scaife 1982 Canals and Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana.
Pages 73-84 in: D. F. Boesch (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Erosion and
Wetland Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Options. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-82/59, Washington, D.C. 256
pp.

Turner, R. E., and J. Gosselink 1975 A Note on Standing Crops of Spartina alterniglora in Texas
and Florida. Contributions in Marine Science 19:113-118.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1972 History of Hurricane Occurrences Along Coastal Louisiana.
New Orleans District. 43 pp. = maps.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1984 Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana Feasibility Study,
Freshwater Diversion to Barataria and Brenton Sound Basins in the New ORleans District.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, New Orleans.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1986 33 CFR 328.3

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987a Final EIS of Clam Shell Dredging in Lakes Pontchartrain
and Maurepas. New Orleans District. Vol. 1.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer 1987b Final Eis of Oyster Shell Dredging in Atchafalaya Bay
and Adjacent Waters, Louisiana. New Orleans District, Vol. 1.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1980 40 CFR 230.3

van Beek, J. L. 1989 Wetland Protection and Maintenance between U. S. Highway 90 and the
Clovelly Oil and Gas Field in Lafourche Parish. Report prepared for the Lafourche Parish
Council by Coastal Environments Inc. 16 pp.

van Lopik, J. R. 1955 Recent Geology and Geomorphic History of Central Coastal Louisiana.
Technical Report No. 7. Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, LA.

Walker, H. J., J. M. Coleman, H. H. Roberts, and R. S. Tye 1987 Wetland Loss in Louisiana.
Geografiska Annaler. 69(A): 189-200.

White, G. F. 1974 Natural Hazards Research: Concepts, Methods, and Policy Implications. In:
G. F. White (ed.), Natural Hazards Local, National, Global. New York: Oxford
University Press. pp. 3-16.

Wicker, K. M., D. Davis, and D. Roberts 1983 Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge and Game
Preserve: Evaluation of Wetland Management Techniques. Report to the Coastal
Management Section., La. Dept. of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge. 73 pp + appendices.

Wicker, K. M., M. DeRouen, C. Dixon, K. Meyer-Arendt, D. O'Connor, N. Sarwinski, K.
Young, and F. Zeringue 1981 Chenier Plain Region Habitat Mapping Study. 53 maps.
La. Dept. of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Program, Baton Rouge.

Wicker, K. M., R. E. Emmer, D. Roberts, and J. L. van Beek 1989a An Analysis of Outer
Continental Shelf Impacts: Pipelines, Navigation Channels, and Facilities in Sensitive
Coastal Habitats Coastal Gulf of Mexico. Volume 1: Technical Narrative. Minerals
Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office. OCS Study MMS 89-0051.
October.

Wicker, K. M., R. E. Emmer, D. Roberts, and J. L. van Beek 1989b An Analysis of Outer
Continental Shelf Impacts: Pipelines, Navigation Channels, and Facilities in Sensitive
Coastal Habitats Coastal Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Atlas. Minerals Management
Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office. OCS Study MMS 89-0052. October.

Wicker, K. M., J. B. Johnston, M. W. Young, and R. M. Rogers 1980 The Mississippi Deltaic
Plain Region Habitat Mapping Study. 464 maps. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/07.

Wiseman, W. J., Jr., and E. M. Swenson 1987 Long-term Salinity Trends in Louisiana, Pages
101-21 in: R. E. Turner and D. R. Cahoon (eds.), Causes of Wetland Loss in the Gulf of
Mexico, Vol. 2: Technical Narrative. OCS Study/MMS 87-0120. Final Report submitted
to the MMS. Center for Wetlands Resources, LSU, Baton Rouge, LA.

APPENDIX

Table A-1. Aerial extent of habitat types on the Chenier Plain, delta plain, and.coastal
zone of Louisiana in 1956, in acres (percentages in parentheses).

Ch:ni&r Coa:tal Zon*
P1 in Delta Fl.in Tot t
-Sabine c.1c. Me- v.-i 1 Total -- --htchof Terre Bar.tAr "is.. R Pont. Brecon Pearl Total

Inland w ter 34.664 70.271 129.703 310.156 544.795 183.100 442.220 304.681 11.4,174 1.358.196 397.9fiS 1.616 [email protected] 3.376.954
(natur:1 (13) (24) (19) (41) (27) (58) (37) (3 1) (38) (65) (56 ) (5) (50) (44)

Uat*r 1. 365 3.507 8.358 6.039 19.273 3.026 8.586 ZI.4Dl 5.967 13.411 5,324 54 57.769 77.042
(artificial) (I ) (1) (1 ) (1) (1) (1) (I) (2) (2) (I) (1) (' 1) (1) (1)

Fresh iaarsh 51,054 44,481 357,942 31,220 484.697 26.189 340.560 260.840 145.033 33.661 40.168 3.303 854.753 1,339.450
(20) (15) (54) (4) (24) (8) (28) (27) (39) (2) (6) (25) (15) (17)

Non-fresh "rsh 150.1&6 130.940 127.279 242,498 650.863 40.018 336.122 273.212, 3.648 232.136 213J20 3.556 1.101,812 1.752.675
(58) (45) (19) (32) (33) (13) (28) (28) (1) (11) (30) (11) (19) (21,

Forest 1.032 341 7.361 14.832 23.565 1.003 15.525 32.21-6 5,6ti 105.079 15.262 4.890 179.617 203.183
(<t) (<I) (1) (2) (1) (@I) (1) (3) (1) (5) (2) (15) (3) (3)

Swamp 0 0 203 40,013 40,217 49.732 46,840 13.131 13.658 195.005 14.090 $,668 361.123 401.340
(0) (0) (<I) (5) (2) (16) (4) (3) (4) (9) (2) (26) (6) (5)

Shrub/scrub 976 435 929 10.233 12,572 392 441 2,754 3.940 1.547 839 0 1l.'15 23.986
(<I) (0) (1) (<I) (<I) (0) (-1)

Shrub/scrub 840 1.864 3.710 2.023 8,437 2,629 4,862 ).002 596 62 295 0 11.429 19.866
(.P.it) (<I) (1) (1) (<I) (<I) (1) (<I) (@I) (<I) (<l) (<I) (0) (<I) (<t)
Agric/pascure 17.905- 35.099 26,992 97. 122 177.118 4,670 7.781 25.557 19.686 81,626 11,400 5,588 156.108 333.426
(7) (12) (4) (13) (9) (1) (1) (3) (5) (4) (2) (17) (3) (4)

Developed 816 2.809 3.036 5.392 12.053 1.382 1.36S 14.162 25.954 55.819 5.644 543 104.869 116.922
(@') . M (<I) (1) (1) (<I) (<I) (1) (7) (3) (1) (2) (2) (7)
Aquatic vegetation 0 0 2 to 12 0 312 0 0 0 0, 0 312 324
(0) (0) (<I) (<I) (<I) (0) (<I) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (<I) (<I)
Un"getat*4 712 3.86t 1.618 2.713 8.904 2.660 2.706 3.697 7.575 3.053 1.114 44 21.049 29.954
(<I) (1) (<L) (-I) (<I) (1) W) (<I) (2) (<I) (<I) (<I) (<I) (<I)
beach 731 299 1.212 701 2,943 0 2.163 2.438 292 3,927 491 0 9.310 12,253
(0) (<I) (,I) (<I) (<I) (<I) (0) (<I)

TOTAL AREA 260.244 293.908 66S.345 762.950 1.985,441 314.801 1.209.46) 976,823 376,336 2,Oa5.524 705.714 13.264 5.701,927 7,687.374

Figures do not include 1.179.471 acres of offshore state waters within the coastal zone.

Table A-2. Aereal extent of habitat types on the Chenier Plain, delta plain, and coastal
zone of Louisiana in 1978, in acres (percentages in parentheses).

Monte.
L:t.1 Z.-
p Delta Plain
S.bim Cal.. Heraq,n Verall %:!"l Atchaf Terre Ureter Miss. R Pont. Breton P..rl T-al
Inland w:ter 58.249 121.328 161.282)1 323.604 665.002 179.259 544.210 348 @ 640 206.999 1,107.:74 427 596 1.008 2,816. 38; 3.461,388
(natur 1 (2 2) (41) ( 4 (42) (33) (57) (45) (17) (55) ( 1) i6l ) ,11 (52 (47)
of 9.427 9.369 13,458 11.642 43,897 5,232 20,956 36.477 3,520 14.658 15.138 198 101.179 145.0,75
artificial) (4) (3 ) (2 ) (2) (2) (2) (2) (4) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (2)

'r.sh marsh 16.779 4.939 236.801 48.512 307,031 54.983 165.857 51.063 39.672 29,685 2.542 2.603 346,605 653.636
(6) (2) (35) (6) (15) (17) (14) (5) (11) (2) M) (8) (6) (9)
Intermediate 65.324 41.901 75.781 42.397 225.403 0 66.680 76.421 25,025 15.902 8.701 9.254 200,983 1626.386
marsh (25) (14) (11) (6) (11) (0) (6) (8) (7) (1) (1) (25) (4) (6)

brackish marsh 70.939 60,990 99.096 146,9" 380,010 0 14.0.172 107.472 5.052 128.056 146.129 591 529.471 909.481
(27) (21) (15) (19) (19) (0) (12) (12) (1) (7) (21) (2) (10) (12)

Sell- marsh 4.498 4.706 15.297 6.399 30.381 0 152.402 156.927 2,147 62.494 50.194 0 424,164 455.044
(2) (2) (2) (1) (2) (0) (13) (17) (1) (3) (7) (0) (8) (6)

Forest 813 794 6,614 17,651 25.962 2.089 16.799 28.483 7.444 101.263 12,399 5.248 1 11.715 199@577
(0) (<I) (1) (2) (1) (1) (1) (3) (2) (6) (2) (16) (3) (3)

Swamp 0 0 169 37.032 37,201 53.387 34.237 23.698 12.000 171.637 1.751 8.515 305.275 342.425
(0) (0) (<I) (5) (2) (17) (3) (3) (3) (10) (<I) (26) (6) (5)

Shrub/ocrub 1,935 916 3.527 10,193 16.471 2.012 12.176 5.703 2.330 8.277 1.4-54 73 32.026 48.497
(1)

Shrub/scrub 3.200 7,017 11.030 4.453 25.701 5.138 19.244 17.454 5.836 3.475 17.124 0 68. 2?2 93.973
(spoil) (1) (2) (2) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (2) (<I) (2) .(0) (1)
Agric/pasture 14,370 32. "0 43.053 98.985 189.398 S. 506 10.940 29.767 12.942 46.758 6.229 1.662 113.804 303,202
(6) (11) (6) (13) (3) (1) (3) (1) (5) (2)

Developed 1.%2 4.466 4.912 10.665 22.025 2.143 4.416 38.416 32.411 106.579 11.717 4.269 199.951 221.976
(9) (6) (2) (13) (4) (3)

Aquatic vegetation 3,575 420 1.696 2,217 7.905 2.520 18.810 8.236 3. 9" 3.881 366 17 37.674 45,580
(1) M) (<I) (<I) (0) (1) (2) (1) (1) (<I) (0) (0) . (1) (1)

Unwager.ted 9.465 3,849 6.206 1.511 20,012 2.463 1.167 3.603 11.741 1.773 2,292 27 23.066 43,078
(3) (1) (1) (<I) (1) (1) (<I) (<)) (3) (<I) (<I) (<I) (<l) (1)
Beach 675 292 9% 578 2.539 37 1.398 1.098 124 1.930 173 0 4.761 7.299
(<I) (<I) (<I) M) (o) (<I) (0) M) (<I)
705.807 T3.265 -377.282 7.376.619
76 .243
TOTAL ARM: R0.211 T93,887 120.425 T". $1' 7999.336 T14.770 7209.454 73 3. 158 776.2B6 04

figures do not include 1.179.471 acres of offshore &Late water& within the coastal Lane

table A-3. Aereal extent of habitat types on the Chenier Plain, delta plain, and coastal
zone of Louisiana in 1984, in acres (percentages in parentheses).

Ch lot
pl: in Delta plain Coastal Zono
Sabin. C.1c. Her... Verwil Total AtCh&f Terra Water His.. R Pont. Breton Pearl Total Total

Inlam water 58.470 110.015 171.594 324.932 665.011 184.621. 569.111 455.402 214.973 1.474.709 418,983 5.276 3,323.075 3.986,089
(22) (37) (25) (42) (33) (58) (47) (37) (54) (61) (59) (12) (53) (48)

broken ..r.h 64,205 47,256 82.254 31.833 225.550 9.302 166.077 160.975 14.135 36.836 39.164 1.149 427.640 653.190
(24) (16) (12) (4) (ti) (3) (14) (13) (4) (2) (6) (3) (7) (8)

Marsh 105,137 95,180 367.423 238,773 506.711 35.951 381.582 287.020 69.766 223.263 206.796 17.416 1,221.797 2.023.509
(40) (32) (54) (31) (40) (11) (32) (23) (17) (9) (29) (40) (19) (24)

Forest 788 710 4.898 14,744 2t.139 1.390 14,040 48.792 14.576 240.107 13,042 SJ99 337.146 358,285
(<1) (<I) M (2) (1) M) (1) (4) (4) (10) (2) (12) (5) (4)
$-.-P 0 0 48 33.004 33,051 52.573 22.514 117,611 4.237 201.944 1.227 7.817 407.824 440,875
(0) (0) M) (4) (17) (2) (10) (1)
Shrub/scrub 1.559 1.915 4.968 t7.173 25.615 10.418 28.341 18.656 2.961 0.728 6,380 134 75.517 101,132
(1) (1) (1) (2) (1) (3) (2) (2) (1) (<I) (1) (<I) (1) (1)
Agric/pasturv 16.327 25.713 34.641 102.397 t79.077 6.621 12,250 92.379 30@M 77.909 6.409 1.169 226.928 406.005
(6) (9) (5) (13) (9) (2) (1) (7) (8) (3) (1) (3) (4) (5)
Dameloped 252 1.092 657 3.257 5.25S 1.654 1,200 32.918 27,219 93.863 10.902 1.012 170.969 176.227
(<I) (<I) (<I) (<I) (<I) (1) (<I) (3) (7) (4) (2) (7) (3) (2)
Unvesetated 1.491 2.050 2,356 "9 6 3A6 5.652 699 487 21.913 6,644 619 66 36.102 42.448
(<t)

Beach t32 931 159 1.265 22 862 833 46 1.594 160 13 3.5)0 4.816
(<I) (0) (<I) (<I) (<I) (< 1) (<I) (<I) (< 1) (<l) (<I ) (< 1) (<I) (<I)
Obscured by 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,671 10,909 0 3,340 210 0 20.129 20.129
Claude (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (<I) 1 (1) (0) (<I)
Floating 15.208 5.708 10.399 1 14,315 1.198 2,107 349 0 37 0 0 3.690 38.005
vegetation (6) (3) (2) (<0 (2) (<I) (<L) M)
mixed 0 927 415 384 1.726 6.092 5.722 6,725 1,239 30.476 1,761 1.646 53.892 55.608
vegetation (0) (<I) M) (<I) M) (2) (<I) (1)
Unclassified 0 0 4 140 145 69 0 862 0 0 0 0 930 1.074
(0) (0) (0) (<I) <L) (<t) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)

TOTAL ARIA: 263.569 293,830 650.597 767.247 2,005,232 315.765 1.210,176 1.233.916 401.157 2.399.352 705.676 43.120 6.309.162 8.314.394

Figures do not include 1.179.411 acres of offshore state motor* within Cho coascal Zone.

Flats Delta Flats cemstal baso
Sabl"s Colas Norman Varall Tout AtChol Urge Water Rise. a Past. ocace" Pearl Total Total

19,56 water to 1910 88,030 104.39& 256.362 404.0" 856.093 256.473 618.229 "1.912 365,710 1.510.103 445. US 1.306 ]."1.6911
motor (28) (12) (321 (471 (171 (65) (64) (42) (62)

1956 "Tab to IM $6.111 ". 2" 46.44a 23."3 163.736 7.647 143.00) tts.731 77.0% 41.915 so.217 59) 441.2" 606.938
water (12) (18) (6) (3) (7) (2) (10) (10) (121

IOU low to 1976 914 1.410 3.382 4.270 10.976 2.014. 7.172 10.956 6.517 0. 799, 3.661 127 39.066 $0.022
"Near (0)

1,36 eager to tom 9% 1.%4 6.0% 5.0% 13.667 5.382 14.448 12.930 10.052 12.061 10.141 339 65.3178 ".045
weak (0) (41) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (1)
19" megab to 1978 IS2.747 1". 201 4". 370 223.126 951.494 102.764 S49. "A 197. SIG 71,627 1".210 I97.SS9 19, i4s 1.736.916 2.646.428
marsh (49) (32) (51) (33) (61) (26) 439) (35) (it) (to) (211 (54) (26) 430)

IOU 104 to 1978 S,691 5.6" 7.28Y 6.116 22.701 2.206 7.170 to.799 4.737 7.6" 3.025 3S2 37.9se "All
marsh (2) (2) (1) PCI) (1) M (1) (1) (1) (Cl) (1) M (1) M

19% water to 1911 741) 2.Y69 3.414 2.013 8. f" 3.186 2.839 6. V" 4,495 4,SSS 1.199 is 25. Ill 14.190
IMA (0) (1) tcl@ M) (<t) (1) (<I) (1) (1) let) (1) (0) (4) M)
IOU marsh to ION 13,272 10.292 32.4" 16.938 73.092 S.441 31.011 S3.176 1'7.%0 24.M 20.414 Sol IS2. M 22S. "I
lead if ) (31) (4) (2) (3) (1) (2) M (3) (1) (3) (2)
1936 10001 to 1978 IS.431 34.256 13.359 114.227 199.172 2.10) 20.002 S9.SS4 48.4$3 223.0" 23,119 10'say 405, we 6". Goo
low (S) ill) (4) (13) (93 (2) (1) (5) (0) (10) (4) (32) (6) (1)

Are* compared 314.OU MASS T-- -1. 8 T, 0-1 -,0 !-J--M, 7-1 -,1 -," ;2-6 2-2, 1- -0, 72-19-2. -z"
Forcearw than" (14) lls) (12) 17) M) (71 (15) (18) (193 (5) (12) (6) (12) (12)

Table A-4. Land cover in each basin between 1956 and 1978, in acres (percentages
in parentheses) (Cahoon and Groat 1990).

Appendix
Energy-related Activities in Louisiana's Coastal Zone
Not Requiring Coastal Use Permits.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 49:214.34.A. 10., determinations of no direct and significant impact
(NDSIs) should be made for the activities listed under the categories below, provided that no
environmentally or administratively sensitive areas are impacted:

1. Oil and gas drilling and production activities.

a. Office of Conservation In-lieu determinations will be made for drilling rigs
in open water, in existing oil/gas canals and on existing drilling pads
provided that:

1. no dredging (including propeller washing) for access, is required

2. they will not impact any active oyster lease, seed oyster ground, or
public oyster area (may be waived with approval of LDWF)

3. no environmentally sensitive areas (rookeries, eagle nests, submerged
vegetation beds, etc.), scenic streams, or wildlife refuges (the latter may be
waived with approval of LDWF) will be impacted

4. the activity is not located in the Marsh Island/Rainey Refuge Area

b. Ring levees and road dumps in non-wetland areas other than those on
unaltered cheniers, salt domes, barrier islands, beaches, and similar
isolated, raised land forms.

C. Fill for shell pads in open waters when the work is not authorized by the
Corps general permit NOD-3, but meets all standards provided therein.

d. Fill for shell pads in existing oil and gas canals.

e. Oil and gas platforms, extensions thereof, and appurtenant structures 150'
or less in cumulative length, which do not obstruct navigation and are
located in open water and do not require any dredging or fill. Applicant
must agree to provide as-built plats within 30 days of installation and to
remove the structures within 120 days of site abandonment. Structures
must also be marked/lighted in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard
regulations,

f. Oil and gas platforms, extensions thereof, and appurtenant structures and
activities in man-made oil and gas canals or on the spoil banks of such
canals. A combination of spoil bank and canal siting is acceptable if no
wetland is impacted. Canal maintenance dredging, site leveling and minor
earth work is permitted provided no more than 125 cubic yards of material
are involved and no wetlands, oyster leases, or other environmentally or
administratively sensitive features are impacted. Minor canal maintenance
and minor eanh work, involving no more than 125 cubic yards of material,
is also allowed for removal of structures and for plug- and-abandonment
activities under this determination, Applicant must agree to provide as-built
plats within 30 days of installation and to remove the structures within 120

days of site abandonment. Structures must also be marked/lighted in
accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations.

9. Installation of piles and pile clusters for the placement of a production barge
in open water areas provided that the production barge facility (barge and
appurtenant structures), is no more than 350' in total length. This
determination will not apply in oyster lease areas, seed oyster grounds, or
other public oyster harvesting areas without the approval of LDWF. It will
also not apply if other environmentally or administratively sensitive areas
will be impacted. Applicant must agree to provide as-built plats within 30
days of installation and to remove the barge and all related structures within
120 days of site abandonment. The barge and structures must also be
marked/lighted in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard requirements.

11. Pipelines,

a. Pipelines laid on the surface of the ground (burial at levee and canal
crossings is acceptable) provided that wheeled or tracked vehicles are not
used in any phase of the installation process across vegetated, wetland areas
(pulling pipe, people or equipment movement, etc.). Applicant must agree
to provide as-built plats within 30 days of installation and remove the line(s)
within 120 days of abandonment of the authorized use.

b. Pipelines laid in trenches in open water bottoms and canal crossings,
provided that the trench will be backfilled or the pipe is installed by jetting.
Pipeline must be placed a minimum of 3 ft below the mudline. Applicant
must agree to provide as-built plats within 30 days of installation and
remove the line(s) within 120 days of abandonment of the authorized use.

NOTE: For iterns a. and b. above, if a pipeline application is to replace an existing
line, the CMD requires that the old line be removed unless such removal
will cause extensive environmental impacts or other significant problems.

C. Placement of up to 125 cubic yards of rip-rap or other erosion controlling
material at pipeline crossings of canal and waterway (bayous, bays, etc.)
shorelines. This authorization allows for the placement of 125 cubic yards
of material per crossing (62.5 cubic yards on each side of a canal or bayou);
it does not restrict the number of crossings which can be authorized under
each determination.

III. Activities occurring on the Mississippi River levees or on the batture areas of such
such levees provided the activity does not pose a hazard to navigation or result in
the discharge of hazardous or toxic materials into the river and that no vegetated
wetlands are impacted.

IV. Activities occurring wholly in areas designated as UDV1 or UDV2 under the
Cowardian classification svstem and which do not result in the discharge of
hazardous, toxic or other habitat degrading materials into coastal waters and
wetlands.

V. Other activities which, after thorough technical review, are determined to have no
direct and significant effects on coastal waters. Such determinations wiH apply to

exceptional cases and must document: 1) the justification for the NDSI
determination, 2) any necessary coordination with other interested state or federal
agencies (examples might include LDWF, the State Land Office, etc.), 3) the
activity's consistency with all applicable Coastal Use Guidelines, and 4) possible
future impacts to the program. This type of determination is subject to case-by-case
approval by the Secretary or his designee.

COASTAL USE GUIDELINES
AS APPROVED BY THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON JULY 9, 1980, THE SENATE NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON JULY 11, 1980 AND
THE GOVERNOR'ON JULY 24, 1980

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
LOUISIANA COASTAL RESOURCES PROGRAM

GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO ALL USES

Guideline 1.1 The guidelines must be read in their entirety. Any
.proposed use may be subject to the requirements of more than one guideline
or section of guidelines and all applicable guidelines must be complied
with.

Guideline 1.2 Conformance with applicable water and air quality laws,
standards and regulations, and with those other laws. standards and
regulations which have been incorporated into the coastal resources pro-
gram shall be deemed in conformance with the program except to the
extent that the.se guidelines would impose additional requirements.

Guideline 1.3 The guidelines include both general provisions applic-
able to all uses and specific provisions applicable only to certain types of
uses The general guidelines apply in all situations. The specific guide-
lines apply only to the situations they address. Specific and general
guidelines should be interpreted to be consistent with each other. In the
event there is an inconsistency, the specific should prevail.

Guideline 1.4 These guidelines are not intended to nor shall they be
interpreted so as to result in an involuntary acquisition or taldng of
property.

Guideline 1.5 No use or activity shall be carried out or conducted in
such a manner as to constitute a violation of the terms of a grant or
donation of any lands or waterbottoms to the State or any subdivision
thereof. Revocations of such grants and donations shall be avoided.

Guideline 1. 6 Information regarding the following general factors
shall be utilized by the permitting authority in evaluating whether the
proposed use is in compliance with the guidelines.

a) type, nature and location of use.

b) elevation, soil and water conditions and flood and storm hazard
characteristics of site.

c) techniques and materials used in construction, operation and
maintenance of use.

d) existing drainage patterns and water regimes of surrounding
area including flow, circulation, quality, quantity and salinity;
and impacts on them.

e) availability of feasible alternative sites or methods for implement-
ing the use.
f) designation of the area for certain uses as part of a local
program.

g) economic need for use and extent oi impacts of use on economy
of locality.

h) extent of resulting public and private benefits.

i) extent of coastal water dependency of the use.

J) existence of necessary infrastructure to support the use and
public costs resulting from use.

k) extent of impacts on existing and traditional uses of the area
and on future uses for which the area is suited.

1) proximity to and extent of impacts on important natural features
such as beaches, barrier islands, tidal passes, wildlife and
aquatic habitats, and forest lands.

m) the extent to which regional, state and national interests are
served including the national intere-4t in resources and the siting
of facilities in the coastal zones as identified in the coastal
resources program.

n) proximity to, and extent of impacts on, special areas, particular
areas, or other areas of particular concern of the state program
or local programs.

o) likelihood of, and extent of impacts of, resulting secondary
impacts and cumulative impacts.

p) proximity to and extent of impacts on public lands or works, or
historic, recreational or cultural resources.

q) extent of impacts on navigation, fishing, public access, and
recreational opportunities.

r) extent of compatibility with natural and cultural setting.

S) extent of long term benefits or adverse impacts.

Guideline 1.7 It is the policy of the coastal resources program to
avoid the following adverse impacts. To this end, all uses and activities
shall be planned, sited, designed. constructed, operated and maintained to
avoid to the maximum extent practicable significant:

a) reductions in the natural supply of sediment and nutrients to the
coastal system by alterations of freshwater flow.

b) adverse economic impacts on the locality of the use and affected
governmental bodies.

C) detrimental discharges of inorganic nutrient compounds into
coastal waters.

d). alt,.-rations in the natural concantration of oxygen in coastal
waters.

e) destruction or adverse alterations of streams, wetland, tidal
passes, inshore waters and waterbottoms, beaches, dunes,
barrier islands, and other natural biologically valuable areas or
protective coastal features.

f) adverse disruption of existing social patterns.

g) alterations of the natural temperature regime of coastal
waters.

h) detrimental changes in existing salinity regimes,.

i) detrimental changes in littoral and sediment transport
processes.

adverse effects of cumulative impacts.

k) detrimental discharges of suspended solids into coastal waters,
including turbidity resulting from dredging.

1) reductions or blockage of water flow or natural circulation
patterns within or into an estuarine system or a wetland forest.

m) discharges of pathogens or toxic substances into coastal waters.

n) adverse alteration or destruction of archaeological, historical or
other cultural resources.

o) fostering of detrimental secondary impacts in undisturbed or
biologically highly productive wetland areas.

p) adverse alteration or destruction of unique or valuable habitatst
or
critical habitat for endangered species, important wildlife
fishery breeding or nursery areas, designated wildlife management
or sanctuary areas, or forestlands.

q) adverse alteration or destruction of public parks, shoreline
access points, public works, designated recreation areas, scenic
rivers, or other areas of public use and concern.
X
r) adverse disruptions of coastal wildlife and fishery migratory
patterns.

s) land loss. erosion and subsidence.

0 increases in the potential for f lood, hurricane or other
storm damage, or increases in the likelihood that damage
will occur from such hazards.

u) reductions in the long term biological productivity of the coastal
ecosystem.

Guideline 1.8 In those guidelines in which the modifier "maximum
extent practicable" is used, the proposed use is in compliance with the
guideline if the standard modified by the term is complied with. If the
modified standard is not complied with. the use will be in compliance with
the guideline if the permitting authority finds, after a systematic consider-
X ation of all pertinent information regarding the use, the site and the
impacts of the use as set forth in guideline 1.6, and a balancing of their
relative significance, that the benefits resulting from the proposed use
would clearly outweigh the adverse impacts resulting from non-compliance
with the modified standard and there are no feasible and practical alterna-
tive locations, methods and practices for the use that are in compliance
with the modified standard and:

a) significant public benefits will result from the use, or;

b) the use would serve important 'regional, state or national
interests, including the national interest in resources and the
siting of facilities in the coastal zone identified in the coastal
resources program, or;

c) the use is coastal water'dependent.

The systematic consideration process shall also result in a determina-
tion of those conditions necessary for the use to be in compliance with the
guideline. Those conditions shall assure that the use is carried out utiliz-
ir, gthose locations, methods and practices which maximize conformance to
the modified standard; are technically, economically, environmentally,
socially and legally feasible and practical; and minimize or offset those
adverse impacts listed in guideline 1. 7 and in the guideline at issue.

Guideline 1.9 Uses shall to the maximum extent practicable . be
designed and carried out to permit multiple concurrent uses which are
appropriate for the location and to avoid unnecessary conflicts with other
uses of the vicinity.

Guideline 1. 10 These guidelines are not intended to be, nor shall
they be, interpreted to allow expansion of governmental authority beyond
that established by La. R.S. 49:213.1 through 213.21, as amended; nor
shall these guidelines be interpreted so as to require permits for specific
uses legally commenced or established prior to the effective date of the
coastal use permit program nor to normal maintenance or repair of such
uses*

GUIDELINES FOR LEVEES

Guideline 2.1 The leveeing of unmodified or biologically productive
wetlands shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.

Guidelint. 2.2 Levees shall be planned and sited to avoid segmenta- r
tion of wetlang--areas and systems to the maximum extent practicable.

Guideline 2.3 Levees constructed frur the purpose of developing or
otherwise changing the use oi a wetland area shall be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable.

Guideline 2.4 Hurricane and flood protection levees shall be located
at the non-wetland/wetland interface or landward to the maximum extent
practicable.

Guideline 2.5 Impoundment levees shall only be constructed in
wetland areas as part of approved water or marsh management projects or
to prevent release of pollutants.

Guideline 2.6 Hurricane or flood protection levee systems shall be
designed, built and thereafter operated and maintained utilizing best
practical techniques to minimize disruptions of existing hydrologic patterns,
and the interchange of water, beneficial nuti-ients and aquatic organisms
between enclosed wetlands and those outside the levee system.

GUIDELINES FOR LINEAR FACILITIES

Guideline 3.1 Linear use alignments shall be planned to avoid
adverse impacts on areas of high biological productivity or irreplaceable
resource areas.

Guideline 3.2 Linear facilities involving the use of dredging or filling
shall be avoided in wetland and estuarine areas to the maximum extent
practicable.

Guideline 3.3 'Linear facilities involving dredging shall be of the
minimum practical size and length.

Guideline 3.4 To the maximum extent practicable, pipelines shall be
installed through the "push ditch" method and the ditch backfilled.

Guideline 3.5 Existing corridors, rights-of-way, canals, and streams
shall be utilized to the maximum extent practicable for linear facilities.

Guideline 3.6 Linear facilities and alignments shall be, to the maxi-
mum extent practicable, designed and constructed to permit multiple uses
consistent with the nature of the facility.

Guideline 3.7 Linear facilities involving dredging shall not traverse
or adversely affect any barrier island.

Guideline 3.8 Linear facilities involving dredging shall not traverse
beaches, tidal passes, protective reefs or other natural gulf shoreline
unless no other alternative exists. If a beach, tidal pass, reef or other
natural gulf shoreline must be traversed for a non-navigation canal, they

shall be restored at least to their natural condition immediately upon com-
pletion of construction. Tidal passes shall not be permanently widened or
deepened except when necessary to conduct the use. The best available

r
toration techniques which improve the traversed area's ability to serve
es,
as a shoreline shall be used.

Guideline 3.9 Linear facilities sha.U be planned. designed, located
and built using the best practical techniques to minimize disruption of
natural hydrologic and sediment transport patterns, sheet flow, and water
i
quality, and to minimize adverse impacts on wetlands.

Guideline 3.10 Linear facilities shall be planned, designed, and built
using the best practical techniques to prevent bank slumping and erosion,
saltwater intrusion. and to minimize the potential for inland movement of
storm-generated surges. Consideration shall be given to the use of locks
in navigation canals and channels which connect more saline areas with
fresher areas.

Guideline 3.11 All non-navigation canals, channels and ditches which
connect more saline areas with fresher areas shall be plugged at all water-
way crossings and at intervals between crossings in order to compartmen-
talize them. . The plugs shall be properly maintained.

T
Guideline 3.12 The multiple use of existing canals, directional drilling
and other practical techniques shall be utilized to the maximum extent
practicable to minimize the number and size of access canals, to minimize
changes of natural systems and to minimize adverse impacts on natural
areas and wildlife and fisheries habitat.

Guideline 3.13 All pipelines shall be constructed in accordance with
parts 191. 192, and 195 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
amended, and in conformance with the Commissioner of Conservation's
Pipeline Safety Rules and Regulations and those safety requirements
established by La. R.S. 45:408, whichever would require higher
standards.

Guideline 3.14 Areas dredged for linear facilities shall be backfilled
or otherwise restored to the pre-existing conditions upon cessation of use
for navigation purposes to the maximum extent practicable.

Guideline 3.15 The best practical techniques for site restoration and
revegetation shall be utilized for all linear facilities.

Guideline 3.16 Confined and dead end canals shall be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable. Approved canals must be designed and
constructed using the best practical techniques to avoid water stagnation
and eutrophication.

GUIDELINES FOR DREDGED SPOIL DEPOSITION

Guideline 4.1 Spoil shall be deposited utilizing the best practical
techniques to avoid disruption of water novement, flow, circulation and
quality.

Guideline 4.2 Spoil shall be used beneficially to the maximum extent
practicable to improve productivity or create new habitat, reduce or com-
pensate for environmental damage done by dredging activities, or prevent
environmental damage. Otherwise, existing spoil disposal areas or upland
disposal shall be utilized to the maximum extent practicable rather than
creating new disposal areas.

Guideline 4.3 Spoil shall not be disposed of in a manner which could
result in the impounding or draining of wetlands or the creation of devel-
opment sites unless the spoil deposition is part of an approved levee or
land surface alteration project.

Guideline 4.4 Spoil shall not be disposed of on marsh, known oyster
or clam reefs or in areas of submersed vegetation to the maximum extent
practicable.

Guideline 4.5 Spoil shall not be disposed of in such a manner as to
create a hindrance to navigation or fishing, or hinder timber growth.

Guideline 4.6 Spoil disposal areas shall be designed and constructed
and maintained using the best practical techniques to retain the spoil at
the site, reduce turbidity, and reduce shoreline erosion when appropriate.

Guideline 4.7 The alienation of state-owned property shall not result
from spoil deposition activities without the consent of the Department of
Natural Resources.

GUIDELINES FOR SHORELINE MODIFICATION

Guideline 5. 1 Non-structural methods of shoreline protection shall be
utilized to the maximum extent practicable.

Guideline 5.2 Shoreline modification structures shall be designed and
built using best practical techniques to minimize adverse environmental
impacts.

Guideline 5.3 Shoreline modification structures shall be lighted or
marked in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations, not interfere
with navigation, and should foster fishing, other recreational opportunities,
and public access.

Guideline 5.4 Shoreline modification structures shall be built using
best practical materials and techniques to avoid the introduction of pollu-
ta,nts and toxic substances into coastal waters.

Guidelin.- 5.5 Piers and docks and other harbor structures shall be
designed and built using best practical techniques to avoid obstruction of
water circulation.

Guideline 5.6 Marinas, and similar commercial and recreational devel-
opments shall to the the maximum extent practicable not be located so as to
result in adverse impacts on open productive oyster beds, or submersed
grass beds.

Guideline 5.7 Neglected or abandoned shoreline modifidation struc-
tures, piers, docks, mooring and other harbor structures shall be removed
at the owner's -expense, when appropriate.

Guideline 5.8 Shoreline stabilization structures shall not be built for
the purpose of creating fill areas for development unless part of an
approved surface alteration use.

Guideline 5.9 Jetties, groins, breakwaters and similar structures
shall be planned, designed and constructed so as to avoid to the maximum
extent practicable downstream land loss and erosion.

GUIDELINES FOR SURFACE ALTERATIONS

Guideline 6.1 Industrial, commercial, urban, residential, and recrea-
tional uses are necessary to provide adequate economic growth and devel-
opment. To this end, such uses will be encouraged in those areas of the
coastal zone that are suitable for development. Those uses shall be consis-
tent with the other guidelines and shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
take place only:

a) on lands five feet or more above sea level or within fast lands;
or

b) on lands which have foundation conditions sufficiently stable to
support the use, and where flood and storm hazards are minimal
or where protection from these hazards can be reasonably well
achieved, and where the public safety would not be unreasonably
endangered; and

1) the land is already in high intensity of development use, or

2) there is adequate supporting infrastructure, or

3) the vicinity has a tradition of use for similar habitation or
development

Guideline 6.2 Public and private works projects such as levees,
drainage improvements, roads, airports, ports, and public utilities are

necessary tc protect and support needed deveiopment and shall be encour-
aged. Such projects shall, to the maximum extent practicable, take place
only when:

a) they protect or serve those areas suitable for development pur-
suant to Guideline 6.1; and

b) they are consistent with the other guidelines; and

c) they are consistent with all relevant adopted state, local and
regional plans.

Guideline 6.3 BLANK (Deleted)

Guideline 6.4 To the maximum extent practicable wetland areas shall
not be drained or filled. Any approved drain or fill project shall be
designed and constructed using best practical techniques to minimize
present and future property damage and adverse environmental impacts.

Guideline 6.5 Coastal water dependent uses shall be given special
consideration in permitting because of their reduced choice of alternatives.

Guideline 6.6 Areas modified by surface alteration activities shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, be revegetated, refilled, cleaned and
restored to their predevelopment condition upon termination of the use.

Guideline 6.7 Site clearing shall to the maximum extent practicable be
limited to those areas immediately required for physical development.

Guideline 6.8 Surface alterations shall, to the maximum extent prac-
ticable, be located away from critical wildlife areas and vegetation areas.
Alterations in wildlife preserves and management areas shall be conducted
in strict accord with the requirements of the wildlife management body.

Guideline 6.9 Surface alterations which have high adverse impacts on
natural functions shall not occur, to the maximum extent practicable, on
barrier islands and beaches, isolated cheniers, isolated natural ridges or
levees, or in wildlife and aquatic species breeding or spawning areas, or
in important migratory routes.

Guideline 6.10 The creation of low dissolved oxygen conditions in the
water or traps for heavy metals shall be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable.

Guideline 6.11 Surface mining and shell dredging shall be carried out
utilizing the best practical techniques to minimize adverse environmental
impacts.

Guideline 6.12 The creation of underwater obstructions which
adversely affect fishing or navigation shall be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable.

Guideline 6.13 Surface alteration sites and facilities shall be designed,
constructed, and operated using the best practical techniques to prevent
the release of pollutants or toxic substances into the environment and
minimize other adverse impacts.

Guideline 6.14 To the maximum extent practicable only material that
is free of contaminants and compatible with the environmental setting shall
be used as fill.

GUIDELINES FOR HYDROLOGIC AND
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS

Guideline 7.1 The controlled diversion of sediment-laden waters to
initiate new cycles of marsh building and sediment nourishment shall be
encouraged and utilized whenever such diversion will enhance the viability
and productivity of the outfall area. Such diversions shall incorporate a
plan for monitoring and reduction andior amelioration of the effects of
pollutants present in the freshwater source.

Guideline 7.2 Sediment deposition systems may be used to offset land
loss, to create or restore wetldnd areas or enhance building characteristics
of a development site. Such systems shall only be utilized as part of an
approved plan. Sediment from these systems shall only be discharged in
the area that the proposed use is to -be accomplished.

Guideline 7.3 Undesirable deposition of sediments in sensitive habitat
or navigation areas shall be avoided through the use of the best
preventive techniques.

Guideline 7.4 The diversion of freshwater through siphons and
controlled conduits and channels, and overland flow to offset saltwater
intrusion and to introduce nutrients into wetlands shall be encouraged and
utilized whenever such diversion will enhance the viability and productivity
of the outfall area. Such diversions shall incorporate a plan for monitoring
and reduction arid/or amelioration of the effects of pollutants present in
the freshwater source.

Guideline 7.5 Water or marsh management plans shall result in an
overall benefit to the productivity of the area.

G uideline 7.6 Water control structures shall be assessed separately
based on their individual merits and impacts and in relation to their overall
water or marsh management plan of which they are a part.

Guideline 7.7 Weirs and similar water control structures shall be
designed and built using the best practical techniques to prevent "cut
arounds." permit tidal exchange in tidal areas, and minimize obstruction of
the migration of aquatic organisms.

Guideline 7. 8 Impoundments which prevent normal tidal exchange
and/or the migration of aquatic organisms shall not be constructed in
brackish and saline areas to the maximum extent practicable.

Guideline 7.9 Withdrawal of surface and ground water shall not
result in saltwater intrusion or land subsidence to the maximum extent
practicable.

GUIDELINES FOR DISPOSAL OF WASTES

Guideline 8.1 The location and operation of waste storage, treatment,
and disposal facilities shall be avoided in wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable, and best practical techniques shall be used to minimize
adverse impacts which may result from such use.

Guideline 8.2 The generation, transportation, treatment, storage and
disposal of hazardous wastes shall be pursuant to the substantive re;uire-
ments of the Department of Natural Resources adopted pursuant to Act 334
of 1978 and approved pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery
-@ct. of 1976 P. L. 94-580, and of the Office of Conservation for injection
below surface.

Guideline 8.3 Waste facilities located in wetlands shall be designed
an d built to withstand all expectable adverse conditions without releasing
pollutants.

Guideline 8.4 Waste facilities shall be designed and constructed using
best practical techniques to prevent leaching, control leachate production,
and prevent the movement of leachate away from the facility.

Guideline 8.5 The use of overland flow systems for non-toxic, biode-
gradable wastes, and the use of sump lagoons and reservoirs utilizing
aquatic vegetation to remove pollutants and nutrients shall be encouraged.

Guideline 8.6 All waste disposal sites shall be marked and, to the
maximum extent practicable, all components of waste shall be identified.

Guideline 8.7 Wastes facilities in wetlands with identifiable pollution
problems that are not feasible and practical to correct shall be closed and
either removed or sealed, and shall be properly revegetated using the best
practical techniques.

Guideline 8.8 Waste shall be disposed of only at approved disposal
sites.

Guideline 8.9 Radioactive wastes shall not be temporarily or perman-
ently disposed oFin the coastal zone.

GUIDELINES FOR USES THAT RESULT IN THE ALTERATION
OF WATERS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS

Guideline 9.1 Upland and upstream water management programs which
affect coastal waters and wetlands shall be designed and constructed to
preserve or enhaDce existing water 'quality, volume, and rate of flow to
the Maximum extent practicable.

Guideline 9. 2 Runoff from developed areas shall to the ffiakiffitim
extent practicable be managed to simulate natural wate'r pattefris, quantity,
quality and rate of flow.

Guidline 9.3 Runoff and erosion from agricultural lands shall be
minimized through the best practical techniques.

GUIDELINES FOR OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERAL ACTIVITIES

Guideline 10.1 Geophysical surveying shall utilize the best practical
techniques to =mmize disturbance or damage to wetlands, fish and Wildlife
and other coastal resources.

Guideline 10.2 To the maximum extent practicable, the huffibbef of 3@
mineral- exploration and production sites in Wetland areas requiring floata@
tion access shall be held to the minimum number, c6ftsi!�tent With good ee-
covery and conservation practices and the need foe energy d6velopth6fit,
by directional drilling, multiple use of existing access canals and other
practical techniques.

Guideline 10.3 Exploration, production and refining activities shall,
to the maximum extent practicable. be located away from critical wildlife
areas an6 vegetation areas. Mineral operations in wildlife peesdrvet and
management areas shall be conducted in strict accordance with the require-
ments of the wildlife management body.
Guideline 10.4 Mineral exploration and production ficilitie.,g *!,hall be
to the maximum extent practicable designed, constructed and maintained in
such a manner to maintain natural water flow regimes, avoid blocldng
surface drainage, and avoid erosion.

Guideline 10.5 Access routes to mineral exploration, productioti and
refining sites s9-a-11 be designed and aligned so as to avoid adverse ithpactt
on critical wildlife and vegetation areas to the maximum extent practicable.

Guideline 10.6 Drilling and production sites shall be prepared, con-
structed, and operated using the best practical techniques to prevent the
release of pollutants or toxic substances into the environment.

Guideline 10.7 All drilling activities, supplies, and equipment shall
be kept on barges, on drilling rigs, within ring levees, or on the well
site.

Guideline 10.8 Drilling ring levees shall to the maximum extent
practicable be_@_eplaced with smaller production levees ot removed entirely.

Guideline 10.9 All drilling and production equipment, structures, and
storase facilities shall be designed and constructed utilizing best practical
techniques' to withstand all expectable adverse conditions without releasing
pollutants.

Guideline 10.10 Mineral exploration, production and refining facilities
shall be designed and constructed using best practical techniques to mini-
mize adverse environmental impacts.

Guideline 10.11 Effective environmental protection and emergency or
contingency plans shall be developed and complied with for all mineral
operations.

Guideline 10.12 The use of dispersants, emulsifiers and other similar
chemical agents on oil spills is prohibited without the prior approval of the
Coast Guard or Environmental Protection Agency on-Scene Coordinator, in
accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan.

Guideline 10. 13 Mineral exploration and production sites shall be
cleared, revegetated, detoxified and otherwise restored as near as practic-
able to their original condition upon termination of operations to the
maximum extent practicable.

Guideline 10. 14 The creation of underwater obstructions *hich
adversely affect fishing or navigation shall be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable.

GUIDELINE DEFINITIONS

Levees any use or activity which creates an embankment to control
or prevent water movement, to retain water or other material, or to raise a
road or other lineal use above normal or flood water levels. Examples
include levees, dikes and embankments of any sort.

Linear Facilities those uses and activities which result in creation o.
structures or works which are primarily linear in nature. Examples include
pipelines, roads, canals, channels, and powerlines.

Shoreline 114odifications - those uses and activities planned or
constructed with the intention of directly or indirectly changing or pre-
venting change of a shoreline. Examples include bulkheading, piers,
docks, wharves, slips and short canals, and jetties.

Spoil Deposition - the deposition of any excavated or dredged
material.

Surface Alterations - those uses and activities which change the
land area or water: bottom. Examples include fill
surface or usability o
deposition, land reclamation, beach nourishment, dredging (primarily
areal), clearing, drair'ling, surface mining, construction and operation of
transportation, mineral, energy and industrial facilities. and industrial,
commercial and urban developments.

Hlydroloai; and Sediment Transport Modifications those. uses and
activities intended to change water circulation. direction of flow, velocity,
level, or quality or quantity of transported, sediment@. Examples include
locks, water gates, impoundments, jetties, groins, fixed and variable
weirs, dams, diversion pipes, siphons.. canals, and surface, and ground-
water withdrawals.

Waste Disposal - those uses and activities which involve the
collections, storage -and discarding or disposing of any solid or liquid
material. Examples include littering; landfill; open dumping; incineration;
industrial waste treatment facilities; sewerage treatment; storage. in pits,
ponds or lagoons; ocean. dumping and subsurface, disl5osal.

Alterations of Waters Draining in Coastal Waters - those uses or
activities that would alter, change, or introduce pollu,,irig substances into
runoff and thereby modify the quality of coastal waters.. Examples include.
water control Impoundments, upland and water management, programs, and
drainage projects from urban, agricultural and industrial developments.

Oil, Gas and Other Mineral Activities those uses and activities
which are directly involved in the exploration, production, and. refining- of
oil, gas and other minerals. Examples include geophysical surveying
establishment of drill sites and access to them, drilling, on site storage oi
supplies, products and waste materials, production, refining,' and spill
cleanup.

Coastal Water Dependent Uses - those which must be carried out on,
in o t to coastal water as or wetlands because the use- requires
access to the water body or wetland or requires the consumption, harvest-
ing or other direct use of coastal resources, or requires the use of coastal
water in the manufacturing or transportation of goods. Examples include
surface and subsurface mineral extraction, fishing., ports and necessary
supporting commercial and industrial facilities, facilities for the construc-
tion, repair and maintenance of vessels, navigation- projects, and fishery
processing plants.

Best Practical Techniques - those methods or techniques which would
result in the greatest possible minimization of the adverse impacts listed in
Guideline 1.7 and in specific guidelines applicable to the proposed use.
Those methods or techniques shall be the best methods or techniques
which are in use in the industry or trade or among, practitioners of' the
use, and which are feasible and practical for utilization.

Water or Marsh Management Plan - a systematic development and
control plan to improve and increase biological productivity, or to minimize
land loss, saltwater intrusion, erosion or other such environmental
problems, or to enhance recreation.

Impoundment Levees - those levees and associated water control
structures whose primary purpose is to contain water within the levee
system either for the prevention of the release of @pollutants, to create
fresh water reservoirs, or for management of fish or wildlife resources.

Hurtican : or Flood Protection Levees - those levees and associated
water control structures whose primary purpose is to prevent occasional
surges of flood or storm generated high water. Such levee systems do not
include those built to permit drainage or development of enclosed wetland
areas.

Development Levees - those levees and associated water control struc-
tures whose purpose is to allow control of water levels within the area
enclosed by the levees to facilitate drainage or development within the
leveed areas. Such levee systems also commonly serve for hurricane or
flood protection, but are not so defined for purposes of these guidelines.

Feasible and Practical - those locations, methods and/or practices
which are of established usefulness and efficiency and allow the use or
activity to be carried out successfully.

Minerals - oil, gas, sulfur, geothermal, geopressured, salt, or other
naturally occurring energy or chemical resources which are produced from
below the surface in the coastal zone. Not included are such surface
resources as clam or oyster shells, dirt, sand, or gravel.

Sediment De]2osition Systems - controlled diversions of sediment-laden
water in order to initiate land building or sediment nourishment or to
minimize undesirable deposition of sediment in navigation channels or
habitat areas. Typical activities include diversion channels, jetties, groins
or sediment pumps.

Radioactive Wastes - Wastes containing source, special nuclear, or
by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (68 Stat. 923).

This public document was published at a cost of $ 413S. 41 Twelve-hundred copies of this
public document were published at a cost of $ 4135.41 . The total cost of all printings of this
document including reprints is $ 4135-41 . This document was published by the Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 44487, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70804-4487, to inform the public
under authority of PL 92-583 and La. R.S. 49:214, et seq. This material was printed in
accordance with the standards for printing by state agencies established pursuant to R.S. 43:3 1.
Financial assistance was provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

iIIIIN111110111 I
3 6668 14109 5192 '