Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX A
RECORD OF SCOPING PROCESS
August 2018
Contents: 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Project Scoping Process 3.0 Public Scoping Meeting 3.1 Scoping Meeting Comments
Attachments:
Attachment 1 Scoping Prior to Public Scoping Meeting Attachment 2 Notice of Intent Attachment 3 Scoping Meeting Records: Public Notice List of Scoping Meeting Comments Other Comments and Letters Attachment 4 Agency Meeting Summary Notes and Record of Attendance Attachment 5 Public Engagement Register
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 established a nationwide policy requiring that an environmental impact statement (DEIS) be included in all recommendations and reports on proposals for major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment. Further, NEPA policy requires that the process of scoping be done by way of mandating an early and open public discussion in order to identify the relative scope of issues and provide environmental information to the public before project actions are taken. This scoping report outlines the DEIS scoping process of the proposed Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project in Lafourche Parish, and summarizes the key issues identified by during the initial scoping period.
The sequential details of the project scoping activities are outline below.
1. On June 28, 2016, the project was started with a two day internal conference to develop the scope of work; during which the following scoping efforts were employed (Attachment 1): a. Identification of economic, engineering, environmental project teams b. Identification of project purpose and need, preliminary alternatives, deliverables, and milestones c. Plan for regulatory compliance d. Review of approved/certified Corps project models to employ for project development e. Review of feasibility case studies and regional beneficial use of dredged material projects f. Development of the project report structures for each team
g. Development of the risk register approach and methodology h. Project teams condensed internal team coordination and planning efforts following this internal conference 2. A project commencement meeting was held with the Corps (MVN) on July 11, 2016 for project planning (Attachment 1). 3. On November 23, 2016, the Corps published a Notice of Intent for project develop in the Federal Register (Attachment 2). 4. On December 22, 2016, the Corps published a Public Notice for the project public scoping meeting (Attachment 3). 5. On January 12, 2017, the public scoping meeting was held. In Attachment 3 you will find a list of comments from the meeting, the court reporter transcript, and other comments and letters received after the meeting during the open public comment period. 6. During the fall of 2017, an iterative process with the Louisiana Depart of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was started to ensure environmental compliance and agency inputs would be incorporated into the analyses of DEIS (Attachment 4). 7. Provided in Attachment 4 are representative summary notes of the iterative interagency scoping process, which included agency input for the development of the sedimentation and water quality model developed by The Water Institute of the Gulf (TWIG). 8. During the development of the Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) for the complete beneficial use of all project dredged material, an interagency site visit was held to identify alternative placement areas surrounding Port Fourchon (Attachment 4). 9. Following the site visit, an iterative interagency process for the development of the DMMP was started, which resulted in the maximization of estimated marsh creation under the advisement of the agencies and the minimization/avoidance of adverse environmental impacts. These efforts are detailed in the DMMP & Sediment Suitability Analysis (Appendix J of the DEIS). 10. The Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) (DEIS Appendix C) for the beneficial use of dredged material and 3.0 acres of total adverse wetland impact were conducted by USFWS and the Corps. 11. The following consultations were initiated: Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment (DEIS Appendix G) with NMFS, Biological Assessment (DEIS Appendix B) with USFWS, and 404(b)1 Clean Water Act Evaluation (DEIS Appendix F) with the Corps. The EFH Assessment and the Biological Assessment were also provide to LDWF. The EFH Assessment consultation is currently only partially complete, with completion expected during the public review period of the DEIS once a detailed review of the report is provided by NMFS. Upon receipt of the review, the EFH Assessment will incorporate all of the input from NMFS. 12. USFWS has provided a preliminary Coordination Act Report (CAR) (DEIS Appendix C). The recommendations of the current CAR were incorporated in the DMMP and the Monitoring Plan with Adaptive Management (DEIS Appendix C). 13. A Notice of Availability is being finalized in coordination with the Corps, which will be published in the Federal Register. 14. A public meeting for the presentation of the DEIS to the public will be conducted to receive comments and conclude the scoping process, the date of which will be made available to the public upon finalization. Provided in Attachment 5 is a Public Engagement Record of scoping efforts carried out by the non-federal interest.
2.0 PROJECT SCOPING PROCESS
The scoping process for the proposed project was designed to provide an early and open process to determine the scope of issues (problems, needs, and opportunities) to be identified and addressed in the DEIS. Beginning in June of 2016, a series of internal project team scoping meetings were initiated, and led to a kick off meeting with the Corps (MVN) on July 11, 2016. Records of these early scoping efforts are provided the in Attachments of this report. A Notice of Intent to prepare the DEIS and a Public Notice for the scoping meeting were published by the Corps (MVN) in the Federal Register on November 23, 2016, and December 22, 2016, respectively (see Attachments to this report). Additionally, public notices were mailed to various entities including state, local and federal agencies on January 3, 2017.
3.0 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
The public scoping meeting was held on January 12, 2017, at the Mathews Government Complex in Mathews, Louisiana. Attendees were but were not limited to, private citizens, stakeholders, non-governmental organizations, and political representatives. An open house informational period prior to the meeting provided attendees an opportunity to visit a series of poster stations where project team members and subject matter experts discussed important aspects and answered questions of the attendees. Following the open house, a presentation was given by the project team manager, Dr. Mohan Menon. The presentation detailed the project background, NEPA EIS requirements and processes, environmental issues identified for DEIS analyses, proposed project alternatives, and the forecasted project schedule. Attendees were then invited to provide their comments to the meeting participants from the podium. The floor remained open until all comments were received. The size of the audience eliminated the need for small group sessions. During the closing comments, attendees were asked to pick up self-mailing comment cards, should they wish to submit additional comments at a later date. Attendees were requested to send their comments to the responsible project managers by e-mail or mail. The open public comment period ended on April 15, 2017. A list of comments from the scoping meeting is provided in Attachment 1. Transcripts of the scoping meeting presentation and discussions were prepared by court reporters (Attachment 3).
The primary comments received are categorized below. 1. Beneficial use/ placement of dredged material 2. Economic diversification and job creation 3. Impact on endangered species of flora and fauna 4. Impact of changes to drainage patterns, including dredging
3.1 MEETING COMMENTS
Public comments from the scoping meeting are categorized according to the following project subject areas:
1. Purpose and Need 2. Alternatives 3. Affected Environment 4. Environmental Consequences 5. Consultation, Coordination, and Compliance with Regulations
Representative public comments are describe below.
Purpose and Need
Of the ten comments received, half of them were in regards to the purpose and needs of the project. The most frequent need expressed in the comments were economic diversification and job creation. Lafourche Parish President, James Cantrelle, provided, “First of all, I want to say this is a great plan, great project, and we desperately need all the work we can get because our economy is real bad here. As everybody knows, the oil industry is down. Whatever it brings, whatever jobs it brings, it will be a plus for this area.”
Alternatives
Two of the comments received addressed alternatives or factors to consider when carrying out the project. These comments ask the team to consider the time of year that the project is to be carried out. The time of year that construction of the project begins is important because it has the potential to disturb the habitats and/or breeding habits of local wildlife. A letter received from Dave Butler, Permits Coordinator of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, stated the following: “To minimize disturbance to colonial nesting birds, the following restrictions on activity should be observed: For colonies containing nesting wading birds (i.e., herons, egrets, night-herons, ibis, roseate spoonbills, anhingas, and/or cormorants), all project activity occurring within 300 meters of an activity nesting colony should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 1 through February 15).”
Affected Environment
Five out of the ten comments received expressed concern about the environment that will be affected by the project. The major concern dealing with the affected environment is the fate of the material dredged from the channels of Port Fourchon. Other comments submitted expressed concern about how the project will affect the local plant and animal species and their habitats. Tyler Ortego of Estuaries provided the following at the scoping meeting: “The first point I want to make is that it would be an absolute travesty if even ten percent of 34 million cubic yards 8 got dumped offshore, so there's a lot of work to be done to make sure that things will get railroaded through the federal processes, you know, just to smooth, to get to the end and lose all that.”
Environmental Consequences
Of the ten comments received, four of them address environmental consequences. Comments under this section expressed concern about the projects potential impacts to the areas natural resources. Joseph A. Ranson, Field Supervisor at the Louisiana Ecological Services Office, provided input on potential consequences on local Charadrius wilsonia populations stating, “Our database indicates an occurrence of Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonia) in your project area. This species holds a state rank of S1S3B, 53N and is considered critically imperiled to rare in Louisiana. This species is found year round in Louisiana, breeding along the Gulf coast and wintering in southwest Louisiana. This colonial nester has a breeding season that begins in early April and extends into August, and is and is commonly found on beaches, sand flats, and fresh dredged-material. Threats to Wilson’s plover include habitat loss/degradation due to coastal development, beach stabilization and re-nourishment, sediment diversion, disturbance by humans, environment contaminants, and un-naturally high populations of predators. We recommend that you take the necessary precautions to protect the breeding/wintering habitat of this species. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call Louisiana Natural Heritage Program at (225)-763- 3554.”
Consultation, Coordination, and Compliance with Regulations
Six of the ten comments submitted address consultation, coordination, and compliance with regulations. Joseph A. Ranson also provided that the project requires multiple regulatory actions, and offers the potential for coordination between the project team and the USFWS. Dave Butler from LDWF provided that consideration of the endangered and threatened species that inhabit the project area is important for project analyses and development; and informed the audience that LDWF offers project consultation and coordination to help avoid adverse impacts to these species.
Table A-1 provides responses to relevant environmental concerns and scoping comments.
Table A-1. Resolution Response to Public and Agency Comments Comment Commentator Response 1 Local need for James Cantrelle, The proposed project is expected to economic Lafourche Parish contribute to economic diversification and diversification and job President job creation creation 2 No infringement upon Cleve Hardman, Director Does not occur within Project Area project boundaries of of Outdoor Recreation - LWCF Projects (#22- Office of State Parks 00178, #22-00772) for Dept. of Culture, any purpose other than Recreation & Tourism public outdoor recreation - Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act
3 (1) Separate EFH & Virginia Fay, Assistant (1) & Included in EFH Assessment (DEIS Marine Fisheries Regional Administrator - Appendix G); summarized in DEIS Resources analyses, NMFS Habitat Chapters 3 & 4 (2) strong beneficial Conservation Division (2) All project dredged material is designed use support, (3) to be used beneficially for marsh creation adverse EFH impacts and shoreline nourishment (Appendix J) result from dredge (3) The proposed marsh creation and placement exceedance shoreline nourishment placement areas of intertidal elevations were chosen based on a minimum water depth criteria of 3 feet. Therefore, it is unlikely that dredged material placement would exceed intertidal elevations 4 Federal & State Joseph Ranson, Field Consultation required under the ESA was environmental Supervisor – NMFS LA carried out with USFWS; agency input has compliance included in Ecological Services been incorporated in the DMMP (DEIS comment letter, Office Appendix J) and the Monitoring Plan with Endangered Species Adaptive Management (DEIS Appendix C). Act (ESA) Dredging activities are advised in Appendix C section 5.4 and Tables J-6 and J-7 to avoid seasonal sensitivity of threatened or endangered species. To avoid impacts to piping plover, the alternative placement area for barrier headland nourishment was removed from the DMMP 5 (1) Strong support of Dave Butler, LDWF (1) Same as response 3(2) beneficial use (2) Permits Coordinator (2) Same as response 4 Avoidance of avian and turtle nesting colonies 6 Southwest Pass Bird Karen Westphal & Timmy This project area is not located within close Island Creation, Vincent – National enough distance of the proposed project Vermillion Parish, LA Audubon Society – area to utilize for the beneficial use of Audubon LA dredged material placement 7 Invite Advisory Chris Daniel, Program The DEIS will be sent to AHCP for review Council on Historic Analyst – ACHP during the public review period Preservation (AHCP) after adverse impact determinations 8 Dredging & Sea NMFS/LDWF Same as response 4 Turtles 8 Gulf Hypoxic Zone General Project influence on the Gulf Hypoxic Zone are not likely due to the high flushing rates of the hydrodynamic regime of the federal channels Bayou Lafourche and Belle Pass, and modeled project impacts indicate little vertical stratification in the water column of the project area. This is detailed in full in the DEIS Appendix G section 8.1.2 10 Saltwater intrusion General Modeling indicated waters in the aquatic system are currently, and will remain, relatively saline (> 25 ppt). This is detailed in various sections of the DEIS Appendices F and G, as well as Chapters 3 and 4
11 Environmental agency NMFS NMFS provided the locations of the all project overlap with completed or funded projects within the sediment Placement project area. The DMMP was developed to Areas include no overlap of these projects (DEIS Appendix J section 4.3) 12 Longshore sediment USFWS To predict the direction and magnitude of transport longshore transport along the headlands, the regional longshore transport rates derived from historical records of shoreline erosion were studied. The boundaries of the shoreline nourishment areas proposed for enlargement were determined based on the predicted movement of dredged material proposed for placement in these areas. Predictions were estimated using the Corps Sediment Mobility Tool (SMT). Sediments placed in these areas during maintenance dredging events would allow for the regular replenishment of sediments back into the littoral system, available for cross shore and longshore sediment transport to the headlands; and are not expected to negatively impact existing conditions (DEIS Appendix J)
$77$&+0(17
6FRSLQJ3ULRUWR 3XEOLF6RSLQJ0HHWLQJ SECTION 203 INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY STUDY PORT FOURCHON CHANNEL DEEPENING PMO TEAM MEETING NO. 1 with Tour of Port Fourchon HOUMA, LA, JUNE 28 – 29, 2016
Agenda TUESDAY, June 28, 2016
I. INTRODUCTION 8:30 am ¾ Welcome- Oneil P. Malbrough, GIS ¾ Introduction of Team Members, Roles, Background – Team Members ¾ Port Fourchon Master Plan Presentation—Dustin M. Malbrough, GIS o Port Fourchon is an offshore import facility where pipes are fed into the port, that manages the Golden Meadow Airport ¾ Purpose of Study - Dustin Malbrough, GIS o The alternative analysis will determine how deep to dredge beyond the turning basis, and how far inland to deepen o Dredge material from the Port’s future deepen can be used to restore and sustain the existing CWPPRA/CPRA Caminada Headlands $150M project. ¾ SMART Planning – Lucien Cutrera, GIS
II. PROJECT- SECTION 203 INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY STUDY PORT FOURCHON CHANNEL DEEPENING ¾ SMART Planning Processes- Lucien Cutrera, GIS 10:00 am ¾ Scope o The Corps will be silent partners in milestone meetings. There is no funding for Corps coordination with Economics, but there is budget for Corps Environmental o 203 should be a decision-based study, not an alternative-based study o The Corps is federally obligated to aid with NEPA compliance o IEPR – Pate (Rachel) will be performing, though not yet assigned o GIS is developing the Vertical team, set up independent of the Corps. The decision and strategy of this team will be explained to the Civil Works review board o Work-in-Kind - $1.5M ¾ Schedule o GIS plans to meet with the ASA on a regular basis in order to keep them up-to-date with the progress of this project. ¾ Deliverables/Milestones
III. SECTION 203: -Dave Bastian 10:45 am ¾ Overview—ER 165-2-209, ER 1165-2-100, etc. o Helping streamline in the eyes of the Corps, explaining the engineering model and the certified model o CDEP Modeling, need to receive permission to use the USACE Model (Corps, Dredging, Excavation Program) o Can/should Section 6009 Cost savings be applied/used? – SAFETEA – Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act – Authorizes the Federal surface transportation program for highways… ¾ PMP Organization and Structure o Sponsor Conducted study 203 process was amended in 2014, transportation savings have to exceed project costs o The 203 PF FS Project group was selected when the Secretary gave the green light for the project ¾ Milestones ¾ Management Plans ¾ Optimizing Efficiency, Shortcuts o 1) Start Now o 2) Don’t reinvent the Wheel o 3) Use Previous Studies (Brazos Island, Alaska Deep Oil Services) o 4) Be concise and on point o Washington Report – Tips for Success: o Goal: Project Authorization; Process – Legislative; o Bring home the bacon- Appropriation o Decision Documents: There are many types, the key is to focus on the project authorization. The EA/EIS is not a decision document o Audience/Reviewers: NO District, IEPR, Division, Sponsor, HQ, ASA, Congress o Write the report for HQ, the agent of ASA o Reviews: Technical Policy EC1105-2-410; Guidance: ER 100 App.E, ER 100 App. G7 o Value Added: Does the verbiage add value? Focus the figures by focusing the reviewer with the title. o Feasibility Report = Has 8 different Sections of Subject Matter o Risk Register (RR) – 2 Attributes: 1) Likelyhood of occurrence 2) Degree of consequence o Charles Eccleston – NEPA Guru – Pike Syndrome ¾ Questions, Discussion
LUNCH Break
IV. GIS TEAM MEMBERS- Dustin M. Malbrough, GIS 1:00 pm ¾ Management and Oversight ¾ Scope, Schedule, Deliverables, Quality, Communication by Team Members o David Bastian o Jesse MacDonald o Mona Nasari o Jill Yakubik o Mike Foley
V. FEASIBILITY REPORT- Mohan Menon, GIS 3:30 pm ¾ Report Structure ¾ Coordination with the USACE ¾ Administrative Records, etc. ¾ Risk Register Approach and Methodology ¾ General Discussion of Alternatives Adjourn SECTION 203 INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY STUDY PORT FOURCHON CHANNEL DEEPENING PMO TEAM MEETING NO. 1 with Tour of Port Fourchon HOUMA, LA, JUNE 28 – 29, 2016
Agenda (Cont’d)
WEDNESDAY, June 29, 2016
VI. ECONOMICS -Jesse McDonald 9:00 am ¾ Discussion o Port Fourchon is currently at a depth of 24’ o The port repairs the supply vessels not the rigs themselves o “Our grandfather’s channels are not sufficient for today’s maritime needs”-OPM o 2017 BOEM EIS will be tracking the leases and owners to protect future industry o Estimate of $600M to expand and elevate Hwy 1 from Leeville to Golden Meadow o LNG Vessels will be included in the economic evaluation, not container vessels o Questionnaire: OMB wants to be involved when greater than 10 people are included, looking for a waiver from past studies
VII. UPCOMING MEETING with USACE –Dustin M. Malbrough, GIS 10:15 am ¾ Draft Agenda ¾ Coordination and Communication
VIII. CASE STUDIES AND EXAMPLES- TEAM 11:00 am ¾ Previous Port Fourchon IFR-EIS ¾ Brazos Deep Draft ¾ Alaska Deep Draft ¾ Houma Navigation Canal (integrated under new rules) ¾ Oakland Harbor ¾ Miami Harbor
IX TO PORT FOURCHON-Dustin M. Malbrough, GIS 1:00 pm ¾ Departure from Houma
Adjourn Greater Lafourche Port Commission Port Fourchon Section 203 Integrated Feasibility Study
Kick Off Meeting with USACE-NOD- Meeting Summary Notes July 11, 2016 10:30 AM-12:30 PM
I. Safety Topic
Mohan Menon, GIS gave a brief description of heat exhaustion and heat related safety tips, such as hydration and regular rest periods during work outside. Oneil Malbrough stated that people with blood pressure get affected sooner compared to people without blood pressure.
II. Introductions Following participants gave their introductions:
Mohan Menon GIS Lu Cutrera GIS Phil Bangert Port Fourchon Sarah Bradley USACE Sean Mickal USACE Chett Chiasson Port Fourchon Dustin Malbrough GIS Oneil Malbrough GIS Brad Inman USACE
III. Agenda
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Chett and Sarah discussed the status of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Port and the USACE. The MOA is in the process of getting executed. Sarah stated that the after the execution of the MOA, “Support Documents” (DOD Form) will be prepared to include task orders and will be executed at the District level.
Chett will contact Mark to initiate engagement with Col. Clancy.
1. Project Delivery Team- Organizational Chart (Attached) Dustin Malbrough distributed the GIS Team (PDT) organizational chart and explained how various components are organized to develop the feasibility report and Environmental Impact Statement.
www.gisy.co
Putting People First Since 1948 www.gisy.com Organization chart shows Sarah Bradley and Sean Mickal as USACE participants in the study. His name is now on the org chart as are the colonel and Mr. Wingate.
Oneil briefly discussed the strategy and approach adopted by the Team, specifically the economics study. WRDA Regulation 6009 was briefly mentioned and the benefit- cost analysis will showcase the ratio both ways, with and without 6009 benefits.
Oneil discussed the importance of generating primary economic data from the Port Tenants by conducting effective interviews with them. This will include both group meetings and individual meetings with the tenants.
Oneil, by quoting Dave Bastian, emphasized the importance of “bullet proofing” the report. Sean agreed and stated that it is important that the report and EIS should be bullet proofed.
2. GIS PMP Lu Cutrera explained the SMART Planning steps and how the planning components align with the traditional six step process. Lu also explained USACE’s tasks and their alignment with GIS Team’s tasks, activities, and schedule. Mohan Menon briefly explained the structure of PMP that GIS is developing. Sean Mickal asked if GIS has looked at the latest USACE PMP template that is associated with SMART Planning. Mohan responded that the current PMP is inclusive of the SMART planning components. Sean asked for the draft PMP that GIS is working on.
3. USACE PMP Sean presented USACE PMP (draft). According to Sean, USACE may not be responsible for coordinating and obtaining the USFWS Coordination Report (CAR) and the NOAA Fisheries EFH Assessment Report. Mohan Menon and Dustin Malbrough cited that ER 1165-2-209 regulations state otherwise (Section 7) and the letter from the HQ mentions these task items to be provided by USACE. Chett and Phil will contact USACE HQ to get clarification on this matter. Once clarity is obtained, USACE will revise their PMP accordingly.
4. Miscellaneous a. Approved/Certified Models and their availability i. Beach-fx 1.0 ii. HarborSym iii. HEC-FDA: Flood Damage Reduction Analysis Software 1.4 iv. IWR Planning Suite 1.0.11.0 v. IWR Planning Suite 2.0.6 vi. Ohio River Navigation Investment Model (ORNIM) vii. Regional Economic System (RECONS) viii. Section 902 Analysis Tool ix. Unit Day Value Tool
Oneil started the discussion by asking the question, “What is a Model”.
As per USACE, approved models are not required for the non-federal sponsor studies. However, using approved and certified models will enhance the credibility of the study components. Brad Inman mentioned that certifying any models through USACE process will be adifficult mission. Therefore, it will be advantageous to use certified models. However, according to Inman, some of the models are
2 proprietary in nature and will not be available for use. Mohan Menon asked if some of these models are in the public domain and obtain these models though a FOIA requests. Sarah Bradley replied that she would enquire about this and get back to us. In some cases, as per Ms. Bradley, some of the models could be purchased if they are not very costly. GIS team asserted that the team leaders are capable of developing appropriate models that could stand the scrutiny if some these models are not obtained from USACE.
b. Procedures for certification of any models and excel calculation sheets that GIS Team develop
GSI asked about the procedures of certification and Sarah agreed to get the information on this.
Action Items
1. Send Sarah and Sean an electronic copy of Port Fourchon Master Plan w/ Appendices.
2. Send Sarah and Sean draft GIS PMP.
3. Phil Bangert is to contact HQ to confirm that MVN, as the lead federal agency, is required to consult and coordinate with State and Federal agencies in accordance with ER 1165-2-209 relative to the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and National Historic Preservation Act as well as NEPA and Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. 4. Chett and Phil will contact Mark to engage Col. Clancy.
5. Send Sarah and Sean updated copies of milestone chart w/IEPR Charrette columns shown.
6. Include cumulative effects of all permits listed in prior plans during the feasibility Study/EIS analysis.
7. Use “Non-federal Interest” instead of Sponsor.
8. Set up presentation re: PORT FOURCHON for the Colonel. Include/engage Mark Wingate in correspondence. Chett to take the lead on this.
9. Be sure to include section in IFR relative to coordinating use of dredged material as beneficial use material for State Master Plan for the Coast projects (ex. Caminada Pass maintenance in five years)
10. MVN draft PMP presented to GLPC and GIS for review and comment.
11. Sarah and Sean to respond to GIS questions regarding certified model(s) availability and the procedures to obtain certification.
3
$77$&+0(17
1RWLFHRI,QWHQW 84562 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Notices
Dated: November 17, 2016. received by the Air Force within the DFO will review all timely submissions Todd A. Stevenson, period for timely objections, will be with the BoV Chairman and ensure they Secretary, Consumer Product Safety treated as an objection and may be are provided to members of the BoV Commission. considered as an alternative to the before the meeting that is the subject of [FR Doc. 2016–28172 Filed 11–22–16; 8:45 am] proposed license. this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the BILLING CODE 6355–01–P Henry Williams, BoV Chairman and DFO deem Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. appropriate, they may choose to invite DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE the submitter of the written comments [FR Doc. 2016–28202 Filed 11–22–16; 8:45 am] to orally present the issue during an Department of the Air Force BILLING CODE 5001–10–P open portion of the BoV meeting that is the subject of this notice. Members of Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE the BoV may also petition the Chairman Exclusive Patent License to allow specific personnel to make oral presentations before the BoV. In AGENCY: Air Force Materiel Command. Department of the Air Force accordance with 41 CFR Section 102– ACTION: Notice of intent. Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force 3.140(d), any oral presentations before SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act Academy Notice of Meeting the BoV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to and implementing regulations, the AGENCY: U.S. Air Force Academy Board a written invitation and this paragraph. Department of the Air Force hereby of Visitors, Department of Defense. Direct questioning of BoV members or gives notice of its intent to grant a ACTION: Meeting notice. partially exclusive (exclusive with meeting participants by the public is not respect to the field of fluid separation SUMMARY: In accordance with 10 U.S.C. permitted except with the approval of and filtration) patent license agreement Section 9355, the U.S. Air Force the DFO and Chairman. For the benefit to InfiniPure LLC., a corporation of the Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors of the public, rosters that list the names State of Ohio, having a place of business (BoV) will hold a meeting on the Senate of BoV members and any releasable at 714 Monument Ave, Dayton, OH Side, Capitol Visitor Center, Room 212– materials presented during the open 45402. 10, Washington, DC on Thursday, portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request. DATES: December 8, 2016. The meeting will Written objections must be filed Contact Information: For additional no later than fifteen (15) calendar days begin at 0830 and conclude at 1515. The purpose of this meeting is to review information or to attend this BoV after the date of publication of this meeting, contact Major James Kuchta, Notice. morale and discipline, social climate, curriculum, instruction, infrastructure, Accessions and Training Division, AF/ ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to fiscal affairs, academic methods, A1PT, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, the Air Force Materiel Command Law strategic communication, and other Washington, DC 20330, (703) 695–4066, Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, matters relating to the Academy. [email protected]. Room 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH Specific topics for this meeting include Henry Williams, 45433–7109; Facsimile: (937) 255–3733; a Superintendent’s Update; Dean’s or Email: [email protected]. Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Update; Athletic Department Update; Officer. Include Docket No. ARQ–161114B–PL BoV update. Public attendance at this in the subject line of the message. [FR Doc. 2016–28201 Filed 11–22–16; 8:45 am] USAFA BoV meeting shall be BILLING CODE 5001–10–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Air accommodated on a first-come, first- Force Materiel Command Law Office, served basis up to the reasonable and AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm 260, safe capacity of the meeting room. In DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433–7109; addition, any member of the public Facsimile: (937) 255–3733; Email: wishing to provide input to the USAFA Department of the Army; Corps of [email protected]. BoV should submit a written statement Engineers SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The in accordance with 41 CFR Section 102– Department of the Air Force intends to 3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Intent To Prepare a Draft grant the partially exclusive patent Federal Advisory Committee Act and Environmental Impact Statement for license agreement for the invention the procedures described in this Modification of the Bayou Lafourche described in: paragraph. Written statements must and Lafourche-Jump Waterway, address the following details: The issue, Louisiana, Navigation Channel Project U.S. Patent No. 8,293,107, entitled, ‘‘Fibers in Lafourche Parish With Axial Capillary Slit That Enhances discussion, and a recommended course Adsorption, Absorption and Separation,’’ of action. Supporting documentation AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, filed 11 January 2010, and issued 23 October may also be included as needed to Department of the Army, DOD. 2012. establish the appropriate historical ACTION: Notice of intent. context and provide any necessary Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404. background information. Written SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of The Department of the Air Force may statements can be submitted to the Engineers (Corps), New Orleans District grant the prospective license unless a Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the will be the lead agency for a draft timely objection is received that Air Force address detailed below at any Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), sufficiently shows the grant of the time. However, if a written statement is to be integrated with a Feasibility license would be inconsistent with the not received at least 10 calendar days Report (FR), for the Bayou Lafourche Bayh-Dole Act or implementing before the first day of the meeting which and Lafourche-Jump Waterway, regulations. A competing application for is the subject of this notice, then it may Louisiana Project, in Lafourche Parish. a patent license agreement, completed not be provided to or considered by the The FR and DEIS will investigate in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and BoV until its next open meeting. The channel modification to the Bayou
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Nov 22, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM 23NON1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Notices 84563
Lafourche Waterway up to as much as economic and environmentally feasible way; and determination of Coastal Zone 50 feet deep. The integrated document depth and extend the main access Management Act consistency. The DEIS will be prepared by the Greater channel to the natural contour of the will be distributed for review to all Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC). Gulf of Mexico at the optimum depth. interested agencies, organizations, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The project would include the individuals. Questions about the project and the construction of a turning basin or wider 8. Estimated Date of Availability. It is DEIS should be addressed to: Mr. Sean slip(s) within the port complex to estimated that this DEIS will be Mickal, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, accommodate larger vessels. The action available to the public in November Regional Planning and Environment is being proposed to provide adequate 2017. At least one public meeting will Division South, Planning Branch, Room depth to accommodate deeper drafts of be held at that time, during which the 141, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, larger oil and gas exploration and public will be provided the opportunity LA 70118–3651, by email at service vessels plying the Gulf in deep to comment on the DEIS before it [email protected], or by waters; to provide depths required to becomes final. telephone at (504) 862–2319. move large oil and gas exploration and Dated: November 10, 2016. production rigs constructed and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Michael N. Clancy, fabricated at the port to open water; to 1. Authority. The DEIS is being Colonel, U.S. Army, District Commander. allow large oil and gas platforms to prepared by the GLPC under authority [FR Doc. 2016–28218 Filed 11–22–16; 8:45 am] move from the Gulf to Port Fourchon for granted by Section 203 of the Water repair and refurbishment; and to BILLING CODE 3720–35–P Resources Development Act (WRDA) of provide adequate depth for other 1986, as amended by Section 1014(b) of ongoing construction projects at the the Water Resources Reform and port. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014. 6. Significant Issues. The tentative list [Docket No.: ED–2016–ICCD–0100] 2. Proposed Action. The proposed of resources and issues, not exclusive, to action is to increase the controlling be evaluated in the DEIS includes tidal Agency Information Collection depth of the Bayou Lafourche Waterway wetlands, barrier shoreline habitat, Activities; Submission to the Office of federal navigation channel. Economic aquatic resources, wildlife resources, Management and Budget for Review analyses will be performed to determine essential fish habitat, water quality, air and Approval; Comment Request; the current and future needs for the quality, threatened and endangered Gainful Employment Disclosure channel by various draft vessels, and the species, recreational resources, and Template costs and benefits of maintaining cultural resources. Additional resources AGENCY: channels of various sizes. might include geological issues Federal Student Aid (FSA), 3. Alternatives. An array of (including dredging and stabilization of Department of Education (ED). alternatives will be analyzed and the fill areas) and impacts on visual ACTION: Notice. most feasible of the alternatives will be resources. Socioeconomic items to be recommended. Alternatives range from SUMMARY: In accordance with the evaluated in the DEIS include Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is the ‘No Action’ Alternative to enlarging navigation, business and industrial and extending the access channel to the proposing a revision of an existing activity, employment, land use, information collection. natural contour of the Gulf at property values, public/community DATES: Interested persons are invited to approximately -50 ft. Mean Lower Low facilities and services, tax revenues, submit comments on or before Water. The selected contour is to be population, community and regional December 23, 2016. optimized in the process of preparing growth, vehicular transportation, and the Integrated FR and DEIS. All feasible noise. ADDRESSES: To access and review all the and reasonable alternatives will be 7. Consultation, Coordination, and documents related to the information considered, including alternatives with Review. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife collection listed in this notice, please varying depths and lengths, for detailed Service (USFWS) will be assisting in the use http://www.regulations.gov by analysis. documentation of existing conditions searching the Docket ID number ED– 4. Scoping. Scoping is the process for and assessment of effects of project 2016–ICCD–0100. Comments submitted determining the scope of alternatives alternatives through Fish and Wildlife in response to this notice should be and significant issues to be addressed in Coordination Act consultation submitted electronically through the the DEIS. For this study, a letter will be procedures. The USFWS will also Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// sent to all parties believed to have an provide a Fish and Wildlife www.regulations.gov by selecting the interest in the study, requesting their Coordination Act report. Endangered Docket ID number or via postal mail, input on alternatives and issues to be Species Act, Section 7 consultation, will commercial delivery, or hand delivery. evaluated. The letter will also notify also be conducted in close coordination Please note that comments submitted by interested parties of a public scoping with the USFWS and the National fax or email and those submitted after meeting that will be held in the local Marine Fisheries Service concerning the comment period will not be area. Notices will also be sent to local threatened and endangered species. accepted. Written requests for news media. All interested parties are Consultation will also be done with the information or comments submitted by invited to comment at this time, and State Historic Preservation Office and postal mail or delivery should be anyone interested in this study should federally recognized Indian Tribes. The addressed to the Director of the request to be included in the study proposed action will involve evaluation Information Collection Clearance mailing list. A public scoping meeting for compliance with guidelines Division, U.S. Department of Education, or meetings will be announced in the established by Section 404(b) of the 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room near future. Clean Water Act; application (to the 2E–347, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 5. Purpose of and Need for the State of Louisiana) for Water Quality FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Project. The project will enlarge the Certification pursuant to Section 401 of specific questions related to collection existing authorized channel at Port the Clean Water Act; certification of activities, please contact Beth Fourchon, Louisiana, to an engineering, state lands, easements, and rights of Grebeldinger, 202–377–4018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:04 Nov 22, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM 23NON1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES $77$&+0(17
6FRSLQJ0HHWLQJ5HFRUGV 3XEOLF1RWLFH /LVWRI6FRSLQJ0HHWLQJ&RPPHQWV &RXUW5HSRUWHU7UDQVFULSW 2WKHU&RPPHQWVDQG/HWWHUV Public Notice- Scoping Meeting Public Notice Date: December 22, 2016 ______SUBJECT: Notice of Scoping Meeting for the Port Fourchon Channel Deepening Project. This notice is to inform interested parties of the opening of scoping and to solicit comments on the proposed project. On November 2016 a Notice of Intent to prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register (Vol.81, No.226/Wednesday, November 23, 2016/Notices)), which can be found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/23/2016- 28218/intent-to-prepare-a-draft-environmental-impact-statement-for-modification-of-the-bayou-lafourche-and AUTHORITY: The proposed integrated feasibility study and DEIS is being conducted under the authority of Section 203 of Water Resources Development Act 1986 and as modified by Section 1014, WRRDA 2014. LOCATION: The proposed project is located on the southern tip of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, at the confluence of Bayou Lafourche and Gulf of Mexico. Port Fourchon is a short distance off Louisiana Highway 1 (LA 1), the road to Grand Isle, via Louisiana Highway 3090. Please refer to the attached map (Figure 1). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed activity is to deepen/enlarge the existing authorized channel at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, to an engineering, economic, and environmentally feasible depth and to extend the main access channel to the natural contour of the Gulf of Mexico at that optimum depth. The action is being taken to provide adequate depth to accommodate deeper drafts of larger oil and gas exploration and service vessels plying the Gulf in deep and ultra-deep waters; to provide depths required to move large oil and gas exploration and production rigs constructed and fabricated at the port to open water; to allow large oil and gas platforms to move from the Gulf to Port Fourchon for repair and refurbishment; and to provide adequate depth for other ongoing construction projects at the port. Alternatives range from the ‘No Action’ alternative to deepening and extending the access channel to the natural contour of the Gulf. The selected contour is to be optimized in the process of preparing an Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). All feasible and reasonable alternatives will be considered including alternatives with varying depths and lengths for detailed analysis. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING(S): The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC) will conduct public scoping meetings(s) as follows: Mathews Government Complex 4876 Hwy 1, Mathews, Louisiana 70375 Phone 985-537-7603 January 12, 2017; 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm.
1 The GLPC invites full public participation to promote open communication on the issues to be addressed in preparation of the DEIS regarding the proposed action. All Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies, and other interested persons or organizations are urged to participate in the NEPA scoping process. Scoping meetings are conducted to inform interested parties of the proposed project, receive public input on the development of proposed alternatives to be reviewed in the DEIS, and identify significant issues to be analyzed. Evaluation Factors: The DEIS will analyze the potential social, economic, physical, and biological impacts to the affected areas. Numerous issues will be analyzed in-depth in the EIS. These issues include, but are not limited to the following: the channel deepening, widening, and extension; placement of dredged material beneficially to create wetland habitat. The additional issues to be analyzed are the project’s effects upon the regional community and economy, cultural resources, air quality, socioeconomics, secondary and cumulative impacts, threatened and endangered species including critical habitat, hydrology and wetlands, and fish and wildlife. Lead and Cooperating Agencies: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be the lead agency for the DEIS. Agencies that will be invited to assist in preparation of the DEIS are: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service (USFWS), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and Tribal entities.
Other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements: Other environmental review and consultation requirements include US Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation, and the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment as per Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The non-federal entity (NFE) preparing the study and DEIS is the Greater Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC), Attn: Chett Chiasson, Executive Director, 16829 East Main Street, Galliano, LA 70354; [email protected]; 985-632-6701. For additional information regarding the proposed project, please contact the NFE. For additional information regarding the DEIS process (including scoping) please contact Mr. Sean Mickal, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Planning and Environment Division South, Planning Branch, Room 141, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118. SUBMITTING COMMENTS: Scoping comments should be submitted to the address below by February 12, 2017 but may be submitted at any time prior to publication of the draft EIS and comments are welcomed throughout the duration of the study. Mohan Menon, Ph.D., PMP GIS Engineering, LLC Coastal Design and Infrastructure 2503 Petroleum Drive, Suite 110 Houma, Louisiana 70363 [email protected]
2 Figure 1. Location of Port Fourchon at the confluence of Bayou Lafourche and Gulf of Mexico, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.
3 List of Comments Public Scoping Meeting January 12, 2017
Attendee Comment John Lombardo I will introduce myself right now. I'm John Lombardo, the outreach coordinator for a coastal restoration nonprofit organization called Restore or Retreat. The Greater Lafourche Port Commission has been a supporter of Restore or Retreat since our beginning in 2000, but their engagement in environmental issues predates our work together. The port, as well as their tenants and adjacent landowners, have been able to balance the environment with the economy, and this project will also allow for the greatest opportunity for that balance. As was mentioned in the PowerPoint, there's currently a draft coastal master plan out by the state available for comment, and there are several projects and opportunities with that plan that can greatly benefit from any available dredge material created from this project, thus creating a cost saving for the state and critical protection to LA 1 corridor and Golden Meadow to Larose levee systems. That concludes my comments. Thank y'all. James Cantrelle First of all, I want to say this is a great plan, great project, and we desperately need all the work we can get because our economy is real bad here. As everybody knows, the oil industry is down. Whatever it brings, whatever jobs it brings, it will be a plus for this area. We need to make sure that we get started yesterday because we deeply need the work for a lot of people in this area that's suffering because of an economical turn down. We'd appreciate if y'all expedite it and get it done as quickly as possible because whatever you would do would certainly be appreciated in Lafourche Parish and probably Terrebonne too. So, anyway, great, great, get started as soon as you can. Only thing, you need to dig the channel all the way to Mathews. Thank you very much. Tyler Ortego I'm Tyler Ortego, with ORA Estuaries. We work with oysters, which is not what I'm talking about today, but it would be an interesting angle there. The first point I want to make is that it would be an absolute travesty if even ten percent of 34 million cubic yards8 got dumped offshore, so there's a lot of work to be done to make sure that things will get railroaded through the federal processes, you know, just to smooth, to get to the end and lose all that. The second part is that ports are probably the most classic example of public/private partnerships. You have such a clear connection between economics and government action there, and I would like to propose that we take that a step further by bringing in the mitigation banking community into that to provide those Christopher Daniel This comment was submitted by Christopher Daniel, a program analyst for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Mr. Daniels simply as that the ACHP be notified if the project is expected to have any adverse impacts on LA SHIP, tribes, or other consulting parties. Virginia M. Fay This comment was submitted by Virginia M. Fay, the Assistant Regional Administrator of the Habitat Conservation Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NMFS HCD). The comment states that the project area serves as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) to a number of species that are an important of part of the areas “Marine Fishery Resources. NMFS HCD also recommends that any dredged material should be used for marsh nourishment/creation. The comment closes by advocating for cooperation between the NMFS HCD and the Greater Lafourche Port Commission to address impacts caused by this project.
1
1
2
3
4
5 Greater Lafourche Port Commission Modification of the Bayou Lafourche and 6 Lafourche Jump Waterway, Louisiana, Navigation Channel Project in Lafourche Parish 7
8 SCOPING MEETING
9
10
11
12
13 Transcript of the proceedings taken at
14 the Mathews Government Complex, 4876 Highway 1,
15 Mathews, Louisiana, on Thursday, January 12th,
16 2017.
17
18 PRESENTATION BY:
19 CHETT CHIASSON MOHAN MENON 20
21
22
23
24 REPORTED BY: JOEY S. HENRY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER 25 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER 2
1 MR. CHIASSON:
2 Good afternoon again. My name is
3 Chett Chiasson. I'm the executive director for
4 the Greater Lafourche Port Commission. We would
5 like to thank all of you for being in attendance
6 for this public scoping meeting for future
7 development plans. We will go into a lot of
8 detail a little bit later. I just want to kind of
9 lay out some things to start this off a little
10 bit, then we will bring up Mohan, from Grand Isle
11 Shipyard, GIS Engineering, to kind of get into the
12 weeds of this thing.
13 I want to first thank Parish
14 President Cantrelle, Mr. Jimmy, for allowing us to
15 utilize his facility here. It's probably for some
16 a little bit easier to get here, for others maybe
17 a little far to get here, but it seems to be a
18 good central location for us to have this scoping
19 meeting, so thank you.
20 MR. CANTRELLE:
21 You're always welcome here, we love
22 you guys, so welcome.
23 MR. CHIASSON:
24 Thank you, Mr. Jimmy. What I wanted
25 to do was kind of start this off, introduce what 3
1 we're looking at. So this really all started with
2 the port commission. Before I forget, let me
3 recognize two of the port commissioners that are
4 here. Our secretary, Mr. Chucky Cheramie, is
5 here, and Rodney Gisclair, our newest member.
6 Thank y'all for being here. Y'all probably talked
7 to them a little bit earlier. I have to thank
8 them; they allow me to do this job every day. I
9 appreciate them for sure.
10 So this really started with a
11 thought many, many years ago but really culminated
12 into a master plan back in 2015 where we were
13 looking at what would the port look like, you
14 know, five, ten, 15, 20 years from now. So that's
15 why we're here today is because in our master plan
16 we identified this deepwater area of the port in
17 Belle Pass to be our future development. So what
18 we're looking at, and, again, we will go into more
19 detail, but we're looking at a deepwater draft
20 studying anywhere from 35 to 50 feet of water into
21 Belle Pass, so, basically, from the Gulf into
22 Belle Pass, to work on Fourchon Island right there
23 and maybe even on the west side of Belle Pass as
24 well. So we don't plan on, and, again, we will
25 go through some of this, but our idea is 4
1 Fourchon Island could be a deepwater draft port
2 facility, okay. The thought process is we're
3 looking to further enhance our current tenants'
4 capabilities in the rest of the port as well as
5 bring in any new tenants that we might could
6 provide other services, still focusing on the oil
7 and gas industry, obviously, and our big thing is
8 deepwater drilling rig repair and refurbishment.
9 That's the market that we're really looking at as
10 we studied this. There may be some others that
11 come into play, but that's really the focus and
12 the goal at this point is to try to attract that
13 business because, believe it or not, if you really
14 think about it, you would understand that the
15 state of Louisiana currently does not have any
16 port facility that can repair and refurbish
17 deepwater drilling rigs at a port dock facility.
18 We service it every day, but we can't support them
19 at a dock facility as far as the repair and
20 refurbishment of those deepwater drilling rigs.
21 That's kind of the market we're going into.
22 That's what we're looking at, as well as we've
23 identified an area on the west side of Belle Pass
24 right in here that could be possibly for small to
25 medium scale LNG-type projects, again, very small, 5
1 but what we're constantly focusing on and
2 understand is that whatever we do, whatever that
3 may be, whatever comes in, whatever we can
4 attract, whatever type of business we can attract,
5 we understand that the current tenants and the
6 business that's being serviced today is what made
7 us who we are as a Port Fourchon community, and we
8 need to make sure we protect that and that
9 anything we bring in does not negatively impact
10 the current operations in Port Fourchon. So I
11 think that's an important note to make is that we
12 are, we are cognizant of that. We understand that
13 we can't impact negatively the current users of
14 Port Fourchon and our tenants because we have a
15 really good relationship over, since 1960, and a
16 really tight relationship over the last 15, 20
17 years, and we want to make sure that relationship
18 stays good and we continue to all grow together.
19 I know we're in a down time right now, but it's
20 not going to last forever. We want to be ready to
21 service the industry into the future.
22 Some of the main points of this are
23 as well that, you know, when we talk about deeper
24 draft, we talk a lot about dredging because that's
25 what we need to do in order to get to that deeper 6
1 draft, and the other thing that's important for me
2 to mention as well is that as we talk about
3 dredging, it's going to generate an enormous
4 amount of clean, good material. We know as we do
5 every day in Port Fourchon that as we develop, we
6 generate good material, and we beneficially use
7 every speck of sand that we dredge in
8 Port Fourchon either for industrial development or
9 to create marsh to provide even larger buffers for
10 us into the future.
11 So where we are now is, as most of
12 you can see, as we develop Port Fourchon in our
13 northern expansion here, we dredge and we mitigate
14 for any damages, so to speak, that we create in
15 the open water area, and we build marshland. With
16 this acreage that we built, we've actually created
17 about a thousand acres, a little bit more than a
18 thousand acres, of marsh north of the port. That
19 same concept is going to be used as we move
20 forward and as we see what the feasibility of
21 these deeper drafts are.
22 And we're going to work well with
23 CPRA. We know, and we're very involved with the
24 coastal master plan, we know there's a lot of
25 marsh creation as part of that coastal master 7
1 plan. Some of this material could be used to
2 build back the coast. You know, we're trying to
3 put all of those pieces together, and over the
4 next couple of years as this report, feasibility
5 study, comes to fruition, that's what we will see
6 in it. I firmly believe that. So unless Mohan,
7 Dustin, Neil, y'all think I need to add anything
8 else, now it's time to get Mohan Menon up here
9 from GIS Engineering to continue the discussion.
10 Thank you, Mohan.
11 MR. MOHAN MENON:
12 Thank you. Good afternoon. I am
13 Mohan Menon, with GIS Engineering. I'm giving
14 this presentation on behalf of Port Fourchon for
15 Chett. This is a scoping meeting, so most of our
16 emphasis is going to be on environmental issues
17 and environmental matters.
18 So the title of the scoping meeting
19 presentation is Modification of Bayou Lafourche
20 Waterway, Louisiana, Navigation Channel. That is,
21 that title is from the existing federal project,
22 up road project, with minus 24 feet in the port
23 vicinity and going into the Gulf of Mexico with
24 minus 26 feet, so what we are trying to do is
25 doing a feasibility study to establish the need 8
1 and testify for deeper draft for the
2 Port Fourchon. We don't know what that draft is
3 going to be. That's what we are studying.
4 At this point we would like to
5 present this project to you, describe a little bit
6 of project aspects, some of the considerations
7 that we have right now and solicit some comments
8 from you. It is a mandatory requirement for NEPA,
9 which is the National Environmental Policy Act,
10 the scoping meeting, so with that, this slide
11 gives you the overview of the presentation. We
12 will discuss briefly the NEPA process and
13 requirements and then talk a little about the
14 purpose of the meeting, purpose of action and
15 overview, a little bit description about the
16 alternatives that we just considered, very
17 preliminary alternatives, environmental issues to
18 be assessed for the study, then environmental
19 benefits, as Chett mentioned, some of those
20 benefits will be discussed, what is the schedule
21 of the EIS -- we just started preparing the EIS --
22 when are we going to finish the draft EIS, when
23 are we going to finalize and submit the final EIS
24 to the authorities, and the most important thing,
25 how to comment on this project. It is very 9
1 important that we present this project to you and
2 we receive your comments, suggestions, concerns,
3 so that we can use that to frame this project in
4 terms of EIS, scope it up, make sure that all the
5 concerns and issues are addressed in our analysis
6 and study. So that is the intent of this meeting.
7 National Environmental Policy Act,
8 NEPA, this feasibility study by the port is done
9 by the authorization given to us from Section 203
10 of the Water Resources Development Act.
11 Section 203, usually the feasibility studies are
12 done by the Army Corps of Engineers, but
13 Section 203 allows private entities to conduct a
14 feasibility study and prepare the feasibility
15 study report and submit it to the Army, Department
16 of the Army, for approval. So we have the
17 authorization to conduct the study.
18 EIS is required for any major action
19 or project, whether it is federal or nonfederal.
20 In this particular situation, since we are doing
21 the feasibility study report, Army Corps of
22 Engineers, New Orleans district, is assisting us,
23 actually guiding us through the rules and
24 procedures that Army Corps of Engineers uses for
25 the study in general and for EIS in specific. 10
1 The first action that we need to do
2 to start the EIS is to publish a notice of intent
3 in the federal register. We have done that. It
4 was published on November 23rd. This is the
5 scoping meeting, the second in the procedure, as I
6 mentioned, to present the project to you and get
7 all comments and suggestions and direction. We
8 will use these comments and information that we
9 obtain from you all and then do specific studies
10 on issues that will be addressed. In a little bit
11 I will discuss that.
12 We will prepare a draft EIS. Once
13 the draft EIS is prepared, it will be circulated
14 for the public, and there will be a public review
15 period, so the public stakeholders, agencies, all
16 will get a chance to review the draft EIS and
17 comment on it. Once we get all the comments, we
18 will address them and then prepare the final EIS,
19 the feasibility study report, and we will send it
20 to the assistant secretary of the United States
21 Army for review and approval.
22 The final EIS actually culminates in
23 a document called a "Record of Decision." That
24 document is the approval permit for continuing
25 with or starting the construction. Generally, 11
1 when you start a project or an action, according
2 to NEPA, all of these actions fall into three
3 categories. There is a list called "Category
4 Exclusion." Some of the actions with very
5 negligible impact are listed, so if we propose an
6 action and if it is not there in that particular
7 list, it moves on to the second category, which is
8 Environmental Assessment, EA, which will ask again
9 whether there's significant impact or not by
10 implementing a particular action, and then if no,
11 then it goes to a documentation called "FONSI,"
12 Finding of No Significant Impact. That is the
13 permit for initiating the project. But if there
14 are potentials for significant impact, then,
15 naturally, EIS is triggered, Environmental Impact
16 Statement. That's where we are. We are in this
17 part.
18 I already talked about Notice of
19 Intent, which was published, we are doing the
20 scoping meeting right now, then the draft EIS and
21 the public review of this draft EIS followed by
22 final EIS, Record of Decision, Agency Action, and
23 so these are the three major categories of NEPA.
24 That's why we're doing the Environmental Impact
25 Statement, because there is the potential for some 12
1 impact, significant impacts.
2 There is a guide, A Citizen's Guide
3 to the NEPA, published by Council on Environmental
4 Quality. This body advises the president of the
5 United States. They have published this, and it's
6 available on the internet. Maybe reading this
7 particular publication is very useful for
8 everyone.
9 Basically, the purpose of the
10 meeting is actually to inform the public, federal,
11 state, local agencies, tribes, about this proposed
12 action and then provide an opportunity for public
13 involvement in the federal decision-making
14 process, making this process as transparent as
15 possible, then definitely collect information,
16 comments, your suggestions, for this particular
17 action so that we can define the scope of the EIS
18 and include all of the requirements and the
19 environmental hazards so that we can come up with
20 the best option to meet the objectives for the
21 port as well as mitigate for any unavoidable
22 impacts they may have from implementing this
23 project.
24 The proposed action here is actually
25 to increase the controlling depth of the 13
1 Bayou Lafourche Waterway Federal Navigation
2 Channel. As I said before, the controlling depth
3 right now is minus 24 in the port vicinity, and as
4 we go out into the Gulf of Mexico, it is minus 26.
5 That's the controlling depth right now. We are
6 looking into increasing that controlling depth for
7 the reasons that Chett just mentioned to you.
8 While doing this feasibility study
9 as per Section 203 of WRDA, we have to follow Army
10 Corps of Engineers' rules and procedures. We will
11 conduct detailed studies on environmental
12 engineering and economic aspects of the study.
13 The project authorization finally depends on a
14 positive benefit/cost ratio for the preferred
15 alternative.
16 Finally, the project is submitted to
17 the assistant secretary for approval. Once the
18 project is approved, it goes for Congressional
19 approval and appropriation. It is a very long
20 process, but there are procedures and rules and
21 analysis in detail so that we pick the best option
22 with less damage to the environment and the most
23 benefit, economically speaking, for the port.
24 Project vicinity, I think everybody
25 knows where Port Fourchon is. It is actually at 14
1 the tip of Lafourche Parish. Port Fourchon is at
2 the confluence of Bayou Lafourche and the Gulf of
3 Mexico. You can access the port by traveling on
4 LA 1. It's not far away from Grand Isle. You can
5 see Interstate 10, major towns in the vicinity,
6 Houma, Lafayette, Lake Charles, New Orleans,
7 etcetera.
8 This slide gives you a layout of the
9 port as we speak. It is characterized by some
10 numbers here. I will try to explain what it is.
11 One is the navigation channel, federal
12 navigation channel, from the confluence of
13 Bayou Lafourche and Flotation Canal all the way to
14 the mouth of Belle Pass, then it extends all the
15 way to the Gulf of Mexico. No. 2 is actually the
16 Jetty Reach, what we call "Jetty Reach," and then
17 there's the navigational canal. Flotation Canal
18 is on the north expansion area here, No. 4. Five
19 is the "E" slips -- that's the name of this set of
20 slips here -- and south of E slips is the
21 Pass Fourchon. Then here, Fourchon Island is the
22 proposed development for the future. Then 8,
23 mitigation area, this is the maritime ridge forest
24 that was created by the port. That's this
25 mitigation area. So, basically, that's the basic 15
1 component of the port and its basic layout.
2 Currently, this portion of the
3 navigation channel is authorized minus 24 and
4 minus 26 to the Gulf of Mexico. Maintenance is by
5 Army Corps of Engineers for the main navigation
6 channel. All the channels within the port
7 facility is maintained by the port right now.
8 So the opportunity, Chett just
9 talked about it, from the master plan, from other
10 information available out there, we understand how
11 important this is for the port. If you look at
12 these two graphics here, 1978, when the port was
13 established, and this is today, approximately
14 38 years of expansion, the difference is obvious
15 and drastic. If we provide infrastructure, which
16 includes a deeper channel to the port, probably we
17 can triplicate or duplicate this expansion which
18 already happened, so this deeper channel is for
19 port sustainability, also for the expanding oil
20 and gas industry, which is moving deeper and
21 deeper as we speak, and continued economic
22 benefits not only to the port and the region but
23 also to the nation.
24 Port Fourchon is strategically
25 located. If you look at all the other major ports 16
1 in support of the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
2 industry, I think it is strategically located in a
3 manner in which the major activities can reach
4 Port Fourchon faster than they can reach any other
5 port in the vicinity. That directly translates
6 into transportation possibilities. When you
7 combine that information with distribution of
8 active leases in the Gulf of Mexico, you can see
9 that 70 to 80 percent of active leases in that
10 industry, the business is captured by
11 Port Fourchon right now, and the leases are, the
12 deepwater leases are moving, there is a trend
13 towards the east, further east here, which is all
14 the more better for Port Fourchon. So this is the
15 opportunity. If you don't provide that right now,
16 we will be missing the train, so to speak.
17 So by looking at all these things,
18 we can see the need and the purpose of this study,
19 the feasibility study, which is to accommodate
20 deeper draft oil and gas exploration service
21 vessels, provide depths required to move large oil
22 and gas exploration drilling platforms, production
23 rigs, constructed and fabricated, allow large oil
24 and gas platforms to move from the Gulf to
25 Port Fourchon for repair and refurbishment. Also, 17
1 there a lot of activities going on and planned for
2 the future within the port, which would require
3 deeper draft. So this need and purpose, to
4 realize that, to reach the objective, we need to
5 look at some of the alternatives, one alternative
6 which will give us the direction so that we can
7 reach that purpose and need that the port has
8 already established.
9 By looking at that, at this time we
10 have conceived at least three alternatives. That
11 is not the end of it. We are going to further
12 look into other ways of getting that objective
13 realized, but at this time, just for your
14 information, we are looking at Alternative 1 as
15 No action, do nothing, just continue as such;
16 Alternative 2, to deepen the channel, Bayou
17 Lafourche Waterway Federal Navigation Channel, to
18 a minimum of 30, from 24 to 30, a difference of
19 six feet; Alternative 3, to deepen Bayou Lafourche
20 Waterway Federal Navigation Channel to as much as
21 50. Fifty is not a limit. We don't know whether
22 it's 50, 45, 35, so we don't know that. The
23 studies that we are doing, the data that we are
24 looking at will provide us with the information to
25 optimally decide which depth will help the port to 18
1 reach those needs and purposes. We are also
2 looking into an option of providing a deep loading
3 hole in the vicinity of the port so that with
4 that, probably we can get away with a lesser draft
5 channel for the port.
6 So these are the combinations that
7 we are looking at. So when you say Alternative 3,
8 it's a bunch of alternatives, alternatives and
9 certain options, combinations. By looking at it
10 and thinking about this, if we have any other
11 ideas, like in the beginning when we started this
12 project, we thought we would construct a four-lane
13 highway to a 50-foot contour in the Gulf of Mexico
14 so probably we don't have to dredge, or a
15 rail line like in China, they do, but that's not
16 feasible. So some of those alternatives are out
17 of the box but not pragmatic and practical, so we
18 decided to drop them, but it is our intent to make
19 sure that we capture all possible and practical
20 and which makes sense, those kind of alternatives
21 and bring into the study and analyze them. So if
22 you have any ideas on alternatives, you are
23 welcome to submit that to us.
24 So this is the same idea as
25 translated in the schematic, and, as I said 19
1 before, this is no action. Currently, this is how
2 the slips in the navigation channel looks like.
3 Alternative 2 is maybe inside the port minus 30,
4 that's the maximum we can have, the draft
5 conditions we can have inside the port, then all
6 the way to Gulf of Mexico with an option of a deep
7 loading hole. Alternative 3 is a portion of the
8 navigation channel to minus 35. That kind of
9 portrays the process. An incremental depth
10 analysis has to be done looking at how that will
11 benefit the port. That is how we are looking at
12 it right now. Probably, we will have more
13 alternatives, we don't know that, so this
14 combination, any of these combinations, somewhere
15 here or in the middle of this, we will finally
16 finalize a preferred alternative and look at it in
17 detail in terms of all other parameters.
18 MR. CHIASSON:
19 Can I say something?
20 MR. MENON:
21 Please.
22 MR. CHIASSON:
23 When you look at this slide, you can
24 see all of them have at least 30 feet in the
25 majority of the port. That's very purposeful, 20
1 okay. The majority of the northern expansion,
2 even the bulkheads built through Bayou Lafourche
3 for the most part can handle 30 feet draft with
4 the engineering dimensions and safety factors that
5 they have on them currently, and we know that if
6 we could provide 30 foot of draft, it would be
7 just better for logistics to be able to do that,
8 and most of the facilities currently in the port
9 can do even more than they can do today with just
10 a few extra feet.
11 When Mohan talked about a minus 24
12 and a minus 26 in the jetties but a minus 24 in
13 the rest of the port, that's what's authorized in
14 our permitting and what the Corps is authorized to
15 do, but if you look at our website and you look at
16 what our current drafts are at any given time,
17 they're deeper than 24 feet because what's
18 authorized is you have your authorized depth of
19 minus 24, but you have an overdraft, and that's in
20 order for maintenance concerns, you can overdraft.
21 Basically, because of all the traffic that we have
22 in the port, obviously a little less today than it
23 has been over the last couple of years, but,
24 still, with the activity in the port, it basically
25 stays maintained for the most part. Every so 21
1 often the Corps comes in, every three years or so
2 -- in fact, just last year you may remember if
3 you were in the port, you may remember a large
4 dredge from the Corps coming in and dredging the
5 port -- so we actually are on any given day a
6 little deeper than 24 feet, but that's just what
7 the authorized depths are as far as the permits
8 are concerned. Just wanted to make that clear.
9 MR. MENON:
10 Thank you. So the environmental
11 issues, we are going to look at various issues
12 that come under these headings. We will look at
13 all ecological resources in the area, the
14 vicinity, the region, land resources, air quality,
15 water quality, pollution prevention, health and
16 safety, socioeconomics, environmental justice,
17 Earth resources and others as warranted. As we go
18 through the study, we may identify some other
19 issues, and then we will analyze them in detail.
20 In the NEPA documentation, we
21 basically look at the existing conditions as a
22 baseline, and then we analyze these existing
23 conditions with the project on it so we will see
24 the difference. If there are significant impacts,
25 we will try to avoid them, reduce the impacts, and 22
1 then that will result in unavoidable impacts. So
2 in our design process, our alignments, we will try
3 to avoid, reduce as far as possible the impacts
4 caused by this project, then we will devise
5 mitigation measures as prescribed by the rules and
6 regulations. So we are just starting the process.
7 Through this commenting process, you can think
8 about all potential impacts that can be caused by
9 having a deeper draft in this region and let us
10 know. We are comparing the same information.
11 The environmental benefits, as we
12 just mentioned before, I'm giving some numbers
13 here of the potential dredge material quantities,
14 very preliminary, very preliminary. We can't
15 quote this number for any other reason, but we
16 needed to know the ranges, so we looked at the
17 existing information and cross sections for
18 various alternatives, and we came up with these
19 numbers. This can change. From construction,
20 Alternatives 2 and 3 is the range of 13 to
21 34 million cubic yards, then we add next to it
22 Alternative 1, which is no action, current
23 situation, which gives out approximately 725,000
24 cubic yards a year. Then if we have Alternative 2
25 in place, that is 2.5 million cubic yards for a 23
1 year and then 3 to 4.5 million cubic yards. This
2 includes the option of the deep loading hole in
3 the vicinity of the port. What that means is,
4 there is a lot of clean dredge material available.
5 As part of the EIS, we are also developing a
6 dredge material management plan. We will identify
7 potential areas for disposal -- I should not say
8 "disposal," I should "placement" -- of clean
9 dredge material. Primary, secondary and tertiary
10 areas will be delineated, scored, look at all
11 other parameters, salinity, hydrology, vegetation,
12 etcetera, and prioritize those areas and create
13 wetlands and marshes in sensitive areas. We also
14 are looking into federal, state and local
15 restoration projects that are available out there
16 through documentation and various plans and see
17 how we can marry these two things together.
18 There's availability of material, sediment, which
19 is a constraint in the master plan. Sediment is
20 a constraint, we don't have much of that, so how
21 beneficially can we use this material by joining
22 hands with agencies and looking at the restoration
23 plans and make those restoration plans
24 materialize.
25 Now, definitely this material can be 24
1 used to expand the already existing Port Fourchon
2 mitigation area in and around the port, but as a
3 requirement, we also need to look at open ocean
4 disposal far into the Gulf of Mexico. If you are
5 dredging material, there may be some cost
6 constraints to transport all that material into
7 the coast. We don't believe that. We are going
8 to use every grain of that sediment beneficially.
9 That's the intent of the port, but as an option,
10 we need to look at open ocean disposal too.
11 Now, some examples, CPRA/CWPPRA
12 projects, West Bell Pass Barrier Headland
13 Restoration, West Fourchon Marsh Creation
14 Management, Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh
15 Creation, Caminada Headland Beach and Dune
16 Restoration, Phase 1 and Phase 2, and there are
17 other projects devised in the federal level from
18 Louisiana Coastal Area, LCA. There's a lot of
19 opportunities for us to use this material in
20 conjunction with the already existing projects for
21 their maintenance and also for new projects that
22 are conceived in the area, for example, Port
23 Fourchon Mitigation Area, marsh creation, the
24 maritime forest ridge. We can expand these areas
25 using this material. In the CPRA Master Plan 25
1 2017, Belle Pass/Golden Meadow Marsh Creation,
2 24,800 acres at the cost of $1.86 billion, all of
3 those marsh creation areas are dearly needed in
4 and around Port Fourchon, so why don't we use the
5 material to do that? So there are opportunities,
6 and we are in the process of talking and
7 discussing with the agencies to make sure that,
8 you know, this idea, combine these two projects
9 and creating a synergy between these two projects.
10 So that concludes the overview of
11 the project. We talked about the purpose, need,
12 we talked about alternatives, we briefly discussed
13 the NEPA requirements, the beneficial use of fresh
14 material possibilities, and now we are coming to
15 these NEPA process public notification
16 requirements. We want to do this project with
17 your help, the public's help, getting your ideas.
18 We want you to review our reports, give us some
19 direction. For this, we almost mailed 120 public
20 notices by US mail, over 600 public notices were
21 e-mailed to various stakeholders, and so today we
22 are having the scoping meeting. You have an
23 opportunity today after this meeting to come to
24 the podium and give us your comments, or you have
25 been given a comment form on which you can write 26
1 down your comments and give it to us today, or
2 take that home and think about this project and
3 write some suggestions and send to us by mail. So
4 the public will get another opportunity to review
5 during the draft EIS distribution. When the draft
6 EIS is prepared and distributed, you will get an
7 opportunity to review them and give us your
8 comments. Finally, EIS will be out there in the
9 public domain for review and comment.
10 So this slide gives you the schedule
11 for this consolidation of EIS. Usually, there is
12 a scoping comment period, which starts today, so
13 we have one month you can send us comments. That
14 will be used for preparing scoping report. That
15 is part of the EIS process. That does not mean
16 you cannot comment after February 15th. You can
17 comment anytime you want until the draft EIS is
18 prepared and submitted. So this is not just a
19 meeting, this is a process. It's a continuing
20 process. We need your input all the time to help
21 us to do this study in a better fashion. The
22 draft EIS is scheduled to be out there by October
23 of 2017. The final EIS distribution is scheduled
24 to be in March 2018. These are the dates as we
25 speak, but we wish to give these milestones. 27
1 So how to comment? As I said, as
2 you entered from the sign-in table, you must have
3 gotten the comment forms. You can comment here
4 today after this presentation. Comments can be
5 mailed to us at that address, and the comment form
6 has our address on it. You can phone me at any
7 time, e-mail me at any time. I have even given my
8 cell phone number so you can call me with your
9 comments or suggestions.
10 So that's the presentation, and
11 before the comment session, I just have a couple
12 of words. I said two minutes, everyone will get
13 two minutes, but you can take more than two, maybe
14 two to three minutes. State your name and your
15 affiliation, association, and consider speaking
16 slowly because we have a court reporter here.
17 He's recording all that we speak. Also, one of
18 our representatives will take down notes as you
19 speak your comments. If you have difficulties
20 in coming here and talking in public, which I
21 don't think so, but if so, after the meeting,
22 after the proceedings, you can go to the court
23 reporter and give your comments there. If not,
24 please take the comment form home and write
25 your comments down and mail it. That's all. 28
1 Thank you, thank you for listening. Do you have
2 any urgent comments already? You can give it to
3 us.
4 MR. LOMBARDO:
5 I will introduce myself right now.
6 I'm John Lombardo, the outreach coordinator for a
7 coastal restoration nonprofit organization called
8 Restore or Retreat. The Greater Lafourche Port
9 Commission has been a supporter of Restore or
10 Retreat since our beginning in 2000, but their
11 engagement in environmental issues predates our
12 work together. The port, as well as their tenants
13 and adjacent landowners, have been able to balance
14 the environment with the economy, and this
15 project will also allow for the greatest
16 opportunity for that balance.
17 As was mentioned in the PowerPoint,
18 there's currently a draft coastal master plan out
19 by the state available for comment, and there are
20 several projects and opportunities with that plan
21 that can greatly benefit from any available dredge
22 material created from this project, thus creating
23 a cost saving for the state and critical
24 protection to LA 1 corridor and Golden Meadow to
25 Larose levee systems. That concludes my comments. 29
1 Thank y'all.
2 MR. MENON:
3 Thank you. Anyone else?
4 Mr. President?
5 MR. CANTRELLE:
6 First of all, I want to say
7 this is a great plan, great project, and we
8 desperately need all the work we can get because
9 our economy is real bad here. As everybody
10 knows, the oil industry is down. Whatever it
11 brings, whatever jobs it brings, it will be a
12 plus for this area. We need to make sure that
13 we get started yesterday because we deeply need
14 the work for a lot of people in this area that's
15 suffering because of an economical turn down.
16 We'd appreciate if y'all expedite it and get it
17 done as quickly as possible because whatever you
18 would do would certainly be appreciated in
19 Lafourche Parish and probably Terrebonne too.
20 So, anyway, great, great, get started as soon
21 as you can. Only thing, you need to dig the
22 channel all the way to Mathews. Thank you very
23 much.
24 MR. MENON:
25 Anyone else? 30
1 MR. ORTEGO:
2 I'm Tyler Ortego, with
3 ORA Estuaries. We work with oysters, which is not
4 what I'm talking about today, but it would be an
5 interesting angle there. The first point I want
6 to make is that it would be an absolute travesty
7 if even ten percent of 34 million cubic yards
8 got dumped offshore, so there's a lot of work to
9 be done to make sure that things will get
10 railroaded through the federal processes, you
11 know, just to smooth, to get to the end and lose
12 all that.
13 The second part is that ports are
14 probably the most classic example of
15 public/private partnerships. You have such a
16 clear connection between economics and government
17 action there, and I would like to propose that we
18 take that a step further by bringing in the
19 mitigation banking community into that to provide
20 those departmental offsets because we have so much
21 material that you can generate well beyond the
22 offset needs of the port itself and actually start
23 pouring money into that and possibly accelerating
24 both the dredging in the channel or even meeting
25 maintenance needs and accelerating that 31
1 environmental restoration. There is a time
2 component to your environmental restoration, so if
3 you started it now and it took you who knows how
4 many years to get your literal act of Congress to
5 initiate the deepening, that time period that that
6 offset was functioning would offset the future
7 needs, so you could possibly actually improve your
8 economics there. Thank you.
9 MR. MENON:
10 Thank you.
11 MS. PHILLIPS:
12 I'm Amanda Phillips, with the
13 Edward Wisner Donation, and we are a landowner of
14 Fourchon Island and some other areas in the port,
15 and we are generally in support of this project
16 and most definitely in support of any mitigation
17 work that would be done with the beneficial
18 dredge.
19 MR. MENON:
20 Okay. We are now going to adjourn
21 the meeting, and, please, feel free to mail
22 those comments if you have any comments to make,
23 and we will be in touch. We will invite you to
24 another meeting whenever it is needed, maybe
25 during the draft EIS public review bidding. 32
1 Until then, thank you, thank you for coming.
2 Thank you.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 33
1 CERTIFICATE 2
3
4 This certificate is valid only for a 5 transcript accompanied by my original signature and original required seal on this page. 6
7
8 I, JOEY S. HENRY, Certified Court Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, as the 9 officer before whom this hearing was taken, do hereby certify, upon authority of R.S. 37:2554, 10 that this proceeding was reported by me in the stenotype reporting method, was prepared and 11 transcribed by me or under my personal direction and supervision, and is a true and correct 12 transcript to the best of my ability and understanding; that the transcript has been 13 prepared in compliance with transcript format guidelines required by statute or by rules of the 14 board, that I have acted in compliance with the prohibition on contractual relationships, as 15 defined by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1434 and in rules and advisory opinions of 16 the board; that I am not related to counsel or to the parties herein, nor am I otherwise interested 17 in the outcome of this matter.
18
19
20
21 ______22 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER 23
24
25
January 31, 2017 F/SER46/TC:jk 225/389-0508
Colonel Michael N. Clancy New Orleans District Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 7400 Leake Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70118
Dear Colonel Clancy:
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division (NMFS HCD) has reviewed the information provided in the Wednesday, November 23, 2016, Federal Register advertising a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statemennt (DEIS) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the “Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche-Jump Waterway, Louisiana Project- Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.” According to the NOI, the DEIS will be prepared to evaluate deepening the Bayou Lafourche Waterway to as much as 50 feet (ft). The following is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and 600.920 of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnusonn-Stevens Act; P.L. 104-297).
The proposed project is in an area designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) for postlarval and/or juvenile life stages of white shrimp, brown shrimp, gray snapper, lane snapper, and red drum. The primary categories of EFH which would be affected by project implementation are estuarine water bottoms and estuarine water column. Detailed information on federally managed fisheries and their EFH is provided in the 2005 generic amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the Gulf of Mexico prepared by thhe Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The generic amendment was prepared as requiired by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In addition to being designated as EFH for various federally managed fishery species, wetlands and water bottoms in the project area provide nursery and foraging habitats for a varietty of economically important marine fishery species such as Atlantic croaker, gulf menhaden, striped mullet, southern flounder and blue crab. Some of these species serve as prey for other fish species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (e.g., mackerels, snappers, and groupers) and highly migratory species managed by NMFS (e.g., billfishes and sharks).
The NMFS HCD recommends the DEIS include separate sections titled "Essential Fish Habitat" and "Marine Fishery Resources" which identify the EFH and fisheeries resources of the study area. The DEIS should describe the potential project-related direct and indirect impacts to fishery resources and each category of EFH used by federally managed fishery species and their life stages. A discussion should be included on indirect adverse impacts which may result from channel deepening. For example, channel deepening could increase flow velocities leading to accelerated wetland loss along the bankline due to increased erosion. The DEIS should evaluate alternatives to any activity resulting in an adverse impact to these resources and determine if there are lesser environmentally damaging methods.
The NMFS HCD strongly supports the beneficial use of dredged material to create and restore wetlandds in coastal Louisiana. The NMFS HCD believes there are many beneficial use options in the vicinity of the channel proposed for deepening. As such, the NMFS HCD recommends the USACE evaluate a number of beneficial use alternatives for sediment generated from deepeniing of the channel, as well as during routine maintenance dredging. The NMFS HCD recommends appropriate sections of the DEIS thoroughly evaluate alternatives to beneficially use sediment dredged from deepening of the navigation channel to create marsh. The EFH section of the document should evaluate whether the recommended dredged material dispossal plan would adequately offset adverse impacts to EFH and associated fishery resources, if such impacts are predicted to occur.
While NMFS HCD supports the beneficial use of dredged material to create marsh, the DEIS should acknowledge placement of sediment could adversely impact EFH if elevations of the dredged material exceed intertidal elevations. To ensure such impacts do not occcur, the Greater Lafourche Port Commission should coordinate with NMFS HCD regarding the placement of fill material in each beneficial use area. Additionally, there should be a commitment to undertake appropriate engineering and design assessments to ensure sediment elevations, after compaction and dewatering, would be within tidal range.
The NMFS HCD believes coordination with the NMFS Protected Resources Division may be necessary to address impacts to species protected under the Endangered Species Act. We recommend the USACE iinitiate coordination on this projo ect with David Bernhart, [email protected] at:
National Marine Fisheries Service Protected Resources Division 263 13th Avenue South St Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
We appreciate your consideration of our comments and request notification once the DEIS is published. If you wish to discuss this project further or have questions concerning our recommendations, please contact Twyla Cheatwood at (225) 389-0508.
Sincerely,
Virginia M. Fay Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division
c: EPA, B. Keeler FWS, D. Walther, J. Ranson NOD, Mickal F/SER46, Swafford F/SER4, Dale, Silverman Files
LDWF will not be able to attend the scoping meeting this evening, however, I had our Ecological Studies Biologist, as well as our Natural Heritage Biologist look at the project and they have provided the following comments. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Ecological Studies: LDWF strongly recommends that the excavated water bottom material be used beneficially to create/restore emergent marsh in the vicinity of the project. The spoil material could be placed unconfined or confined in shallow open water at an elevation conducive to marsh establishment. Also, the spoil material could be placed on top of existing emergent marsh in order to nourish this degrading resource. Marsh nourishment would entail the placement of thin layers of spoil (i.e., less than 12 inches in elevation) on top of existing marsh. LDWF is willing to work with the applicant to identify appropriate spoil placement areas.
Louisiana Natural Heritage Program comments: The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) may occur within one mile of the project area. This species is federally listed as threatened with its critical habitat designated along the Louisiana coast. Piping plovers winter in Louisiana feeding at intertidal beaches, mudflats, and sand flats with sparse emergent vegetation. Primary threats to this species are destruction and degradation of winter habitat, habitat alteration through shoreline erosion, woody species encroachment of lake shorelines and riverbanks, and human disturbance of foraging birds. For more information on piping plover critical habitat, visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife website: http://endangered.fws.gov.
Our database indicates an occurrence of Wilson's Plover (Charadrius wilsonia) in your project area. This species holds a state rank of S1S3B, S3N and is considered critically imperiled to rare in Louisiana. This species is found year round in Louisiana, breeding along the Gulf coast and wintering in southwest Louisiana. This colonial nester has a breeding season that begins in early April and extends into August, and is commonly found on beaches, sand flats, and fresh dredged-material. Threats to Wilson’s plover include habitat loss/degradation due to coastal development, beach stabilization and re-nourishment, sediment diversion, disturbance by humans, environmental contaminants, and un-naturally high populations of predators. We recommend that you take the necessary precautions to protect the breeding/wintering habitat of this species. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Louisiana Natural Heritage Program at 225-763-3554.
Our database indicates the presence of bird nesting colonies within one mile of this proposed project. Please be aware that entry into or disturbance of active breeding colonies is prohibited by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). In addition, LDWF prohibits work within a certain radius of an active nesting colony.
Nesting colonies can move from year to year and no current information is available on the status of these colonies. If work for the proposed project will commence during the nesting season, conduct a field visit to the worksite to look for evidence of nesting colonies. This field visit should take place no more than two weeks before the project begins. If no nesting colonies are found within 400 meters (700 meters for brown pelicans) of the proposed project, no further consultation with LDWF will be necessary. If active nesting colonies are found within the previously stated distances of the proposed project, further consultation with LDWF will be required. In addition, colonies should be surveyed by a qualified biologist to document species present and the extent of colonies. Provide LDWF with a survey report which is to include the following information:
1. qualifications of survey personnel; 2. survey methodology including dates, site characteristics, and size of survey area; 3. species of birds present, activity, estimates of number of nests present, and general vegetation type including digital photographs representing the site; and 4. topographic maps and ArcView shapefiles projected in UTM NAD83 Zone 15 to illustrate the location and extent of the colony.
Please mail survey reports on CD to: Louisiana Natural Heritage Program La. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries P.O. Box 98000 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000
To minimize disturbance to colonial nesting birds, the following restrictions on activity should be observed:
- For colonies containing nesting wading birds (i.e., herons, egrets, night- herons, ibis, roseate spoonbills, anhingas, and/or cormorants), all project activity occurring within 300 meters of an active nesting colony should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 1 through February 15).
- For colonies containing nesting gulls, terns, and/or black skimmers, all project activity occurring within 400 meters (700 meters for brown pelicans) of an active nesting colony should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 16 through April 1).
The Diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) may also occur in your project area and is considered imperiled in Louisiana. It inhabits brackish water habitats, especially coastal marshes. The Diamondback terrapin may breed and nest from April to July with nest cavities dug at the sandy edges of marshes and dunes. Hatchlings usually emerge from nests during August and September but may overwinter in nests until the following spring. Primary threats to this species include pollution, disturbed habitat, nest destruction near populated coastal sites, and coastal erosion. If project activities will be conducted during the nesting season, we recommend constructing a barrier fence, prior to nesting season and project activities to avoid enclosing hatchlings, that surrounds terrapin habitat in the project area and consists of corrugated plastic tubing at least 10 inches in diameter; cut in half, buried, and back-filled with sediment. All barrier fence material must be removed after project activities are completed. Nest searches should be conducted if project activities are initiated after the start of the nesting season without the use of a barrier fence. If nests are found at any time prior to and during project activities, the applicant must contact Beau Gregory at 337-491-2576 for further guidance. Dave Butler Permits Coordinator Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries P.O. Box 98000 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 Office: 225-763-3595 Fax: 225-765-2625
Karen A Westphal and Timmy J Vincent National Audubon Society – Audubon Louisiana Paul J Rainey Wildlife Refuge 5615 Corporate Blvd., suite 600B, Baton Rouge, LA 70808 225-768-0820, [email protected]
Southwest Pass Bird Island Creation, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana
There is an existing, vegetated island in Southwest Pass, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, which has functioned as a bird rookery for decades. The existing island is on top of an old oyster reef platform, and is 0.38 miles from the nearest land, leaving it relatively predator free. It is well vegetated with woody vegetation dominated by Iva frutescens surrounded by an apron of saltmarsh. Although small, at less than an acre, in 2014 it hosted more than 600 nests for wading birds, and in 2015, it hosted 4 pair of Brown Pelicans with 14 juveniles, probably displaced from degrading rookeries elsewhere.
A Bird Island project is proposed to duplicate the existing bird island on nearby oyster reef platforms, thereby providing more rookery space, and providing buffering from wave action to decrease erosion on the existing island. Impact to the existing island of any kind should be avoided, and all construction will need to be done after the breeding season when the birds have dispersed.
Construction of the new island (s) is suggested to be of OysterBreak rings filled with sediment from a nearby barge channel that has filled in, then planted with woody plants like Iva frutescens and allowed to naturally vegetate. As plant succession takes place, it will serve as a rookery for seabirds until woody plants establish for use by wading birds and pelicans. Variable elevations are desirable to provide diverse avian use. Construction of sheltered lagoons is desirable.
Several suggested island locations are included on Figure 7, with the closest to the existing island at 120 feet.
1 Figure 1. The Gulf of Mexico enters Vermilion Bay through Southwest Pass, which lies between property of the Paul J Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary to the west and Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge to the east. Oyster reefs line the channel on either side. The yellow star indicates the location of the existing rookery.
Figure 2. The existing rookery is on an oyster shell platform and is surrounded by oyster reefs.
2 The 2014 Google Earth imagery showed over 600 nests for Great Egret, Snowy Egret and Roseate Spoonbill on the existing island.
2015 was the first year that Brown Pelicans were observed nesting here, and there were 4 pair of adults with 14 juveniles documented.
Figure 3. April 9, 2014 imagery of the SWP Rookery from Google Earth showed over 600 nests.
Figure 4. Brown Pelicans, Great Egrets and Snowy Egrets nesting on SWP Rookery.
3 Figure 5. Brown Pelicans, Great Egrets and Snowy Egrets nesting on SWP Rookery.
Figure 6. This was the first time Brown Pelicans were documented nesting on the island. 8 adults and 14 juveniles were counted.
4 Figure 7. Several suggested locations around the existing island total 7.0 acres.
5 From: Chett Chiasson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:02 PM To: Mohan Menon
Chett C. Chiasson, MPA Executive Director Port Fourchon/SL Airport
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Daniel
Thank you for including the ACHP in your notice public scoping notice for Port Fourchon Channel Deepening Project. Should the Army Corps of Engineers, through consultation with the LA SHPO, tribes, and other consulting parties, reach a determination of adverse effect, please invite the ACHP to participate at that time, pursuant to our regulations 36CFR800.6(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Christopher Daniel Program Analyst Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 202.517.0223 (Office & Mobile) [email protected]
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 401 F Street NW, Suite 308 Washington DC 20001-2637 (202) 517-0200 (Main Number) $77$&+0(17
$JHQF\0HHWLQJ6XPPDU\1RWHV DQG5HFRUGRI$WWHQGDQFH
Coastal Design & Infrastructure 450 Laurel Street | Suite 1500 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 P: (225) 408-0700 | F: (225) 408-0712 www. gisyeng.com
Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump Waterway, LA Section 203 Deepening and Improvement Project Feasibility Study Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
TWIG Modeling Update No. 2 – EIS Related MEETING SUMMARY NOTES Lead Agency: Greater Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC) WebEx Conference Call Presentation by The Water Institute December 1, 2017, 1-2 pm
Attendees: TWIG – Brendan Yuill GLPC – Joni Tuck, External Relations Manager USFWS – David Walther NOAA-NMFS – Patrick Williams USACE – Sean Mickal and Daniel Meden GIS – Mohan Menon, Dave Bastian, Claire LaBarbera, Justin Tassin, and Seneca Toussant
Agenda Items: 1. Presentation on TWIG modeling updates in respect to EIS by Brendan Yuill 2. To address the following questions: a. How does the numerical model support completion of the USFWS WVA? b. How will the model support shoreline evolution proximal to Belle Pass? c. To what extent is longshore sediment transport simulated in the model? d. How does the model simulate placement of dredged material 1,500-2,000 ft. west of the proposed channel? e. What are the basic assumptions for the ‘beneficial use of dredged material management plan’? 3. Interagency discussion
Summary: The TWIG presentation has been distributed to all invitees of the meeting, including the following agencies: GLPC, USFWS, NOAA-NMFS, and USACE. GIS conducted a discussion among agency members after Brendan detailed the TWIG presentation.
www.gisy.com GIS Global Headquarters | 18838 Highway 3235 | Galliano, LA 70354 | P: (985) 475-5238 | F: (985) 475-7014 Areas of Agency Concern: The following information outlines agency member concerns addressed during the discussion portion of the TWIG Modeling Update No. 2 meeting:
Marsh and Headland WVA Models are to be performed. x Marsh Model o Land scape change over time to be analyzed With Project and Without Project conditions. Analysis to be achieved by a spreadsheet driven approach. Delft model has this capability. o Sea Level Rise (SLR) to be incorporated in the model. o Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) variable as an output is not necessary to obtain from the Marsh Model; only one species in the region. o Salinity is a major factor that is to be considered. Predicted hyper saline conditions as well as dissolved oxygen and salinity relationships are of concern. o Water quality Only average annual values required. o Model damain – there is concern with regard to the hole in current model domain. x Island Headland Model o CWPPRA project data (east and west of Belle Pass) to be incorporated in modeling. o Pat Williams to forward “data requirements to support environmental benefits of barrier island and barrier headland projects assessed by community based models” (recieved on 12/1/2017). o Longshore and crosshore transport movement to be studied. o Target years for headland model predictions - 10 year increments for project effects over a 50-year forecast (years 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, and 50). To include more intirations between years 1 and 10. Potential need for detailed modeling outputs/predictions for years 1-11 by small increments (annually) to capture most significant changes to sediment transport. o Highlight longshore drift to the west of Belle Pass channel; more potential for disruption in this area. o Suggested incorporation of by-pass structures, or the like, for jetty engineering. – David Walther o Capture siltation effects on major channels and canals in the vicinity of the study area. x Critical Habitat o Model domain to extend far enough down current to capture areas impacted to determine impacts to cirtical habitat. – David Walther o Critical habitat exists within the surf zone and beach areas east and west of Belle Pass. o Littoral drift and dredged material disposal impacts. o Frequency of dredging and placement to be explained.
Agency Consultation Timeline The agency coordination timeline (such as WVA, modeling efforts, etc.) and list of deliverables will be finalized by the January 2nd work week.
GIS Global Headquarters | 18838 Highway 3235 | Galliano, LA 70354 | P: (985) 475-5238 | F: (985) 475-7014 Coastal Design & Infrastructure 450 Laurel Street | Suite 1500 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 P: (225) 408-0700 | F: (225) 408-0712 www. gisyeng.com
Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump Waterway, LA Section 203 Deepening and Improvement Project Feasibility Study Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
TWIG Modeling Update – EIS Related MEETING SUMMARY NOTES Lead Agency: Greater Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC) Location: TWIG January 24, 2018
Attendees: GIS - Mohan Menon, Claire LaBarbera, Justin Tassin, Dave Bastian TWIG - Brendan Yuill, Ehab Meselhe, Eric White, Melissa Baustian
Notes:
- Templates in use for models: Marsh Design Elevation Model – LA Coastal Master Plan, CPRA Barrier Island Restoration Model - Placement Sites prioritized by shortest distance - To be included in Feb. 1, 2018 TWIG deliverables: Beneficial Use of Dredge: o Acrage of marsh creation and placement area capacities including soil compaction and subsidence for 20-year project lifespan o Habitat suitability o Capacities to be based on a maximum depth of 3 ft. in placement areas o Evaluation of the need for containment dikes o Jetty extension optimization evaluation and recommendations based on the degree to which jetty extension would lower maintenance dredging and (+/-) impact sediment transport affecting critical habit in the litoral zone and shoreline project areas Water Quality o Justification for current domain
Action Items for Jan. 29 Work Week: - GIS to provide dredge volume report - GIS to provide preliminary jetty design measurements
www.gisy.com GIS Global Headquarters | 18838 Highway 3235 | Galliano, LA 70354 | P: (985) 475-5238 | F: (985) 475-7014
Coastal Design & Infrastructure 450 Laurel Street | Suite 1500 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 P: (225) 408-0700 | F: (225) 408-0712 www. gisyeng.com
Port Fourchon Site Visit and Agency Meeting Date: February 26, 2018 Location: Port Fourchon EOC Time: 10 AM
Attendees: 1. Mohan Menon, GIS 2. Dustin Malbrough, GIS 3. Joe Chauvin, GIS 4. Justin Tassin, GIS 5. Claire LaBarbera, GIS 6. Christian Malbrough, GIS 7. Jason Emery, USACE 8. Eric White, TWIG 9. Cathy Breaux, USFWS 10. Joni Tuck, GLPC 11. Chett Chiasson, GLPC 12. Daniel Meden, USACE 13. Patrick Smith, USACE
www.gisy.com GIS Global Headquarters | 18838 Highway 3235 | Galliano, LA 70354 | P: (985) 475-5238 | F: (985) 475-7014 Port Fourchon Deepening, Section 203 Feasibility Study Meeting Agenda 11 April 2018 09:30 – 11:30 hrs. USACE New Orleans District Training Room Webex: https://usace.webex.com/meet/sean.p.mickal For the audio portion of the meeting PLEASE NOTE: when prompted, select - 'Call Me’; If you cannot use the 'Call Me' feature, please select 'I Will Call In' and use the following information: Toll-free number: (888) 278 0296; Access Code: 616 661 5; Attendee ID: '#'; Security Code - 1111
1. Introductions
2. Meeting Purpose
3. GIS Presentation- Project Status
4. Discussion
Agency Questions
MVN Questions
WVA Discussion
5. Path forward
6. Dues-out/Next-steps
7. Alibis/Closing Remarks
8. Adjourn. Coastal Design & Infrastructure 450 Laurel Street | Suite 1500 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 P: (225) 408-0700 | F: (225) 408-0712 www. gisyeng.com
Project: Port Fourchon Modifications, Section 203
Interagency Meeting at USACE New Orleans District Date: 4/11/18 Time: 10AM-12PM Attendees: Sean Mickal, USACE Cathy Breaux, USFWS Patrick Williams, NMFS Dave Walther, LDWF Jeff Corbino, USACE
Objective: 1. Provide a Project overview presentation to agency members 2. Obtain agency feedback on engineering, economic and environmental Project parameters, including: x ODMDS decisions (Base Plan v. LPP) & WVA 3. Identification of path forward, including: x ODMDS decision meetings x WVA timeline x USFWS Coordination Act Report timeline x TSP PDT Meeting x Draft EIS Report/ Public Notice & Timeline
Agency Comments/Concerns: 1. Sean Mickal, USACE – Questions over 50’ v. 30’ deepening and FWOP conditions, including: current state of rig repair works in the Port a. Provided insight that USACE HQ approval will not be easy 2. Cathy Breaux, USFWS - Include pipeline corridors in mitigation plan a. Formal consultation process for critical habitat for biological opinion begins with Draft EIS submittal b. Timeline i. 2-4 weeks WVA calculations ii. +2 weeks for USFWS/NOAA review iii. +2-4 weeks (after WVA calcuations) – Coordination Act Report as attachment 3. Pat Williams, NOAA – a. Project aspects which are not currently permitted are ‘not appropriate’ for FWOP conditions i. Note: GIS explained that Port has begun the permitting process for a number of FWOP conditions
www.gisy.com GIS Global Headquarters | 18838 Highway 3235 | Galliano, LA 70354 | P: (985) 475-5238 | F: (985) 475-7014
b. There may be some flexibility for Cumulative Effects Analysis framework c. NEPA – Plan build out to include analyses of FWOP & FWP options i. Project to include environmental impact analyses of FWOP conditions ii. Permit process of FWOP done by Port to include FWOP environmental impact analyses iii. Within FERC process d. Overestimation of placement area capacities will prevent value of habitat functionality from developing causing negative impacts
4. Dave Walther, LDWF – a. Potential for ‘self-mitigating project’ research b. DMMP cycles to account for 2 to 3 year recovery period for benthos and other organisms; Provided that dredge should not go over piping plover habitat; DMMP should not include Barrier Island Nourishment placement areas c. 53-year Project life analysis for dredge placement 5. Jeff Corbino, USACE – ODMDS would require a different dredge plan due to type of dredging equipment; mobilizing pipelines may be more cost efficient 6. General – a. Include mitigation in cost:benefit analysis b. There is no monetary mitigiation cost offset for using dredge beneficially c. Questions of slide slope stability i. GIS provided that this is in the works for Project design d. Base Plan v. LPP component decisions determine Project cost sharing
Action Items: 1. Schedule Site Visit No. 2 – USFWS/NOAA 2. Schedule ODMDS dredging meeting with USACE – Being coordinated with help from Sean Mickal – tentative dates – post April 23 3. Schedule WVA meeting – Coordinated by Sean Mickal a. Scheduled for April 17, 2018 at 12:30PM to 2:00PM at USACE New Orleans Office 4. Schedule TSP PDT meeting – Sarah Bradley to help coordinate 5. USACE PMP – report distribution assistance – Sean has provided document on this 6. Cultural Resources Report to be given to LSHPO for consultation
GIS Global Headquarters | 18838 Highway 3235 | Galliano, LA 70354 | P: (985) 475-5238 | F: (985) 475-7014
1PSU'PVSDIPO1SPKFDU 4FDUJPO $77$&+0(17
3XEOLF(QJDJHPHQW5HJLVWHU GLPC Engagement Register Date Interested Parties Details Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged 3/28/2018Visit by Environmental NGOs and Congressional Staffers materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. Provided update on status of 203 study, plans for Fourchon Island, and potential benefits for the 3/20-3/22/2018AAPA Spring conference - DC visits with staff of LA delegation nation.
2/26/2018Field visit for Federal agencies Field visit to conduct surveys and learn more about the project, determine benefits, etc. Field visit to Port Fourchon to learn more about Fourchon Island development, 203 study benefits, 2/16/2018Port visit by Nicholls State University President, Dr. Jay Clune etc. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged 1/25/2018Meeting with Sen Cassidy and staff materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged 1/25/2018Meeting with White House Council on Environmental Quality materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. Provided update on status of 203 study, plans for Fourchon Island, beneficial use of dredged 1/24/2018Meeting with USFWS headquarters and regional staff (via phone) materials, and potential benefits for the nation. Provided update on status of 203 study, plans for Fourchon Island, beneficial use of dredged 1/24/2018Meeting with USACE headquarters staff materials, and potential benefits for the nation. Provided update on status of 203 study, plans for Fourchon Island, beneficial use of dredged 1/23/2018Meeting with staff director, House Water Resources subcommittee materials, and potential benefits for the nation.
Roundtable discussion with Secretary of Interior, Ryan Zinke as well as regional Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged 12/2/2017stakeholders, environmental NGOs and regional elected officials materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment.
Port visit by regional public information officials for local agencies. (local government, Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged law enforcement, public entities) materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. provided update on 203 study as well as discussed issues relative to identifying the environmental Meeting with USACE district staff and economic impacts and benefits. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment and role of 10/3/2017Meeting/phone confernce with US DOI under secretary and industry stakeholders industry in implementation of the project. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment and role of 9/30/2017Port Visit by Shell external relations team - global leadership team and US based staff industry in implementation of the project. Date Interested Parties Details Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and 8/30/2017Congressional staffer visit. Scalise staff benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and 8/21/2017Visit from environmental NGOs, Louisiana CPRA agency staff and Congressional staffer benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. Discussion regarding utilizing port dredge materials beneficially long term to maintain protective headland 8/8/2017CPRA staff buffer for built assets. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment and role of industry in implementation 7/31/2017Industry Representatives of the project. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and 7/13/2017Visit from environmental NGOs, Congressional staffers for in-state LA delegation staff. benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and Meeting with White House Council on Environmental Quality, National Business Council, benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment and role of industry in implementation 6/20/2017industry stakeholders of the project. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment and role of industry in implementation 5/26/2017Industry Representatives of the project. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and SeaGrant climate resilience conference - attendees include in-state environmental benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment in the context of utlizing natural 5/18/2017professionals, as well as Gulf-wide environmental professionals and educators protective buffers to enhance resilience to threats from sea level rise, etc. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment and role of industry in implementation 4/27/2017Industry Representatives of the project. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and 4/13/2017Visit by environmental NGOs and Congressional staffers benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment and role of industry in implementation 3/27/2017Industry Representatives of the project. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment in the context of utlizing natural 2/24/2017Visit from UNO transportation class - graduate-level university students protective buffers to enhance resilience to threats from sea level rise, etc. Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and 2/7-9/2017Meetings with Federal delegation members and staff benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. Lafourche Parish Council port visit - local elected officials and regional economic Discussed 203 study, planned development of Fourchon Island, and beneficial use of dredged materials and 2/2/2017development stakeholders. benefits of whole effort to the Nation's economy and environment. EIS Scoping meeting - local elected officials, regional agency staff, general public, Iniital scoping meeting to introduce the proposed project to the public and stakeholders. Kicked off public 1/24/2017environmental NGOs engagement on the 203 study.
Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Feasibility Study
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
B. APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
August 2018
B-2
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...... B-7 Purpose of Biological Assessment ...... B-7 Alternative Plans ...... B-8 Alternative 1 No-Action (Future-Without Project Conditions [FWOP]) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Annual Maintenance Dredging ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Alternative Action Plans ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) ...... B-11 Dredged Material Placement Plan ...... B-11 IDENTIFICATION OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES, & CRITICAL HABITAT ...... B-15 CANDIDATE SPECIES ...... B-16 SPECIES OF CONCERN ...... B-16 CRITICAL HABITAT ...... B-17 SPECIES EVALUATION ...... B-17 West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) ...... B-17 Description of Species ...... B-17 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-17 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-18 Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ...... B-18 Description of Species ...... B-18 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-18 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-19 Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) ...... B-19 Description of Species ...... B-19 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-19 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-19 Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ...... B-19 Description of Species ...... B-19 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-19 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-20 Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) ...... B-20 Description of Species ...... B-20 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-20 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-20 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) ...... B-21 Description of Species ...... B-21 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-21 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-21 Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) ...... B-24 Description of Species ...... B-24
B-3 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-24 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-24 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) ...... B-24 Description of Species ...... B-24 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-25 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-25 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) ...... B-25 Description of Species ...... B-25 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-25 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-26 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) ...... B-26 Description of Species ...... B-26 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-26 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-27 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) ...... B-27 Description of Species ...... B-27 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-27 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-28 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) ...... B-28 Description of Species ...... B-28 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-28 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-28 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) ...... B-29 Description of Species ...... B-29 Species Habitat and Distribution ...... B-29 Status and Cause of Decline ...... B-29 Common Threats to Sea Turtles ...... B-29 Fisheries Bycatch ...... B-30 Take ...... B-30 Coastal Development ...... B-30 Pollution and Pathogens ...... B-31 Climate Change ...... B-31 DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... B-32 Noise ...... B-34 Entrainment in Dredging Equipment ...... B-35 Turbidity and Resuspended Sediments ...... B-35 Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity, and Water Temperature ...... B-35 Disturbance of Benthic Prey ...... B-36 Potential Indirect Project Effects ...... B-36 Potential Effects of Interrelated/Interdependent Actions ...... B-36 Cumulative Effects ...... B-37 Atlantic Sturgeon ...... B-38 Sea Turtles ...... B-38 Piping Plover & Rufa Red Knot ...... B-39 West Indian Manatee ...... B-39
B-4 EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND CONSERVATION MEASURES ...... B-40 Atlantic Sturgeon ...... B-40 Effect Analysis ...... B-40 Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures ...... B-41 Effect Determinations ...... B-41 Sea Turtles ...... B-41 Effect Analysis ...... B-41 Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures ...... B-42 Effect Determinations ...... B-42 Piping Plover and Rufa Red Knot ...... B-43 Effect Analysis ...... B-43 Piping Plover Critical Habitat ...... B-43 Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures ...... B-45 Effect Determinations ...... B-45 West Indian Manatee ...... B-45 Effect Analysis ...... B-45 Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures ...... B-46 Effect Determinations ...... B-46 Whales ...... B-46 Effect Analysis ...... B-46 Effect Determinations ...... B-46 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ...... B-47 LITERATURE CITED ...... B-48
B-5 Acronyms and Abbreviations BA Biological Assessment BO Barrier Opinion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CPRA Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority CO2 Carbon Dioxide Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act CY Cubic Yards dB Decibels DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DMMP Dredge Material Management Plan DO Dissolved Oxygen DPS Distinct Population Segment ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 FWOP Future Without Project GLPC Greater Lafourche Port Commission GOM Gulf of Mexico Gulf Gulf of Mexico HZ Hertz LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources LPP Locally Preferred Plan MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 MC Marsh Creation NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NMFS National marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOP National Observer Program ODMDS Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Sites SLN Shoreline Nourishment TSP Tentatively Selected Plan USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
All elevations referred to in this report, unless specifically noted otherwise are based on the mean lower low water (MLLW) datum. This vertical datum, as defined by the Corps District New Orleans, accounts for wind and tide. MLLW is defined as 1.14 feet below National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) for the reach of Bayou Lafourche adjacent to Port Fourchon.
B-6 Introduction
PURPOSE OF BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
A draft feasibility study and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) have been developed to evaluate the feasibility and Federal interest of channel improvements to the existing Port Fourchon Federal project. The study is authorized by Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as amended by Section 1014 of Water Resources and Reform Development Act of 2014. Pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, and as amended by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, this Biological Assessment (BA) evaluates the proposed actions of the Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project (Project) which may adversely impact threatened or endangered species (and their critical habitat) with potential to occur in the Project area and proximal habitats. As shown in Figure B-1, the project area includes areas which may be directly impacted by the proposed actions; and encompasses the proposed channel enlargements, other navigational features, and shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas being used as placement area for dredge material. The study area includes the habitats surrounding the project area within a 12 mile radius which may be indirectly impacted by Project actions.
Figure B-1: Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel deepening project area.
B-7 The proposed project at Port Fourchon (Port) is located at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) coastal zone. The Port sits north of the west Belle Pass and Chenier Caminada headlands; and is bound by Barataria Bay to the east, Timbalier and Terrebonne Bays to the west, associated wetlands of the bays to the north, and the Gulf to the south. The proposed Project area footprint differs among proposed alternatives; and is dominated by shallow open water with aggregated salt marsh and barrier headlands with beach and dune habitats.
The correspondences from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and their websites were referenced to determine which of the species protected under the ESA have the potential to occur in the Project area. USFWS identifies species such as the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), the red knot (Calidres canutus rufa), five (5) species of sea turtles, and West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus).
In addition, state protected species are listed by Louisiana State Department of Wildlife Fisheries (LDWLF). The LDWLF, as per the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, mentions the Piping Plovers, specifically Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonia). The LDWLF has also mentioned the diamond back terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin).
This BA also describes the avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures proposed for this project relative to habitat and species covered. It is offered to assist USFWS and NMFS personnel in fulfilling their obligations under the ESA. A DEIS has been prepared to further address the potential effects resulting from the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
A wide range of alternatives were explored, including those which are reasonable and outside of the jurisdiction of the lead Federal agency (anticipated to be the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps]) and non-Federal interest. Only alternatives that were found to be economically and technically feasible were further considered. Measures used to formulate alternatives included both nonstructural and structural measures, as well as a no-action alternative to represent the Future without Project (FWOP) conditions. Nonstructural measures included utilization of another port and alternative modes of commodity transport, which included Gulf roadway and railway construction. Structural alternatives included deepening only and deepening combined with widening to improve navigational efficiency. Measures were evaluated and screened through an array of alternatives. The no-action alternative was included in all screening phases. Consistent with SMART Planning concepts, this effort included a qualitative analysis of initial alternatives, a qualitative/quantitative analysis of alternatives, and a detailed quantitative analysis of final alternatives. Widening scenarios include widening of channel bottoms to 400 feet, 450 feet, and 475 feet. The following channel depth scenarios were evaluated in combination with widening scenarios for action alternatives: -30, -35, -40, -45, and -50 feet.
Action alternatives 2a through 6c include modifications to the Federal channels and Port access channels (Flotation Canal and Slips A, B, and C). The current project includes only the Federal
B-8 channels – Bayou Lafourche (station [sta.] 0+00 to 130+00) and Belle Pass and its entrance channel (sta. 130+00 to 270+00). The turning basin within Belle Pass is included in the FWOP conditions. However, the turning basin would be deepened to the respective dimensions under each action alternative plan. Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1 provides a view of the existing Federal channels and Port access channels. For all dredging alternatives, the proposed dredging depths would include additional depths required for navigational safety and advanced maintenance. Shown in Figure 2-1 is the station (sta.) numbering convention, and associated miles, used for Port navigation and access channels. The figure has been adapted to include stationing of the existing Federal channels and new stationing for the proposed channel improvements detailed in this chapter. The Gulfward extent of the Belle Pass entrance channel is presently at sta. 270+00. All elevations referred to in this report, unless specifically noted otherwise are based on the mean lower low water (MLLW) datum. This vertical datum, as defined by the Corps District New Orleans, accounts for wind and tide. MLLW is defined as 1.14 feet below National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) for the reach of Bayou Lafourche adjacent to Port Fourchon.
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are in Chapter 2 of DEIS.
B-9 Figure B-2: Station Numbering Convention used for Port Fourchon Navigation and Access Channels
B-10 TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN (TSP)
The recommended improvements of the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP; Figure B-3) would deepen the downstream Belle Pass Federal channel (sta. 130+00 to 589+93) to -50 feet, widen this reach of the channel from the existing 300-foot width to 475 feet, and extend the entrance channel approximately 5.2 miles into the Gulf. The following total dredging depth requirements of the Belle Pass Federal channel include advanced maintenance and a 2-foot safety factor: -53 feet deep from sta. 130+00 to 220+00, -56.5 feet deep from sta. 220+00 to 330+00, and -54.5 feet deep from sta. 330+00 to 589+00. Modifications to the upstream interior channels (sta.0+00 to sta. 130+00) – Bayou Lafourche; Flotation Canal; and Slips A, B, and C (and berthing areas) – would deepen the channels to -30 feet and retain the existing 300-foot width in this interior section. The total dredging depth requirement of the Bayou Lafourche Federal channel would be -33 feet deep, which includes 3 feet of advanced maintenance. Fourchon Island Slip and the turning basin would be deepened to -50 feet. The deep loading hole in this Slip would be dredged to a depth of -85 feet. The existing pair of Federal jetties would not be altered and would be maintained as needed. The TSP would require the relocation of 12 pipelines, all of which would be performed by contractors prior to the initiation of channel dredging contracts. Project construction would occur over an estimated period of 4 years. Maintenance dredging would begin after the fourth year of construction, and would be conducted for a period of 50 years thereafter. Tables J-6 and J-7 in the DMMP (Appendix J of the DEIS) provides the estimated durations of environmental disturbance resultant of TSP dredging activities. Channel reaches would be dredged on cycles necessary to maintain the authorized depths and widths. New work and maintenance dredged material would be fully utilized as beneficial use sediments, with dredged material placed in nearshore areas as shoreline nourishment in active feeder berms and in the proposed marsh creation areas.
DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT PLAN
Geotechnical soil borings were obtained from each Project channel reach proposed for improvements. Results of the geotechnical analyses in respect to environmental contamination provided that dredged material proposed for removal is suitable for marsh creation and shoreline nourishment, and would not adversely affect habitat quality. Shown in Figure 2-5 are the proposed marsh creation and shoreline nourishment areas. It is the intention of the non-Federal interest to use all dredged material beneficially to provide long-term storm surge protection and risk reduction to the Port and surrounding areas, and to counter coastal land loss resulting from continued sea level rise and subsidence. The Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) requires the authorization of four new marsh creation placement areas and the extension of the existing shoreline nourishment placement areas along the west Belle Pass and Caminada headland beaches. Details of the capacity, grain-size, and alternative placement area location selection process are provided in the DMMP (Appendix J) of this DEIS. The pipeline corridors were optimized (see DMMP Appendix J) to maximize avoidance of adverse wetland impact resulting in all but one pipeline segment estimated to impact 3.0 acres of wetland habitat (see
B-11 Wetland Value Assessment Appendix C). All other pipeline corridors would be constructed within existing waterways and the proposed placement areas, and are designed to float atop the water surface.
The recommended TSP would generate approximately 23.0 million cubic yards (MCY) of new work material from initial construction and 63.4 MCY of maintenance material over the 50-year period of analysis. Dredged material, both new work and maintenance, would provide the Fourchon area with a wealth of unanticipated beneficial use material which would extensively increase habitat value in the form of marsh creation and shoreline nourishment. The USFWS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted a Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) which determined that there would be positive net benefits to wetland resources, including piping plover critical habitat, in the project area, with the creation of emergent wetland and barrier headland and island habitats. Construction of the Project would result in approximately 1,055 average annual habitat units (AAHUs) and 2,361 net acres of saline marsh habitat over the 50 year project life under the intermediate sea level rise rate scenario (3.3 feet by year 2100). In addition this project will have unrealized benefits from continued nourishment of barrier shorelines through maintenance dredging over the project life. Dredging duration for the new work and the maintenance is shown in Table B-1.
B-12 Table B-1. Dredging Duration by Channel Reach for Alternative 6c – TSP Construction Bayou Lafourche - Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 130+00 22 days Flotation Channel 13 days Slips A, B, and C 21 days West Bell Pass - Sta. 130+00 to Sta. 220+00 119 days West Bell Pass - Sta. 220+00 to Sta. 330+00 153 days West Bell Pass - Sta. 330+00 to Sta. 589+93 151 days Fourchon Island Slip/Turning Basin 92 days Deep Loading Hole 6 days Total 576 days Total Project Construction Duration 4 years Maintenance Events Maintenance Interval (years) Bayou Lafourche - Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 130+00 2 8 days Flotation Channel 5 2 days Slips A, B, and C 5 2 days West Bell Pass - Sta. 130+00 to Sta. 220+00 2 9 days West Bell Pass - Sta. 220+00 to Sta. 330+00 1 12 days West Bell Pass - Sta. 330+00 to Sta. 589+93 5 33 days Fourchon Island Slip/Turning Basin 5 8 days Deep Loading Hole 5 1 day Total Maintenance Duration2 74 days 1Dredging durations assume a production rate of 40,000 cubic yards per day (2,000 cubic yards per hour) with two dredge crews each working 10 hours per day using a single hydraulic cutterhead dredge vessel 2The total maintenance duration provides the total length of time for which maintenance would occur per maintenance cycle assuming Project implementation for 50 years
B-13 Figure B-3. TSP- Alternative 6c: 50-foot Depth/475-foot Width
B-14 Identification of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species, & Critical Habitat
Table B-2. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species. Status Common Name Scientific Name USFWS NMFS Fish Atlantic sturgeon* Acipenser oxyrinnchus desotoi T Tw/CH Mammals West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E E Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E Reptiles Green turtle Chelonia mydas T E Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate E E Kemp’s ridley sea Lepidochelys kempii E E turtle Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E E Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta T T Birds Piping plover Charadrius melodus Tw/CH N/A Red knot Calidris canutus rufa T N/A * T= Threatened; E= Endangered;Tw =threatened with CH= Critical Habitat Source: USFWS, 2018; NMFS, 2018
x Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi), was listed as threatened throughout its range, on September 30, 1991 (56 FR, 49653). Critical habitat for the sturgeon was designated in 2003 (68 FR 13370). x West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus), was listed as endangered on June 2, 1970 (35 FR8491, Appendix A) x Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), was listed as endangered throughout its range, on December 28, 1973 under the ESA (35 FR FR 8495) and as depleted throughout its range under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. x Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) of 1969 in June of 1970. The ESA continued to list the species as endangered when it was signed on December 28, 1973. The humpback whale is also protected under the MMPA and is listed as depleted throughout its range. x Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), is protected under the MMPA and is listed as depleted throughout its ranges. The species was also listed as endangered under the ESA of 1973.
B-15 x Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), are protected and listed depleted throughout its range under the MMPA and was originally listed as endangered throughout its range under the ESCA on June 2, 1970. It was listed as endangered under the ESA on December 28, 1973. x Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), was listed as threatened in U.S. waters, except for the Florida breeding population which was listed as endangered, on July 28, 1978 (43 FR, 32800 32811). x Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), was listed as endangered throughout its range, on June 2, 1970 (35 FR, 8491) x Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), was listed as endangered throughout its range, on December 2, 1970 (35 FR, 18320) x Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochylys coriacea), was listed as endangered throughout its range, on December 2, 1970 (35 FR, 8491) x Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), was listed as threatened throughout its range, on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800 32811) x Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), was listed as threatened and endangered on December 11, 1985 (50 FR, 50720-50734). Critical habitat was designated on July 6, 2000 (50 FR, 41782- 41812). x Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), was listed as threatened throughout its range, on December 11, 2014 (79 FR 73705 73748) Candidate Species
There are currently no listed species found within the project or study area. Species of Concern
Species that have recently been delisted no longer carry the threatened or endangered designation under the ESA include:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), was de-listed on August 9, 2007 (72 FR 37345 37372)
Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), was de-listed on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59443 59472)
Colonial Nesting Birds including cormorants, herons, egrets, ibises, gulls, skimmers, and the Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). The interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) was listed as endangered throughout its range, except for within 50 miles of the coast, on June 27, 1985 (50 FR 21784-21792)
Although no longer federally listed as endangered or threatened, the Bald Eagle and Brown Pelican still receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MTBTA). Colonial nesting birds are also protected under the MBTA. Additionally, the Bald Eagle is protected under the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act (64 Federal [FR] 164:46542-46558; 72 FR 130:37346-37372). Despite this, these species are not included in this BA.
B-16 Critical Habitat
Piping plover critical habitat does exist within the Project area. Unit 5 (LA-5) of the Louisiana piping plover critical habitat extends along the GOM shoreline, from the Timbalier Islands to Grand Isle. Species Evaluation
WEST INDIAN MANATEE (TRICHECHUS MANATUS)
Description of Species
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is a large aquatic mammal that can reach a total body length of about 10-12 feet (3 meters) and weigh between 800 and 1,200 pounds (362-544 kilograms) (USFWS, 2008). The average lifespan of an individual is typically around 30 years in the wild. Manatees have brownish grey, rubber-like hides with small hairs distributed sparsely over the body (USFWS, 2001). These sea marine mammals rely on their two paddle-like forelimbs and large flat tails to propel themselves through the water. They can be found floating near or just below the surface since they must occasionally come up for air. The nostrils are located on the upper portion of the snout and can be closed off by two muscular valves when the manatee dives.
Manatees can hear very well despite having relatively inconspicuous ears with no pinnae. The inner ear structure suggests that they can hear very well, especially sounds in the low narrow frequency range. Manatees communicate with one another through touch and vocalizations such as clicks, chirps, squeals.
Manatees are herbivores and will opportunistically feed on all forms of aquatic vegetation (i.e., submerged, floating, and emergent). They can spend between 3 to 7 hours a day foraging for food and can consume up 10% of their body weight daily (Bengston, 1983). In coastal areas, the manatees diet mainly consists of seagrasses such as cordgrass (Spartina sp.), turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), and eelgrass (Zostera marina) (USFWS, 2001). Manatees have been known to consume species considered invasive to Louisiana’s coastal areas, such as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and hydrilla (hydrilla verticillata).
The manatees breeding season lasts year round. Births have been reported in all months, with a slight drop in frequency being recorded in the winter months (USFWS, 1993b). Sexual maturity differs slightly between males and females, with males reaching maturity at 3-4 years of age and females at around five. Females typically give birth to one calf every 2 to 5 years (USFWS, 2001).
Species Habitat and Distribution
The West Indian manatee can be found in the waters along the southeastern and eastern coasts of the continental United States, ranging from southern Texas to the southern tip of Florida and from southern Florida to North Carolina. They tend to occupy shallow coastal brackish or freshwater areas with seagrass beds for feeding. They may also be found in rivers, canals, estuarine habitats, and bays that are connected to the GOM or Atlantic Ocean. In late fall, manatees will begin migrating back to the Florida peninsula seeking warmer waters. The species cannot tolerate
B-17 temperatures below 68°F (20°C). During the winter months, manatees can be found congregating around plant outfall pipes that discharge artificially heated water into bays or rivers.
Status and Cause of Decline
Both subspecies of West Indiana manatee, the Florida and Antillean, were listed as endangered throughout its range, on June 2, 1970. Federal protection of the species was granted in 1973 with the passage of the ESA.
The West Indian manatee is also listed as protected species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. The act is significant in that it makes all marine mammals, including the West Indian manatee, unapproachable by humans. Additionally, it makes it illegal to take, harm, harass, or feed wild marine mammals without a permit. Conservation planning under the MMPA is included in the recovery plan of the ESA (USFWS, 2001).
Human-related threats are responsible for the death and injury to manatee populations across the southeastern United States. It’s estimated that over 25% of all manatee deaths are attributed to boat strikes (Oshea et al., 1995). Strikes that aren’t lethal have the potential to seriously maim individuals or cause traumatic injury. The destruction or modification of warm water habitats also plays a significant role in the decline of the species. The development of coastal wetlands and the depletion of ground water wells that supply these habitats is the main cause for the destruction of manatee habitat in the southeastern United States.
The indirect effects of these activities have also played a role in the decline of the species. This includes entanglement in fishing gear that result in drowning, ingestion of human trash or debris, and entrapment in water control structures. Boating traffic also causes indirect damage due to the turbid conditions created when a watercraft passes through the manatee’s habitat. The increased turbidity disorients individuals, causes stress, and disrupts seagrass beds (Deutsch et al., 2008). Non-point-source water pollution also presents an indirect threat to the species.
FIN WHALE (BALAENOPTERA PHYSALUS)
Description of Species
Fin whales are the second largest species of whale on Earth, reaching lengths of 75 feet (22 meters) and weighing between 80,000 and 160,000 pounds (40-80 tons) (NOAA, 2015a). They have sleek, streamlined bodies, a v-shaped head, and a “falcate” dorsal fin located about two-thirds down the whales back. The body of the fin whale is black to dark brown on the back, sides, and left side of its head, and white on the ventral surfaces and right side the head. Many individuals have distinct light-gray chevrons behind their heads (NOAA, 2015a)
Species Habitat and Distribution
The species can be found in all of the world’s ocean, but mainly resides in offshore water. In the western Atlantic, fin whales occur from Greenland to Caribbean, but are rarely seen in artic and polar latitudes (Reilly et al., 2013). Fin whales are not believed to regularly occur within the project area due to the sites proximity to the coast.
B-18 Status and Cause of Decline
The ESA (35 FR FR 8495) listed Fin Whales as endangered throughout its range, on December 28, 1973. The species is also listed as depleted throughout its range under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972.
HUMPBACK WHALE (MEGAPTERA NOVAEANGLIAE)
Description of Species
Adult humpback whales reach lengths of 60 feet (18 meters) and can weigh up to 40 tons (36,000 kilogram). Body coloration is dark grey with white bellies and pectoral fins. The white coloration varies between individuals, to the extent that the variation allows individuals to be distinguished by these patterns (NOAA, 2015c)
Species Habitat and Distribution
Humpback wales occur in all of the world’s oceans. In the western Atlantic, the species spends its summers in productive cold water feeding grounds found in the northern latitudes. The species prefers to hunt in shallow coastal waters, where it feeds on fish and krill (NOAA, 2015c). During the winter, humpbacks migrate to the West Indies where they breed and calve (NOAA, 2015c). The species has been very rarely documented in the Gulf.
Status and Cause of Decline
The humpback whale, was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) of 1969 in June of 1970. The ESA continued to list the species as endangered when it was signed on December 28, 1973. The humpback whale is also protected under the MMPA and is listed as depleted throughout its range.
SEI WHALE (BALAENOPTERA BOREALIS)
Description of Species
The sei whale is a member of the baleen whale family. The species can reach lengths of 40-60 feet (12-18 meters) and weigh as much as 100,000 pounds (45,000 kilograms) (NOAA, 2015d). The body is primarily bluish-gray to black in color with a pale underside. The species can be distinguished from other species, specifically the Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei), by the erect dorsal fin located about two-thirds down the length of the body.
Species Habitat and Distribution
Sei whales prefer the temperate waters of the mid-latitudes, but can be found in subtropical, temperate, and subpolar waters throughout the world’s oceans (NOAA, 2015d). The species is widely distributed throughout the deeper waters of the Atlantic Ocean and GOM (USACE, 1994). Despite this, the 1994 Port Fourchon Feasibility Report reported that there has only been two confirmed sightings in the northern Gulf. The first occurred in 1956, when an individual sei whale became stranded near Fort Bayou, on the western edge of the Breton Sound (USACE, 1994). A
B-19 second sighting was reported near Gulfport, Mississippi in 1967, when a single individual became stranded near the entrance to the harbor at Gulfport and died. Sei whales do not typically travel close to the coasts, and it is believed that the whale traveled up the deep navigation channel leading into Gulfport.
Status and Cause of Decline
The species is protected under the MMPA and is listed as depleted throughout its ranges. The species is also listed as endangered under the ESA of 1973.
SPERM WHALE (PHYSETER MACROCEPHALUS)
Description of Species
Sperm whales are the largest of the odontocetes (toothed whales), with males reaching lengths of 52 feet (16 meters) and females reaching lengths of 36 feet (11 meters) (NOAA, 2017b). Females typically weigh around 15 tons (13,607 kilogram), while males can weigh as much as 45 tons (40,823 kilogram). The sperm whale can be easily distinguished by its proportionally large head, which makes up between 25-35% of its total body length, and dark grey coloring. Sperm whales primarily prey on squid, but will also hunt mesopelagic sharks, skates, and rays.
Species Habitat and Distribution
Sperm whales occur throughout the world’s oceans and are typically found in deeper offshore waters and are rarely seen in waters less than 984 feet (30 meters) (NOAA, 2017b). Younger individuals occupy more tropical and subtropical latitudes while older individuals can be found along the edges of pack ice in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The species migration pattern is not well understood and their distribution is reliant on their food source and the presence of suitable breeding grounds. This can vary based of the sex and age composition of a particular groups of whales (NOAA, 2017b).
Sperm whales were once common enough in the Gulf to support a full-scale commercial whaling operation that lasted until the early 1900’s (NMFS, 2012). Sightings in the Gulf are uncommon although strandings have been recorded since the early 1900’s. The 1994 Port Fourchon Feasibility study reported four strandings in Louisiana between 1910 and 1990 (USACE, 1994). More recently, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that eight strandings had occurred between 2006 and 2010, with two of these strandings occurring in Louisiana. Of these eight, only one is believed to have occurred due to human interactions (NMFS, 2012).
Status and Cause of Decline
Sperm whales are protected and listed depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. The species was originally listed as endangered throughout its range under the ESCA on June 2, 1970. It was listed as endangered under the ESA on December 28, 1973.
B-20 PIPING PLOVER (CHARADRIUS MELODUS)
Description of Species
Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) are small shorebirds that have sandy brown-gray backs with white undersides. Individuals are typically around 6.5 inches (17-18 centimeters) in height and have a wingspan of approximately 15 inches (38 centimeters) (USFWS, 1996). During the species breeding season, piping plovers will have a single black or brown band across their foreheads and around their necks. These rings will disappear during the winter months. The piping plover can be distinguished from other shorebirds by its bright orange legs.
Species Habitat and Distribution
Piping plovers inhabit coastal sandy beaches, alkali flats, and sandy inland areas of the United States. There are two subspecies of piping plover that make up three different populations residing in the continental United States. These populations are characterized by their three distinct breeding grounds located in the Great Lakes, Northern Great Plains, and Atlantic Coast regions (IUCN, 2016). The Northern Great Plains and Atlantic Coast populations are listed as threatened while the Great Lakes population is considered endangered.
From mid-July to late April, piping plovers migrate to wintering grounds along the coasts of the Gulf and Atlantic Ocean. Some individuals remain at these coastal wintering grounds for more than one season where individuals will spend the majority of their time foraging for food to prepare for the next breeding season (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990, Drake 1999a, 1999b). In early March, the piping plovers return to their northern nesting grounds to breed. Plovers depend on a mosaic of habitat patches for foraging. Habitat patches typically have a moist substrate and include intertidal portions of beaches, washover areas, mudflats, algal flats, sand flats, shoals, wrack lines, sparsely vegetated shorelines, and areas adjacent to marsh areas (USFWS 2001b).
Status and Cause of Decline
The piping plover that was listed as threatened and endangered on December 11, 1985 (50 FR, 50729-50734) and critical habitat was designated on July 6, 2000 (50 FR, 41782-41812). In the early 1900’s, overhunting and unregulated egg collection severely reduced the number of piping plover in the United States (USFWS, 1996). More recently, habitat loss related to human-activity has become most significant threat to the piping plover species. Residential and commercial development can completely destroy or severely degrade piping plover habitat. Even low impact recreational development has the potential to adversely affect plover habitat. These developments increase human foot and vehicle traffic in an area, which has the potential to disturb or destroys piping plover nests. Additionally, human development attracts an increased number of predators (i.e., raccoons, foxes, and domesticated dogs and cats) that prey on piping plover chicks and eggs.
Sea level rise associated with global climate change has increased coastal flooding events which destroy nests and reduce reproductive success (IUCN, 2016). Projects designed to mitigate the effects of erosion, such as shoreline stabilization and beach nourishment, also have the potential to adversely affect piping plover habitat. These projects turn flat sand habitat, which the piping plover relies upon to nest as well as for foraging and roosting on their wintering grounds, into
B-21 beach with steep slopes and increased vegetation (Haig, 1985). Precautions should be taken to avoid or minimize any major habitat degradation.
The USFWS designated area in the United States as critical habitat for the piping plover in 2001 (Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 132, 10 July 2001) on both the breeding and wintering grounds. Section 3 (5)(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 ESA defines critical habitat as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” In the federal register, the USFWS indicated that “the primary constituent elements are found in coastal areas that support intertidal beaches and flats (between annual low tide and annual high tide) and associated dune systems and flats above annual high tide. Important primary components (primary constituent elements) of intertidal flats include sand and/or mud flats with no or very sparse emergent vegetation. Other important habitat includes vegetated or sparsely vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats that are positioned above the high tide line. These areas are utilized by the piping plover for roosting. Louisiana has almost 25,000 acres of piping plover wintering critical habitat divided into several units across the state. These units are:
Unit LA-1: Texas/Louisiana border to Cheniere au Tigre. 2,650 hectares (6,548 acres) in Cameron and Vermilion Parishes. Unit LA-2: Atchafalaya River Delta. 921 hectares (2,276 acres) in St. Mary Parish, LA. Unit LA-3: Point Au Fer Island. 195 hectares (482 acres) in Terrebonne Parish. Unit LA-4: Isles Dernieres. 795 hectares (1,964 acres) in Terrebonne Parish. Unit LA-5: Timbalier Island to East Grand Terre Island. 2,321 hectares (5,735 acres) in Terrebonne, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes. Unit LA-6: Mississippi River Delta. 105 hectares (259 acres) in Plaquemines Parish, LA. Unit LA-7: Breton Islands and Chandeleur Island Chain. 3,116 hectares (7,700 acres) in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, LA.
The proposed action of this project will take place within the boundaries of Unit LA-5. A description of Unit LA-5 is provided by USFWS is below (Figure B-5).
B-22
Figure B-4. Critical Habit Unit LA-5
Unit LA-5: Timbalier Island to East Grand Terre Island. 2,321 hectares (5,735 acres) in Terrebonne, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes
This unit includes: all of Timbalier Island where primary constituent elements occur to the MLLW, all of Belle Pass West [the “peninsula” extending north/northwest approximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi) from the west side of Belle Pass] where primary constituent elements occur to MLLW (Figure B- 4); the Gulf shoreline extending approximately 11 km (6.8 mi) east from the east side of Belle Pass bounded on the seaward side by MLLW and on the landward side to where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent elements no longer occur; all of Elmers Island peninsula where primary constituent elements occur to MLLW and the Gulf shoreline from Elmers Island to approximately 0.9 km (0.56 mi) west of Bayou Thunder Von Tranc bounded on the seaward side by MLLW and on the landward side to where densely vegetated habitat, not used by the piping plover, begins and where the constituent elements no longer occur; the Gulf shoreline of Grand Isle from the Gulf side of the hurricane protection levee to MLLW; and all of East Grand Terre Island where primary constituent elements occur to the MLLW.
B-23 RED KNOT (CALIDRIS CANUTUS RUFA)
Description of Species
The red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is a medium-sized wading bird ranging from 9-11 inches (25- 28 centimeters) in length. Its feathers are mottled with grey and black. During the spring mating season, the head and breast of the red knot turns a reddish rust color. It has a short black beak with short greyish black legs.
Species Habitat and Distribution
The species has a very wide distribution, traveling more than 9,000 miles (14,000 kilometers) every year between breeding and wintering grounds. The breeding grounds are located in the Canadian Arctic where the knot constructs nests out of mud or small gravel on upland ridges. Around mid-July, the species will begin to migrate southward towards the Gulf of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, although the wintering range can extend as far south as Argentina and Chile. Red knots do not typically over-winter in Louisiana but do stopover along the Gulf coast during migration. Peak migration for the red knot occurs in the spring, between April 1st and June 15th. Migrating knots stop and feed on small intertidal invertebrates, crustaceans, annelid worms, insects, and occasionally small fish along the Atlantic coast while making their way to these wintering grounds (del Hoyo et al. 1996). In the United States, the red knot can be found wintering in intertidal marine habitats along the Gulf. While at the breeding grounds, the knots diet will mostly consist of insects, crustaceans, snails, and worms (del Hoyo et al. 1996).
Status and Cause of Decline
The red knot was listed as threatened under the ESA on December 11, 2014 (79 FR 73705). Habitat loss is the greatest threat facing the red knot. The species breeding and wintering ranges are being lost to massive land reclamation projects (del Hoyo et al. 1996, Kraan et al. 2010, Leyrer et al. 2014). Coastal intertidal areas, which the species uses during migration, are also being rapidly developed for urban, industrial, and agricultural uses. Dams and diversion infrastructure can also negatively affect the habitat of the red knot by changing the water or sediment flow into intertidal habitat. Other threats include pollution and disturbance from human activities.
ATLANTIC STURGEON (ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS DESOTOI)
Description of Species
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) are large, primitive fish with cylindrical bodies. The fish have unique features, such as an elongated, wedge shaped head and five rows of dermal scutes lining of its body. The species’ mouth is located on the underside of its head and is lined with four fleshy barbells that help it detect its prey. The sturgeon’s diet consists primarily of bottom dwelling macroinvertebrates. Adults can grow up to 8 feet (4.3 meters) long and weigh up to 200 pounds (90 kilograms) (NOAA, 2015b).
B-24 Species Habitat and Distribution
The Atlantic sturgeon (Gulf subspecies) is an anadromous species and prefers to live in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico until it is ready to spawn. During this time, the sturgeon enters rivers that empty into the estuaries of the Gulf. Spawning begins as early as February, when waters reach a temperature between 55-64°F (13-18°C). Sturgeons will return to the Gulf between September and November. This cycle typically takes place every 2-6 years. The species has been reported throughout the state of Louisiana, with most individual sightings coming from the Pearl, Bogue Chitto, and Tchefuncte rivers.
Status and Cause of Decline
The Atlantic sturgeon was listed as threatened on October 30, 1991 (55 FR 18357 18360). Most North American sturgeon species were overharvested during the 20th century due to the demand for their meat and caviar. Atlantic sturgeon fisheries were closed in the latter part of the 20th century. Despite this, incidental catches of Atlantic sturgeon occur every year through nets or other fishing techniques. In 1995, an Atlantic sturgeon recovery and management plan was completed in 1995 that outlined the actions that would need to be taken by state and federal agencies to help the remaining Atlantic sturgeon populations reach sustainable levels (USFWS and GSMFC 1995).
River modifications change or obstruct the flow of river systems and represent the biggest threat to the species. These modifications, such as dams, water control structures, dredging, and dredge material disposal, can obstruct entry into rivers that the Atlantic Sturgeon uses as spawning grounds. Pollution also presents a threat to sturgeon populations and research has shown that excessive levels of pesticides, heavy metals, and organochlorines have been found in tissue samples and egg (St. Pierre, & Parauka, 2006).
GREEN SEA TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS)
Description of Species
The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) is the largest of hard-shelled sea turtle, with individuals growing to a length of 3 feet (about 1 meter) and weighing as much as 350 pounds (150 kilograms) (NOAA-). The green sea turtle has a brown to olive heart-shaped carapace that has 4 pairs light to dark brown coastal scutes. The head of the green turtle is light brown with yellow markings with one pair of prefrontal scales (USFWS, 2017a). Green turtles differ from other sea turtle species as adults because their diet consists of mostly marine grasses and algae. Green turtles are also the only species of sea turtle known to bask on land.
Species Habitat and Distribution
Green turtles are a globally distributed species and can be found in the tropical and subtropical regions of world’s oceans. In the U.S., the species can be found in the Gulf from Texas to Florida and in the Atlantic Ocean from Florida to Massachusetts. Green turtles are considered rare in the coastal water of Louisiana, although it is believed that the species may nest off the Chandeluer Islands (Dundee and Rossman, 1989). The species prefers shallow areas that have an abundance of marine grasses and algae such as bays, reefs, seagrass beds, and estuaries.
B-25 Green turtles are known to migrate along coasts for thousands of miles between nesting and feeding grounds. The species nests on mainland beaches throughout the tropical and subtropical regions where the water is warmer than 77° F (25° C). There have been no nesting sites recorded in Louisiana.
Status and Cause of Decline
The green sea turtle was listed as threatened in U.S. waters, except for the Florida breeding population which was listed as endangered, on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800 32811). Overexploitation has historically been the primary reason for the decline in the green sea turtle population worldwide, especially where the harvesting of green sea turtles for food still remains legal. The intentional harvest of the species eggs and juveniles from nesting sites has been detrimental to the species. In Louisiana, the species was once commercially harvested from the states coastal waters.
HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE (ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA)
Description of Species
The hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is a medium-sized sea turtle with a powerful bird-like beak. The species carapace ranges from dark to golden brown in color with faint yellow streaks on top and a yellow plastron underneath and two pairs of prefrontal scute. The hawksbill has a number of distinguishing features including two pairs a prefrontal scales along its’ head, two claws on each flipper, and a carapace covered in thick overlapping coastal scutes (NOAA, 2014c). Adults have an average shell length of around 30 inches (76 cm) and weigh between 100 to 150 pounds (45 to 68 kilograms) (NOAA, 2014c). Hawksbill turtles are omnivores, but mainly feed on sponges that live on coral reefs communities (USFWS, 2016).
Species Habitat and Distribution
Hawksbill turtles are a circumtropical species, usually inhabiting the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean between 30°N and 30°S latitude. Hawksbill turtles will occupy different environments throughout different stages of their lives. As hatchlings, hawksbills will typically inhabit the pelagic zone where they forage and hide amongst algal mats. Juveniles will migrate to warmer coastal waters where they can feed on small invertebrates and fish. These environments include coral reefs, warm bays, sea grass beds, and estuaries.
Hawksbill turtles live a solitary life and only associate with other individuals to mate every 2 to 3 years. The nesting season takes place between April and November when females return to the same beach where they hatched. In the western Atlantic region, nesting generally occurs along the deep-sand beaches of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Nesting in the continental United States is sporadic and is occasionally documented along the Florida coast (NOAA, 2016). Over the nesting season, females will lay three to six clutches of eggs over a six week period. Each clutch contains around 140 ping pong ball sized eggs.
In Louisiana, this species is rarely encountered in coastal waters, making it difficult to accurately estimate the state’s population. Hawksbill sightings in the northern Gulf are generally limited to
B-26 the coral reefs of south Florida, although a small number of juvenile or hatchlings have been found along the Texas coast. This is due to the relatively cold winters of the northern GOM and the lack of shallow water coral reefs that the species prefers. These types of ecosystems are more characteristic of the Central America and the Caribbean region. One documented sighting of an individual hawksbill occurred near Calcasieu lake in 1986 (Fuller et al., 1986).
Status and Cause of Decline
The hawksbill sea turtle was listed as endangered throughout its range on June 2, 1970 (35 FR, 8491). Overexploitation was historically the primary reason for the decline of the hawksbill sea turtle. The carapace of the hawksbill sea turtle was highly sought after for the production of jewelry, cosmetics, and leather (NOAA, 2016). Juvenile turtles were harvested, stuffed, and sold as trinkets in Caribbean countries where tourism was a major driver of the economy. Additionally, some human populations living on smaller islands in the Pacific still rely on turtles and their eggs as a source of food. Other threats related to human activities include incidental capture by fishing equipment and boat strike by pedestrian and commercial vessels.
KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE (LEPIDOCHELYS KEMPII)
Description of Species
Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) is the smallest of the world’s sea turtle species, adults typically weigh 80-100 pounds (35-45 kilograms) with shell length of about 28 inches (70 centimeters) (NOAA, 2014d). Adults have an olive-gray oval-shaped carapace with five pairs of coastal scutes. The head of the Kemp’s Ridley turtle is triangular-shaped with a hooked beak. The species uses this beak to prey on benthos such as crabs, crustacean, mollusk, fish, and starfish (Ernst and Barbour, 1989).
Species Habitat and Distribution
The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle’s range extends from the GOM to the coast of the North Atlantic Ocean. The extent of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle in the United States includes habitat along the coasts of the following states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. From May to October, the Kemp’s ridley occupies the warm shallow, bays, lagoons, and sea grass beds in and around the Louisiana coast. The species prefers habitat with a low salinity, high turbidity, and high organic matter content (Zwinenberg 1977). Habitats with these conditions typically occur where major river systems that discharge into the GOM. In Louisiana, the species has been observed in Sabine Lake, Calcasieu Lake, Lake, Borgne, and areas around St. Bernard Parish (Dundee and Rossman, 1989). As winter approaches, the species will seek out warmer offshore waters.
The Kemp’s ridley exhibits nesting and breeding behavior that are unique to the Lepidochelys species. Unlike other sea turtle species, the Kemp’s ridley is able to breed and nest in successive years. Females will nest 2-3 times during the breeding season on the beaches of Texas and Mexico (NOAA, 2014d). Nesting takes place in a synchronized display known as “arribada”, which translates to “arrival” in Spanish. During the arribada, females will congregate off the shore of a nesting beach until the group is ready to come ashore in a collective wave. After hatching, the
B-27 Kemp’s ridley travels to deeper offshore water where they float amongst Sargassum seaweed. Juveniles ride the currents of the Gulf Stream into the Atlantic Ocean where they will remain for almost two years before returning to the nertic zone of the Gulf.
Status and Cause of Decline
The Kemp’s ridley was listed as endangered throughout its range, on December 2, 1970 (35 FR, 18320). The intentional harvest of the species eggs is the primary reason for the decline of the species. Other major threats are the incidental harvest of individuals by commercial fishing operations and habitat loss due to human activities and climate change.
LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE (DERMOCHELYS CORIACEA)
Description of Species
The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is the world’s largest sea reptile. Adults reach lengths of over 6 feet (1.8 meters) and weigh up to 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) (NOAA, 2014e). The species has a distinct leathery black carapace with seven longitudinal ridges that help to make the turtle’s barrel shaped body more hydrodynamic (USFWS, 2015a). Additionally, the leatherback’s flippers are proportionally longer than other sea turtles species. This aides the turtles on deep dives and long foraging migrations.
Species Habitat and Distribution
Leatherback sea turtles have the widest global distribution of any reptile species on Earth and are found throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. They are pelagic animals that spend a majority of their lives in the open oceans foraging on jellyfish (Rebel, 1974). Leatherback nesting occurs between March and July along the Atlantic coast and throughout the Caribbean Over the course of the nesting season, female leatherbacks will lay 7-10 clutches of eggs before returning to deeper offshore waters.
In Louisiana, leatherback turtles are more common in the states offshore waters, although, there have been sightings of leatherbacks in shallow water areas off of Louisiana’s coast (Gunter 1981, Dundee and Rossman, 1989). Literature from Dundee and Rossman (1989) claim that leatherbacks have been sighted or collected from Cameron Parish, the Atchafalaya Basin, Timbalier Bay, and the Chandeleur Sound. The same literature states that despite these sightings, no nest have been reported in the state.
Status and Cause of Decline
Major threats to leatherback turtles vary between populations, but incidental capture is considered the biggest threat facing the species as a whole (Tiwari et al. 2013). These captures occur when turtles become entangled in fishing gear such as gill nets, longlines, trawls, and dredges where they are seriously injured or drowned.
B-28 LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE (CARETTA CARETTA)
Description of Species
The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) has a heart-shaped carapace that is reddish-brown on the top and pale yellow underneath. Adult loggerheads weigh around 250 pounds (113 kilograms) with a carapace measuring close to 3 feet (91.44 centimeter) (NOAA, 2014f). The species has a relatively large head which supports a set of blunt jaws that can be used to crush the shells of mollusks, crustaceans, and fish. The neck and flippers of the loggerhead are dull brown to reddish brown in color. Juveniles will remain in these coastal foraging grounds for up 20 years before starting their first reproductive migration to their natal beach.
Species Habitat and Distribution
Loggerhead turtles are present throughout the tropical and temperate ranges of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. In the Atlantic Ocean, loggerheads can be found from the northern reaches of Canada and as far south as the Argentinean coast. After mating between March and July, female loggerhead turtles in the southwestern Atlantic and the Gulf begin laying eggs on sandy coastal beaches from April and September. Around 90 percent of nesting that occurs in the Gulf takes place along the south-central east coast of Florida (Hildebrand, 1989). A study by Hildebrand (1981) also stated that loggerhead sea turtle eggs were reported in Grand Isle over 50 years ago.
Like other species of sea turtles, loggerheads occupy a range of habitats at different stages of their lives. Upon hatching, juvenile loggerheads are swept away by the surf and move towards areas where surface waters converge and form downwellings. These areas are important because planktonic species, such as Sargassum, tend to gather in these areas. The juvenile loggerheads use the macroalgea for camoflauge while they forage for food (USFWS, 2015b). Eventually the juvenile loggerheads will be transported by currents into the ocean zone. After 7-12 years, the juveniles begin migrating back towards the warm inshore waters of the neritic zone where they feed on benthic organisms.
Status and Cause of Decline
The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as threatened throughout its range on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800 32811). In 2011, the species was divided into nine Distinct Population Segments (DPS). Of these DPS, four remained listed as threatened and the other five were listed as endangered. Wallace et al. outlined the major threats that have contributed to the decline of the species. Like leatherback sea turtles, the magnitude of each of these threat categories differs between subpopulations.
COMMON THREATS TO SEA TURTLES
Primary threats to sea turtles are not well understood and can vary between species and even different subpopulations within each species. Despite this, there are a number of common threats that affect all sea turtle species to some degree. These threat categories were established by the Marine Turtle Specialist Group and expanded upon in a study by Wallace et. al. (2011) (Mast et. al, 2005). These threat categories considered are fisheries bycatch, take, coastal development,
B-29 pollution and pathogens, and climate change (Wallace et al., 2011). Instead of repeating these threats under each species profile, this BA seeks to address these in a dedicated section that can be applied to all the sea turtle species.
Fisheries Bycatch
The first category, fisheries bycatch, refers to the accidental capture of individual sea turtles in commercial fishing gear that is meant to target other species. This occurs in commercial fishing operations that use equipment such as trawls, dredges, longlines, driftnets, gillnets, pots, and traps. Mortalities occur when sea turtles become entangled in ropes or nets, sustain serious injury from hooks, or are crushed by dredging equipment. Turtles that survive are discarded back into the ocean, where they often succumb to the injuries that they sustained during the process.
Several strategies have been put into place to reduce the amount of sea turtle deaths attributed to fisheries bycatch. In 1972, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) set up the National Observer Program (NOP), which hires observers to monitor and collect catch and bycatch data from U.S. commercial fishing and processing vessels. The NMFS has issued measures to reduce the bycatch of marine turtles, including gear, modifications, changes to fishing practices and time/area closures.
Take
Under the ESA, a “take” means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct”. Takes primarily occur as a direct utilization of turtles or eggs for human use (i.e. consumption, commercial products). Six of the world’s seven species of sea turtles are listed as threatened or endangered and all seven species are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Despite these protective measures, there still exists a market for sea turtle meat, eggs, and products made from sea turtle parts.
Coastal Development
Coastal development refers to human activity and development that directly or indirectly destroys sea turtle foraging and nesting habitat. The expansion of urban, industrial, and agricultural development near coastal areas can completely destroy or block access to nesting habitat. The artificial light or shade given off by these developments can also negatively affect sea turtle behavior. If a beach is too brightly lit, female sea turtles may avoid nesting on that particular beach. Shadows given off by human development can lower the temperature on beaches which affects the sex of the turtle hatchlings and the egg incubation time.
The human traffic associated with development can also have negative effects on sea turtles. Females avoid beaches with that are frequented by people. If they do choose to nest on these beaches, the turtles risk being harassed during the process. Furniture and other recreational equipment left behind by humans can impede females looking to nest on these beaches or juveniles trying to make their way to the ocean. The increased amount of foot traffic on these nesting beaches can lead to nests being disturbed or even destroyed.
B-30 Sea turtle nesting habitat is also being lost at a rapid pace due to the development of sandy beach front property. Beach armoring techniques, such as levees, flood walls, and rock jetties, hinder access to beaches that sea turtles nest on. Coastal shoreline protection and mitigation techniques can have similar negative effects. Shoreline nourishment techniques, while considered helpful for mitigating lost shoreline habitat, can make beaches less suitable for sea turtle nests.
Pollution and Pathogens
Pollution covers a very broad range of threats to sea turtles and their environments. Plastic is often mistaken as a prey item and ingested by the turtles, leading to internal injury and/or death. Contamination regularly occurs from coastal runoff, oil spills, and the discharge of gas, oil, and sewage from human facilities. Light pollution from the bright artificial lighting associated with coastal development can affect hatchling turtles. Upon emerging from the nest, juvenile turtles look for the light of the moon to guide them toward the ocean. Artificial lighting confuses hatchling turtles and draws the hatchling turtles into developed areas.
Fibropapillomatosis is the primary pathogen of concern affecting sea turtle populations. This occurs as small to large sized tumors found on the outside and insides of a sea turtles body. While they are benign, they can result in the individual turtle’s death by hindering vital abilities such as swimming, seeing, or eating. Tumors have been documented on all sea turtle species, but seem particularly common in green sea turtles.
Climate Change
Anthropogenic climate change is perhaps the most significant long-term threat to all sea turtle species. The effects of this phenomenon have been categorized into primary changes (higher atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)), concentrations and air temperatures), consequent second- order effects (e.g., warmer water with reduced pH), third-order (e.g., sea-level rise and changed hydrology) and lower-order effects (e.g., beach erosion, coastal retreat, biological changes) (Cocks and Crossland, 1991). A literature review conducted in 2016 found that despite the threat that climate change presents, there is a relatively small amount of scientific literature that focuses on the long-term impact of climate change on sea turtle populations (Schumacher and Reece, 2016).
Erosion related to sea level rise causes geomorphic changes to coastal beach habitat, reducing the overall amount of suitable nesting habitat available to sea turtle species. This is especially threatening to sea turtle populations since individuals return to their natal beaches for nesting. Shoreline erosion will also be exacerbated by the predicted increase in extreme weather events linked to global climate change. The storms increase local wave and wind activity which can have devastating effects of shorelines and dune systems. Additionally, erosion can have drastic changes on sand dune systems, wave climate, beach area and slope, and sand grain size which can make a beach unsuitable for nesting (Jones et al., 2007).
Ocean acidification is another threat related to climate change that threatens all of the world’s sea turtle populations. This process occurs when atmospheric CO2, which is relatively inert in the atmosphere, is dissolved in seawater and becomes highly reactive (Jones et al., 2007). This affects many biochemical conditions and processes, such as lowering the pH of seawater. The pH of the world’s ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era (IPCC,
B-31 2014). This represents an increase in ocean surface water acidity of about 26%. If the pH continues to decrease, sea turtle food sources and warm water coral reef habitat could be adversely affected. Marine invertebrates, such as coral and crustaceans, depend on calcium ions to help maintain their hard outer shells. As CO2 is dissolved into the water, a series of chemical reactions results in an increase in the amount of hydrogen ions and a decrease in carbonate ions. This makes it difficult for the calcifying organisms to maintain their calcium carbonate structures. In corals species, this decreases the fertilization success of reproducing corals, reduces successful coral settlement, and impedes post settlement growth (Albright et al, 2010). These effects are detrimental to the long- term viability of these fragile ecosystems. Food sources such as mollusks and crustaceans face similar fates, although marine algae and jellyfish may benefit from slightly more acidic surface waters (Winanas and Purcell, 2010, Hall-Spencer et al., 2008).
Temperature is an important environmental factor that affects aspects of the functions of marine turtle species, from determining the sex of hatchlings to the geographic distribution of adult turtle populations (Hawkes et al. 2009). As the atmosphere continues to warm, so will the sand found on nesting beaches. The temperature at which the egg incubates ultimately affects the sex of the sea turtle hatchling, with higher incubation temperature generally resulting in more female hatchlings. A major concern related to rising sand temperatures is that turtle nests will being to produce a disproportional amount of female sea turtles, increasing the female to male sex ratio. Studies have shown that eggs incubated at higher temperatures are less likely to survive and the ones that do produce hatchlings with decreased locomotor abilities (e.g., crawl and swim speed, ability to right themselves) (Fisher et al., 2014 and Woods et al., 2014).
DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following section discusses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the proposed project alternatives discussed in Section 1.2. The proposed activities include capital (new work) dredging and fill, maintenance dredging, and dredge material placement at sites near the Port. The implementation of these activities on the project site will have both direct and indirect effects on the surrounding environment. These include habitat modification, changes in water quality, additional noise, and entrainment. Conservation measures should be taken to minimize the effects that these activities could potentially have on the environment. Some effects, such as noise and changes in water quality, would be relatively short lived and would only occur during the initial construction, as well as during maintenance dredging. Other impacts could have more permeant effects on the area, such as the deepening of the channels and filling of shallow open water marsh areas.
In the proposed alternatives, new construction dredging is limited to the Gulf entrance channel. The initial construction and subsequent maintenance dredging would temporarily impact the benthic communities within the channels. It is highly likely that these communities would return to recolonize the channels following the initial construction and scheduled maintenance. Industrial land-uses are already present within the Port Fourchon project area, meaning that the noise associated with human activities is already present in the existing environment. Additionally, maintenance dredging within the Port’s interior navigation channels and the Bayou Lafourche
B-32 entrance channel is already routine practice. Permanent habitat impacts associated with the dredging activities are expected to be minimal.
B-33 The Corps uses a hydraulic cutterhead dredge to maintain Port channel depths. Cutterhead pipeline dredges operate by burrowing a cutterhead with rotating blades into sediments, sucking dredged alluvial material through the intake suction pipe on one end of the barge, and pushing the dredged material out of the discharge pipeline directly to the disposal site. The impact that has the potential to cause the most significant effect on listed endangered species within the study area is the potential for the species to become entrained during dredging activities. The dredging and disposal methods used during the course of this project would be consistent with recent and current maintenance dredging and capital dredging procedures used by the Corps around Port Fourchon.
NOISE
Noise plays an important role in the life of fish species. Many use sound to understand their environment, detect predators and prey, orient themselves during migration, and for acoustic communication (USFWS, 2015). The elevated noise that would result from dredging activities within the project area could potentially result in instantaneous death or latent death following exposure. Noise can also result in the indirect taking of fish species by increasing their susceptibility to disease, starvation, or affect the ability for individuals to complete certain parts of their life cycle. Behavioral changes can also be affected by noise, causing alterations in movement and foraging patterns.
The West Indian manatee is the only listed endangered mammal that is likely to occur within the study area, albeit infrequently. The MMPA of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.) established, the “taking” of marine mammals in waters or on lands under United States (U.S.) jurisdiction. The term “take,” as defined in Section 3 (16 U.S.C. § 1362 [13]) of the MMPA, means “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” “Harassment” is further defined in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, which establishes two levels of harassment: Level A (potential injury) and Level B (potential behavioral disturbance).
Belle Pass and Bayou Lafourche both regularly experience boat traffic associated with the Port. Noise will be generated by boats during the construction and maintenance phases of the project, however, noise levels associated with boat traffic by during these periods is not expected to add to the current background noise. Due to this, noise levels associated with vessels and barges will not be further discussed in this BA.
Noise from dredging activities is likely to have the most significant impacts on endangered species in the Project area. Clarke et al. (2003) suggests that most of the sound produced by cutterhead dredges and dredging operation typically falls between the 70 to 1,000 Hz range, and peaks in the 100-110 dB range.
It is estimated that a dredge would have a noise level of 70 dBA (A-weighted decibels) at 50-foot water depth (see Section 4.6.4.1 of the EIS). Based on this information, the noise level produced from dredging activities would be below the interim fish injury thresholds currently accepted by the NMFS, 206 dB peak level sound measurement (LPEAK) and 187 dB cSEL (Federal Highway Administration, 2012). The noise level produced from dredging activities would also be below the interim guidance for Level A (180 dB RMS) and Level B (160 RMS) for marine mammals within
B-34 66 feet of an active dredge (NOAA, 2012). Injury thresholds are not likely to be exceeded. The probability of noise impacts to marine species from dredging noise impacts would be expected to be minimal.
ENTRAINMENT IN DREDGING EQUIPMENT
Entrainment during dredging activities presents a source direct impacts to the Atlantic sturgeon and all of the listed endangered sea turtle species within the Project area. Sea turtles and sturgeon may become entrained during the initial construction and maintenance dredging activities, resulting in the injury or mortality of individuals. To lessen the chance of the impacts occurring, it is recommended that cutterhead dredges be used during the dredging projects. The Biological Opinion (BO) for the Bayou Casotte and Lower Pascagoula Sound Channel Widening Project (NMFS, 2012) concludes that for all sea turtle species, the use of cutterhead dredges, lighting effects from the hopper and cutterhead dredges, and placement of dredged material are not likely to adversely affect sea turtles. Since the Corps uses a cutterhead dredge for channel maintenance there is a decreased potential for endangered sea turtles and sturgeon to become entrained by dredging equipment. Nonetheless, measures should be put in place during dredging that minimize any impacts that the activities could potentially have on the listed endangered species.
TURBIDITY AND RESUSPENDED SEDIMENTS
Dredging activities have direct impacts on the water quality of an area by increasing turbidity. As expected, levels of suspended sediment are highest closest to the dredging and placement sites. The amount and extent to which these sediments affect an area are determined by a number of factors including the physical properties of the sediment, site conditions, nature and extent of debris, obstructions, and operational considerations of the dredge equipment and operator.
Sediments suspended in the water column can adversely affect fish species and even result in direct mortality. These affects include damage to gill tissue, physiological stress, and behavioral changes (USACE, 2017). The degree to which they are impacted depends on the extent to which an individual is exposed, the concentration of sediments in the water column, and the composition of the suspended sediments (grain size and chemical associations). Impacts range from direct mortality of an individual to sub-lethal physical or behavioral responses from aquatic organisms.
The increased turbidity associated with the removal and placement of sediments would be temporary, lasting only a few days following the activity near the area where the activity occurred. Measures will be taken to ensure that turbidity levels are kept to a minimum near dredging and placement sites.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN, SALINITY, AND WATER TEMPERATURE
Water quality parameters within the area are highly variable and exhibit seasonality. The water quality in this area is heavily influenced by the freshwater input from Bayou Lafourche and the tidal waters from the Gulf. Due to its proximity to the Gulf, the waters naturally vary from brackish to saline.
B-35 The dredging activities in the proposed alternatives are expected to result in temporary site-specific water quality changes. Once of these parameters that is of concern is the amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) within the water column. Anoxic sediments can be disturbed and suspended within the water column by dredging activities which in turn lowers the amount of DO within the water column. If this would occur, it is expected to be confined to the project area and its immediate surrounding. Do to the temporary nature of these effects and relatively limited footprint, it is not expected that any major ecological impacts would arrive out of this change in water quality.
DISTURBANCE OF BENTHIC PREY
The Proposed Project Alternatives are not expected to have any long term negative effects on sea turtle foraging habitat within the area. Dredge material placement in the shoreline and barrier island placement sites could potentially disturb mollusks and crustaceans populations adjacent to the placement sites. This effect is expected to be only temporary, and would affect the Kemp’s ridley and loggerheads that typically feed on these species. Despite this, negative impacts are expected to be minimal due to the temporary nature of dredging impacts and limited range of nearshore dredging activity. The diets of each listed endangered sea turtle species is listed in Section 6, under the respective species description. It is not suspected that fill activities will result in the loss of any critical foraging habitat.
POTENTIAL INDIRECT PROJECT EFFECTS
Indirect impacts near the Project area are expected to be minimal due to the fact that all proposed capital dredging activities will be taking place in the Gulf. The additional depth will allow larger ships to access the port which could result in an increase in propwash in the port navigation channels. For the Port’s inshore channels, the additional depth is not expected to add any additional significant impacts to the environment surrounding project area. Additionally, the magnitude of impact of these indirect effects should naturally decrease away from the project area.
The extension of the Belle Pass channel into the Gulf presents the biggest source of indirect threats within the Project area. Species of whales and sea turtles may be confused by the increased depth and follow the deep channel further towards the shoreline. This could increase the risk for boat strikes to occur to both whale and sea turtle species. An EIS completed in 1994 on Port Fourchon found that there was one recorded occurrence of an individual Sei whale traveling up the deep navigation channel leading to the harbor at Gulfport and becoming trapped in the shallow near shore waters (USACE, 1994). Although extremely rare, this occurrence does highlight how endangered whale species could be indirectly affected by the proposed alternatives.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED/INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS
Interrelated actions are actions that exist as part of a larger action and depend on this larger action for their justification. These actions have no independent utility apart from the proposed Project under construction. No potential interrelated/interdependent actions associated with the proposed Project are known.
B-36 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are effects of future state, tribal, local, or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the study area of the Federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR §402.02). This section is meant to aid the coordinating agencies in making a jeopardy determination for a species, preparing BO’s, and tracking environmental conditions throughout the Project and study areas. The cumulative effects to each species are included in this Section of the BA.
No projects were determined to be “reasonably foreseeable future actions” to occur within the vicinity of the Project area, although, two projects within the study area are currently in the “Engineering and Design” phase. At this time, no documents are available regarding the details of each project or potential impacts to the surrounding environment that are anticipated to occur due these projects. In addition, those projects would require their own independent ESA consultations. These projects are:
1. BA-0171 (Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation) (Engineering & Design) 2. BA-0194 (East Leeville Marsh Creation and Nourishment) (Engineering & Design)
The following projects or actions represent “past or present actions” relative to the study area. Projects that are deemed to have no effect on any listed species or have insufficient details to make a determination of the level of impact are not included in this cumulative effects analysis.
- Maintenance Dredging - Dredge Placement Sites and ODMDS - Modification of Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump Waterway, LA, Navigation Channel Project in Lafourche Parish - Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facility - Fourchon Island Development - Masterplan Projects 1. LA-0012-6 (CIAP Performance Evaluation - Caminada Moreau Subsidence Study) (Completed) 2. LA-0012-7 (CIAP Performance Evaluation Borrow Area Management and Monitoring) (Completed) 3. TE-0052 (West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration) (Completed) 4. TE-0134 (West Fourchon Marsh Creation & Nourishment) (Completed) 5. BA-0045 (Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration) (Completed) 6. BA-00055 (LA 1 Improvements - Fourchon to Leeville Bridge) (Completed) 7. BA-0143 (Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration Increment 2) (Completed) 8. BA-0170 (Breach Management Plan) (Completed) 9. BA-0193 (Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation Increment 2) (Engineering & Design)
B-37 Atlantic Sturgeon
The chances of impacts affecting Atlantic sturgeon in the study area are extremely low due to the assumption that the range of the species does not extend west of the mouth of the Mississippi River. Therefore, this project should not amplify any adverse impacts or reduce the benefits gained from past, present, or future projects.
Sea Turtles
The dredging activities associated with the proposed project alternatives have the potential to negatively affect all of the sea turtle species listed in this BA. This includes temporary physical and behavioral impacts caused by an increase in noise, turbidity and suspended sediment, and the loss and displacement of food sources during dredging and placement activities. Avoidance, minimization, and other conservation measures should be implemented to reduce the likelihood and magnitude of these effects.
There are no projects currently under construction at the time that this BA was written, but recent projects that have been completed within the study area include the Liquefied Natural Gas Facility at Port Fourchon, the addition of a Deep Loading Hole on Fourchon Island, and various Masterplan projects (BA-0045, LA-0012-6, LA-0012-7, BA-0170, BA-0170). Projects that are scheduled to be carried out in the future consist of Masterplan projects (TE-0118TE-0052, TE-0134, BA-00055, BA-0193, BA-0143, BA-0045, BA-00055, BA-0193, and BA-0143).
For projects with a Federal nexus (e.g., commercial fisheries, maintenance dredging of Federal channels, etc.), Section 7 consultations have and are anticipated to minimize the cumulative adverse effects of projects on all listed species. Incidental by-catch is a significant driver of global sea turtle decline over the past century and does factor into the cumulative effects of this project. As the Port expands its facilities, the amount of vessel traffic in the area will increase, leading to a potential increase in turtle by-catch from commercial and recreational fisherman. This includes fishing methods that use trawling equipment, nets, and hook and line methods.
The increase in vessel traffic will also increase the potential for boat strikes to occur, as well as, contribute to the overall pollution (e.g., poisoning, ingestion or entanglement in marine debris) and increase the risk of spills within the study area. This not only accounts for fishing vessels, but also the increase in vessels related to the oil and gas field.
Another cumulative effect expected to occur under the No Action and Action Alternatives is the increase in the amount of marine debris in nearby waters. This cumulative effect is also tied to the increase in vessel traffic. Sea turtles ingest or may become entangled in debris that has been intentionally and unintentionally released into the waters of the Gulf. Ingesting debris can have a wide range of effects, but entanglement often results in the death of sea turtles due to drowning or impairment.
There are completed and proposed projects within the study area that have and will continue to focus on shoreline nourishment, stabilization, and restoration. All of these projects, which use beach shoreline as dredge material placement areas, temporarily disturb sea turtle nesting habitat along the Gulf shoreline. This temporary disturbance has the potential to produce long-term benefit to the species that is well worth the temporary adverse effects. There has been one recorded taking
B-38 of a loggerhead sea turtle individual during a previous Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) Masterplan project. This occurred when a loggerhead sea turtle became entrained in the draghead of a hopper dredge during the Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration (BA-45) project (CEI, 2015). Since the dredging operations associated with the Proposed Project Alternatives will rely on cutterhead dredging equipment, it is assumed that the chance of a take occurring are extremely low.
Section 8 contains a list of avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures that should be taken, especially by future projects, to greatly decrease the chances of adversely affecting any sea turtles within the study area.
Piping Plover & Rufa Red Knot
As with the sea turtle species listed in this BA, the placement activities associated with the proposed project alternatives are expected to have temporary negative effects, followed by long- term overall beneficial effects to listed shorebird species. Masterplan projects, such as TE-0052 and LA-0012-6, sought to nourish, beach, shoreline, dune, and barrier marsh habitat with nearby dredge material. The TSP utilize’s the areas used during those projects as placement areas for materials dredged out of the navigation channels. This project will attempt to build upon those projects by utilizing the former projects sites as placement areas for materials dredged during the capital dredging and maintenance phases.
The placement of dredge material in these areas is likely to displace or result in a loss of any organism not mobile enough to escape the slurry of placed dredge materials. Less mobile organism are likely to be buried under the slurry but both listed bird species are mobile enough to evacuate the area if disturbed by either the placement of dredge material or excessive noise produced by dredging operations or vessel traffic. Terrestrial wildlife and plant species are expected to recolonize the beaches near the placement areas shortly after placement activities cease.
Masterplan projects within close proximity to the Project area that are still in development, such as TE-0118, TE-0134, and LA-017, will be able to make use of the fill material for marsh nourishment, creation, and restoration purposes. To that effect, this Project should benefit future projects and not contribute to any long-term adverse effects.
It is reasonable to anticipate that the short-term adverse effects are worth the long-term cumulative beneficial effects that these actions will produce for both species of listed shorebirds and other organisms that depend on these habitats.
West Indian Manatee
The dredging and placement activities associated with the proposed project alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect any West Indian manatee within the Project area. As previously stated, there are no known manatee populations residing within the state of Louisiana. Boat strikes are the most significant threat to manatee migrating through the study area. Under the No-Action Alternative, vessel traffic is expected to increase due to the increased interest in deepwater oil and gas production and Port Fourchon’s proximity to a majority of the Gulf’s oil leases. Dredging and placement activities have the potential to result in some temporary, localized
B-39 impacts that would cause individuals to avoid the project area. Despite this, it is not believed that the species movement through the study area would be impeded. EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND CONSERVATION MEASURES
The GLPC presents their determinations about each species potentially occurring within the affected area, using language recommended by USFWS:
x No effect – GLPC determines that its proposed action will not affect a federally listed species or critical habitat;
x May affect, but not likely to adversely affect –GLPC determines that the project may affect listed species and/or critical habitat; however, the effects are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial; or
x Likely to adversely affect – GLPC determines adverse effects to listed species and/or critical habitat may occur as a direct result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Under this determination, an additional determination is made whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued survival and eventual recovery of the species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The GLPC has made the effect determinations for the proposed Project on federally listed species and has provided them to the USFWS and NMFS. The USFWS has reviewed the information as per the Section 7 consultation process under the ESA and concurred with the Corps determination that the Proposed Project Alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the West Indian manatee, and that the proposed Project should not have any permanent or long term adverse effects on the piping plover, the red knot, or any of the piping plover’s designated critical habitat areas. The Section 7 consultation process with NMFS is ongoing. As noted above, critical habitat is a term used in the ESA to refer to specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection.
ATLANTIC STURGEON
Effect Analysis
Impacts to Atlantic sturgeon within the Project area could potentially occur during both the initial capital dredging and maintenance dredging periods of the Proposed Project Alternatives. Despite this, the chances of impacting the Atlantic Sturgeon species are extremely low due to the assumption that the range of Atlantic sturgeon does not extend west of the mouth of the Mississippi River.
Potential impacts to the Atlantic Sturgeon from the Proposed Project Alternatives include:
B-40 x The degradation of potential habitat during capital and maintenance dredging operations due to the increase in suspended solids, noise, reduced DO, and displacement of benthic organisms; x Reduced availability of prey items during dredging and dredge material placement activities; x Behavioral impacts due to the noise and associated with dredge equipment to.
Entrainment or injury is not likely to occur during the proposed dredging operation is unlikely to occur due to the use of a cutterhead dredge. The Atlantic sturgeon should be able to discern and avoid dredge equipment during the maintenance and construction operations. If an Atlantic sturgeon is harmed during the operation all appropriate coordination would be initiated.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures
Since a cutterhead dredge will be used during the dredging operations, minimization efforts will consist of scheduling these operations around the Atlantic sturgeon’s spawning season which occurs between September and February. During this time of the year, sturgeon will migrate up streams and rivers from the waters of the Gulf to spawn in freshwater lakes. The species is not expected to inhabit waters west of the Mississippi River so these minimizations efforts should adequate.
Effect Determinations
With minimization measures put into place, the Proposed Project Alternatives may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Atlantic sturgeon. In particular, the measures to be implemented would include halting and postponing operations if injured, sick, or dead Atlantic sturgeon are located in the area, and following the proper notification protocol for any injured, sick, or dead Atlantic sturgeon as described in permits issued for the proposed Project.
SEA TURTLES
Effect Analysis
Of the sea turtles species listed in this BA, the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles are the most likely species to occur within the Project area. Green and leatherback turtles would be the least likely to occur due to their preference for dwelling in the pelagic zone. Dredging and placement operations listed under the Proposed Project Alternatives have the potential to negatively impact all of the sea turtle species included in this BA. All species could potentially be present within the study area throughout the year, although, nesting season takes place between March to November. In order to minimize potential impacts to the sea turtle populations, dredging and placement activities should be carried out between late autumn and early spring.
Potential impacts to sea turtle species from the Proposed Project Alternatives include:
x Degradation of potential habitat during capital and maintenance dredging operations due to the increase in suspended solids, noise, reduced DO, and displacement of benthic organisms;
B-41 x Reduced availability of prey items during dredging and dredge material placement activities; x Behavioral impacts due to the noise and associated with dredge equipment to; x Disruption of nesting sites due to the placement of dredge material on shorelines.
Indirect impacts to green sea turtles in the area include the potential temporary removal of prey from the proposed Belle Pass channel extension. This could potentially displace any turtles in the area as they follow food sources, such as jellyfish, to other areas. This effect would be temporary and is only protected to last during the initial construction and maintenance dredging periods, after which, prey items are expected to return to the disturbed areas.
The Project could potentially indirectly benefit the areas sea turtle populations by nourishing the Barrier Island and Gulf shoreline areas near the Port. Coastal erosion and habitat loss tend to be a limiting factor in the recovery of sea turtle populations in Louisiana’s Coastal Zone.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures
The scheduling of dredging and placement activities is key to the minimization of sea turtle takings. In order to minimize any adverse impacts, dredge material placement should be scheduled to avoid the months which sea turtles return to the Gulf beaches to nest. All of the turtles listed under this BA nest on the beaches of the Gulf between April and November, therefore, December and March present the optimal months for the placement of dredge materials.
A cutterhead dredge will be used during dredging operations, therefore, entrainment and/or injury is less likely to occur to sea turtles in the Project area. In order to further minimize the potential taking of sea turtles during dredging, these activities should be scheduled between December and March. During this time, sea turtles are more likely to migrate to warmer offshore waters of the Gulf.
Effect Determinations
The dredging operations associated with the proposed Project Alternatives have the potential to injure sea turtle individuals, although, impacts are highly unlikely due to the use of a cutterhead dredge. Sea turtles should be able to discern and avoid dredging equipment during construction and maintenance operations. Hydraulic cutterhead dredges have never been implicated in the taking of sea turtle individuals due to the slow movement of equipment.
Additionally, there should be no long-term impact to beach or barrier island nesting habitat due avoidance of dredging and placement activities during nesting season. The avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures listed in Section 8.1.1.2 greatly decrease the likelihood of adverse effects, including incidental take, occurring during construction and maintenance of the proposed project alternatives. If an incidental take were to occur, it would not likely jeopardize the continued existence or potential recovery of any of the sea turtle species included in the BA.
B-42 Table B-3. Sea Turtle Effect Determination Relative to the Proposed Project Alternative Common Dredging Activity Placement of Dredged Scientific Name Name Determination Materials Determination Green Chelonia mydas May affect, but not likely May affect, but not likely to adversely affect to adversely affect Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata May affect, but not likely May affect, but not likely to adversely affect to adversely affect Kemp’s ridley Leidochelys kempii May affect, but not likely May affect, but not likely to adversely affect to adversely affect Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea May affect, but not likely May affect, but not likely to adversely affect to adversely affect Loggerhead Caretta caretta May affect, but not likely May affect, but not likely to adversely affect to adversely affect
PIPING PLOVER AND RUFA RED KNOT
Effect Analysis
Potential impacts to the piping plover and red knot from the Proposed Project Alternatives include:
x Disturbance of foraging habitat; x Harassment caused by temporary human disturbances x The temporary loss of benthic prey x Displacement of wintering birds x The temporary unavailability of foraging and roosting habitat during construction and until benthic flora and fauna have recovered.
The dredging and placement activities associated with the Project are not expected to have any long-term adverse effects on the red knot species. The impacts associated with the Proposed Project Alternatives include the temporary displacement of individuals of both species to nearby suitable habitat during construction and the temporary loss of benthic prey that would be covered by dredge material placement activities. Changes in water quality adjacent to the placement sites would be only temporary and benthic prey would be expected to return and reestablish themselves within 6 to 12 months of the placement activities. The placement of dredge material is expected to produce long-term benefits to both species populations overwintering and migrating through the region.
Piping Plover Critical Habitat
In the July 10, 2001, Federal Register, the USFWS described the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the piping plover. The elements used to designate critical habitat for the species are listed below (USFWS 2001).
“Based upon the behavioral characteristics of wintering piping plovers, we have determined that the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of wintering piping plovers are those habitat components that support foraging, roosting, and sheltering and the physical features necessary for maintaining the
B-43 natural processes that support these habitat components. The primary constituent elements are found in geologically dynamic coastal areas that support intertidal beaches and flats (between annual low tide and annual high tide) and associated dune systems and flats above annual high tide.
Important components (primary constituent elements) of intertidal flats include sand and/or mud flats with no or very sparse emergent vegetation. In some cases, these flats may be covered or partially covered by a mat of bluegreen algae. Adjacent unvegetated or sparsely vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats above high tide are also important, especially for roosting piping plovers. Such sites may have debris, detritus (decaying organic matter), or microtopographic relief (less than 50 cm above substrate surface) offering refuge from high winds and cold weather. Important components of the beach/dune ecosystem include surf-cast algae for feeding of prey, sparsely vegetated backbeach (beach area above mean high tide seaward of the dune line, or in cases where no dunes exist, seaward of a delineating feature such as a vegetation line, structure, or road) for roosting and refuge during storms, spits (a small point of land, especially sand, running into water) for feeding and roosting, salterns (bare sand flats in the center of mangrove ecosystems that are found above mean high water and are only irregularly flushed with sea water (Myers and Ewel 1990)) (biologists have documented use of and roosting. Washover areas are broad, unvegetated zones with little or no topographic relief that are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surge, or other extreme wave action. Several of these components (sparse vegetation, little or no topographic relief) are mimicked in artificial habitat types used less commonly by piping plovers, but that are considered critical habitat (e.g., dredge spoil sites).
These habitat components are a result of the dynamic geological processes that dominate coastal landforms throughout the wintering range of piping plovers.
These geologically dynamic coastal regions are controlled by processes of erosion, accretion, succession, and sea level change. The integrity of the habitat components depends upon daily tidal events and regular sediment transport processes, as well as episodic, high magnitude storm events; these processes are associated with the formation and movement of barrier islands, inlets, and other coastal landforms. By their nature, these features are in a constant state of change; they may disappear, only to be replaced nearby as coastal processes act on these habitats. Given that piping plovers evolved in this dynamic system, and that they are dependent upon these ever-changing features for their continued survival and eventual recovery, our critical habitat boundaries incorporate sites that experience these natural processes and include sites that may lose and later develop appropriate habitat components.
In most areas, wintering piping plovers are dependent on a mosaic of sites distributed throughout the landscape. The annual, daily, and even hourly availability of the habitat patches is dependent on local weather and tidal conditions. For example, a single piping plover may leave a site if it becomes inundated by a high tide or storm event, or if high winds or cold temperatures make the site unsuitable for foraging or roosting. This bird will move to other patches
B-44 within the landscape mosaic that might provide refuge from inclement weather conditions, or that simply provide a roosting site until conditions become favorable to resume foraging.”
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat as it is defined directly above are those that modify primary constituent elements to the extent that the quality of the piping plover critical habitat is reduced.
The placement of dredge material near the shoreline placement sites would ultimately result in long-term positive impacts, however, there will be some minor temporary impacts. During construction, the birds would likely avoid the shoreline areas. Both species would most likely return to the area as benthic fauna returns.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures
Even though no long-term or permanent adverse impacts are expected to occur as a result of this project, measures should be taken to avoid and/or minimize any potential short-term impacts that may occur. The USFWS provided a list of avoidance and minimization measures that should be followed during the construction and maintenance phases of this project. See Attachment 1 of this Appendix for a complete list of avoidance and minimization measures. Effect Determinations
Based on the information available, the USFWS determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely impact the piping plover or red knot. It is anticipated that individuals of both species would avoid the Project area during construction and maintenance activities but would return shortly thereafter. There are no anticipated no long-term adverse effects on piping plover critical habitat unit LA-5.
WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Effect Analysis
Sightings along the Gulf Coast during the summer months are extremely rare. West Indian Manatee sightings have generally been limited to Lakes Pontchatrain and Maurepas and associated coastal waters and stream (i.e., Amite, Blind, Tchefuncte, and Tickfaw Rviers). There is no known resident population within the State.
Potential impacts to West Indian manatee from the Proposed Project Alternatives include:
x Behavioral impacts due to the noise associated with dredge equipment.
x Potential collision with boats, propellers, and other in-water equipment.
The most likely direct effect on West Indian manatees associated with the Proposed Project Alternatives is the increased potential for boat strikes to occur due to the higher volume of vessel traffic that the area is expected to experience. Given that there is no resident population within the
B-45 State, the potential for this Project to cause any significant adverse effects to the West Indian manatee species is low.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures
Before placement of dredge material in open water placement sites, the area should be inspected for the presence of manatees, especially for placement areas that use dikes or other retention features as a means to enclose an area of open water. Inspections should take place 1) before complete closure of the confining features, and 2) again before material is discharged in to the receiving area. Any manatee that is sighted should be allowed to leave the area before work resumes. See Attachment 1 of this Appendix for a complete list of avoidance and minimization measures.
Effect Determinations
Even though manatee sightings are rare within the study are, these minimization measures should be followed in the case that a one does happen to wander near the Project area. It is anticipated that manatee would avoid areas where dredging is taking place due to the noise and activity. Impacts to manatees would only be temporary and limited to the initial construction phase and scheduled maintenance dredging periods. It is expected the project is not likely to adversely affect the species.
WHALES
Effect Analysis
It is unlikely that any of the species of whales listed in this BA would occur in the Project area. Whale sightings off the coast of Louisiana are uncommon which means that whale species are not likely to be directly impacted by the dredging or placement activities associated with the Proposed Project Alternatives.
Potential impacts to West Indian manatee from the Project include:
x Behavioral impacts due to the noise and associated with dredge equipment.
Indirect effects of the Project would be the potential for whales to utilize the Belle Pass Channel extension. This could potentially increase the chance of boat strikes and shallow water strandings if the whales were to enter the channel.
Effect Determinations
Whale species generally prefer the deeper offshore waters of the Gulf, therefore, the Proposed Project Alternatives may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect endangered whale species within the area.
B-46 Summary of Conclusions
Table B-4 presents a summary of effect determinations for the federally threatened and endangered species covered in this BA.
B-47 Table B-4. Endangered Species Effect Determination Relative to the Proposed Project Alternative Placement of Dredged Common Dredging Activity Scientific Name Materials Name Determination Determination FISH Atlantic Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not sturgeon* adversely affect likely to adversely affect REPTILES Green sea Chelonia mydas May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not turtle adversely affect likely to adversely affect Hawksbill sea Eretmochelys imbricata May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not turtle adversely affect likely to adversely affect Kemp’s ridley Leidochelys kempii May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not sea turtle adversely affect likely to adversely affect Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not sea turtle adversely affect likely to adversely affect Loggerhead Caretta caretta May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not sea turtle adversely affect likely to adversely affect BIRDS Piping plover Charadrius melodus May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not adversely affect likely to adversely affect Rufa red knot Calidris canutus May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not adversely affect likely to adversely affect MAMMALS West Indian Trichechus manatus May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not manatee adversely affect likely to adversely affect Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not adversely affect likely to adversely affect Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not adversely affect likely to adversely affect Humpback Megaptera novaengliae May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not whale adversely affect likely to adversely affect Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not adversely affect likely to adversely affect Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus May affect, but not likely to May affect, but not adversely affect likely to adversely affect
Literature Cited
O'Shea, T. J., Ackerman, B. B., & Percival, H. F. 1995. Population Biology of the Florida Manatee (No. ITR-1). Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Gainesville.
Albright, R., Mason, B., Miller, M., & Langdon, C. 2010. Ocean acidification compromises recruitment success of the threatened Caribbean coral Acropora palmata. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107(47): 20400-20404.
B-48 Bengtson, J. L. 1983. Estimating food consumption of free-ranging manatees in Florida. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(4): 1186-1192.
Church, J.A., P.U. Clark, A. Cazenave, J.M. Gregory, S. Jevrejeva, A. Levermann, M.A. Merrifield, G.A. Milne, R.S. Nerem, P.D. Nunn, A.J. Payne, W.T. Pfeffer, D. Stammer and A.S. Unnikrishnan. 2013. Sea Level Change. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Clarke, Douglas, Charles Dickerson, and Kevin Reine. 2003. Characterization of underwater sounds produced by dredges. Dredging'02: Key Technologies for Global Prosperity. 1-14.
Coastal Engineering, Inc. (CEI). 2015. Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.
Cocks, K. D., and C. Crossland. 1991. The Australian Coastal Zone: A Discussion Paper. Working Document 91/4.
Hoyo, Josep del. & Elliott, Andrew. & Sargatal, Jordi. & Cabot, José. & Jutglar, Francesc. & Christie, D. & International Council for Bird Preservation. & Bird Life International. 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Deutsch, C.J., Self-Sullivan, C. & Mignucci-Giannoni, A. 2008. Trichechus manatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T22103A9356917. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T22103A9356917. en. Accessed 15 June 2017.
Drake, K. R. 1999a. Movements, Habitat Use and Survival of Wintering Piping Plovers. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University-Kingsville).
Drake, K. L. 1999b. Time Allocation and Roosting Habitat in Sympatrically Wintering Piping and Snowy Plovers. (M. S. Thesis. Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX.) 59 pp.
Dundee, H. A., Rossman, D. A., & Beckham, E. C. 1989. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press.
Ernst, Carl H & Barbour, Roger William. 1989. Turtles of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Haig, S. M. 1985. The Status of the Piping Plover in Canada. Report prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.
B-49 Hall-Spencer, J.M., et al. 2008. Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification. Nature. 454: 96-99.
Hawkes, L. A., Broderick, A. C., Godfrey, M. H., & Godley, B. J. 2009. Climate change and marine turtles. Endangered Species Research. 7(2): 137-154.
Hildebrand, H. H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western Gulf of Mexico. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 447-453.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
Jones, A., Gladstone, W., & Hacking, N. 2007. Australian sandy-beach ecosystems and climate change: ecology and management. Australian Zoologist. 34(2): 190-202.
Kraan, C., van Gils, J. A., Spaans, B., Dekinga, A., & Piersma, T. 2010. Why afro-Siberian red knots Calidris canutus canutus have stopped staging in the western Dutch Wadden Sea during southward migration. Ardea. 98(2): 155-160.
Leyrer, J., van Nieuwenhove, N., Crockford, N. and Delany, S. 2014. Proposals for Concerted and Cooperative Action for Consideration by CMS COP 11, November 2014. BirdLife International and International Wader Study Group.
Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office. 2018. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species of Louisiana. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mast RB, Hutchinson BJ, Howgate E, Pilcher NJ. 2005. MTSG Update: IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Hosts the Second Burning Issues Assessment Workshop. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 110: 13–15.
Nicholls, J. L., & Baldassarre, G. A. 1990. Habitat associations of piping plovers wintering in the United States. The Wilson Bulletin. 581-590.
NOAA. 2017a. National Observer Program. Observer Home, NOAA Fisheries. Retrieved from www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/.
———. 2017b. Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus). NOAA Fisheries.
———. 2015a. Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). NOAA Fisheries.
———. 2015b. Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). NOAA Fisheries.
———. 2015c. Humpback Whale (Megaptera Novaeangliae). NOAA Fisheries. Retrieved from www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/humpback-whale.html.
B-50
———. 2015d. Sei Whale (Balaenoptera Borealis). NOAA Fisheries. Retrieved from www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/sei-whale.html.
———. 2014. Fisheries Interactions and Protected Species Bycatch. NOAA Fisheries.
———. 2014b. Green Turtle (Chelonia Mydas). NOAA Fisheries.
———. 2014c. Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys Imbricata). NOAA Fisheries.
———. 2014d. Kemp's Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys Kempii). NOAA Fisheries, NOAA Fisheries.
———. 2014e. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys Coriacea). NOAA Fisheries.
———. (2014f). “Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta Caretta).” NOAA Fisheries, NOAA Fisheries.
NMFS (2012). Sperm Whale (Physeter Macrocephalus): Northern Gulf of Mexico Stock. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
Parauka, F.M. (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). 2006. Acipenser oxyrinchus ssp. desotoi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T242A13045786.
Rebel, T. P., & Ingle, R. M. 1974. Sea Turtles and the Turtle Industry of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2013. Balaenoptera physalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T2478A44210520. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013- 1.RLTS.T2478A44210520.en. Accessed 13 September 2017.
Schumacher, E. L., and J. S. Reece. 2016. Sea turtle climate change biologists should do more measuring and less modeling.
St. Pierre, R. & Parauka, F.M. (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). (2006). Acipenser oxyrinchus. (errata version published in 2016) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T245A107249015. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T245A13046974.e n. Downloaded on 15 August 2017.
Tiwari, M., Wallace, B.P. & Girondot, M. (2013). Dermochelys coriacea (Southwest Atlantic Ocean subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T46967838A46967842. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013- 2.RLTS.T46967838A46967842.en. Downloaded on 23 August 2017.
B-51 USACE. (1994). Port Fourchon Navigation Channel Project, Lafourche Parish: Environmental Impact Statement.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2017a).“Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia Mydas).” Official Web Page of the U S Fish and Wildlife Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm.
———. (2017b). "Piping Plover - Atlantic Coast Population | Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." United States Fish and Wildlife Service. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
———. (2016). “Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys Imbricata).” U S Fish and WildlifeService,www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/hawksbill-sea- turtle.htm.
———. (2015a). “Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys Coriacea).” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/leatherback-sea-turtle.htm.
———. (2015b). “Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta Caretta).” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/loggerhead-sea- turtle.htm.
———. (2015c). State Road 30/US 98 Pensacola Bay Bridge Federal Highway Administration, Florida Department of Transportation, Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida FWS No. 04EF3000-2013-F-0264. Biological Opinion. April 8, 2015.
———. (2013). “Endangered Species Act | Section 9.” Official Web Page of the U S Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, www.fws.gov/endangered/laws- policies/section-9.html.
———. (2008). West Indian Manatee. Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Feb. 2008. PDF.
———. (2001a). Florida manatee recovery plan. Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 144 pp. + Appendices.
———. (2001b). Final determination of critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. Federal Register 66:36037-36086.
———. (1996). Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Atlantic coast population: revised recovery plan. Hadley, MA.
———. (1993). West Indian Manatee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red Book.
B-52 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. (1995). Gulf sturgeon recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Atlanta.
Wallace, B.P., DiMatteo, A.D., Bolten, A.B., Chaloupka, M.Y., Hutchinson, B.J., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., Mortimer, J.A., Seminoff, J.A., Amorocho, D., Bjorndal, K.A., Bourjea, J., Bowen, B.W., Briseño-Dueñas, R., Casale, P., Choudhury, B.C., Costa, A., Dutton, P.H., Fallabrino, A., Finkbeiner, E.M., Girard, A., Girondot, M., Hamann, .M, Hurley, B.J., López-Mendilaharsu, M., Marcovaldi, M.A., Musick, J.A., Nel, R., Pilcher, N.J., Troëng, S., Witherington, B. and Mast, RB. (2011). Global conservation priorities for marine turtles. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024510.
Winanas, A.K., and J.E. Purcell. (2010). Effects of pH on asexual reproduction and statolith formation of the scyphozoan, Aurelia labiata. Hydrobiologia, 645:39-52
Wood A, Booth D, Limpus C. (2014). Sun exposure, nest temperature and loggerhead turtle hatchlings: Implications for beach shading management strategies at sea turtle rookeries. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol451:105–114.
Zwinenberg, A.J. (1977). Kemp's Ridley, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman 1980), undoubtedly the most endangered marine turtle today (with notes on the current status of Lepidoche/ys olivacea). Bull. Maryland Herp. Soc. 13:170- 192.
B-53 (QGDQJHUHG 6SHFLHV $FW (6$ 3URMHFW 5HYLHZ DQG *XLGDQFH IRU 2WKHU )HGHUDO 7UXVW 5HVRXUFHV 5HSRUW
,QVWUXFWLRQV
3OHDVH VXEPLW D FRS\ RI WKLV UHSRUW WR WKH /RXLVLDQD (FRORJLFDO 6HUYLFHV 2IILFH IRU UHYLHZ DW ODID\HWWH#IZVJRY &RQWDFW RXU RIILFH DW IRU IXUWKHU DVVLVWDQFH
3URMHFW 'HVFULSWLRQ 3RUW )RXUFKRQ %HOOH 3DVV &KDQQHO 'HHSHQLQJ 3URMHFW 6HFWLRQ )HDVLELOLW\ 6WXG\
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¶VQDYLJDWLRQFKDQQHOVIRUEHQHILFLDOXVH &XUUHQWO\WKHLQWHULRUQDYLJDWLRQFKDQQHOVDUHGUHGJHGWRDGHSWKRIIHHW0//:DQG WKHRIIVKRUH%HOOH3DVVHQWUDQFHFKDQQHOLVGUHGJHGWRIHHW0//:
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
5HTXHVWLQJ $JHQF\ *,6 (QJLQHHULQJ //&
3URMHFW &RRUGLQDWHV /DWLWXGH 1 /RQJLWXGH :
3RLQW RI &RQWDFW 0RKDQ 0HQRQ
$GGUHVV /DXUHO 6W
&LW\ %DWRQ 5RXJH 6WDWH /RXLVLDQD =LS &RGH
3KRQH 1XPEHU 3KRQH 1XPEHU H[W (PDLO $GGUHVV PPHQRQ#JLV\FRP
'RHV WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ RQO\ LQYROYH WHOHFRPPXQLFDWLRQ VWUXFWXUH V "
1R
:RXOG WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ RFFXU HQWLUHO\ ZLWKLQ DQ H[LVWLQJ IRRWSULQW RU ULJKWVRIZD\ 52: "
1R
:RXOG DQ\ SRUWLRQ RI WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ RFFXU ZLWKLQ RQH RI WKHVH DUHDV RI LQWHUHVW"
:RXOG WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ LQYROYH KXPDQ GLVWXUEDQFH RU JURXQG GLVWXUEDQFH VXFK DV IRRW WUDIILF YHKLFOHV WUDFNHG HTXLSPHQW H[FDYDWLQJ JUDGLQJ SODFLQJ ILOO PDWHULDO HWF " :RXOG WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ UHVXOW LQ LPSDFWV WR IRUDJLQJ KDELWDW VDQG\ EHDFKHV WLGDO PXGIODWV VDOW PDUVKHV DQG SHDW EDQNV RU URRVWLQJ KDELWDW IRU H[DPSOH UHHIV KLJK VDQG IODWV RU VLWHV SURWHFWHG IURP KLJK WLGHV " :RXOG WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ UHVXOW LQ ORQJWHUP LPSDFWV HIIHFWV ODVWLQJ XS WR PRQWKV RU PRUH WR IRUDJLQJ RU URRVWLQJ KDELWDW" 1R :RXOG WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ EH FRQGXFWHG GXULQJ WKH PLJUDWLRQ RU ZLQWHULQJ VHDVRQ $XJXVW ±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³QR ZDNHLGOH´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ò ; UHDGLQJ ODQJXDJH VLPLODU WR WKH IROORZLQJ ³&$87,21 %2$7(56 0$1$7(( $5($ ,'/( 63((' ,6 5(48,5(' ,1 &21658&7,21 $5($ $1' :+(5( 7+(5( ,6 /(66 7+$1 )285 )227 %27720 &/($5$1&( :+(1 0$1$7(( ,6 35(6(17´ $ VHFRQG WHPSRUDU\ VLJQ PHDVXULQJ ò ; ´ VKRXOG EH SRVWHG DW D ORFDWLRQ SURPLQHQWO\ YLVLEOH WR DOO SHUVRQQHO HQJDJHG LQ ZDWHUUHODWHG DFWLYLWLHVDQGVKRXOG UHDG ODQJXDJH VLPLODU WR WKH IROORZLQJ ³&$87,21 0$1$7(( $5($ (48,30(17 0867 %( 6+87'2:1 ,00(',$7(/< ,) $ 0$1$7(( &20(6 :,7+,1 )((7 2) 23(5$7,21´ &ROOLVLRQV ZLWK LQMXU\ WR RU VLJKWLQJV RI PDQDWHHV VKRXOG EH LPPHGLDWHO\ UHSRUWHG WR WKH 6HUYLFH¶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±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± 2FWREHU " 1R &RQFOXVLRQ :H KDYH FRQFOXGHGHG WKDWKDWWWW WKHKH SUS SURSRVHGRSRVHG DDFWLRQF LV QRW OLNHO\ WR DGYHUVHO\ LPSDFW 6HD 7XUWOHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB 3URMHFW 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHWDWLYH 'DWH %DVHG RQ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG LQ WKLV UHSRUW DV ZHOO DV DQ\ SHUWLQHQW FRUUHVSRQGHQFH DQG GRFXPHQWDWLRQ VDYHG WR WKH SURMHFW ILOH DW RXU RIILFH LI DSSOLFDEOH WKH 6HUYLFH DJUHHV ZLWK \RXU FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ LV QRW OLNHO\ WR DGYHUVHO\ LPSDFW WKH IROORZLQJ VSHFLHV 5HG .QRW :HVW ,QGLDQ 0DQDWHH 3LSLQJ 3ORYHU 6HD 7XUWOHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB /RXLVLDQD (FRORJLFDO 6HUYLFHV 2IILFH'DWH 86 )LVK DQG :LOGOLIH 6HUYLFH 7HFKQLFDO DVVLVWDQFH IRU WKH SURSRVHG DFWLRQ LV FRQFOXGHG ZKHQ \RX UHFHLYH VLJQDWXUH IURP WKLV RIILFH 7R HQVXUH FRQWLQXHG FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH (6$ UHLQLWLDWH FRRUGLQDWLRQ ZKHQ QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ UHYHDOV WKDW WKH DFWLRQ PD\ LPSDFW OLVWHG VSHFLHV WR DQ H[WHQW QRW FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKLV FRRUGLQDWLRQ WKH DFWLRQ LV PRGLILHG LQ D ZD\ WKDW FDXVHV HIIHFWV WR OLVWHG VSHFLHV QRW FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKLV FRRUGLQDWLRQ RU D QHZ VSHFLHV LV OLVWHG WKDW WKH DFWLRQ PD\ LPSDFW 0LJUDWRU\ %LUG &RQVHUYDWLRQ 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV %DOG (DJOH 7KH SURSRVHG SURMHFW DUHD PD\ SURYLGH QHVWLQJ KDELWDW IRU WKH EDOG HDJOH +DOLDHHWXV OHXFRFHSKDOXV ZKLFK ZDV RIILFLDOO\ UHPRYHG IURP WKH /LVW RI (QGDQJHUHG DQG 7KUHDWHQHG 6SHFLHV DV RI $XJXVW +RZHYHU WKH EDOG HDJOH UHPDLQV SURWHFWHG XQGHU WKH %DOG DQG *ROGHQ (DJOH 3URWHFWLRQ $FW %*(3$ 6WDW DV DPHQGHG 86& DG DQG WKH0LJUDWRU\ %LUG 7UHDW\ $FW 0%7$ 6WDW DV DPHQGHG 86& HW VHT 7KH /RXLVLDQD 'HSDUWPHQW RI :LOGOLIH DQG )LVKHULHV /':) KDV QRW FROOHFWHG FRPSUHKHQVLYH EDOG HDJOH VXUYH\ GDWD VLQFH DQG QHZ DFWLYH LQDFWLYH RU DOWHUQDWH QHVWV PD\ KDYH EHHQ FRQVWUXFWHG ZLWKLQ WKH SURSRVHG SURMHFW DUHD VLQFH WKDW WLPH 7KH 6HUYLFH GHYHORSHG WKH 1DWLRQDO %DOG (DJOH 0DQDJHPHQW 1%(0 *XLGHOLQHV WR SURYLGH ODQGRZQHUV ODQG PDQDJHUV DQG RWKHUV ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV WR PLQLPL]H SRWHQWLDO SURMHFW LPSDFWV WR EDOG HDJOHV SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHUH VXFK LPSDFWV PD\ FRQVWLWXWH ³GLVWXUEDQFH´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¶V 0LJUDWRU\ %LUG 3URJUDP :HESDJH KWWSV ZZZIZVJRYELUGVELUGHQWKXVLDVWVWKUHDWVWR ELUGVFROOLVLRQVFRPPXQLFDWLRQWRZHUVSKS Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX C F. WETLAND VALUE ASSESSMENT (WVA), MITIGATION, and MONITORING PLAN WITH ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT August 2018 1.0 WETLAND VALUE ASSESSMENT (WVA) The Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) methodology was selected as the most appropriate tool for determining project wetland environmental effects. The models and methods below are used to determine marsh acreages and the methods for predicting wetland environmental effects of the proposed project alternatives. The WVA model was developed under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Authority (CWPPRA) program to determine benefits of proposed coastal wetland restoration projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works WVA – Saline Marsh Model Version 2.0 (WVA Saline Marsh Model) was used to assess coastal wetland environmental effects for this Project. Further information on this model may be obtained from Patrick Smith with the U.S. Corps of Engineers Coastal Environmental Section ([email protected]). The WVA is similar to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), in that habitat quality and quantity are measured for baseline conditions and predicted for future without-project and future with-project conditions. Instead of the species-based approach of HEP, each WVA model utilizes an assemblage of variables considered important to the suitability of that habitat type for supporting a diversity of fish and wildlife species. As with HEP, the WVA allows a numeric comparison of each future with-project condition relative to the future without-project condition and provides a quantitative estimate of project-related impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The WVA models operate under the assumption that optimal conditions for fish and wildlife habitat within a given coastal wetland type can be characterized, and that existing or predicted conditions can be compared to that optimal condition to provide an index of habitat quality. Habitat quality is estimated and expressed through the use of a mathematical model developed specifically for each wetland type. Each model consists of: 1) a list of variables that are considered important in characterizing fish and wildlife habitat; 2) a Suitability Index graph for each variable, which defines the assumed relationship between habitat quality (Suitability Index) and different variable values; and 3) a mathematical formula that combines the Suitability Indices for each variable into a single value for wetland habitat quality, termed the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). The WVA models assess the suitability of each habitat type for providing resting, foraging, breeding, and nursery habitat to a diverse assemblage of fish and wildlife species. This standardized, multi-species, habitat-based methodology facilitates the assessment of project-induced impacts on fish and wildlife resources. HSI values are determined for each target year (TY). Target years, determined by the model user, represent significant changes in habitat quality or quantity were expected during the 50- year period of analysis, under future with-project and future without-project conditions. In this study, all years of the 50-year period of analysis were evaluated. The product of an HSI value and the acreage of available habitat for a given target year is known as the Habitat Unit (HU). The HU is the basic unit for measuring project effects on fish and wildlife habitat. Future HUs change according to changes in habitat quality and/or quantity. Results are annualized over the period of analysis to determine the Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) available for each habitat type. The change (increase or decrease) in AAHUs for each future with-project scenario, compared to future without-project conditions, provides a measure of anticipated environmental effects. A net gain in AAHUs indicates that the project is beneficial to the habitat being evaluated; a net loss of AAHUs indicates that the project is damaging to that habitat type. In determining future with-project conditions, all project-related direct (construction) impacts were assumed to occur in Target Year 1. The WVA Saline Marsh Model consists of six variables: 1) percent of wetland covered by emergent vegetation; 2) percent open water dominated by submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV); 3) degree of marsh edge and interspersion; 4) percent of open water less than or equal to 1.5 feet deep; 5) salinity; and 6) aquatic organism access. Changes in each variable are predicted for future without-project and future with-project scenarios over a 50-year period of analysis. By incorporating variables for SAV and shallow open water into each of the marsh models, impacts to those habitat components are combined with impacts to emergent marsh. Because emergent marsh is of higher overall fish and wildlife value than SAV, and because SAV is of higher value than shallow open water, those latter components receive proportionally less weight when combined into one AAHU value. The USACE Civil Works WVA – Saline Marsh Model Version 2.0 (CW Model) has different HSI curves for V1 and V3 than the WVA Saline Marsh Model developed and in current use for CWPPRA projects (CWPPRA model). The CW Model indicates optimal habitat value when 60- 80% of wetland is covered by emergent vegetation, while the CWPPRA model indicates optimal habitat value when 100% of wetland is covered by emergent vegetation (V1). The CW model indicates optimal habitat value at higher degrees of interspersion than the CWPPRA model (V3). Some wetland loss is expected for FWP and FWOP conditions for both the locally-preferred plan (LPP) and national economic development plan (NEDP) due to relative sea level rise (RSLR), with higher wetland loss potential for higher RSLR scenarios. When comparing AAHUs from different SLR scenarios for the same plan and conditions, the preference for higher interspersion and lower percent coverage of wetland by emergent vegetation indicated by the CW Model could result in higher overall AAHUs for higher sea level rise scenarios despite lower acreages and less emergent vegetation coverage. This observed difference may be due to the HSI curves for V1 and V3 for the CW Models. General Assumptions: x The USACE Civil Works WVA – Saline Marsh Model Version 2.0 was used for the analysis. It is approved for regional use for USACE Civil Works Projects. The proposed project occurs within the certified region of the USACE Civil Works WVA – Saline Marsh Model Version 2.0. x A Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) model (Delft 3D) was used to provide conditions used to calculate model inputs for WVA analysis. Staff with The Water Institute for the Gulf used modeling outputs to calculate WVA inputs for this analysis. See the Port Fourchon Dredge Disposal Plan: Wetland Value Assessment Input Variable Methodology document for details. x The Habitat Evaluation Team (HET) is a collection of professionals and/or researchers from various agencies, including but not limited to Corps, FWS, NMFS, LDWF, and the local sponsor, who are consulted and reach group consensus on variable inputs and their assumptions for the WVA on all alternatives evaluated in a project. For this analysis the HET was made up of professionals from the Corps, FWS, NMFS, LDWF, GIS Engineering (GISY), Greater Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC), The Water Institute of the Gulf (TWIG). Planning horizon: x Period of analysis will be 50 years from 2024 (TY5) to 2073 (TY54). x Initial construction takes 4 years to complete, starts TY1 and ends in TY4. Maintenance dredging will be on going for 50 following construction. x The Delft 3D model was run to provide outputs for the 50 year period of analysis after the four years of initial construction. x The year 2019 is TY0 which is also the baseline year or existing conditions in WVA. x The existing conditions info are projected forward in the Delft 3D model to the start of the planning horizon at year 2024 (TY5), which is four years after initial construction (2020 TY1 to 2023 TY4) and then the model runs are conducted over the 50 year period of analysis from 2024 to 2073. Target Year (TY) Assumptions: x Marsh would be created using fill material at initial construction and from subsequent Operations and Maintenance (O&M) events. Dredged material from O&M would be used for marsh creation and beach nourishment in the Base Plan and the Locally Preferred Plan for the 50 year period of analysis. Marsh creation cells would be created for most years; therefore, each year of the 50 year period of analysis was considered to better capture environmental effects. x Use of the standard functional marsh creation protocols often requires target years of 1, 3, and 5 after the construction event. x To maintain consistency with this protocol, each marsh creation cell was tracked individually from time of construction until the end of the period of analysis. The following assumptions were applied to each dredging cycle by marsh creation cell: o One year following construction, any containment dikes would be degraded and the newly created marsh cell would be assumed to be 10% functional marsh. Even with natural recruitment of vegetation over time, coverage is not sufficient at TY1 for the entire marsh platform to be given credit as fully functional marsh. o Two years following construction, the newly created marsh cell would be assumed to be 10% functional marsh. o Three years following construction, the newly created marsh cell would be assumed to be 30% functional marsh. Again coverage of natural recruited vegetation is not sufficient to give the entire marsh platform credit as fully functional marsh. At TY3, it is assumed that containment dikes have degraded (i.e., naturally or by mechanical means). o Four years following construction, the newly created marsh cell would be assumed to be 30% functional marsh o Five years following construction and beyond, any part of the newly created marsh cell that is within the functional marsh elevation window (more below) would be assumed to be functional marsh. In TY5, the marsh platforms have vegetated and consolidated to the point where it can achieve minimum wetland functions as necessary for the overall fish and wildlife community. The entire marsh platform receives full credit at that time. H&H TY Assumptions x H&H modelers provided the following inputs for each TY: o Average Annual Salinity o Functional Marsh Acreage (overall and per marsh creation cell) o Shallow Open Water (<1.5 ft, but not within the functional marsh elevation window) Acreage (overall and per marsh creation cell) o Deep Open Water (>1.5 feet) Acreage o Non-Functional Marsh Acreage (overall and per marsh creation cell) – The non- functional marsh acreage is defined as the area of a newly created marsh platform that is not considered fully functional marsh. This was assumed to be the inverse of the Functional Marsh Acreage percentages That is, 90% of the marsh creation cell at years 1 and 2 following construction, 70% of the marsh creation cell at years 3 and 4 following construction, and 0% of the marsh creation cell from year 5 and beyond. Functional Marsh and Open Water Habitat Assumptions: x There would be no vegetative plantings on any marsh creation cells. x Dredge disposal sites selected for marsh creation areas were selected to contain water that was no shallower than 3-ft deep under mean water level conditions. This depth criteria was utilized such that no existing emergent marsh habitat would be negatively impacted by direct deposition of dredged sediments. x The fill elevation for the marsh habitat was assumed to be 4.0-ft NAVD88; this assumption was based upon a compaction curve for a nearby marsh creation project under design for the CWPPRA program (Caminada Headland Back Barrier Marsh Creation; CWPPRA BA-171). After compaction it is expected to have a settled elevation of 1.9ft NAVD88. In further engineering and design this elevation will be refined to better pair with existing surrounding marsh elevations. x The compaction curves were followed for the first four years, after which subsidence and vertical accretion values were used. x Vertical accretion values were taken from a combination of observed and simulated data. Vertical accretion as it relates to organic material was taken from Coastwide Reference Monitoring System (CRMS) observations. These values were averaged by basin and marsh type. For this Project, the average vertical accretion rate for salt marsh habitats within the Barataria and Terrebonne Basin were used. Vertical accretion from inorganic sources was estimated from hydrodynamic simulations. Based on these sources, a total vertical accretion of 0.09 inches per year was applied. o The marsh soil was assumed to have a bulk density of 0.30 grams/cubic cm. This value was determined from all saline marsh CRMS sites within Barataria and Terrebonne. This was the same value used in the 2017 Coastal Master Plan. o The annual inorganic sediment deposition rate was assumed to be 80 grams/sq meter - which was taken from Coastal Master Plan model simulation output for the Port Fourchon/Bayou Lafourche region of the model. x Estimates of marsh thresholds with respect to inundation and marsh collapse were taken from the 2017 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan. Thresholds based on height in the tidal frame and prevalence of veg cover based on a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NVDI). It was assumed that saline marsh would collapse to open water if inundated by the annual mean water level by at least 9.2 inches (Couvillion and Beck, 2013). x After collapse, emergent marsh decreased to zero and the area was assumed to be converted to shallow water habitat x The habitat was classified as shallow water habitat until Relative Sea Level Rise (RSLR) indicated a depth > 1.5 ft x Mean Water Level for marsh (MWL) was calculated (NAVD88) for each TY. The initial elevation was calculated using data from 2013 through 2015 at nearby CRMS stations (CRMS0164-H01, CRMS0178-H01, CRMS0292-H01, CRMS0310-H01) Bathymetry x A digital elevation model (DEM) was used to for bathymetry. It was developed by the United States Geological Survey in 2014 for use in Louisiana’s 2017 Coastal Master Plan. Relevant data sources, methods, detailed imagery, metadata, and discussion of errors and uncertainties of the data are documented in the technical appendices to the 2017 Coastal Master Plan (Couvillion, 2017). The documentation associated with this DEM can be found here (http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Attachment-C3- 27_FINAL_03.10.2017.pdf). The map of the DEM panel for Port Fourchon is on document page 53 (which is PDF page # 63). Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 3.2 are the sections of most relevance to elevation. x In February 2018, staff from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, GIS Engineering, and The Water Institute of the Gulf conducted a field visit to the potential disposal sites. During this field visit, bathymetric transects were conducted in several water bodies in order to cross-check the bathymetric elevation values represented in the topobathymetric DEM. The transect depths were measured throughout the course of an entire day, and no observations were made regarding the tidal cycle for the day. The tidal amplitude for the nearest CRMS site (CRMS0292-H01, located adjacent to the Port, just west of Bayou Lafourche) varies from approximately 0.5-ft to 1.5-ft (observed data was only available up to 2/6/2018 at the time that this report was prepared). The depths as represented by the mean water surface elevation (described below) and the topobathymeric DEM were within the range of the tidal amplitude at all transects measured (Table 1), with the exception of one transect (MC016_TR_03), which had a difference of 1.6-ft. This indicates that, at least at the sites examined, there are no large discrepancies between the DEM and the actual water depths recorded in the field. Table C-1. Comparison of field-collected water depth transects to the topo-bathymetric DEM-derived water depths at each respective transect location. Depth (feet) from Topobathy DEM Depth (feet) from Site Visit on 2/26/2018 Transect Mean Min Max Mean Min Max BC_Tr_01 2.37 1.40 3.14 2.47 1.1 4.2 BC_Tr_03 2.10 0.15 2.91 2.63 1.3 3.2 BC_Tr_04 3.12 1.93 3.40 2.62 1.1 3.3 BC_Tr_05 2.66 0.46 4.51 2.37 1 3.3 BC_Tr_06 2.54 0.49 4.03 3.08 1.6 5.2 MC016_Tr_01 2.00 0.77 2.53 2.07 0.6 3 MC016_Tr_02 3.11 1.80 4.03 2.92 0.4 4.4 MC016_Tr_03 0.34 -0.94 2.31 1.94 1 3.8 MP006_Tr_01 1.65 0.17 3.56 2.22 1.2 3.2 Sea Level Rise and Subsidence x The low scenario (e.g. most optimistic) scenario assumed that historic rates of Eustatic Sea Level Rise (ESLR) would continue, resulting in 1.0-ft (0.31-m) of ESLR by the year 2100. A medium scenario assumed that there would be 3.3-ft (1.0-m) of ESLR by 2100, and the high scenario assumed an ESLR by 2100 of 4.9-ft (1.5-m). x Expected subsidence rates that were utilized in both the 2012 and 2017 Coastal Master Plans were used here. This assumption resulted in a constant annual subsidence rate of 0.35-in/yr (8.8-mm/yr) which was applied to the ESLR scenarios described above to develop three Relative Sea Level Rise (RSLR) scenarios. x Land loss will be applied to existing conditions, future with and without conditions. Loss rates are the main output of the H&H models and is calculated by the incorporation in the models of the major processes that contribute to loss (subsidence, SLR, vegetation collapse, etc) throughout the 50 years. x A present day mean water surface elevation was assumed to be equal to +0.43-ft (NAVD88) and was calculated from the four closest CRMS stations to Port Fourchon. (CRMS0164-H01, CRMS0178-H01, CRMS0292-H01, and CRMS0310-H01). x Mean Water Level (MWL) for marsh was calculated (NAVD88) for each TY. These were calculated using the subsidence information above for each of the three SLR scenarios. Percent Land (V1) – Based on our understanding, the ecological model will predict land/water acreage for each ecological model cell under FWOP and FWP conditions. Rather than use USGS land area extrapolations (from coastwide or another series of polygons), we would use Delft 3D model predicted land acreage outputs to inform the WVA. Delft3D: x The land-acres provided by model outputs includes natural processes such as land loss, subsidence, RSLR. x The TSP will be evaluated for all three the SLR rates. x The depth criteria include an inundation threshold of 9.2 inches. After the marsh is inundated by 9.2 inches by the annual mean water level, it was considered collapsed and no longer considered marsh. x See Functional Marsh and Open Water Habitats Assumptions Section for more details. Uncertainty – This method includes interior land loss. Marsh creation cells on the west side of the project (MC_004 and MC_001) would have higher shoreline erosion from the bay but are not accounted for in Delft3D. Thus some areas may have higher loss than is being predicted. SAV (V2) – This variable is the percent of open water having 100% SAV coverage. x Based on previous experience, field trips, and simplicity, we assume 0% SAV coverage for all WVAs. Interspersion (V3) – Marsh Creation with Beneficial Use of Dredged Material FWOP Marsh Creation x All dredged material will be placed in open water cells for marsh creation. x TY0-TY50 All TYs is a 100% Class 5 (all open water) FWP Marsh Creation x Standard Workgroup convention for the marsh creation was used at TY1, TY3, and TY5 for each marsh creation cell and dredging cycle. We assume that the marsh will be classified as Class 5 at marsh collapse (when applicable) of each dredging cycle. x The following is applied to each dredging cycle and a weighted average of all areas are calculated for the overall class % for the total project area by TY. For marsh creation areas with Low SLR. x TY1 – 100% Class 5 (new marsh platform unvegetated) x TY2 – 50% Class 5 and 50% Class 3 x TY3 – 100% Class 3 (carpet marsh) x TY4 – 50% Class 3 and 50% Class 1 x TY5 – 100% Class 1 (beginning interspersion) x TY6-TY15 – 100% Class 1 x TY16-TY30 – 100% Class 2 (optimal in corps approved wvas) x TY31-TY45- 100% Class 3 x TY46-TY54 – 100% Class 4 For marsh creation areas with Intermediate SLR (no acres between TY52-TY54 for some cells, marsh collapse varies). x TY1 – 100% Class 5 (new marsh platform unvegetated) x TY2 – 50% Class 5 and 50% Class 3 x TY3 – 100% Class 3 (carpet marsh) x TY4 – 50% Class 3 and 50% Class 1 x TY5 – 100% Class 1 (beginning interspersion) x TY6-TY15 – 100% Class 1 x TY16-TY30 – 100% Class 2 (optimal in corps approved wvas) x TY31-TY45- 100% Class 3 x TY46-TY54 – 100% Class 4 (were marsh is still functional) x TY52-54 – 100% Class 5 (were marsh collapse is seen) For marsh creation areas with high SLR (no functional marsh between TY42-54 for some cells, marsh collapse varies). x TY1 – 100% Class 5 (new marsh platform unvegetated) x TY2 – 50% Class 5 and 50% Class 3 x TY3 – 100% Class 3 (carpet marsh) x TY4 – 50% Class 3 and 50% Class 1 x TY5 – 100% Class 1 (beginning interspersion) x TY6-TY13 – 100% Class 1 x TY14-TY26 – 100% Class 2 (optimal in corps approved wvas) x TY27-TY37- 100% Class 3 x TY38-TY54 – 100% Class 4 (were marsh is still functional, at least 2 or 3 years before class 5) x TY42-TY54 – 100% Class 5 (were marsh collapse is seen) Pipeline Use of USGS protocols for percent land to estimate a single V3 value for entire WVA project area. Class 1 > 82% Class 2 > 60% <= 82% Class 3 > 40% <=60% Class 4 > 10% <=40% Class 5 <= 10% Pipeline Low SLR FWOP Pipeline Impacts x The HET based interspersion on the USGS protocols for percent land to estimate a single V3 value. Pipeline footprint is 46ac. x TY0 - 100% Class 4 (v1-16%) x TY1-TY18 – 100% Class 4 x TY19 – TY54 – 100% Class 5 (v1-10%) Intermediate SLR FWOP Pipeline Impacts x The HET based interspersion on the USGS protocols for percent land to estimate a single V3 value. Pipeline footprint is 46ac. x TY0 - 100% Class 4 (v1-15%) x TY1-TY8 – 100% Class 4 x TY9 – TY54 – 100% Class 5 (v1-10%) High SLR FWOP Pipeline Impacts x The HET based interspersion on the USGS protocols for percent land to estimate a single V3 value. Pipeline footprint is 46ac. x TY0 - 100% Class 4 (v1-15%) x TY1-TY6 – 100% Class 4 TY7 – TY54 – 100% Class 5 (v1-10%) All SLR FWP Pipeline Impacts x TY0-TY50 All TYs are a 100% Class 5 (marsh will be permanently lost, all open water) Percent Shallow Open Water (V4) - This variable is computed as the percent of water acres less than 1.5 feet deep (feet below MWL). x Modeling outputs included the shallow open water acreages by year for each marsh creation cell. We will use those acres with the total water acres to calculate % shallow open water. Salinity (V5) x The detailed hydrodynamic modeling conducted by The Water Institute in support of this project indicated that the channel and port deepening project would not have much discernible impact on water levels and salinity concentrations (in particular daily values for depth-averaged salinity). Therefore, rather than conduct new simulations, the 2017 Coastal Master Plan values for FWOA for water level and salinity were taken for both FWOA and FWP in this analysis. x Additionally, only one scenario was used to define salinity values. This is due to the fact that in the lowest sea-level-rise scenario tested, the minimum daily salinity value was still above 10 ppt. Therefore, all scenarios would be classified as saline marsh for all years, both with and without project. This is consistent with present-day conditions in the Port Fourchon region which is predominantly a saline marsh/mangrove habitat. Fish Access (V6) Marsh Creation with Beneficial Use of Dredged Material FWOP x TY1-TY50 all will have a value of 1 (all open water) FWP x Based on Project description, retention dikes would be constructed for marsh creation projects and gapped between 1 and 3 years, if necessary. x The following approach was applied to each dredging cycle and a weighted average of all areas was calculated for the overall value for the total project area by TY. x TY1 – 0.001 x TY2 – 0.001 x TY3-TY50 – 1.000 Uncertainty – if the area north of Fourchon (MCN 004) is filled in without plans for tidal creeks the area could become hydrologically isolated. Pipeline FWOP Pipeline Impacts x TY0 - 1.000 area is open water and marsh with no blocks to fish access. x TY1-TY50 1.000 FWP Pipeline Impacts x TY1 - TY50 1.0 (marsh will be permanently lost, all open water) 2.0 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Strategies Monitoring data will be collected using standardized data collection techniques and will be analyzed to determine whether the marsh creation is achieving the anticipated benefits. Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OM&M) reports will be written to document the condition of project features, present and interpret monitoring data, and make recommendations for adaptive management of the project. Monitoring for the marsh creation and the shoreline nourishment involved in this project includes land-water analysis, topographic surveys, and vegetation surveys. The Coastwide Reference Monitoring System-Wetlands (CRMS-Wetlands) stations in the vicinity will provide data on local hydrographic conditions and vegetative community. Land-water analysis of aerial photography will be used in conjunction with topographic surveys to evaluate the sustainability of the created marsh platform through the project’s 50-year monitoring life. Land to water ratios in the project area will be determined using 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, and 2070 aerial photography (Z/I Imaging digital mapping camera) with 1- meter resolution. Data from topographic surveys will be compared over time to measure if the dredged material is settling at the predicted rate and if the marsh platform and shoreline restoration berm are retaining elevations that promote healthy native marsh habitat. Topographic surveys will be conducted in years 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, and 2070. Vegetation surveys will be conducted at selected monitoring stations (2 m x 2 m) in the project area. Vegetation data will be used to assess the colonization and transition of vegetation on the created marsh platform and berm and to compare this vegetation to local, natural emergent marsh. Surveys of vegetation will follow CRMS methodology and will include an assessment of total cover, species present, percent cover of each species, average height of each vegetation layer, and the depth of water on the marsh surface. The salinity, specific conductivity and temperature of the soil porewater at 10 cm and 30 cm depth will also be collected in coordination with the vegetation surveys at each marsh plot (Folse et al. 2014). Vegetation surveys are scheduled for years 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, and 2070. G. Special Management Conditions or Practice The following section includes correspondence from USFWS regarding any special management conditions that should be taken into consideration. The following correspondence was received on August 02, 2018. 1. The Service recommends that to the extent feasible all dredged material should be used beneficially to restore coastal habitats that are in decline, as seen in the locally preferred plan (LPP) and base plan (NED). In doing so restored saline marsh and nourished barrier shoreline may benefit the threatened red knot and piping plover habitat, as well as habitat for the at risk saltmarsh topminnow, diamond backed terrapin, and the black rail. 2. The Service recommends the local sponsor coordinate with any coastal restoration project's constructing agency to minimize impacts to complete or near completed Federal and State projects. 3. The Service recommends coordination with the Service, NMFS and other natural resource agencies in the planning of disposal areas and techniques and assessment of impacts and mitigation. 4. The Service recommends monitoring of disposal areas and of the proposed turning basin. Such monitoring could ensure better beneficial use of disposed dredged material, validate the Services and local sponsor agreement on the amount of beneficial acreage to be constructed by the proposed project, as well as providing indicators for potential anoxic conditions (low dissolved oxygen) or potential changes in hydrology and/or saltwater intrusion that may come from deepening channels and/or the deep turning basin. Cost for monitoring should be included within the construction budget request. Development of the monitoring plan should be coordinated with the Service, NMFS, and LDWF. At a minimum, monitoring should include: a. Acres of water filled b. Emergent acres created c. Elevation of acres created d. Measure specific conductance, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH in the deepened channel, turning basin and control sites for comparisons between each site. 5. The Service recommends an adaptive management plan be developed through coordination with the Service, NMFS, and LDWF. The adaptive management plan must include degrading and gapping of containment dikes as a necessary project component to achieve tidal connection between the created marsh and adjacent waters. A containment dike degrading or gapping plan should be developed, coordinated, and implemented no later than three years after construction. An interagency on-site investigation and use of available survey information is encouraged to assess dike degrading or gapping needs and field fit degrading or gapping measures. The disposal plan may be adaptively managed after construction to consider pumping on disposal areas once they have converted to open water. Cost for adaptive management should be included in the construction budget request. 6. The Service and NMFS recommend the disposal areas north of the Fourchon Maritime Ridge, which includes cell MCN 4, be designed and constructed to maintain water flows from Bayou Cochon and Bayou Moreau to the Plassiance Sanctuary and the Greater Lafourche Port Commission's existing and required mitigation area. 7. The Service, NMFS and LDWF should be provided an opportunity to review and submit recommendations on future detailed planning reports (e.g., Design Document Report, Engineering Document Report, etc.) and the draft plans and specifications on the Bayou Lafourche Deepening Project addressed in this report as authorized in FWCA Sections 2a, 2e, and 2f ( 48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) which states that any water resource development project with a federal nexus will coordinate with the Service (including NMFS and the state equivalent, in this case LDWF) during all levels of planning, engineering and construction. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 2a of the FWCA, all future maintenance operations should be coordinated with the Service, NMFS and LWDF. 8. The Service recommends that prior to construction the local sponsor or the Corps contact the Service regarding the ESA determination to ensure that new species have not been listed, new critical habitat has not been designated, or that no new information has been gained that could change the results of the consultation thus triggering re-initiation of ESA consultation. The adaptive management plan is being developed with the consulting agencies as suggested by USFWS. The detailed plan will be made part of the final EIS. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX D FISH & WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT August 2018 Draft Coordination Act Report (CAR) Recommendations from USFWS The Service commends the local sponsor and GIS for their focused work to including wetland restoration to the greatest extent possible in this deepening project. Overall, there would be positive net benefits to wetland resources, including piping plover critical habitat, in the project area, with the creation of emergent wetland and barrier headland and island habitats. Construction of the Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche-Jump Waterway, Louisiana Project would result in approximately 1055 Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) and 2361 acres of saline marsh habitat over the 50 year project life under the moderate sea level rise rate (See Appendix A for WV A Project Information and Assumptions). In addition this project will have unrealized benefits from continued nourishment of barrier shorelines through maintenance dredging over the project life. The Service does not oppose this project and supports the beneficial use of dredged material obtained from constructing and maintaining the Bayou Lafourche Deepening Project provided the following fish and wildlife conservation recommendations are included in the feasibility report and related authorizing documents, and implemented concurrently with project implementation: 1. The Service recommends that to the extent feasible all dredged material should be used beneficially to restore coastal habitats that are in decline, as seen in the locally preferred plan (LPP) and base plan (NED). In doing so restored saline marsh and nourished barrier shoreline may benefit the threatened red knot and piping plover habitat, as well as habitat for the at risk saltmarsh topminnow, diamond backed terrapin, and the black rail. 2. The Service recommends the local sponsor coordinate with any coastal restoration project's constructing agency to minimize impacts to complete or near completed Federal and State projects. 3. The Service recommends coordination with the Service, NMFS and other natural resource agencies in the planning of disposal areas and techniques and assessment of impacts and mitigation. 4. The Service recommends monitoring of disposal areas and of the proposed turning basin. Such monitoring could ensure better beneficial use of disposed dredged material, validate the Services and local sponsor agreement on the amount of beneficial acreage to be constructed by the proposed project, as well as providing indicators for potential anoxic conditions (low dissolved oxygen) or potential changes in hydrology and/or saltwater intrusion that may come from deepening channels and/or the deep turning basin. Cost for monitoring should be included within the construction budget request. Development of the monitoring plan should be coordinated with the Service, NMFS, and LDWF. At a minimum, monitoring should include: a. Acres of water filled b. Emergent acres created c. Elevation of acres created d. Measure specific conductance, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH in the deepened channel, turning basin and control sites for comparisons between each site. 5. The Service recommends an adaptive management plan be developed through coordination with the Service, NMFS, and LDWF. The adaptive management plan must include degrading and gapping of containment dikes as a necessary project component to achieve tidal connection between the created marsh and adjacent waters. A containment dike degrading or gapping plan should be developed, coordinated, and implemented no later than three years after construction. An interagency on-site investigation and use of available survey information is encouraged to assess dike degrading or gapping needs and field fit degrading or gapping measures. The disposal plan may be adaptively managed after construction to consider pumping on disposal areas once they have converted to open water. Cost for adaptive management should be included in the construction budget request. 6. The Service and NMFS recommend the disposal areas north of the Fourchon Maritime Ridge, which includes cell MCN 4, be designed and constructed to maintain water flows from Bayou Cochon and Bayou Moreau to the Plassiance Sanctuary and the Greater Lafourche Port Commission's existing and required mitigation area. 7. The Service, NMFS and LDWF should be provided an opportunity to review and submit recommendations on future detailed planning reports (e.g., Design Document Report, Engineering Document Report, etc.) and the draft plans and specifications on the Bayou Lafourche Deepening Project addressed in this report as authorized in FWCA Sections 2a, 2e, and 2f (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) which states that any water resource development project with a federal nexus will coordinate with the Service (including NMFS and the state equivalent, in this case LDWF) during all levels of planning, engineering and construction. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 2a of the FWCA, all future maintenance operations should be coordinated with the Service, NMFS and LWDF. 8. The Service recommends that prior to construction the local sponsor or the Corps contact the Service regarding the ESA determination to ensure that new species have not been listed, new critical habitat has not been designated, or that no new information has been gained that could change the results of the consultation thus triggering re-initiation of ESA consultation. The Coordination Act Report (CAR) is being prepared by USFWS. GLPC continues its consultations with the agency. The CAR will be enclosed in the final EIS. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX E CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT Prepared by: Earth Search, INC. $XJXVW 2018 CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND PORT FOURCHON BELLE PASS CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY, LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA P.O #GEL000719 May 2018 EARTH SEARCH, INC. P.O. Box 770336 New Orleans, LA 70177-0336 Prepared for: GIS Engineering, LLC 2503 Petroleum Drive Houma, LA 70363 CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND PORT FOURCHON BELLE PASS CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY, LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA P.O #GEL000719 By Michael Godzinski, Dayna B. Lee, Elizabeth V. Williams, Donna Greer, and Elena Ricci Submitted by Jill-Karen Yakubik, Ph.D., RPA Principal Investigator Prepared for: GIS Engineering, LLC 2503 Petroleum Drive Houma, LA 70363 May 2018 ABSTRACT Earth Search, Inc. (ESI), under contract to GIS Engineering, LLC, performed a cultural resources survey background research and Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Feasibility Study in Lafourche Parish. The desktop survey includes a brief geomorphological description of the project area, as well as a cultural history of Lafourche Parish, focusing on the shipping/maritime history of the region. The desktop survey also records the shoreline recession generally, while discussing the introduction of oil and gas to the region, and the influence of oil/gas and coastal erosion specifically. Finally, the survey reviews previous cultural resources investigations in the project area and their results, including summary of the 28 recorded archaeological sites within the project area. Pipelines, obstructions and shipwrecks, and standing structures are also features recorded in the project area and its one-mile buffer. Earth Search, Inc. concludes with providing probability models for cultural resources in the project area, and recommending field-verified cultural resource surveys prior to construction activity and dredge disposal. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The current desktop survey was initiated in an effort to see if the proposed port commission undertakings may have an effect on cultural resources present in the project area. The Greater Lafourche Port Commission, through GIS Engineering, LLC., provided funding for the current project. The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the numerous individuals who participated in and contributed to the success of this project. Dr. Jill-Karen Yakubik served as the Principal Investigator. Michael Godzinski worked as the Project Manager, with Rhonda L. Smith serving as Senior Project Manager and report editor. Elizabeth Williams served as Assistant Project Manager and Report Coordinator. Mr. Godzinski and Ms. Williams completed the Introduction and Conclusions and Recommendations chapters. Ms. Williams compiled the Environmental Settings chapter and the Previous Investigations chapter. Ms. Smith completed the Prehistory Chapter, and Ms. Donna Greer and Dr. Dayna Lee completed the History Chapter. Maps and GIS data were produced by Ms. Eylene Parrish. Elena Ricci acted as technical editor and copyeditor. Non-map graphics production, printing, and binding were completed by Ms. Williams and Ms. Donna K. Stone. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PORT FOURCHON PROJECT AREA, LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA ...... 1-1 Introduction ...... 1-1 Methodology ...... 1-1 Report Organization ...... 1-1 CHAPTER 2 NATURAL SETTING ...... 2-1 Introduction ...... 2-1 Geomorphology ...... 2-1 Natural Levee ...... 2-1 Interdistributary Deposits...... 2-2 Soils...... 2-3 Shoreline Changes and Saltwater Intrusion in the Project Area ...... 2-4 Climate ...... 2-12 Plant Communities ...... 2-12 Fish ...... 2-13 Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 2-14 Birds ...... 2-14 Mammals...... 2-14 CHAPTER 3 NATIVE AMERICAN OCCUPATIONS IN SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA ...... 3-1 Introduction ...... 3-1 The Poverty Point Period (1,500 B.C.-500 B.C.) ...... 3-1 The Tchula Period (500 B.C.-A.D. 1) ...... 3-3 The Marksville Period (A.D. 1-A.D. 400) ...... 3-5 The Baytown Period (A.D. 400-A.D. 700) ...... 3-8 The Coles Creek Period (A.D. 700-A.D. 1200) ...... 3-13 The Mississippi Period (A.D. 1200-A.D. 1700) ...... 3-17 Protohistoric and Early Historic Periods (1543-ca. 1725) ...... 3-20 CHAPTER 4 HISTORIC OVERIEW OF LOWER BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND THE WESTERN BARATARIA REGION ...... 4-1 Native Americans along Lower Bayou Lafourche and Barataria ...... 4-1 The Colonial Period to 1803 ...... 4-4 The Antebellum Period, 1803-1860 ...... 4-6 Smugglers’ Mecca: Barataria Bay Bayou Lafourche ...... 4-6 Sugarcane Production in the Antebellum Period ...... 4-20 The Civil War, 1861-1865 ...... 4-23 The Late-Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries ...... 4-23 Port Fourchon Project Area Land Use Overview ...... 4-28 Township 21 South, Range 22 East ...... 4-29 Sections 34 and 35 ...... 4-29 Township 22 South, Range 22 East ...... 4-29 Sections 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 22, 26, 27, 35, and 36 ...... 4-30 Sections 3 and 4 ...... 4-30 Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 16-20, 31, and 32 ...... 4-30 Section 9...... 4-30 ii Table of Contents, Continued Section 10...... 4-30 Section 11...... 4-30 Section 14...... 4-30 Section 21...... 4-31 Section 23...... 4-31 Sections 24 and 25 ...... 4-31 Section 28...... 4-31 Section 33...... 4-31 Section 34...... 4-31 Township 22 South, Range 23 East ...... 4-31 Sections 38 and 39 ...... 4-31 Township 23 South, Range 22 East ...... 4-32 Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 26, and 35 ...... 4-32 Section 3...... 4-32 Sections 4 through 9, 16 through 21, and 28 through 33 ...... 4-32 Section 10...... 4-32 Section 13...... 4-34 Sections 14 and 15 ...... 4-34 Section 23...... 4-34 Sections 24 and 25 ...... 4-34 Section 27...... 4-34 Section 34...... 4-34 Township 23 South, Range 23 East ...... 4-34 Township 24 South, Range 22 East ...... 4-34 CHAPTER 5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ...... 5-1 Surveys and Sites conducted within the Proposed 50-Foot Navigation Channel and Turning Basin (Construction Area) ...... 5-1 West of Bell Passe (16LF7) ...... 5-4 16LF82 ...... 5-4 16LF85 ...... 5-5 16LF86 ...... 5-5 Cultural Resources Investigations within Schedule A (Dredge Spoil Deposition Areas) ...... 5-6 Bay Marchand (16LF8)...... 5-8 East of Belle Pass (16LF9) ...... 5-8 Bayou Lafourche (16LF34) ...... 5-9 16LF83 ...... 5-9 16LF84 ...... 5-9 The Gadris Site (16LF249) ...... 5-9 2nd Fiddler’s Bend (16LF250) ...... 5-9 Feti (16LF271) ...... 5-10 LOOP (16LF272) ...... 5-10 Levee Bend (16LF273) ...... 5-10 Valella (16LF274) ...... 5-10 Bayou Moreau Site Complex (16LF282) ...... 5-10 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PROBABILITY MODEL ...... 6-1 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 6-1 Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin (Construction Area) ...... 6-1 Schedule A (Immediate Disposal Area) ...... 6-2 All Sites and One-Mile Buffer (Potential Disposal Area Over 50 Years) ...... 6-2 iii Table of Contents, Continued Probability of Locating a Prehistoric Site ...... 6-3 Probability of Locating a Historic Site ...... 6-4 REFERENCES CITED ...... R-1 APPENDIX A SCOPE OF WORK ...... A-1 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure-1-1. Excerpt from USGS quadrangle map showing project area ...... 1-2 Figure 2-1. Excerpt from the USGS 1949 (Field examined in 1935), Belle Pass, LA 1:31,680 quadrangle showing the Port Fourchon project area ...... 2-5 Figure 2-2. Excerpt from the USGS 1998, Belle Pass, LA 1:24,000 quadrangle showing the Port Fourchon project area ...... 2-6 Figure 2-3. 1842 map by the Surveyor General’s Office of the mouth of Bayou Lafourche showing Township 24S, Range 22E, Sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10...... 2-7 Figure 2-4. Excerpt from the USGS 1953, Belle Pass, LA 1:24,000 quadrangle showing the Port Fourchon project area ...... 2-8 Figure 2-5. Excerpt from the USGS 1949 (Field Examined in 1935), Belle Pass, LA 1:31,680 quadrangle overlayed with the current aerial photograph of the Port Fourchon project area ...... 2-9 Figure 2-6. Excerpt from the USGS 1953 (photo revised 1979), Belle Pass, LA 1:24,000 quadrangle showing the Port Fourchon project area ...... 2-10 Figure 2-7. Current aerial photograph depicting oil and gas pipelines crossing the current proposed construction portion of the Port Fourchon project area...... 2-11 Figure 4-1: Excerpt from Carte du Mexique et de la Floride… (L’Isle 1703) ...... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Excerpt from Carte de la Louisiane et du Cours du Mississipi (L’Isle 1717) ...... 4-3 Figure 4-3: Excerpt from La Tourrette's Reference Map of the State of Louisiana (La Tourrette 1848) ) ...... 4-7 Figure 4-4: Excerpt from Louisiana (Rand McNally and Co. 1895) ...... 4-24 Figure 4-5. 1849 map by the Surveyor General’s Office of the South Eastern District, LA showing Township 22S, Range 23 East, Sections 38 and 39...... 4-33 Figure 4-6. 1842 map by the Surveyor General’s Office of the mouth of Bayou Lafourche showing Township 24S, Range 22E, Sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10...... 4-36 Figure 5-1. the whole project area including the Construction Area (the Channel and Turning Basin), the Diked Area and the deposition areas (Schedule A and All Sites Areas) ...... 5-2 Figure 5-2. Within the Channel and Turning Basin...... 5-3 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1. Vessels enrolled at the New Orleans Custom House associated with Grand Terre, 1804-1870 (from Saltus & Pearson 1990:16)...... 4-22 Table 4-2. Steamboats associated with the Forstall Plantation (from Saltus, n.d.)...... 4-22 Table 5-1. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A (Dredge Deposition) of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana...... 5-11 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana...... 5-18 Table 5-3. Archaeological Surveys Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana...... 5-30 Figure 5-4. Archaeological Sites Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana ...... 5-33 Table 5-5. Standing Structures Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana...... 5-34 iii CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PORT FOURCHON PROJECT AREA, LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA Introduction Earth Search, Inc. (ESI) undertook extensive background research to develop documentation concerning the existing conditions of cultural resources in the proposed Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deeping Project Feasibility Study in Lafourche Parish to the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1-1). This work was performed for the Greater Lafourche Port Commission through GIS Engineering, LLC. This desktop review/analysis is intended to provide sufficient data for planning purposes and does not include field verification. In addition to providing a brief culture history of Lafourche Parish, a summary of the natural setting and the recent modifications of the port area and changes in the coastline (including introduction of pipelines to the area) is provided. Previous investigations that have been undertaken within the proposed project areas are summarized. This document includes a predictive model for the likelihood of encountering previously unrecorded cultural resources along the Port Fourchon corridor/channel construction area. For the purposes of the cultural resources investigations, the activity is divided into construction to expand the existing channel, and deposition of dredge material. The construction includes a channel extending from the port into the Gulf of Mexico that would be 50 feet deep, 400 feet (122 m) wide, and extending 9.8 miles (15.7 km) from Port Fourchon into the Gulf of Mexico. The study area also includes construction of a turning basin, 1500 x 1500 ft (457 x 457 m), just south of Port Fourchon itself, and a diked area, 1000 ft (304 m) wide, totaling 170 acre (38.8 hectares) (Appendix A). Finally, this area includes placement for material dredged for the construction and maintenance, some of which will be placed in an Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) running parallel to the channel and measuring approximately 3000 ft (914.4 m) wide. The area designated for construction of the channel and turning basin and dredge disposal in the Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of Port Fourchon will be referred to as “50- Foot Navigation Access Channel” (Figure 1-1). Additional deposition of dredge material is planned and divided into two periods of time: immediate (Schedule A) and over 50-year time period for future channel maintenance (All Sites) (Figure 1-1). The dredge material from the immediate construction of the shipping channel would be placed within the Lafourche deltaic coastal plain from an area south of Leeville to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico (Schedule A, see Figure 1-1) (Mohan Menon, GIS Engineering, LLC, personal communication, April 2018). Projected maintenance of the channel over the course of fifty years will require more area for dredge disposal; this area extends further north and east and includes a one-mile buffer of the entire project area (All Sites, see Figure 1-1) (Mohan Menon, GIS Engineering, LLC, personal communication April 2018). To determine if any cultural resources could be adversely affected, previously recorded cultural resources, both terrestrial and marine, will be researched within the direct area of potential affect and an associated one mile (1.6 km) buffer of the project area (Figure 1-1). Because there are different activities planned for different portions of the project area, there are different requirements and recommendations for each portion. Methodology The initial phase of the desktop review and analysis is background research. This background research consists of a comprehensive literature search and records review, including an examination of online records maintained by the Divisions of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (LASHPO), Baton Rouge, 1-1 GOLDEN GOLDEN MEADOW MEADOW FARMS MINK BAYOU BAY TAMBOUR BAY COURANT PELICAN PASS LEEVILLE CAMINADA PASS CALUMET ISLAND BELLE PASS Project area All Sites and One-Mile Buffer All Sites (Potential Disposal Area) Schedule A (Immediate Disposal Area) Turning Basin 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel Meters ² 0 5,000 Figure 1-1. Excerpts fro the USGS quadrangles depicting the location of the study area. 1:165,000 1-2 Louisiana. Historical data was also reviewed. Cultural resources reports, site files, standing structures, shipwreck and obstruction data, and National Register (NRHP) records were reviewed for the project area. Geomorphological data, maps, and aerial photographs were examined and reviewed. This background research provides data utilized in the development of a probability model evaluating the likelihood of encountering archaeological sites along the corridor. Report Organization The natural setting is presented in Chapter 2; the current state of the coastline for Lafourche deltaic plain and the land-modifications by the gas and oil industry are detailed in this chapter. Past land use is described in Chapters 3 and 4, with an extensive history concerning shipping routes and transportation in Lafourche Parish included in Chapter 4. Previous archaeological investigations are described in Chapter 5. Recommendations and predictive modeling for locating cultural resources in the project area are in presented in Chapter 6. The original scope between Earth Search, Inc. and GIS Engineering, LLC is provided in Appendix A. 1-3 CHAPTER 2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Introduction The project area, in south Lafourche Parish, lies entirely within the Deltaic Plain (Saucier 1994a:8). From a geologic perspective the deltaic plain begins at the head of the Atchafalaya River (Saucier 1994a:23). From Golden Meadow to the Gulf of Mexico, the project area en- compasses both sides of the Bayou Lafourche distributary, which forms the indefinite boundary between the Atchafalaya Basin and the Barataria Basin. Fluviatile processes and forces have constantly reworked the deltaic plain and reshaped its biological and depositional environments. Due to the dynamic nature of the region, the human inhabitants of the area have had to use either settlement selection strategies or, as in historic and modern times, artificial control structures in order to exploit the available resources (Hinks et al. 2001:4). Geomorphology Louisiana's deltaic plain was created by progradation of a series of Mississippi River courses and deltas. The Mississippi River has repeatedly built major delta lobes, and these were subsequently abandoned. After abandonment, marine transgression occurs due to compaction and subsidence. In recent times, human activity has accelerated the rate of land loss. Previously, there was an overall gain in the size of the coastal plain in southeast Louisiana (Britsch and Dun- bar 1990:25-26). During the last 9,000 years, a series of delta complexes formed. These complexes, be- ginning with the oldest, were the Maringouin, Teche, Metairie, La Loutre-St. Bernard, Lafourche-Terrebonne, Plaquemine-Modern, and Balize (Weinstein and Gagliano 1985). The Lafourche Delta Complex was responsible for the geomorphic development of southern Lafourche Parish (Saucier 1994a:141; Hinks et al. 2001:4). The Lafourche Delta Complex began developing as early as 3500 B.P., but did not serve as a major distributary system of the Mississippi River until the abandonment of the St. Bernard Complex about 2000 B.P. (Saucier 1994a:282). At this time sedimentation of the Lafourche lobe began. The development of the Lafourche lobe created a natural levee ridge across the lower end of the Atchafalaya Basin. Prior to this, “the mouth of the basin merged with a broad, estuary- like, intradelta depression between Houma to the south and Donaldsonville to the north” (Saucier 1994a:283). This lobe led to the development of numerous distributaries that radiated from the trunk channel south, southeast, and southwest of the Thibodaux-Houma area (Saucier 1994a:282-283 and Plate 14). The “Bayou Lafourche distributary which trends southward from Donaldsonville through Thibodaux to the Gulf of Mexico just west of Grand Isle represents the last major active channel of the Lafourche Complex” (Saucier 1994a:283). This distributary be- gan forming a meander belt ridge approximately 800 B.P. (Saucier 1994a:283). Two major depositional environments can be defined within the project area. These are the Bayou Lafourche natural levees and interdistributary deposits. Each of these environments is dominated by distinct sedimentary processes that result in recognizable sedimentary facies. Natural Levee. During flood stage, floodwaters containing some bedload and consider- able amounts of suspended load escape the banks of an active river channel and accumulate along the margin of the channel creating natural levees. If floodwaters uniformly overflow the banks of a channel, they no longer are confined by the channel banks. The waters spread out across the floodplain, causing their velocity to abruptly decrease. The baffling effect of flood plain vegetation causes floodwaters to lose additional velocity as they leave the river channel. 2-1 As a result of this rapid decrease in velocity, silt and sand suspended within these floodwaters quickly settles out of suspension and accumulates along the margin of the river channel. Only the finer suspended clay is transported by unconfined floodwaters into the interdistributary areas of the flood basin. The silt and sand accumulates incrementally with each flood to build low, wedged-shaped ridges, called "natural levees," paralleling the river banks which slowly decrease in elevation away from the river (Galloway and Hobday 1983; Farrell 1989; Flores et al. 1985). Natural levees typically consist of fine sandy loams, silts, silt loams, and silty clays. These sediments are usually thickest and coarsest adjacent to the river bank. As they move away from the river, the sediments are thin and decrease in grain size gradually until they interfinger with clay-like flood basin sediments. The sediments of older, relict natural levees of river chan- nels typically consist of massive, often iron-stained, stiff to very stiff, mottled brown to grayish brown, fine sandy loams, silts, silt loams, and silty clays. In the case of younger, active natural river levees and major crevasse distributary channels, these sediments may exhibit internal bed- ding and sedimentary structures that reflect rapid deposition by multiple, shallow flow events. The natural levees of the smaller crevasse distributaries consist of stiff gray clay containing a small percentage of silt and fine sand. They contain abundant plant roots and these are some- times, but not always, oxidized (Galloway and Hobday 1983; Farrell 1989; Flores et al. 1985). Except for the most immature natural levee, natural levees are subaerially exposed for long periods of time between the brief periods of high river stages when floodwaters overflow them. During subaerial exposure, natural levee sediments are compacted, oxidized, highly leached, and bioturbated by pedogenic processes and weathering. As a result, natural levees con- tain massive, buried weathering zones containing iron oxides, carbonate nodules, and iron oxide concretions. These characteristics reflect subaerial weathering and soil formation during periods of subaerial exposure of natural levees between flood events (Fisk 1947; Galloway and Hobday 1983). Eventually, a natural levee aggrades to a level above the bankfull stage of a river such that it cannot be uniformly overflowed by floodwaters. In such a case, floodwaters escape the river and overflow the natural levee through local breaches within the natural levee, called "cre- vasses." The flow of floodwaters is concentrated within crevasses, often causing them to further cut and widen crevasses creating well-defined channels, called "crevasse channels." It is through these crevasse channels that floodwaters cross natural levees. Typically, a crevasse channel cuts through a natural levee at right angles and is dry except during flood stage. Crevasse channels provide conduits for floodwaters to transport suspended load and some bed load from the river, through the natural levee, and into the near-channel portion of the adjacent flood basin (Fisk 1947; Galloway and Hobday 1983; Farrell 1989). Where they leave a crevasse channel, sediment-laden floodwaters decrease in velocity and, thus, deposit their load of sands and silts as a crevasse splay. A crevasse splay is a delta- like landform with a distinct triangular or elliptical plan with a radial distributary system com- posed of anatomizing or straight channels. Often during floods, crevasse splays act like a delta by prograding into a flood basin filled with standing water. During floods, as flow velocity of the floodwater drops, as it spreads across the splay, crevasse splays are aggraded by the accumu- lation of suspended and bed loads upon its surface (Galloway and Hobday 1983; Farrell 1989; Flores et al. 1985). Interdistributary Deposits. This environment is also referred to as Intratidal marsh (Saucier 1994a). Interdistributary marshes form as a result of a combination of inorganic and organic sedimentation. Inorganic sediments are deposited into interdistributary areas by over- bank flooding (as described above). This deposition creates mudflats that are rapidly colonized by marsh vegetation. Organic sedimentation occurs as these plants die and are buried. Peats, organic oozes, and humus are deposited during this process. Although marsh deposits are sub- 2-2 siding, surface elevation is maintained at a relatively constant level due to vegetative growth and sedimentation. The result is that marsh deposits thicken. If the rate of subsidence exceeds that of marsh growth, however, the surface is eventually inundated. Soils The higher elevations [1-15 ft (3.28-4.57 m), above sea level] of the Bayou Lafourche natural levees consist mainly of Commerce and Sharkey silty clay loams. Flanking the natural levees are marsh and swamp soils that are ponded or frequently flooded. These soils include Timbalier-Bellpass and Fausse-Sharkey associations, as well as Sharkey clay, Scatlake muck, and Rita muck (Matthews 1984:general soil map). The surface layer of Commerce silty clay loam is 10YR 4/1 (dark gray); the subsoil is 10YR 5/2 (grayish brown) grading to a mottled gray at 60 in (154 cm) below surface. Com- merce silty clay loam is somewhat poorly drained with moderately slow permeability; and the surface layer may remain wet throughout the winter and spring. Sharkey silty clay loam is poor- ly drained. This soil association shares many of the properties of Commerce silty clay loam but with slightly different strata colorations. These two soils are somewhat suited for urban devel- opment and cultivation. Both are highly fertile, level soils with slope of less than one percent. Crops grown on these soils include soybeans, sugarcane, corn, small grains, rice, and vegetables. Although these soils are rich with wetland habitats, crops, and somewhat suited for urban devel- opment, wetness, flooding, and high levels of shrink-well are potential development limitations (Matthews 1984:20, 29, 54, and 59). Timbalier-Bellpass soils occur in interlevee basins and within the submerged natural lev- ees. The Timbalier-Bellpass soils are semifluid and organic. Within the APE, Timbalier soils are located in interlevee basins in the saline coastal marsh. Timbalier soil is 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown), 7.5YR 3/2 (dark brown), and 10YR 2/2 (very dark brown) semifluid muck to a depth of 72 in (182.88 cm). The underlying strata of Timbalier soil to a depth of 84 in (213.36 cm) is 5Y 4/1 (dark gray) and 5GY 4/1 (dark greenish gray) semifluid, mucky clay and clay. Bellpass soils are typically found in higher positions on submerged levees along natural water- ways. Bellpass soil is 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) and 10YR 2/1 (black) semifluid muck to a depth of 26 in (66.04 cm), with underlying layers of 5Y 3/1 (very dark gray) and 5BG 4/1 (dark greenish gray) semifluid, mucky clay and clay to a depth of 74 in (187.96 cm). These soils are soft and boggy due to the continuous flooding with permeability moderately rapid to rapid in the organic material and very slow for clayey material (Matthews 1984:31, 53, and 60). Fausse-Sharkey soil associations are found in swamps and in low natural levees. These are very poorly and poorly drained mineral soils that are frequently flooded. Within the APE, Fausse soils are located in swamps. The surface layer of Fausse soil is 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) acidic clay. The subsoil, to a depth of 38 in (96.52 cm), is mottled 5Y 4/1 (dark gray) clay. The underlying soil, to 60 in (152.40 cm), is mottled 5BG 5/1 (greenish gray) alka- line clay. On the low natural levees, Sharkey soil is very dark gray and slightly acidic at the sur- face. From 6-41 in (15.24-104.14 cm) below the surface, the soil appears to be mottled 10YR 5/1 (gray) and 10YR 4/1 (dark gray) clay with the underlying material a moderately alkaline, mottled 10YR 5/1 (gray) clay to 60 in (152.40 cm) (Matthews 1984:21, 54, and 59). Scatlake muck and Rita muck occur in saline and freshwater marshes, respectively. Scatlake muck is a level, very poorly drained, semifluid, mineral soil. The surface layer of Scatlake muck is very dark gray. Underlying strata are 5Y 4/1 (dark gray) and 5GY 4/1 (dark greenish gray) clays. Rita muck exhibits a surface layer of 10YR 2/1 (black) extremely acidic muck. The underlying strata are mottled 10YR 5/1 (gray) and 5BG 5/1 (greenish gray) firm clay and 5GY 4/1 (dark greenish gray) semifluid clay. Both Scatlake and Rita mucks have a substra- tum of loamy fine sand. Scatlake and Rita mucks are unsuitable for agricultural or residential 2-3 purposes due to flooding potential. These mucky, semifluid, clayey soils, however, provide nu- merous habitats for native, wetland wildlife and vegetation, recreational space for hunting, trap- ping, and fishing, and support to the Gulf of Mexico marine life. Shoreline Changes and Saltwater Intrusion in the Project Area There have been extensive changes to the shoreline around the mouth of Bayou Lafourche. The USGS quadrangle map published in 1949, but field surveyed in 1935, shows Bayou Lafourche descending in a two-pronged fork to the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2-1). The east fork is marked Pass Fourchon while the west fork is marked Belle Pass. 1935 USGS quadrangle map depicts that the mouth of Pass Fourchon has been blocked from sediment buildup. As com- pared to the later editions, there is a marked difference in the amount of land present on this 1935 map. For example, Bay Marchand is a large, half moon-shaped body of water in between the passes. By contrast, Bay Marchand is almost completely gone by the 1998 version of the quad- rangle map (Figure 2-2). In the 1998 version, it is still marked as a linear body of water, but as a small fraction of its former largess. A perusal of the Google Earth satellite image of the Port Fourchon area reveals a nonexistent Bay Marchand; however, it is still marked. In the 1935 map, Bayou Tartellon feeds into Pass Fourchon about a mile from its former outlet to the Gulf. The only human intervention visible on this quadrangle version is the Evans Canal located in the northern section of the map just north of where Bayou Lafourche forks. Noting the locations of the section, township and range markers on these maps can help visualize the land loss and shoreline changes that have taken place over the last century and a half. The 1842 plat map of Belle Pass marks sections in Township 24 at the mouth of Belle Pass (Figure 2-3). These sections are marked approximately 1.75 mi (2.8 km) off the mouth of Belle Pass in the 1935 USGS Quadrangle map (Figure 2-1). This extreme land loss was accelerated by the damming of Bayou Lafourche from the Mississippi River, numerous hurricanes, and the lev- ee construction of Bayou Lafourche and the Mississippi River itself. Since platting of the areas during antebellum times (ca. 1830s-1840s), the sections have remained marked on successive maps of the mouth of Lafourche. These sections are increasingly mapped into what is now the Gulf of Mexico but are still marked, even on current quadrangles. The 1953 USGS quadrangle map has the Township 24S cluster of sections (3, 4, 9, and 10) under 25 ft of Gulf waters (Figure 2-4). This was the mouth of Lafourche’s Belle Pass in 1842. Figure 2-5 is an overlay of the 1935 quadrangle map with the current shoreline map around Port Fourchon. Obviously much land has been taken by the Gulf, however, land loss the hundred years before 1935 is somewhat perplexing since the oil and gas activity, the levied river and bayous, the dammed Lafourche and the rampant canal construction were in their infancy in 1935. Numerous hurricanes and a stopped Lafourche around the turn of the twentieth century certainly contributed to this change at the mouth. Examination of the 1953 USGS quadrangle shows a marked change from the 1935 ver- sion (Figures 2-4 and 2-1). Oil and gas activities have begun in earnest. Belle Pass is jettied with a light to guide shipping. Canals, pipelines and a small tank farm are shown on the map. Two pipelines running from the barrier islands of Timbalier Bay cross Belle Pass on their way to the original facilities of Port Fourchon, which were on the east fork, or Pass Fourchon. Pass Fourchon is open to the Gulf and would have been an alternative to Belle Pass. It is likely that this pass was used initially. By the 1970s, Pass Fourchon is again closed off leaving Belle Pass as the only egress into the port (Figure 2-6). The 1953 quadrangle depicts two large canals across from where Bayou Tartellon meets Pass Fourchon (Figure 2-4). This L-shaped system was the original Port Fourchon with about 18 tanks illustrated and a few small support buildings. This L-shaped canal cut is still extant as of 2-4 Figure 2-1. Excerpt from the USGS 1949 (Field examined in 1935), Belle Pass, LA 1:31,680 quadrangle showing the Port Fourchon project area 2-5 Figure 2-2. Excerpt from the USGS 1998, Belle Pass, LA 1:24,000 quadrangle showing the Port Fourchon project area 2-6 2-7 Figure 2-3. 1842 map by the Surveyor General’s Office of the mouth of Bayou Lafourche showing Township 24S, Figure 2-4. Excerpt from the USGS 1953, Belle Pass, LA 1:24,000 quadrangle showing the Port Fourchon project area 2-8 PELICAN LEEVILLE PASS (1935) (1935) CAMINADA PASS (1954) CALUMET BELLE PASS ISLAND (1949) (1935) Project area All Sites and One-Mile Buffer All Sites (Potential Disposal Area) Schedule A (Immediate Disposal Area) Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, Turning Basin CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel Meters ² 0 5,000 Figure 2-5. Excerpts from the USGS Pelican Pass (1935), Leeville (1935), Calumet Island (1935), and Belle Pass (1949) quadrangles overlaid on aerial imagery depicting how the shoreline has changed over time. 1:109,025 2-9 Figure 2-6. Excerpt from the USGS 1953 (photo-revised 1979), Belle Pass, LA 1:24,000 quadrangle showing the Port Fourchon project area 2-10 2-11 Figure 2-7. Current aerial photograph depicting oil and gas pipelines crossing the current proposed construction portion of the Port Fourchon project area 2018. Its southern end is just north of the Gulf dunes, and only a cluster of tanks on its east side remains. By 1953, this vicinity already has canals and oil wells dotting the landscape. Further development in 1953 includes a canal running parallel to and to the west of Bayou Lafourche; it crosses Belle Pass near its confluence with Bayou Lafourche and makes its way out to the Gulf of Mexico not far from Pass Fourchon. This canal is still extant but is closed off before it hits the Gulf. Another canal runs parallel to the west, coming off Belle Pass on the 1953 quadrangle. The canal ends in the marsh between Belle Pass and Pass Fourchon and has a rectangular build- ing at a turning basin. On the east side of Pass Fourchon is a canal system with oil wells at the end of each spur. One of the canals is cut to Bay Champagne, where there are six other oil wells. Oil wells also dot the landscape to the east of Bay Champagne. Bay Marchand is also considera- bly smaller here than on the 1935 map. The coast is obviously still receding while the oil and gas companies are busy building their infrastructure. The 1979 quadrangle shows a marked increase in the facilities of Port Fourchon (Figure 2-6). At the same time, the marshlands around Fourchon are quickly disappearing. By this time, there are at least 28 oil tanks in the port and support buildings number at least 15. These facili- ties are still clustered in the same place but more canals had been constructed throughout the ar- ea. The newer port facilities to the north of the old had not begun yet. This new expanded port is visible in its earlier stages on the 1990s quadrangle maps. The 1998 map shows the most saltwater encroachment yet, but the area to the south of the port has been protected with a sea- wall (Figure 2-2). The salt water has especially encroached the west side of Belle Pass at this time. The same pipelines from the 1953 quadrangle map are also extant on the 1998 map. Other pipelines also currently cross the project area (Figure 2-7). The beach area to the south of the original port facilities seems to have stopped its attrition north. This shoreline depicted in the 1998 quadrangle is in about the same place it is today thanks to the Caminada Headland Restora- tion Project (Braud et al. 2008). Furthermore, dredging activities of the West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration Project have also increased the land mass to the west of the port, where Timbalier Bay had been encroaching closer to Bayou Lafourche (Novak, Goodwin and Brooks 2010). Climate Lafourche Parish is characterized by a humid, subtropical climate. There is an influx of warm, moist, maritime tropical air from the nearby Gulf of Mexico. This maritime tropical air is displaced frequently during winter and spring by incursions of continental polar air from Canada, which occur less frequently in autumn and only rarely in summer. Average temperatures range from 54oF (12oC) in the winter to 81oF (27oC) in the summer (Matthews 1984:2). Precipitation, consisting almost entirely of rainfall, averages 59 in (150 cm) throughout the year, with the most rain occurring during the summer (Matthews 1984:2). Hurricanes and storm surges occur inter- mittently, and these have profound effects on floral, faunal, and human communities within the parish Plant Communities Plant communities in the project area are divided into fresh, intermediate, and brackish depending on elevation and salinity. Natural levees and high spoil banks along the distributaries and canals provide the only land solid enough to support trees. Trees observed in the project ar- ea include several varieties of oak (Quercus spp.), black willow (Salix nigra), magnolia (Magno- lia spp.), tallowtree (Sapium sebiferum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet gum (Liquid- ambar styraciflua), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The most common shrub species are palmetto (Sabal minor), wax-myrtle (Myrica cerifera), button- bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and green haw (Crataegus viridis). Vines are also very com- mon. The most common of these include poison-ivy (Rhus toxicodendron var. vulgaris), Virgin- ia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), supple-jack (Berchemia scandens), cat-briar (Smilax 2-12 spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), hemp-weed (Mikania scandens), touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), water paspalum (Paspalum sp.), and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1996:25; Gibson 1978:97, 114-115; White et al. 1983:104-105). The marsh, with soils of peat and muck, has an elevation of less than one meter above mean sea level. Fresh marsh is dominated by bulltongue or swamp potato (Sagittaria lancifolia), duck potato (S. latifolia), bagscale (Sacciolepis striata), and false loosestrife (Ludwigia leptocar- pa), with pennywort (Hydrocotyle sp.), spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), and water hyacinth (Eich- hornia crassipes) (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1996:25). Additional fresh marsh species include Carolina bacopa (Bacopa caroliniana), ammania (Ammania coccinea), pink hibiscus (Rasteletz- kya virginica), and gooseweed (Sphenoclea zeylandica) (Gibson 1978:102-103). Intermediate marsh supports marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens), Olney bulrush (Scir- pus olneyi), false loosestrife, swamp potato, eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), smart- weed (Polygonum sp.), waterhyssop (Bacopa sp.), pennywort, and bagscale (Coastal Environ- ments, Inc., 1996:25). The dominant species in the brackish marsh is marshhay cordgrass. Ad- ditional brackish marsh species include coast milkweed (Asclepias lanceolata), saltwort (Batis maritima), bindweed (Convaluulus spp.), and dodder (Cuscuta geonovii) (Gibson 1978:106). Fish The wetland environments in southern Louisiana host a diverse assemblage of fish and other aquatic species. Those found throughout the area include several species of gar (Lepisos- teus spp.); paddlefish (Polydon spathula); largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); yellow bass (Morone mississippiensis); six species of sunfish including bluegill and redear (Lepomis macro- chirus and L. microlophus); bowfin (Amia calva); crappie (Pomoxis spp.); at least three species of catfish (Ictalurus furcatus, I. melas, I. punctatus); and various other species. Also found are crawfish (Procambrus spp.) and various other species of mussels, snails, and crustaceans, such as blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and shrimp (Penaeus spp.) (Coastal Environments, Inc., 1996:27; Gibson 1978:85-87; Jones and Shuman 1987:5-6). During the current field investiga- tions, professional fishermen were observed harvesting crabs from traps in nearly all of the deep- er channels in the project area. Shrimp are harvested as they migrate through estuarine lakes. Prehistorically, one of the most important resources in the southern Louisiana was the brackish water clam (Rangia cuneata). Rangia cuneata shell middens are common at almost all of the recorded prehistoric sites located in the vicinity of the project area. The predominance of Rangia cuneata shells characterizes many prehistoric period sites throughout southern Louisiana. This brackish water mollusk represented a widely utilized resource for pre-European occupants of the region (Byrd 1976). The virtual absence of freshwater mollusks at sites in southern Loui- siana contrasts markedly with the abundance of Rangia. However, small numbers of shells rep- resenting the freshwater genus Unio and the saltwater genus Ostrea have been reported at some prehistoric sites in the region (Gagliano et al. 1979). Byrd (1976) examined the nutritional and caloric value of the Rangia in order to deter- mine its relative importance to prehistoric diet. She notes that a 100-pound deer might be ex- pected to contribute 50 pounds of edible meat. In order to provide the equivalent 50 pounds of Rangia, it would be necessary to harvest 25,300 clams. That would produce 50,600 clam shells which, based on clam size at the Morton shell midden (16IB3), would represent a volume of 11.8 cubic feet. Thus, clams provide only relatively small amounts of meat per volume of discarded shell (Byrd 1976:25). Rangia also have relatively low nutritional values compared to other food items utilized during the prehistoric period (Byrd 1976:27). 2-13 Despite the fact that Rangia are relatively low in food value, they were exploited throughout the prehistoric period in coastal Louisiana. This exploitation may be due to the fact that little risk or expenditure of energy is involved in obtaining Rangia. In some brackish waters, these clams are relatively abundant. They can be gathered by hand in shallow waters and by rake in deeper waters. So long as large, dense clam beds are available, little energy expenditure is necessary to obtain them (Byrd 1976:28). In addition, there are other possible reasons for the apparently heavy exploitation of Ran- gia by prehistoric peoples. Contributions this clam might have made to trace element intake and other aspects of diet remain undetermined. Also, the large volume of clam shells that result from clam harvests represent an important source of "fill" in low-lying areas subject to flooding. All of southern Louisiana represents such an area. It is possible that Native Americans were deliber- ately using Rangia shells to provide greater topographic relief on portions of the natural levee and in the marsh. Reptiles and Amphibians Numerous reptiles and amphibians inhabit the area. The largest reptile is the alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). There are also at least 13 species of turtles, including snapping tur- tle (Chelydra serpentina), mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and box turtle (Terrapene caro- lina). Snakes common to the area include two species of vipers, cottonmouth moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus) and copperhead (A. contortrix), and numerous non-venomous species (Colubridae). Finally, there are 11 species of salamander and 13 species of frogs (Gibson 1978:85; Jones and Shuman 1987:5-6). Birds As might be expected, a wide variety of birds can be found in the area on a permanent basis, as well as seasonally. Some of the most common birds of prey include the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), barred owl (Strix platypterus), marsh hawk (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Gibson 1978:90; Jones and Shuman 1987:5). Non-predator birds include six species of heron and two species of egret (Ardeidae), ibis (Threskiornithidae), various ducks (Anatidae), woodpeckers (Picidae), quails (Colinus virginianus), and doves (Columbidae), plus an assortment of smaller birds (Gib- son 1978:90; Jones and Shuman 1987:5). Mammals Terrestrial and semi-aquatic mammals abound in the swamps and marshes. The most common mammals include rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), squirrel (Sciurus spp.), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and black bear (Euractos americanus). Nutria (Myocas- tor coypus) is now very common in southern Louisiana, but was not introduced from South America until the twentieth century (Gibson 1978:100; Jones and Shuman 1987:5). 2-14 CHAPTER 3 NATIVE AMERICAN OCCUPATIONS IN SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA Introduction The archeology of southeast Louisiana has, for the most part, been forced into cultural historical units developed for the Lower Mississippi Valley portion of the state (Phillips 1970). It has been long recognized that, at times, connections with the northern Gulf of Mexico coast were stronger than those with the Lower Valley (e.g., Knight 1984; Weinstein and Kelley 1992). While the standard cultural time periods/cultures are taken from the Lower Valley chronology, it is to be understood that some, if not all of the time period references are not congruent with those upriver. Archeologists recognize a pattern of cultural development over time and are able to classify archeological cultures into large temporal and culture historical units. It is on the local level, however, that our ability to create appropriately fine-grained culture historical entities fails us. Naturally, the creation of cultures, phases, and chronological frameworks is only a beginning point for further, presumably more meaningful, analysis of Native American behavior in the coastal zone. This summary of the prehistoric Native American occupations begins with the Poverty Point period. Few sites affilated with the earlier Paleo-Indian and/or Archaic periods have been reported in southeastern Louisiana (Gagliano 1963; Gagliano and Saucier 1963; Jeter et al. 1989; Saucier 1994), the result of post-Pleistocene environmental changes that affected the Louisiana coastal zone. Near the end of the Pleistocene, approximately 20,000 years B.P., sea level may have been more than 100 m (328 ft) below it’s present level (Lewis 2000:527) with Lousiana’s coast line somewhere between 80-100 km (49-62 mi) further south (Saucier 1994:49). In the post-Pleistocene era, glaciers began to retreat in response to realtively warmer climate with a concomittant rise in sea level. Sea level did not reach its present stand until approximately 2,000-2,500 year ago (Lewis 2000:527). The rise in sea level covered much of the prehistoric landscape inhabited by people of the Paleo-Indian and Archaic periods (Lewis 2000:536). The end result is that sites older than the late Archaic period lie buried offshore of Louisiana’s present coast line (Lewis 2000:537) effectively creating the “attuenated” cultural historical sequence described below. The Poverty Point Period (1,500 B.C.-500 B.C.) The Poverty Point period (1,500 B.C.-500 B.C.) is named after the primary type site, the Poverty Point site (16WC5), located in West Carroll Parish, Louisiana. The site is large covering nearly 5 sq km (1.93 sq mi) (Pauketat 2007:65; Sassaman 2004:253, 2005:338) and contains numerous earthen constructions (Byrd 1991; Connolly 1999; Gibson 2000; Kidder 2002a; Neuman 1984; Webb 1982). Monumental construction at the site includes six sets of earthen ridges forming a concentric ring or half circle and five earthen mounds (Kidder 2002a:93-95; Kidder et al. 2007:2). Sites containing Poverty-Point-related artifacts occur throughout Louisiana, eastern and southern Arkansas, western Mississippi, and southeastern Missouri, southern Illinois, western Kentucky, Georgia, and the panhandle region of Florida. Many of the larger sites have oval or horseshoe plans similar to the ridges at Poverty Point. Sites from this period are generally located on levees, terrace edges, stream-lake junctions, and coastal environments (Neuman 1984:90-91; Webb 1970:33-35). Mound A at the Poverty Point site is nearly 21 m high and has been interpreted as the reprentation of a bird while Mound E, a rectangular platform, has been interpreted as a ball court (Kidder 2002a:94, Figure 5; Gibson 1987:8). The earthen ridges, or loaf-shaped mounds as they are called in one instance (Pauketat 2007:66), are believed at this point to serve as living areas 3-1 for a resident population (Gibson 2000:105). Excavation and systematic soil coring at Mound A provide evidence that this mound was not a bird effigy but in fact a conical mound with a ramp added later (Kidder et al. 2007:1). Kidder et al. (2007:1, 7) project that approximately 1500 people built Mound A within a 3-6 month span with the ramp constructed in approximately 30 days. Their research also suggests that the concentric ridges were built and occupied over a three-century span (Kidder et al. 2007:7; see also Gibson 2000; Sassaman 2004, 2005). Likewise, recent investigation of Mound E clearly demonstrate that this flat-topped mound is not a ball court but a series of five mound construction stages all dating to the Poverty Point period (Anthony Ortmann, personal communication:2008). The Poverty Point period at one time was believed to represent the florescence of long- distance trading activity already evident in late-Archaic times, including the importation of exotic cherts and other lapidary materials from the central United States and the Great Lakes area (Neuman 1984:101-102). Caching of galena as well as steatite has been taken as evidence that the Poverty Point site was a regional distribution node in a large trade interaction sphere (Walthall et al. 1982). Settlement data indicates a hierarchical arrangement of sites exists around some Poverty Point centers (Kidder 1991) and suggests a more complex social organization during this time than previously believed. The Poverty Point settlement system would consist of large regional mound centers, such as Poverty Point and Claiborne Site (22HA501) in Mississippi, surrounded by small hanlets and temporary camps. These characteristics, along with the presence of non-local lithic resources apparently traded from great distances, led Gibson (2000:99-109)) to propose that a ruling elite occupied the larger regional centers making the Poverty Point site the seat of the first chiefdom-level society in North America. Peoples living at Poverty Point and larger settlements nearby probably had a ranked society with a temporary chief to administer earthwork construction and long-distance trading (Gibson 2000:109-110) However, the chiefdom model for Poverty Point has not yet garnered universal acceptance (Jackson 1986, 1991a, 1991b; Johnson 1980:251-281; Gibson 1970:319-348; 1990:201-237; Steponaitis 1986:377-378). Those opposing the “Great Town” model of Poverty Point suggest a better interpretation of the site is that of a modest community supporting a small resident population. Poverty Point’s configuration would therefore result from long-term, cumulative efforts by small groups of people erecting living areas and perodic episodes of mound construction. There is some evidence from sites in Catahoula Parish that provides some support for a less centralized form of social organization (Hunter 1970). Diagnostic artifacts of Poverty Point culture include tiny microlithic perforators, fired clay objects for cooking, tubular pipes, clay figurines, rough hoes and celts, and jasper beads. The ceramics recovered include fiber-tempered and sand- or clay-tempered wares. Bowls were also made of steatite and sandstone (Webb 1982:12-13). Motley points, often made from non- local cherts, are the index point-type for Poverty Point sites (Neuman 1984:99), in addition to Epps and Gary points (Heartfield, Price, and Greene, Inc. 1985:8). The use of spear-throwers is suggested by the presence of atlatl weights and an antler atlatl hook in the site assemblage at Poverty Point. Pitted stones and grinding basins are more than likely associated with the processing of nuts and seeds for food. The best known Poverty Point period sites in the vicinity of the project area include the Linsley (16OR40) and Garcia (16OR34) sites in Orleans Parish (Gagliano and Saucier 1963), and the Bayou Jasmine site (16SJB2) located at the western end of Lake Pontchartrain in St. John the Baptiste Parish (Duhe 1977; Gagliano and Saucier 1963:Figure 1). The Garcia site is situated on a buried natural levee associated with an early course of the Mississippi River and consisted of an eroding Rangia beach deposit. A series of radiocarbon dates, baked clay balls, and a characteristic Poverty Point artifact assemblage of microlithic tools and a variety of chipped and polished stonework are evidence that date the site to the Poverty Point period (Gagliano and Saucier 1963:Table 1). Material dredged from the subsided Rangia shell midden at Garcia was 3-2 used to define the Bayou Jasmine-Garcia phase of the Poverty Point period (Gagliano and Saucier 1963; Gagliano et al. 1975:44-47). Linsley was totally destroyed by dredging of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Gagliano et al. 1975). However, a series of radiocarbon dates from the site range from 4450 BP to 3550 BP, placing it within the Poverty Point period. Another important site representing this period is the Bayou Jasmine site (16SJB2). Here, the evidence for a Poverty Point period occupation consists principally of baked clay Poverty Point objects quite similar in size and shape to those from the Poverty Point site (16WC5) (Gagliano and Saucier 1963:321). Duhe (1977:35-37) also reports the presence of small numbers of Poverty Point microtools and a minor quantity of non-local lithic material, including unworked quartz crystals, orthoquartzite projectile points, worked hematite, steatite (which was rare), and an unidentified gray-brown chert. Material culture from the site also indicates the presence of an extensive Tchefuncte component, along with later Marksville, Coles Creek, and Plaquemine occupations (Duhe 1977; Gagliano and Saucier 1963). The Tchula Period (500 B.C.-A.D. 1) Tchula period occupations in the Lower Mississippi Valley are equated with the Tchefuncte culture. The period has also been identified as the Formative (Jenkins and Krause 1986), or early Ceramic period because, with the exception of fiber-tempered pottery, it was the interval during which initial pottery complexes appeared in the Lower Mississippi Valley (Neuman 1984:113, 122). Sites are few and scattered, with most occupations found in the coastal zone (Neuman 1984). These data are interpreted to suggest that the peoples of the Tchefuncte culture were largely seminomadic hunters and gatherers (Neuman 1984:135). However, within subareas such as South Louisiana, regional artifact markers, primarily Tchefuncte type ceramics, are useful for recognizing occupations (Phillips 1970:7, 8, 15, 76) and possibly for defining regional populations (Shenkel 1981; Weinstein 1986). Peoples of the Tchefuncte culture were the first to engage extensively in the manufacture of ceramics. Fiber-tempered and some grog-tempered or temperless sherds have been recovered from earlier Poverty Point contexts (Webb 1982). These may represent primarily trade goods from the earliest pottery-making cultures in the east. The basic Tchefuncte ware is temperless or grog-tempered, with accidental inclusions of small quantities a sand and vegetable fiber. Sand- tempered wares represent a minority constituent of Tchefuncte site (16ST1) assemblages (Shenkel 1984:47-48). Tchefuncte pottery is recognizable by its poor construction and laminated, non-tempered paste (Gertjejansen and Shenkel 1983). Decorative techniques include unzoned rocker stamping, incising, dentate stamping, zoned and unzoned punctating, drag-and- jab incising, cord impressing, and complicated stamping (Shenkel 1980). The dominant Tchula period ceramic types are Tchefuncte Plain, Tchefuncte Incised, Tchefuncte Stamped, Lake Borgne Incised, Orleans Punctated, Tammany Punctated, Alexander Incised, and Alexander Pinched (Toth 1988:23). Other artifacts associated with the Tchefuncte culture were used for hunting and fishing. Projectile points include Pontchartrain, Gary, Macon, Epps, and Ellis types as well as antler and splintered bone points. Additionally, bone harpoon heads, antler atlatl hooks, stone atlatl weights, bola stones, and bone fishhooks also indicate subsistence activities (Neuman 1984:120). Tubular clay pipes, ground stone boatstones, bar weights, plummets, and minor numbers of Poverty Point baked clay objects also have been recovered on sites of this period (Hayes and Weinstein 2010). Ceramic decoration and various percentages of these decorations have been used to create several regional phases of the Tchefuncte culture (Hayes and Weinstein 2010:Figure 6.3; Weinstein 1986). The Pontchartrain phase was considered the earliest Tchefuncte manifestation in the region, and thought to date from ca. 500 B.C. to ca. 250 B.C. Pontchartrain phase sites 3-3 were moderately common in the Pontchartrain Basin. The most notable of these sites are the Tchefuncte site (16ST1) in St. Tammany Parish, and the Big Oak (16OR6) and Little Oak Island (16OR7) sites in Orleans Parish (Ford and Quimby 1945; Neuman 1984; Shenkel 1981, 1984; Shenkel and Gibson 1974). A later Beau Mire phase was proposed to encompass the period from ca. 250 B.C. to A.D. 1, although this phase was not accepted by all researchers (Shenkel 1981, 1984; Weinstein 1986; Weinstein and Rivet 1978). Heller et al. (2013) recently revised the prehistory of the Pontchartrain Basin. Based on the reanalysis of cultural material from the Tchefuncte site (16ST1) and Bayou Jasmine (16SJB2), as well as published material from Big Oak (16OR6) and Little Oak (16OR7) Islands (Shenkel 1974; 1980; 1984) they propose a four phase scheme (Heller et al. 2013:618). The Maurepas phase (800 – 600 B.C.) is based on material recovered from the lower levels of the Bayou Jasmine site. The Pontchartrain phase (600 – 400 B.C.) is based on the lower deposits at Big Oak Island and the Tchefuncte Site. The Oak Island phase (400 – 200 B.C.) is based on material from Big Oak Island, Little Oak Island, Bayou Jasmine, and the Tchefuncte site. Lastly the Sauvage phase (200 – 100 B.C.) is based on material recovered form Big Oak Island. Tchefuncte sites in the study area are confined to the areas around Lake Pontchartrain and appear to be associated with relatively early river channels and lake margins. Tchefuncte subsistence is fairly well known. Excavations at the Big Oak Island and Little Oak Island sites suggest an emphasis on hunting and fishing (Shenkel 1981, 1984). Shenkel (1981:331) argues that these two sites initially had occupations that supported “permanent or semi-permanent villages.” Later, there is evidence that there may have been functionally different occupations, with Big Oak Island evolving into a “specialized” shellfish and fish procurement and processing station (Shenkel 1981, 1984) which was “unquestionably associated with the contemporaneous village component at the Little Oak Island site” (Shenkel 1981:331-332, 1984). Shenkel (1981:333-334) emphasizes the narrow range of exploited foods (primarily Rangia clams and marsh-estuarine fish and mammals) in the Pontchartrain phase, noting that many other equally productive resources were virtually ignored. Social complexity was relatively minimal in the Tchefuncte culture. Settlements are generally small and lack certain evidence of earth works or other complex features (Neuman 1984:117, 135; Toth 1988:27). Although mound construction was practiced at least as early as the late Archaic, there is no clear association at this time between the Tchefuncte culture and mound building activities (Kelley 1989:19). Evidence for Tchefuncte houses is virtually non- existent. Excavation of the premound surface at the Lafayette Mounds site (16SM17) revealed small postmolds, some forming an arc. If these posts were part of a structure, it would be circular and measure approximately 10 m (32.81 ft) in diameter (Ford and Quimby 1945:21-22; Hayes and Weinstein 2010:107-108; Jeter et al. 1989:121; Neuman 1984:134). Conversely, investigations at Little Oak Island (16OR7) revealed 160 postmolds many of which are believed to represent wall posts and roof supports for long, shed-like structures approximately 20 m (65.62 ft) long (Neuman 1984:134). Contrary to earlier interpretations, there is now evidence that indicates purposeful mound burial does occur late in the Tchula period for a very small segment of the Tchfuncte population (Haynes and Weinstein 2010:107-109; Toth 1988:27-28). The burial mounds are characteristically low and dome-shaped. However, as noted in earlier research, most Tchula period burials were placed in non-mound contexts and lack funerary associations (Neuman 1984:116). The typical Tchefuncte burial is a shallow pit excavated in midden with the body interred in a flexed position. The lower leg bones are broken in some instances and may indicate some sort of ritualized mortuary behavior. Secondary bundle burials do occur but are rare. Scattered human bones have also been recovered from midden contexts at some sites. No interpretation has been developed for the scattered human remains (Hayes and Weinstein 2010:109-110). 3-4 Tchefuncte sites along the coast of Louisiana are commonly composed of shell middens and often contain intact organic remains. The faunal assemblage from Morton Shell Mound (16IB3), a Tchefuncte culture site in Iberia Parish, indicates that deer, alligator, raccoon, goose, and catfish were utilized as the primary sources of protein. Botanical remains included hickory nuts, acorns, plums, grapes, persimmons, squash, and gourd. The latter two are indicative of plant domestication (Neuman 1984:119). The Marksville Period (A.D. 1-A.D. 400) The Marksville period and culture of the Lower Mississippi Valley are named after the type site (16AV1) located in the town of Marksville, Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana (Fowke 1928). Early attempts to interpreted the period and site were based on similarites in ceramic decoration, monumental construction, and burial customs noted between the Marksville site (Setzler 1934, 1935) and the Hopewell Tradition centered in the Ohio and Illinois (Phillips 1970:7, 17-18, 886; Toth 1988). The Marksville culture was believed to have participated in an extensive interregional exchange network commonly labeled the Hopewell Interaction Sphere (Caldwell and Hall 1964). The primary focus of this interregional exchange network was among various societies inhabiting the Ohio and Illinois River valleys These groups acquired and traded various exotic raw materials that included copper, marine shells, mica, obsidian, and sharks’ teeth (Hudson 1976:72; Hunter et al. 1995:23; Stoltman 1978:721). Different theories have been offered in an attempt to explain this interaction. Most emphasize either an economic or a combination of economic and socio-religious factors; but the exact nature of the interaction sphere remains problematical. Most often, finished products made from exotic materials were recovered from burials placed in conical earthen mounds. In addition to these burial mounds, Hopewellian societies constructed large earthworks that were circular, octagonal, square, and zoomorphic (Hunter et al. 1995:23; Kelley 1989:20; Neuman 1984:140-142; Toth 1988:211- 212). Toth (1988:211-212) has argued Marksville culture developed out of the preceding Tchula period Tchefuncte culture as a result of intermittent contacts with the societies occupying the Ohio and Illinois valleys. He emphasizes the evidence for interaction is limited solely to certain aspects of Marksville ceramic traditions and mortuary practices, but his interpretation of the nature of interregional interaction is speculative (Hunter et al. 1995:23). Subsistence and economic data from Marksville period sites are relatively non-existent. Information gathered for sites in the Central Mississippi River valley (Asch et al. 1979) indicate intensive collection of wild plant foods and faunal resources complemented by horticultural practices revolving around native and tropical cultigens. Maize is believed to be lacking or of only minor importance at this time. The Marksville period is generally subdivided into two sequential temporal units, early Marksville and late Marksville. The Labranche or Coquilles phase marks the early part of the Marksville period was based, at least in part, on the excavations at the Coquille site, 16JE37, an early Marksville period site located in the Barataria Basin to the west of the study area (Beavers 1982). Weinstein and Hahn (2011:22) believe that, because of the distance between the Barataria Basin and the study area, it is more reasonable to use the Labranche phase when describing the early Marksville period sites around Lake Borgne. The late Marksville period Magnolia phase was based on material recovered from the Magnolia Mound. During the late Marksville, there was an apparent increase in cultural diversity in the Lower Mississippi Valley and also perhaps on the coast. In much of the Lower Mississippi Valley, the Issaquena culture developed over several centuries beginning around A.D. 200 (Greengo 1964; Gibson 1977; Phillips 1970; Williams and Brain 1983). Along the peripheries of the Lower Mississippi Valley, at least in its northern end, other cultural variants developed which 3-5 were clearly contemporaneous with Issaquena but that did not share the same cultural content (Belmont 1984; Jeter et al. 1989; Ring 1986). In the Louisiana coastal zone, the cultural situation is very vague and poorly understood. Marksville period occupations are relatively rare and are best known from several large, evidently mounded sites. The precise chronology of these occupations is not well defined. Coastal Marksville settlement data suggest a hierarchical arrangement of sites. Multimound sites are usually located at the junction of tributary/distributary streams and main trunk stream channels. Single mound sites are located on natural levee ridges between stream junctions while smaller village or hamlet sites are scattered around the larger mound sites (Beavers 1982:103-106; Gagliano et al. 1978:4-7; Jeter et al. 1989:140; Wiseman et al. 1979:6- 19). Evidence of non-mound Marksville structures is as scarce as that for the preceding Tchula period. Excavation of the inland Marksville Peck site (16CT268) near Sicily Island, Louisiana revealed post molds outlining a rectangular structure that measured approximately 2.43 x 4.26 m. It is not clear if this structure is associated with the Marksville component at this site. Marksville period sites are identified as such primarily on the basis of a distinctive suite of pottery decorative motifs that include incised curivlinear and geometric designs, zoned plain and dentate rocker stamped designs, and combinations of incised and rocker stamped designs. Sites of this period are found across Louisiana, but frequency varies a great deal. The greatest concentration of Marksville sites is found in the Lower Mississippi River valley and ajoining uplands (Jeter et al. 1989; McGimsey et al. 1999; Phillips 1970; Toth 1988). Sites are less frequent across the southwestern part of the state and in the Florida Parishes north of Lake Pontchartrain (McGimsey 2003, 2004). Marksville sites are rare in the uplands of northeast Louisiana south of Shreveport while a few sites have been identified in the lower Red River valley (Girard 1994; Jeter et al. 1989). The Marksville site is undoubedly the most famous and also the most important site of the period. The site has C-shaped earthen embankment enclosing 40 acres and six earthen mounds (McGimsey et al. 1999). The embankment is between 0.5-2.5 m high with its north and south terminations on a high bluff line bordering a former channel of the Mississippi River. Excavation along portions of the southern end of the embankment discovered no evidence of it use as a fortification and that it was built in a single construction stage.. A small circular embankment is attached by a causeway to an entrance on the south side of the semi-circle (Jones and Kuttruff 1993). The six mounds are variable in shape and size, and include low circular domes, a steep conical mound, a large circular flat-topped mound, and an irregular multi-stage mound. Located outside the embankment are as many as 70 small circular embankments or rings with diameters ranging between 10-30 m, with sunken interiors, and a deep central fire pit (McGimsey 1999:81-83, Figures 5 and 6). The rings are not the earth lodges described in earlier interpretations of the site (McGimsey 1999:83) but may be in fact some type of facility for rituals performed outside the sites embankment. Early Marksville occupations in the eastern coastal zone have been defined at Tchefuncte, Big Oak Island, and Little Woods (Phillips 1970:898). Additional sites with early Marksville occupations include the Labranche (16SC11), Bayou Trepangnier (16SC10), Booth (16LV6) and Doucette (16ST44) sites (Phillips 1970:Figure 444). Excavations at the Coquilles site (16JE37) at the junction of Bayou Des Familles and Bayou Coquilles yielded important evidence concerning the Marksville period occupation in the Barataria region (Beavers 1982a; Giardino 1984, n.d.). The Coquilles site once consisted of at least one, and possibly two earth and shell mounds and an associated midden scatter principally oriented along Bayou Coquilles (Beavers 1982a; Speaker et al. 1986). The mounds, located at the confluence of the two bayous, have been severely impacted by modern highway construction and earlier historic shell mining (Beavers 1982a; Swanson 1991). Excavations conducted by 3-6 Richard Beavers of the University of New Orleans has resulted in the largest published data base for the site (Beavers 1982a, 1982b). In addition, excavations conducted by National Park Service personnel resulted in the recovery of important data. Information from these latter excavations, along with much of Beavers’ work on the Coquilles site mound, remains unpublished. Radiocarbon dates from the Coquilles site suggest a very long habitation span, covering the period from ca. A.D. 150 to the mid-seventeenth century. The presence of a number of later radiocarbon dates and indications of later ceramics demonstrate that the Coquilles site supported a major occupation well into the later prehistoric periods. The upper surfaces of this site were removed beginning in the early historic period. Thus, we can never know the full extent of the occupation. Additional early Marksville occupations in the region include Kenta Canal (16JE51), Dupree Cutoff I (16JE8), Dupree Cut Off II (16JE9), Three-Bayou Field (16JE98), Isle Bonne (16JE60), and Bayou Cutler (16JE3) (Gagliano et al. 1979:4-8-4-19). The early Marksville occupation at Bayou Cutler is evidently the best representation of this time period outside of Coquilles (and possibly Boudreaux). The Bayou Cutler site consists of a Rangia and oyster midden located at the junction of Bayou St. Denis and Bayou Cutler (Gagliano et al. 1979:Figure 4-7; Kniffen 1936). Two test pits excavated to water level suggested the presence of a stratified midden of Rangia with the early Marksville component being the earliest present (Gagliano et al. 1979:Appendix A). Late Marksville period occupations in the eastern Louisiana coastal zone have been defined at the Magnolia Mound site (16SB49), located on a crevasse distributary off of Bayou La Loutre in nearby St. Bernard Parish (Gagliano et al. 1982:Figure 2-4; McIntire 1958:65-66, Figures 24-25). The Magnolia Mound site consists of at least 11 “earth and shell mounds, both conical and pyramidal, and extensive areas of Rangia and black earth middens” (Gagliano et al. 1982:20). Most of the mounds at the site are of undetermined shape, but at least one, Mound B, is a conical mound that was “probably constructed” during the late Marksville occupation (Gagliano et al. 1982:22). Marksville period sites have been identified as far east as the Chandeleur Islands, which suggests that this arc of islands once marked the minimum eastward extent of the St. Bernard distributary system (McIntire 1958:66, Plates 4a-4b). At least ten sites in the surrounding area contain components that date to the Marksville period. These sites include Fitzgerald (16SB87), Isle au Pitre (16SB192), Bayou Pierre 1 (16SB180), Scow Island Scatter (16SB182), Machias Lake (16SB2/3), Shell Beach Bayou (16SB39), Bayou Pierre 2 (16SB181), Live Oak Mounds (16SB186), Lake of the Second Tree (16SB61), Magnolia Mound (16SB49), and Southern Comfort (16SB178). Fitzgerald, Isle au Pitre, Bayou Pierre 1, Scow Island Scatter, Bayou Pierre 2, and Southern Comfort were classified as artifact scatters. Lake of the Second Tree is listed as a shell midden. The remaining three sites are mounds. The most impressive of these sites is Magnolia Mound (16SB49) with its 11 mounds. Collections from this site by Kniffen (1936) and McIntire (1958) demonstrated both Marksville and Plaquemine components at Magnolia Mound. If the majority of mound building occurred during the Marksville period, as believed by McIntire (1958), then Magnolia Mound would have been a very important center for the entire Gulf Coast of southeast Louisiana. Because of erosion and subsidence in the area, it is difficult to determine the preferred location of sites during the Marksville period. Several sites are located along the shoreline of Lake Borgne and may or may not have been associated with the mouth of what are now small, unnamed bayous. One site, 16SB39, is located at the mouth of Bayou Dupre on Lake Borgne. Magnolia Mound is located on a relic levee of Bayou La Loutre. Two sites are located in eroded marsh south of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. Seven sites are on what is now eroded remnants of the eastern portion of the Marsh. Four sites contain mounds. At one of these, 16SB39, the Marksville component was identified by McIntire (1958). Excavations at 16SB39 3-7 by Earth Search, Inc. (Jones and Franks 1993) demonstrated, however that the most of the occupation occurred the early part of the Baytown period and early in the Coles Creek period. Of question is the presence of mounds at 16SB39. This site will be discussed more fully in the discussion of the Baytown period. There are two other mound sites with components dating to the Marksville period. Site 16SB186 was recorded by HDR in 2011 (Louisiana State Site Record Form) as having four mounds. It is unclear as to why it was placed in the Marksville period as the ceramics collected from nearby suggest occupation during the Baytown and Coles Creek periods. If the supposed Marksville components at these two sites are excluded then only one mound site dating to the Marksville period remains: 16SB49. The Baytown Period (A.D. 400-A.D. 700) Baytown was a time when a fairly sophisticated population differentiated on a regional scale and developed strategies contributing to the development of more complex societies later in the prehistoric sequence (Belmont 1984:76-78; Bitgood 1989:137; Cusick et al. 1995:4-6-4-8; Jeter et al. 1989:147-150; Kidder 1992:151-152, 2002b:89-90; Kidder and Wells 1994:4, 24; Ryan 2004:17-21). People of the Baytown period were one of a long line of prehistoric populations that built mounds for public ceremonial or civic events as well as interring interring the dead (Belmont 1984:81-83; Gibson 1996:59; Kidder 1992:152; Williams and Brain 1983:403-405). Moreover, they were first to adopt the bow and arrow sometime between A.D. 600-700 (Jeter et al. 1989:148; Kidder 2002b:80; Nassaney and Pyle 1999:248, 253, 260, Table 4; Rolingson 1990:34-35, 2002:56). Arrow points such as Scallorn and Alba are present in Baytown period sites but dart points occur as well suggesting the bow and arrow did not immediately supplant the atlatl. Communal civic and ceremonial rituals replaced an earlier middle Woodland mortuary program that benefited a few lineages during the Baytown period (Gibson 1996:57-60). Large bathtub shape pits are the primary evidence for feasting, an integral aspect of the new communal activities (Belmont 1967, 1982; Bitgood 1989; Ford 1951; Jeter et al. 1989; Kidder 2002b; McGimsey 2004). Typically, several of these pits were located near mounds or along the site periphery. The high incident of bathtub shape pits associated with mortuary mounds and other burial areas suggest the pits discovered thus far are related to burial rites (Belmont 1984:88-90; Kidder 1992:152). Most of the Baytown period population is believed to have resided in small, dispersed hamlets (Jeter et al. 1989; Kidder 2002b; Neuman 1984; Williams and Brain 1983). We know little of domestic structures other than they were likely oval in plan and do not have prepared floors (Belmont 1980; Phillips 1970). Data are so sparse that even those structures identified as domestic may in fact be related to mortuary practices (Girard 1997:12). There is little data in support of overall community planning, a consistent site plan, or a hierarchical settlement pattern (Kidder 1993:18, 1998:134, 2002b:81; cf. Belmont 1984:88-89). Subsistence data from Baytown sites is heavily weighted toward mammanals, reptiles, fish, and birds. Faunal remains indicate a broad-based diet of fish, deer, and smaller mammals (Girard 1997; Hunter et al. 1995; Jackson and Scott 2002; Lee et al. 1997; Kelley 1992). Deer appear to have been hunted during the summer, fall, and winter (Kelley 1992:233-234). Small mammals included raccoon, beaver, opossum, swamp and cottontail rabbit, and gray and fox squirrel (Kelley 1992:234). Important species of fish included gar, freshwater drum, bowfin, and catfish. Plants include chenopod, goosefoot, knotweed, maygrass, little barley, marshelder, sunflower, along with gourd were harvested, but Baytown people do not seem to have domesticated these species. Seasonally collected fleshy fruits include persimmon, grapes, and berries while acorns, hickory nuts, and pecans were the mostly commonly collected types of nuts from mast producing trees (Fritz 1994, 1997; Girard 1997; Kidder and Fritz 1993; Ryan 2004; Walker 1936). 3-8 There does not seem to be a consistent method of Baytown burial, with some persons interred in the flesh, some placed in charnel buildings, and others cremated (Belmont 1967; Gibson 1982; Kidder 2002b; McGimsey 2004). Burial goods were rare but were often elaborate and finely crafted (Girard 1997; Kidder 1992). In most instances, items accompanying the deceased were not placed with specific individuals but with groups interred at the same time. Mortuary facilities such as Mount Nebo (16MA18) and Goldmine (16RI13), were widely spaced serving different segments of the population (Kidder 2002b:85). The egalitarian nature of Baytown mortuary behavior suggests little or no status differentiation (Belmont 1984:85-86; Kidder 1992:152, 1993:18). Long distance trade with other Gulf Coastal Plain groups to the east is reflected in Busycon shell artifacts, sharks teeth, and ceramics with decoration similar to those from the Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (Belmont 1980; Davis et al 1982; House 1982; Kidder 2002b; Williams and Brain 1983). The presence of andesite, diorite, novaculite, syenite, and mica from the Troyville site indicates trade was estalbished with groups in southern Arkansas and possibly southeastern Missouri by the later part of the Baytown period (Hunter and Baker 1979; Lee 2006, 2007; Rolingson and Howard 1997:34-37, Figures 1, 2) The Troyville Mound Site (16CT7) is one of the primary type sites of the Baytown period and lends it name to the archeological culture defined for this portion of the Lower Mississippi Valley. The site is impressive in that it contained at least nine and as many as 13 mounds. Mounds 9, 1, and 7, form a rough north/south line along the upper bank of the Black River, the name of the Ouachita River south of Jonesville. Mound 6 is west of Mound 7 on the south bank of the Little River. Mound 5 is south of Mound 6 in the west-central portion of the site while Mounds 2, 3, and 4 are in the east-central section of the site. The embankment begins on the south bank of Little River just west of Mound 6 and continues south before turning southeast to terminate at Mound 9. Mound 8 was west of Mound 6 outside the embankment and has been totally destroyed (Saunders and Jones 20003:Figures 21-22). Ceramic assemblages supported by radiocarbon dating indicate that Troyville was first occupied during the early part of the Marksville period (Saunders and Jones 2003:64-66; Saunders et al. 2006:28). It is not possible at this time to define the entire nature or extent of that occupation but four different episodes of construction were completed at Mound 4 during the Marksville period (Saunders and Jones 2003:64). During the late Baytown period, a small pit 50 cm in diameter and 50 cm deep was dug into the mound and filled with over 1,300 ceramic sherds representing at least 30 different vessels. Size and form indicate some of the vessels were used for cooking, while the most abundant forms (platters and shallow bowls) were used for serving (Saunders et al. 2006:Table 9). The size, function, and context of the vessels suggest they represent discard or disposal of pots associated with feasting (Saunders et al. 2006:61-62). Some sort of Baytown activity is evident at Mound 7 judging from ceramic sherds discarded along the flanks of a single construction level preserved at the mound (Handley et al. 2006:Table 6; Kidder 2002b:85; Saunders and Jones 2003:64). At the same time, a midden began to develop along Little River west of the mound. Refuse from the manufacture of stone tools, broken pottery vessels, and bones from deer and turtle were discarded at this location. A single trash pit is associated with the early development of the midden while a cooking pit and a third pit of undetermined function were utilized later in use life of the midden. Sixty-one pottery vessels, most represented by a single sherd, were in midden soil used to fill the early trash pit. Undecorated vessels forms were limited to shallow bowls, deep bowls, shallow bowls with lugs on the rim, and jars (Hunter and Baker 1979:33). Most decorated sherds from all three features were too small to determine vessel shape but at least small bowls and large jars were present. Lithic raw material used for stone tools was almost exclusively comprised of small pebbles or 3-9 cobbles. Fragments of a diorite celt and ochre were also discarded in the midden (Hunter and Baker 1979:44). Construction of the D-shape embankment (Saunders and Jones 2003:Figures 21-22), or at least the section at Willow Street, began ca. A.D. 540 (Lee 2006b:Table 1, Lee et al. 2011:Table 6.4). The 15 m wide and nearly one meter high section was built with basket loads of clay, silt, and sandy loam from a borrow area paralleling the west side of the embankment. Construction was not simply loads of soil dumped in a heap but a complex series of thin clay layers interspersed between thicker layers of silt and sand. Three posts discovered on the east side slope support earlier suspicions that construction was planned. Apparently this portion of the site was previously unoccupied since only a naturalA horizon was discovered beneath the embankment (cf. Cusick et al. 1995:10-22, Figures 10-8 and 10-9). Information collected from the embankment indicates it was built at least a century before construction on the lower platform of Mound 5 began. Construction of Mound 5 can date no earlier than A.D. 670 (Saunders et al. 2005:Table 5; Saunders et al. 2006:62). As the complicated construction of the platform progressed, large posts were set on the south and north side of the mound (Handley et al. 2006:Figure 11-11; Walker 1936:16-24). These posts probably formed a palisade-like screen around Mound 5 and were placed between ramps on the four corners of the mound. A causeway or earthen ramp was built on the east side of Mound 5 connecting it to Mound 4. Ceramics suites associated with Baytown period are problematic at this point. A growing body of evidence indicates the ceramics thought to be associated with the early and late divisons of the Baytown period do not correspond well with the dated deposits from which they were recovered (Cusick et al. 1995:10-23; Lee and Yakubik 2003:8; McGimsey 2004:75-77, 194-207; Saunders and Jones 2004:24-26 cf. Bitgood 1989:132-136). Either the cultural chronology is inaccurate by as much as two centuries or the ceramic suites are not truly representative of the internal divisions of the period. Pottery from the embankment at the Troyville site including Marksville Incised, vars. Goose Lake and Steel Bayou; Marksville Stamped, var. Manny, and Churupa Punctated, var. Churupa were recovered from contexts dating between A.D. 570-650. These varieties are normally associated with the later part of the middle Woodland period rather than the late Woodland (Jeter et al. 1989; Ryan 2004). The remaining decorated types are predominately late varieties of Marksville Incised such as vars. Anglim and Scott; Marksville Stamped, vars. Cummins, Troyville, Bayou Rouge; Churupa Punctated, vars Thornton and Watson; Alligator Incised; Mulberry Creek Cord Marked; and Larto Red. These types and varieties are securely dated and occur after ca. A.D. 650. The clear temporal associations of these two suites of decorative types confirm data from other sites that the Baytown cultural chronology is not in error but the ceramics that define the early and late portions are in need of reevaluation and reformulation (Lee 2008). Baytown period occupations in southeastern Louisiana are evident at the Isle Bonne site (16JE60), which forms one of a cluster of sites known as the Barataria complex (Beavers 1982b; DeMarcay n.d.; Holley and DeMarcay 1977). Amateur excavations at this site revealed a stratified Baytown period occupation associated with two low rises formed by the accumulation of Rangia shell (DeMarcay n.d.; see also Gagliano et al. 1979:Appendix A). Excavations were apparently terminated at 150 cm due to flooding, and it is uncertain if the base of the cultural layers was reached (DeMarcay n.d.). The published profiles seem to suggest an artificial construction resulting in the interfingering of shell and sterile silt deposits, but it is not possible to discern whether these mounds were constructed purposefully or not. 3-10 Springer's (1973) excavations at the Bruly St. Martin site (16IV6) represent the largest excavated Baytown period occupation in the region. Another excavated component from the Baytown period comes from the Shell Beach site (16SB39) in St. Bernard Parish (Jones et al. 1993:81-136). Also, at sites 16SC42, 16SC43, and 16SC45, small samples of diagnostic pottery suggesting early Baytown occupations were noted. Another important Baytown period component was found in the lower levels of the excavations at the Pump Canal site (16SC27) at the western end of Lake Cataouache. These excavations revealed a deeply buried later Baytown period component which was radiocarbon dated to ca. A.D. 400-600 (Jones et al. 1994:313-319, Table 42). A Baytown component was recently confirmed at the Bayou Sorrel Mound Site (16IV4). Early work at Bayou Sorrel by Gibson (1980) suggested the site contained two mounds and a midden deposit. However, the most recent investigations (Mann 2007:14-16) indicates that Mound A is actually a prehistoric mound while Mound B is likely a dredged spoil pile. A soil core on the flank of Mound A encountered a sub-mound midden containing charcoal. The radiocarbon essay returned a two sigma range of A.D. 410-590 securely dating this midden to the Baytown period (Mann 2007:15). Cores placed away from the mound also recovered evidence of a series of midden deposits separated by lens of sterile flood deposits. The relationship of the stratified midden deposits and Mound A cannot be determined at present. Similarly, the construction of Mound A has not been firmely established but it certainly should post-date the Baytown period (Mann 2007:16). Because the data become more dense at this time, we can note with some certainty that the coastal pattern of intensive exploitation of fish, deer, and muskrat is in place by the end of the Baytown period. Shellfish harvesting or exploitation continues, but little evidence for settlement differentiation exists at present. Although others have hypothesized a pattern of seasonal movement between villages and collecting stations or camps (Weinstein and Kelley 1992), there is no firm evidence for this behavior. The data recovered from the Pump Canal site hint at a series of relatively brief occupations, and the Rangia seasonality data indicate a late spring or early summer occupation (Jones et al. 1994). Perhaps at this time populations living in the Barataria Basin were making seasonal trips to the distal ends of distributary courses to hunt, fish, and exploit the Rangia beds in the nearby brackish water environments. If this was a part of a seasonal round that involved living in larger, more established villages, such sites have not yet been found. Possibly Bruly St. Martin might qualify for such a village location. The Whitehall Phase was a large, overextended concept that included a collection of widely dispersed sites that, without proof of cultural association, was termed Troyville (Phillips 1970:911). The ceramic assemblage was comprised of Troyville Stamped, Yokena Incised, and Churupa Punctate without Marksville Stamped, Marksville Incised, Mazique Incised French Fork Incised, Chevalier Stamped, or Chase Incised. Coles Creek Incised and Pontchartrain Check Stamped were also not included in the phase. Since the Whitehall phase covered a broad areal extent and was defined by the absence of traits, Coastal Troyville was poorly understood. However, Coastal Troyville was clearly very different from the Baytown period expressed further north (Lee 2011; 2006). Kidder (1994:405-406) attempted to bring some order to the chaos by establishing early and late phases, designated as Grand Bayou and, des Allemands, respectively. Further, he restricted the Whitehall phase to those sites located around Lake Maurepas and along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. He describes the Grand Bayou phase as the terminal version of late Marksville that exhibits the presence of Marksville Incised, vars. Anglim and Vick; Marksville Stamped var. Bayou Rouge, and Churupa Punctated, var. Watson, as well as several characteristic rim modes. The des Allemands phase represents the time period within which, as Phillips suggested (1970:911), ideas began to flow into the area from the Weeden Island-type cultures in the Florida Panhandle. The des Allemands phase is recognized by the presence of 3-11 Coles Creek Incised, vars. Phillips, Hunt, and Wade; Evansville Punctated vars. Amite and Duck Lake, Larto Red-filmed, and French Fork Incised. Twenty-four sites near the project area date to the Baytown Period (Labadia et al. 2007; Gagliano 1978; Weinstein et al. 1981; Heller et al. 2009; Jones and Franks 1993). Most of these are located either along the shore of Lake Borgne or along Bayou La Loutre or one of its distributaries. Several of these deserve special mention. Bayou St. Malo (16SB47) is a large multiple mound site along the shore of Lake Borgne at, what was then, the intersection of Lake Borgne and Bayou St. Malo. While no Coastal Troyville cultural material was recovered from the site, radiocarbon dates from submound deposits indicate utilization during the subject period (Kowalski et al. 2011). One of the few Coastal Troyville sites excavated, 16SB39, was investigated by Jones and Franks (1993). This site, located along Lake Borgne at the mouth of Shell Beach Bayou, is composed of five “mounded middens” (Heller et al. 2009:Fig 7.31). It is interesting to note that the “mounded middens” are referred to as mounds on the site map. Earth Search, Inc. (Jones and Franks 1993), excavated three 1 x 1 m units at Shell Beach Bayou. These were placed both on the flanks of one mounded midden and between the mounded middens. Recovered from unit 1 were unspecified sherds of Coles Creek Incised and French Fork Incised. From unit 3, Marksville Stamped var. Bayou Rouge; Larto Red Filmed; Marksville Incised, var. unspecified; Salomon Brushed, var. unspecified; and Churupa Punctated, var. unspecified were collected. No diagnostic artifacts were recovered from unit 2. It appears that at least a portion of 16SB39 is associated with Coastal Troyville. It should be noted that Jones and Franks (1993:240) were “hesitant” to ascribe 16SB39 to a particular phase because of the lack of excavated material from other sites. The evidence of mound building during this interval is indeterminate at best. The Louisiana Site Record Forms list five sites with mounds dating to the Baytown period. At Bayou St. Malo (16SB47) there are five mounds, but only material related to the Coles Creek period and the Plaquemine/Pensacola culture have been recovered there. Until more extensive work is done at 16SB47, it cannot be known to which time period the mounds belong. The other site in question is 16SB39 (Shell Beach Bayou) with its five mounded middens or mounds. As mentioned above, in Figure 7.31 (Heller et al. 2009), the mounded middens are referred to as mounds, and as can be seen in this figure, the “mounds” B, C and D form a triangle around what could possibly be a central plaza. If these are indeed mounds, and if, as the ceramics indicate, the site is associated with Coastal Troyville, then Shell Beach Bayou would represent the largest mound site in our sample. Two sites (16SB7, 16SB48) are single-mound sites. The remaining mound site, 16SB185 has tree mounds. Information on the Baytown component at 16SB7 is limited to a table in Gagliano 1978:Table 3) which ascribes a Baytown date to 16SB7. Somewhat more information is available for Acorn Mounds, 16SB185. The three mounds at the site were tested by HDR during the British Petroleum oil spill clean-up (HDR 2011). Unfortunately all three shovel tests were negative. The site was dated using surface collected ceramics. HDR recorded the presence of Marksville Stamped, var. Troyville, and Walkulla Check Stamped sherds. Marksville Stamped, var. Troyville is a marker for the Baytown Period (Lee 2011) while Walkulla Check Stamped is found in Tates Hammock phase context along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, a Coles Creek period cognate (Blitz and Mann 2000:99). The number of Baytown period mound sites may represent the beginnings of the development of more politically sophisticated societies characteristic of the following Coles Creek period. Coastal Troyville seems to be a period of transition, with types reminiscent of the previous Marksville period such as Marksville Incised and Marksville Stamped as well as indicative of the following Coles Creek period, such as early varieties of Coles Creek Incised, Churupa Punctated, and French Fork Incised. 3-12 The Coles Creek Period (A.D. 700-A.D. 1200) The Coles Creek period is the interval that begins with the emergence of Coles Creek culture in the southern part of the Lower Mississippi Valley and ends with the establishment of “full-blown” Mississippian culture in the northern part of the Valley (Phillips 1970:18). Although it appears to represent a population zenith in the eastern coastal zone, many sites tentatively classified as Coles Creek may actually be from the Baytown period (Wiseman et al. 1979:3-5). The cultural developments of the Coles Creek period are impressive and appear to establish the foundation on which later Plaquemine cultures was built. The development of substantial platform mounds, in the form of truncated pyramids, shows an ability to organize the labor needed for large earth-moving projects. Larger sites have several mounds clustered around a plaza. Mortuary or temple structures stood on the mound summits. In the Lower Mississippi Valley, Coles Creek has been divided into early, middle, and late phases (Phillips 1970; Ryan 2004; Williams and Brain 1983). More recently, however, a fourth, usually “transitional” Coles Creek (or in some cases early Plaquemine) phase has been added (Brown 1985; Kidder 1994; Weinstein 1987). Early Coles Creek culture in the Lower Mississippi Valley is characterized by small ceremonial centers with mounds. The mound sites exhibit a regular plan of three mounds set around a plaza (Ryan 2004:21). These were surrounded by villages of varying size. During the middle Coles Creek sites are generally larger and middens deeper (Ryan 2004:22). During the late Coles Creek mound complexes change from the standard three mound to as many as six set around a plaza. Sites affiliated with this portion of the Coles Creek period increase dramatically and imported ceramics and lithic suggests that trade is more important than earlier in the period (Ryan 2004:22) Kathryn Robert’s (Ryan 2004:207-226) analysis of botanical remains from Hedgeland Plantation site (16CT19) provides compelling evidence for domestication and cropping of starchy seeds by the late Woodland period. Botanical evidence of the Eastern Agricultural Complex has not been forthcoming in northeast Louisiana despite concerted archeological excavations and rigorous application of modern recovery methods (Fritz 1994; Fritz and Kidder 1993; Hunter et al. 1995; Lee et al. 1997; Roberts 1995). Examples from Hedgeland Plantation indicate an advanced horticultural subsistence was already in place when simple stratified polities began to form between A.D. 800-900. Early domestication of Sunflower in the Lower Valley is also demonstrate by samples dated A.D. 785. Structural data are more forthcoming during the Coles Creek period (Brown 1985:251- 305). Circular structures seems to be the normal building type described in the Lower Mississippi River valley archeological literature regardless of function (Brown 1985:273, 277). Two types of circular patterns have been discovered: wall trench and individually set posts. Circular wall trench buildings appear to have been more common in the southern portion of the Lower Mississippi Valley whereas the individually set post building is more common in the northern half. This apparent dichotomy should be viewed judiciously since individually set post pattern houses have been identified in the southern portion of the Lower Valley (Brown 1985:274). At least seven circular structures were identified during excavation of the Greenhouse site (16AV2) (Belmont 1967; Ford 1951). Two structures were discovered in building levels 6 and 7 respectively when Mound A was excavated. Both structures were built of paired, individually set posts and were 10.66 m in diameter. Three, superimposed wall trench structures were discovered between Mounds A and B. These structures were noticeably smaller being only 6.7 m in diameter. Two additional superimposed wall trench structures were discovered beneath Mound D and were similar in size to those between Mounds A and B at 7.61 m in diameter. A possible eighth circular structure was also identified at Mound D. This last structure was made from individually set posts and was the same size (7.61 m) as those under Mound D (Ford 1951:Table 3-13 3). Structures from the Greenhouse Site have been assigned to either early or middle Coles Creek contexts (Belmont 1967). Excavations at the Richardson site (16CT409) revealed a partial post mold pattern associated with an early-middle Coles Creek non-mound occupation (Hunter et al. 1995:103- 204). Thirteen post molds were discovered during excavation and seem to form an arc (Hunter et al. 1995:141, Figure 45). If this arc were part of a circular pattern, the building would have been approximately 11 m in diameter (Hunter et al. 1995:203). Douglas Wells (1998) also discovered two and possibly three circular non-mound early-middle Coles Creek structures at the Lisa’s Ridge Site (16TE144). The first two structures were identified from partial arcs of individually set posts with diameters projected to be 6-8 m (Wells 1998:101-104). A possible third individual set post building is believed to be present at the site and the same size as the other structures (Douglas Wells, personal communication:2006). A late Coles Creek structure was identified during excavations at the Mount Nebo Site (16MA18). The building was constructed of individually set posts and measured between 7.6 and 9.1 m (Brown 1985; Cusick et al. 1995:Table 12-10; Neuman 1984:204-207). No additional description of this building or its internal organization has been forthcoming. Circular structures have also been discovered well south of the current project area. A circular wall trench structure was discovered near the base of the mound at the St. Gabriel Site (16IV128). The internal dimensions of this building were determined to be 5 m in diameter at floor level and 5.7 m in diameter when the embankment along the outer wall is included (Woodiel 1993:28-33, 116-118). Two circular wall trenches were discovered beneath Mound A at the Medora Site. It has not been determined with certainty whether the wall trenches represent two different buildings or a single, “rotunda-like” structure (Brown 1985:254-255; Cusick et al. 1995:Table 12-10; Woodiel 1993:117-119). A distinctive coastal variant of Coles Creek culture emerged at the same time, and no doubt there was a dynamic relation among and between Coles Creek period populations on the coast and in the interior (Brown 1984:95; Jeter and Williams 1989). The advent of the Coles Creek period in the Louisiana coastal zone is marked by changes in ceramic frequencies and, to a lesser extent, by the appearance of new types or varieties and the disappearance of others. Check stamped pottery as well as complicated stamped examples mark the beginning of the Coles Creek period in the coastal zone (R. Saunders 1997; Schilling 2004). More fundamental patterns of economic and social behavior also change, but at a seemingly slower rate. Unlike previous periods, Coles Creek is well known, at least in terms of the ceramics. Coles Creek period political organization is believed to progress from simple stratified societies with an incepient elite at the beginning of the period to stratified, hierachial system with hereditary elites by the end of the period (Kidder 2002b). Similarly, Weinstein and Kelley (1992:345-355) suggest that Coles Creek sites in the Terrebone Marsh represent a hierachical system with three or four tiers. Wells (2001:202) describes a three tier hierachy of sites in the Atchafalaya Basin with sites with two or more mounds at the top of the hierachy, single mound sites next in the system, and non-mound sites as the bottom tier. The Atchafalaya settlement system equates well with the present definition of simple chiefdoms (Halley 1993). A more recent assessment of Coles Creek period sites across the entire Louisiana coastal zone suggests an alternative view (Schilling 2004). Rather than a hierachical arrangement, Schilling (2004:116) suggests that Coles Creek society in the coastal zone exhibits a complex horizontal organization or integration (hetarchy) and that they were organizaed politically as tribal entities. Both interpretations of Coles Creek period sites in coastal Louisiana are supported by our present database suggesting the need for more radiocarbon dates to further evaluate both models in the future. 3-14 Separating Coles Creek from Troyville proved to be a problem for archaeologists working along the Louisiana Gulf Coast (McIntire 1958; Saucier 1963). Phillips (1970:921) believed that their problem stemmed from attempting to use the Lower Red River chronology. McIntire (1958) went so far as to use what Kniffen referred to as Bayou Cutler to refer to both the Troyville and Coles Creek periods. Kniffen (1936) set up the Bayou Cutler phase to represent material equivalent in age to the Coles Creek period to the north. Phillips (1970), using Kniffen’s data and information from McIntire (1958) refined the phase to apply only to the Coles Creek period in south Louisiana. According to Phillips (1970:921), a Bayou Cutler assemblage should be composed of Pontchartrain Check Stamped, Coles Creek Incised, French Fork Incised, Mazique Incised, Coles Creek rims, Rhinehart Punctated, Chase Incised, Chevalier Stamped, and Beldeau Incised. Since then, the Coles Creek period has been subdivided into three phases: Bayou Cutler as the early phase, Bayou Ramos Phase as the middle phase, and St. Gabriel as the late phase. Originally Weinstein et al. (1978) established the Bayou Ramos as a late Coles Creek phase. Using data from the St. Gabriel site, Brown (1985) established the St. Gabriel phase as the late phase of the Coles Creek period, relegating Bayou Ramos as the middle phase. Bayou Ramos is identified by the presence of Coles Creek Incised, var. Mott; Mazique Incised var. Kings Point; Beldeau Incised var. Beldeau; Avoylles Punctated, var. Avoyelles; and Pontchartrain Check Stamped, vars. Tiger Island and Crawford Point. The St. Gabriel phase pottery types are Coles Creek Incised, vars. Hilly Grove and Hardy; Mazique Incised, var. Manchac; Evansville Punctate, var. Wilkinson; Harrison Bayou Incised, vars. Harrison Bayou and Bunkie; and small amounts of Plaquemine Brushed. Smith et al. (2014) tried to avoid the entanglement of ill-defined and/or redefined phases for Coles Creek period sites in the region and utilized a simple early, middle, and late designation for these sites. The early Coles Creek period was defined temporally between A. D. 800-950 with an associated ceramic assemblage that minimally contained Avoyelles Punctated, var. Avoyelles; Coles creek Incised, vars. Chase, Coles Creek, and Phillips; French Fork Incised, vars. Brashear, Laborde, and Larkin; Larto Red Filmed, var. Vaughn; Mazique Incised, var. Mazique; Morgan White Filmed, var. unspecified; Pontchartrain Checked Stamped, vars. Lanbert Ridge and Pontchartrain; Rhinehard Punctated, var. Hopkins; and Saucier Black Slipped, var. unspecified (Smith et al. 2014:Table 7). The middle Coles Creek period was restricted temporally between A. D. 950-1050 with a ceramic assemblage comprised of Avoyelles Punctated, var. Avoyelles; Beldeau Incised, var. Beldeau; Cameron Complicated Stamped, var. unspecified; Coles creek Incised, var. Coles Creek; French Fork Incised, vars. Brashear and Larkin; Larto Red Filmed, var. Vaughn; Lulu Linear Punctated, var. Lulu; Mazique Incised, var. Mazique; Morgan White Filmed, var. unspecified; Pontchartrain Check Stamped, vars. Lambert Ridge and Pontchartrain; Rhinehart Punctated, vars. Hopkins and Rhinehart; and Saucier Black Slipped, var. unspecified (Smith et al. 2014:Table 7). The late Coles Creek period was dated between A.D. 1050-1200. The associated ceramic assemblage included Beldeau Incised, var. Beldeau; Cahokia Cord Marked, var. Buford; Carter Engraved, var. unspecified; Cameron Complicated Stamped, var. unspecified; Coles Creek Incised, var. Greenhouse; Evansville Punctated, cf. Sharkey; Larto Red Filmed, var. Vaughn; Lulu Linear Punctated, var. Lulu; Old Town Red, var. unspecified; Plaquemine Brushed, var. Plaquemine; Pontchartrain Check Stamped, var. Pontchartrain; Rhinehart Punctated, vars. Chatlin and Rhinehart; Baytown Plain, var. Addis; and Bell Plain, var. Greenville (Smith et al. 2014:Table 7). 3-15 Data from the St. Gabriel site (16IV128) in Iberville Parish was used to define the phase of the same name (A.D. 1000-A.D. 1200). Subsistence data from the site suggests a heavy reliance on fishing and the importance of deer and small mammal to the diet. Information on floral components to the diet was incomplete at this site, but floral remains included the starchy seeds and grasses noted by Kidder and Fritz (1993). In addition, the local environment would have supported many of the plant species noted at other Coles Creek sites (Woodiel 1993). . A circular wall trench structure was discovered near the base of the mound at St. Gabriel. The internal dimensions of this building were determined to be 5 m in diameter at floor level and 5.7 m in diameter when the embankment along the outer wall is included (Woodiel 1993:28-33, 116- 118). Data recovery excavations conducted at two sites also located in Iberville Parish provide additional information on St. Gabriel phase occupations. Excavations at Sites 16IV94 and 16IV109 indicate both were occupied during the St. Gabriel phase. Midden preserved at Site 16IV94 was situated in a small channel along a crevasse-splay ridge while the second site, 16IV109 was located on a crevasse-splay near an old swamp. Ceramics and radiocarbon dates indicate the major occupation at Site 16IV94 was during the St. Gabriel phase while Site 16IV109 had occupations from the St. Gabriel phase as well as a substantial early Mississiippi Modora phase component. Both sites were also occupied during the late Mississippian Delta Natchezan and early Historic periods (ca. A.D. 1450-1700). A single corn kernal was collected from Site 16IV109 while a pit at Site 16IV94 contained numerous examples indicating corn had been integrated into Coles Creek diets by the St. Gabriel phase (Ryan et al. 2007:10). Coles Creek period components have been excavated at the Fleming site (16JE36) (Holley and DeMarcay 1977). Coles Creek deposits underlay later Mississippi period components, but it is not clear if the mound was constructed at this time (Holley and DeMarcay 1977; Manuel 1984). Along with the Bayou Villars and Isle Bonne sites, Fleming makes up one of the important “Barataria complex” occupations (Gagliano et al. 1979; Holley and DeMarcay 1977). This locality is presumed to be the major center for Coles Creek and Mississippi period settlement in the region. All three of these sites supported earthen or shell mounds, although none can be solely assigned to the Coles Creek period (Gagliano et al. 1979). There were major Coles Creek occupations at both the Sims (16SC2) and Bowie (16LF17) sites, and numerous Coles Creek period occupations are found in the interdistributary basin between bayous Lafourche and Barataria (Hunter et al. 1988; Pearson et al. 1989). The density of Coles Creek occupation in this area is remarkable and suggests that this region was one of the central loci of activity during this period. Sims and Bowie are presumed to be major villages dating to the Coles Creek period (Davis and Giardino 1981; Jackson 1977), but little evidence exists to confirm this hypothesis. Numerous Coles Creek occupations are found on Bayou Barataria and its distributaries south of the confluence with Bayou Villars. Based on the settlement data from surrounding areas, combined with the artifact assemblage, richness, and diversity, the Pump Canal site can be hypothesized to be an important village occupation during the Coles Creek period (Giardino 1993; Jones et al. 1994). The site may not have been occupied year-round, but it clearly supported a relatively large occupation. It may have been an important locality serving as a “base camp” for exploiting the resources of the surrounding marshes and lakes. As the Bayou Cypriere Longue system deteriorated over time, site function appears to have changed, such that during the later Coles Creek period, the site was abandoned or only sporadically occupied. During subsequent occupations, the site seems to have served as a temporary or perhaps seasonal camp site. Forty-eight sites/components that date to the Coles Creek period have been located near the project area. The majority of these are classified as shell middens (29) or artifact scatters. Human remains were identified from three of the shell midden sites: 16SB103, 16SB20, and 3-16 16SB53. Ten sites contain mounds and area located all through eastern St. Bernard Parish. Mound sites are generally located around the margins of Lake Borgne or the Mississippi Sound and along Bayou La Loutre. Mound sites range in size from the 5-6 mounds at 16SB39 and the five mounds at 16SB47 to single mounds at 16SB2, 16SB45, 16SB48, 16SB50 (conical earth mound), 16SB58, 16SB10 and 16SB7. Sites 16SB185 and 16SB8/46 have three mounds each and 16SB186 has four. Sites 16SB8/46 and 16SB45 are located across Bayou Yscloskey from each other. The 1939 Shell Beach USGS quadrangle map indicates that there was two mounds at 16SB45. According to the Louisiana State Site Record Form for 16SB45, that site was occupied at the same time as 16SB8/46 and may have been a part of the same site. Combined, the total number of mounds at 16SB8/45/46 is five. As demonstrated by several researchers (e.g. Belmont 1967; Neuman 1984; Roe and Shilling 2010) the construction of mounds and the presence of mound-top residence can be interpreted as resulting from ranked societies. In southeastern Louisiana during the Coles Creek period we see the possibility of a three-tiered society with large mound sites such as 16SB47 and 16SB8/45/46, intermittent sized mound sites such as 16SB185 and 16SB186, and lower ranked mound sites such as the single-mound sites 16SB2, 16SB48, 16SB50, 16SB58, 16SB10, and 16SB7. In summary, during the Coles Creek period there is an increase in the total number of sites as well as in the number of sites with mounds. Additionally the number of mounds increases from five during the Baytown period to ten during the Coles Creek period. The presence of a three tiered hierarchical ranked system is possible based on the number of mound sites and the difference in the number of mounds at each site. As with the other time periods we do not believe that we have enough information to separate the Coles Creek period into phases. The transition from the Coles Creek to Plaquemine culture has been placed at ca. A.D. 1200 (Kidder 1994; Weinstein 1987). The emergence of Plaquemine came not from an intrusion of Mississippian elements, but rather from a slow in situ series of changes in local cultures across the Mississippi Valley and the coastal zone. In recognition of the gradual evolutionary pattern witnessed in the region, archeologists have adopted the term Transitional Coles Creek/Plaquemine to identify this interval. A clear mound center and subsidiary village hierarchy developed during the Coles Creek period and probably continues into these transitional times. The trend in the coastal zone is one of gradual and steady evolution within the region. External influences may be present, but they do not appear to be notable in terms of the process of culture change. The origins of the Mississippi period cultures of the coastal zone seem to be wholly local. Later events, though, seem to suggest that this region witnessed a significant influence from Mississippian groups farther eastward along the coast. The Mississippi Period (A.D. 1200-A.D. 1700) The Mississippi period was the final prehistoric period in eastern North America. There are three interpretations of the relationships between Coles Creek, Plaquemine, and Mississippian groups in Louisiana. Phillips (1970) believed the Plaquemine culture developed from the Coles Creek, with interaction between Plaquemine and Mississippian cultures resulting in changes in the resident population. In time, Mississippian groups entered the area and displaced the resident groups. Brain (1989), however, maintained that the resident Coles Creek population became Plaquemine as the result of contact with Mississippian groups. Mississippian influence continued to increase, in time displacing the characteristics of the resident groups. Mississippian culture became dominant in the project area about A.D. 1400. Rees and Livingood (2007) suggest that Plaquemine was an endengous phenomena that developed within a framework of cultural conservatism. 3-17 There has been considerable debate over the nature of the Plaquemine to Mississippian transition. Most notably, there is some doubt about the diffusion of Mississippian traits to Plaquemine populations. Kidder (1993) indicates that the notion of Mississippian diffusion fails to explain many of the cultural traits of the Plaquemine culture. However, there was clearly a diffusion of certain traits, such as the use of shell tempering in ceramics, and new patterns in domestic architecture (Kidder 1993:27). Political consolidation and the emergence of a religious elite are also contributed to Mississippian influences. Mound sites became less scattered but larger, while non-mound sites were smaller but more numerous. Plaquemine culture provides the first definite evidence for a ranked society in the late prehistoric period (Kidder 1992:29-30). In many parts of the Southeast, there appears to have been a hierarchy of sites. Special purpose camps and farmsteads were scattered throughout the region. The latter were sites where nuclear and extended families lived in small huts and cultivated maize, beans, and squash (Hunter and Roberts 2005:10-11, Table 4; Ryan 2004). The diet was based primarily on the consumption of cultivated plants, but it also included the use of game and wild plants. Many of the scattered farmsteads appear to have been oriented toward mound centers. Excavations have shown that these centers were occupied for long periods, and that the mounds supported structures and contained burials. Villages were also associated with the mounds, and many larger settlements were surrounded by palisades. The groups appear to have had chiefdom-level political systems. There was differential access to goods, and some sites evidence specialization in the production of certain classes of material goods. Absence of European trade goods indicates that the Plaquemine culture reached its zenith prior to European contact (Neuman 1984:258-259). The late prehistoric culture history and chronology of the eastern portion of the Louisiana coastal zone is not well understood at present (Jeter and Williams 1989:191). The data indicate that local Plaquemine populations in the region developed out of the Transitional Coles Creek/Plaquemine beginning at roughly A.D. 1200 (Jeter and Williams 1989:191-195; Weinstein 1987). At roughly the same time, however, Mississippian ceramics (and possibly peoples), which are identified with the Pensacola variant of Mississippian culture, enter into the area from the east, presumably via the Gulf Coast. Sites in the eastern coastal zone with shell tempered pottery in large quantities are identified with the Bayou Petre phase, while late prehistoric sites in the area without shell tempered pottery, and which show evidence of more Lower Valley ceramic characteristics, are identified with the Delta-Natchezan phase. Although these Mississippian ceramics tend to be found primarily in the easternmost part of the region, Mississippian Bayou Petre phase pottery is not wholly confined to this region (McIntire 1958). To further complicate the picture, there is increasing evidence that the late prehistoric populations in the region integrated some of the Mississippian designs and styles into the local ceramic repertoire (Davis and Giardino 1981). The early part of the Mississippi period in the region is marked by the Medora phase in the interior and the Barataria phase along the eastern coastal zone. The Plaquemine occupation of the Barataria Basin and adjacent parts of the coastal zone is designated the Barataria phase. This phase was defined by Holley and DeMarcay based on amateur excavations conducted at the Fleming site (Holley and DeMarcay 1977; Manuel 1984). Due to poor recording during the excavations, the stratigraphic relationships among the components is uncertain, but the site clearly manifests an important Plaquemine occupation. Fleming consists of at least one earth and shell mound, and a shell midden (Holley and DeMarcay 1977:4; Weinstein 1987:96). The Fleming site is one of three apparently contemporary occupations at the junction of Bayou Barataria and Bayou Villars. The Isle Bonne and Bayou Villars sites also consisted of earth and shell middens and mounds (Gagliano et al. 1975:24, 58, 1979; Holley and DeMarcay 1977; Weinstein 1987:96). As noted by Weinstein (1987:96), “this large mound complex forms the hub of the Barataria phase.” 3-18 The Fleming site excavations also uncovered a relatively large amount of shell tempered pottery which appears to be stratigraphically later than the initial appearance of Plaquemine ceramics (Holley and DeMarcay 1977). These shell tempered sherds, however, evidently are partially coeval with some of the Plaquemine materials at the site, and it seems that some degree of overlap occurred during the span of occupation. The excavations at Fleming and other late prehistoric sites in the region demonstrate the difficulty in identifying Plaquemine and Mississippian occupations in the Barataria Basin. At the Sims site, for example, shell tempering occurs initially in association with Plaquemine types and varieties, but dominates the latest assemblages (Davis 1981; Davis and Giardino 1981; Giardino 1985). With the decline of Moundville and its influences across the Gulf Coast in the later part of the fifteenth century, the deltaic part of the coastal zone saw once again a renewed emphasis on indigenous styles in ceramics. The Delta Natchezan phase represents the final late prehistoric phase in the region. Ceramics of this phase show a strong continuity from the Barataria/Bayou Petre phase occupations in the region, with the addition of pan-Lower Valley varieties such as Fatherland Incised, vars. Fatherland and Bayou Goula. Shell tempering continues as an important, but not unique, characteristic in the ceramics from the region (Giardino 1985). The largest excavated late prehistoric site in the deltaic portion of the coastal zone is the Sims site (Davis 1981; Davis and Giardino 1981; Giardino 1985). Excavations at Sims revealed Mississippi period deposits attributable to the Bayou Petre and Delta Natchezan phases. Excavations at Sims revealed a late Mississippi period component thought to be related to the terminal occupation at the Bayou Goula site (16IV11) and possibly dating to the protohistoric or early historic period (Giardino 1985). The Bowie site (16LF17) also contained a minor Bayou Petre or Delta Natchezan phase occupation (Jackson 1977). Analysis of the remains from the site was undertaken prior to the recognition of the Barataria phase, but Jackson noted that the site also seemed to support a sizable Plaquemine component. One of the most notable finds at this site was the recovery of part of a rectangular structure constructed with wall trenches but no supporting posts (Jackson 1977). During this late prehistoric period, archeological sites are found across much of the marsh and levee lands of the eastern coastal zone. Collections from the Buras Mounds (16PL13) and from the Bayou Ronquille site (16PL7) demonstrate that there were important mound occupations located near the modern day coast and associated with recent distributary channel courses (see Kniffen 1936; Weinstein 1987). The Bayou Des Familles channel appears to witness an increase in occupation frequency during the late prehistoric and into the historic periods (Beavers 1982b; Franks and Yakubik 1990; Fuller 1991; Swanson 1991; Yakubik 1989). Mississippi period sherds at a number of small shell middens along the bayou suggest that either larger populations were exploiting the region, or that they were visiting the area more frequently. None of the Mississippi period sites, most of which can be attributed to either Bayou Petre or Delta Natchezan phase occupations, are large, nor do they show evidence of the building of typically Mississippian site plans or features (mounds, mound-plaza arrangements). The generally small size of these sites has limited the interpretation of the late prehistoric occupation of the bayou. Ceramics from many sites associated with early historic Isleño settlements indicates that the Native occupation in the region was important up to the later 1700s (Franks and Yakubik 1990; Fuller 1991; Swanson 1991; Yakubik 1989). The bulk of the ceramics recovered from late prehistoric contexts are either “clay” tempered or can be attributed to the type Addis Plain. Shell tempered pottery is relatively rare. Decorated types and varieties found along Bayou Des Familles at this time are similar to those found elsewhere in contemporary contexts. 3-19 The eastern coastal zone does not witness very dramatic changes in settlement during the post-Coles Creek era. Several important trends become evident, however. First, we see an expansion of settlement into more recently formed marsh areas and along peripheral distributary channels adjacent to the essentially modern course of the Mississippi River. Sites such as Buras Mounds (16PL13) and Bayou Ronquille (16PL7) are good examples of this trend (Kniffen 1936; Weinstein 1987). There is also an evident pattern of nascent settlement coalescence focusing on relatively centralized, frequently mounded, communities. The extent of this pattern is uncertain due to the absence of representative settlement pattern surveys in the eastern Delta region. In the eastern coastal zone, we see the formation of a small number of large mound groups which appear to be the central focus of occupation in the region. The Barataria complex sites at the confluence of Bayous Barataria and Villars are one example, as are the Buras, Bayou Ronquilles, and Magnolia Mound sites. To the west, the Sims site may have supported five mounds during the late prehistoric period. Other than these mound sites, though, large late prehistoric sites are not especially evident. Bayou Petre and Delta Natchezan non-mound sites are small, and generally are associated with well elevated stretches of levees. The typical Coles Creek marsh adaptation appears to have been abandoned for one presumably more focused on the cultivation of domestic crops in well drained areas. The subsistence and sociopolitical organization of the late prehistoric period is not well documented. A small amount of corn was recovered from uncertain contexts at the Fleming site. Evidently the maize was recovered in either Barataria or Bayou Petre phase contexts. Analysis of the fauna from Sims indicates that the later prehistoric inhabitants of the site were exploiting a narrower range of animals, and were placing less emphasis on marsh species, notably alligator and muskrat. At Pump Canal, however, the post-Coles Creek occupants appear to have been carrying on with a marsh oriented subsistence patterns, focusing on muskrat, raccoon, deer (to a lesser extent), fish, and amphibians (Misner and Reitz 1994, Smith 1996). This late prehistoric occupation (or occupations) appears to have been relatively transient and may represent the shift from village type occupations to more temporary, possibly seasonally occupied, camps. Changes in faunal exploitation and settlement type at Pump Canal appear to correlate with changes in local environments (Jones et al. 1994). Ethnohistorical data from the region suggest that the Chitimacha Indians practiced a mixed fisher-farmer-collector subsistence strategy. Maize and other cultigens were planted on elevated plots of land, frequently along bayous, with populations periodically (perhaps seasonally?) ranging out to marshes and lakes to gather shellfish and to fish. In the early historic period, the Chitimacha evidently moved in mixed-sex family groups, and they may have spent much of the summer away from their garden plots. Protohistoric and Early Historic Periods (1543-ca. 1725) Despite the importance that the Lower Mississippi Valley [LMV] would assume in colonial America, little exploration of the regional setting was undertaken prior to 1682 when René-Robert Cavalier de la Salle claimed Louisiana for France. Spanish explorers briefly encountered American natives of the LMV in the sixteenth century, but left scant evidence of lifeways or settlement patterns of indigenous populations in what is now southeastern Louisiana. In 1543, pursued down the Mississippi River by the Quigualtam, presumed to be proto- Natchezan (Swanton 1946:159), the exhausted survivors of the de Soto expedition fled toward the Gulf of Mexico. When the Quigualtam finally abandoned their pursuit close to the mouth of the river, the Spaniards pulled to shore to repair their vessels and rest before continuing their journey. The chroniclers are at variance in their accounts of this part of the journey, the Gentleman of Elvas stating that the expedition rested before reaching the gulf (Clayton et al 1993 [1]:158-159), while Garcilaso de la Vega said the Spaniards exited the gulf before stopping (Clayton et al 1993 [2]:518-519). According to La Harpe (1971:12), a Spanish coat of mail belonging to de Soto, or more likely to someone on the expedition, was found by the French at the Bayougoula/Mougoulacha village in 1699. 3-20 Because the members of the entrada were desperate to reach Mexico, they spent little time onshore and recorded scant locational or ethnographic data. The chronicles agree that the expedition was set upon by a party of Indians and quickly manned their boats to evade attack. The Spaniards were able to escape harm, with the exception of a Castilian who was mortally wounded by a long, barbed arrow propelled by use of an atlatl (Clayton et al 1993:524). Although their presence within the LMV was brief, the Spanish had a lasting impact on regional populations. The Mississippi River became a primary conduit by which virgin soil diseases diffused through contacted populations to those who had no face-to-face interaction with the Spaniards (Burnett and Murray 1993; Ramenofsky 1987; Dobyns 1983, 1987, 1991). Between the time of de Soto’s exploration in the mid-fifteenth century and the first stages of French occupation of the LMV in 1699, population decline due to infectious disease was rapid and catastrophic. By the time La Salle journeyed down the Mississippi River to claim lower Louisiana for France in 1682, the spread of European disease had already transformed the aboriginal LMV. Profound population loss, relocation of villages, consolidation, and realignment among the Indian nations reconfigured the LMV and gulf coastal plain (Ramenofsky 1987:71). La Salle bore witness to the effects of pathogens on tribal populations, noting that the Quapaw had been devastated by European disease since the Marquette and Joliet expedition encountered the nation in 1673. He also documented the confederation between the Natchez, Tioux, Grigra, and Koroa, which formed as a means to secure favored territory (Galloway 1995:174; Brain 1982). Disease, relocations and alliances between larger nations, as well as sustained slave-taking raids by the Chickasaw at the instigation of the English, resulted in displacement of, or sustained warfare on, less powerful indigenous LMV populations. When La Salle entered the regional setting in 1682, the first nation he encountered was the Quinipissa on the east bank of the river (N. de la Salle 1875:560). Hoping to establish trade and replenish diminishing supplies, La Salle sent a small party of men and Mohegan guides through a flooded, cane-covered marsh on the opposite side of which lay a village. The party carried gifts for the Quinipissa, but the warriors responded to this overture with taunts and arrows, forcing the explorers to retreat to the river to continue their journey (R. La Salle 1846:48; Tonti 1846:63). The party traveled south for an hour (R. La Salle 1846:48), a distance that Henri de Tonti (1846:63) reckoned at two leagues,1 before embarking on the east bank at a Tangipahoa village. There the Frenchmen found evidence of the mounting turmoil in the LMV—the village was abandoned and partially burned, with several large cabins stacked full of bodies. Tonti accused the Chakchiuma, at that time settled in the Yazoo Basin, of the atrocity (Tonti 1875:604). La Salle’s expedition continued its journey south, encountering no other native nations before reaching the mouth of the river. Having claimed lower Louisiana for France, the explorers returned upriver to attempt more amiable contact with the Quinipissa. The supplies they carried with them or obtained from Indian nations on their journey from Canada were exhausted, and the travelers intended to replenish their dwindling supplies “willingly or by force” (Tonti 1875:605). In order to strong-arm the Quinipissa into negotiating, the French party captured four Quinipissa women and established camp opposite their landing. La Salle sent one of the captives back to the 1The French nautical league [lieue] was equal to 1/25 degree or 2.4 nautical miles (4445 meters or 2.7619 miles). This unit was gradually replaced by the internationally recognized 3 nautical miles (5556 meters or 3.452 miles) (Rowlett n.d.). 3-21 nation bearing gifts of axes, knives, and beads to demonstrate the friendly intentions of the Europeans.2 The Quinipissa unenthusiastically invited the Europeans to move their camp across the river and produced a small quantity of corn and a few provisions for La Salle’s men. The Quinipissa remained cool to this alliance, however, and turned upon the Frenchmen the next morning, forcing them to abandon their hopes for both sustenance and commerce for the time being (Tonti 1846:65; Tonti 1875, vol. 1:608). Henri de Tonti, would return to the region in 1686 on his quest to find La Salle. At that time, he was able to achieve peace between the French and the Quinipissa at whose village he left a letter for La Salle (Tonti 1846:68). Several years would pass before France took action to occupy the LMV, giving Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville the authority to man small settlements and further explore the region. Iberville’s first foray up the Mississippi in 1699 was designed to verify the route taken by La Salle and prove he had found the Mississippi River. Iberville’s expedition carried new diseases, among them unspecified plague and fever, into the LMV (Galloway 1995:184). While seeking to establish a post among the Biloxi, Iberville encountered a party of Bayougoula and Mougoulacha hunting east of the Mississippi River. Eager to secure trade relations with the French, the Bayougoula chief and seven honored men gifted Iberville three muskrat blankets, while the Frenchman reciprocated with an iron calumet crafted in the shape of a French ship. The new allies ritually smoked together to formalize their new alliance. The Bayougoula leader declared that, by this act, he extended to the French an alliance not only with his nation but with several others west of the river, including the “Mougoulascha, Ouacha, Toutymascha [Chitimacha], Yagueneschyto [Yagnichitto]; and, east of the river, of the Bylocchy [Biloxi], Moctoby, the Ouma [Houma], Pascoboula [Pascagoula], Theocleöl [Natchez], Bayacchyto [Bogue Chitto], [and] Amylcou” (Iberville 1981:47-48). Not mentioned in this alliance were the Chaouacha, relatives of the Ouacha who at various times occupied territory to the west and east of the river. The chief’s assertion of his influence suggests a network of alliances that crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries. These alliances were fluid, however, and were subject to the ongoing social and environmental upheavals that populations within the region were experiencing. Iberville determined to visit the Bayougoula village in order to discover the Quinipissa and verify that the great river identified as the Malbanchya by his new allies was the same Mississippi River claimed by La Salle in 1682. Twelve leagues after entering what he hoped was the river’s mouth, Iberville began to notice changes in the riverine landscape. Marsh grass was soon replaced by alder trees and canebrakes so dense that the party could not see what lay beyond; the area was flooded up to four feet during times of high water. Iberville remarked on the changing terrain as the expedition moved upriver. The trees showed more variety, the shore was elevated, and the land flooded only about 1.5 feet. Nearer to present-day New Orleans, Iberville found only an eight-to-ten inch overflow. He was unable to locate nut or fruit trees, but did identify vines and near-ripe blackberries onshore (Iberville 1981:53-55). Five days into his journey, Iberville encountered several Indians sent to notify him that he was expected at the Bayougoula village, which they reckoned was about three days distant. Iberville continued toward the village with an Annocchy guide who pointed out one of their campsites consisting of 10 palmetto-covered huts. Nearby on the east bank were a few huts enclosed by a defensive cane redoubt about 25 by 55 yards, which stood about as high as a man. 2The items that La Salle gifted to the Indian nations encountered on his Mississippi River expedi- tion are likely similar to those recovered from La Belle, one of La Salle’s ships that capsized off the coast of Texas in 1686. Among those goods were over 785,000 glass beads, predominantly blue [41%], white [31%], and black [26%] (Avery 2008). Other recovered artifacts were bronze hawk bells, brass straight pins, iron ax heads, mirrors, wooden combs, and brass finger rings. 3-22 The Annocchy informed Iberville that the Chickasaw and their allies had recently raided the area and killed several of their men (Iberville 1981:56). Iberville estimated the Bayougoula village to be about 64 leagues above the mouth of the river (Iberville 1981:75). Just above a waterway that entered the river from the west, which his guide identified as the Ouacha River (Bayou Plaquemine), and about four leagues below the landing for the Bayougoula village, Iberville encountered a party of Ouacha returning to their village some two days west. After almost two weeks on the river, Iberville was met by the chiefs of Mougoulacha and Bayougoula who sang the calumet for him on behalf of the two nations that dwelled together in a large, consolidated village. The Mougoulacha chief wore a blue serge hooded coat given to him by Tonti in 1686 (Iberville 1981:58-59). After a ceremony of alliance in which Iberville received 12 deerskins and made a large gift of axes, knives, mirrors, needles, shirts, and blankets to the combined nations, the Bayougoula chief led his French counterpart on a tour of the village. Of the surrounding countryside, Iberville observed very fine land with a variety of hardwood trees including peach and apple. Iberville entered the Bayougoula temple, which he described as a round, mud-daubed building about 30 feet in diameter that was decorated with animal effigies. At the entrance was an extended covered portico 12 feet long and eight wide that led to a door measuring about three feet high by two feet wide. He counted 107 houses of constructed in the same manner as the temple, having split cane roofs. Iberville remarked on the finely wrought earthen pots produced in the village (Charlevoix 1977:121-122; Iberville 1981:62-63). Father Paul du Ru, who visited the village shortly after Iberville, described the pottery as thin, fine, and tempered with pulverized shell (du Ru 1934:19-20). Iberville estimated 200-250 men, while women and children were underrepresented in the consolidated village. At the time of this encounter, the population was suffering the effects of a smallpox epidemic that had reduced the population by about 25 per cent. Evident around the village were scaffolds of about seven feet high on which the bodies of the recently deceased were wrapped in cane mats. Atop each scaffold was placed a cane roof similar to that of a house. Iberville marked the latitude of the consolidated village at 31˚2’ north (Iberville 1981:63-64). Iberville was disappointed not to have found either the Quinipissa or the Tangipahoa encountered earlier by La Salle and Tonti. The Mougoulacha and Bayougoula assured Iberville that Tonti had visited no other village but the present one, which did not square with earlier accounts. The Quinipissa, they declared, comprised seven villages some eight day’s travel overland to the east-northeast. They identified the Tangipahoa village that La Salle found destroyed in 1682 as one of the seven Quinipissa villages, of which only six remained (Iberville 1981:61), and pointed to the Ouma as the nation who attacked and destroyed the village and forcibly annexed the survivors. Perplexed by the incongruity between the La Salle accounts and the information he received from the Bayougoula and Mougoulacha, Iberville resolved to continue north to the Ouma in order to discover the fate of the Quinipissa nation. He was accompanied on his journey by the Bayougoula chief (Iberville 1981:56, 61, 64). Three leagues above the Bayougoula/Mougoulacha consolidated village on the west lay the river to the Chitimacha [Bayou Lafourche], while at six leagues from the village on the east bank was Bayou Manchac, by which route the Bayougoula traveled to the Annocchy, “whom they call Bylocchy” (Iberville 1981:64-65). Upon reaching the Ouma village near present-day Angola State Penitentiary, Iberville was able to speak to some Quinipissa who told him their village was seven days distant and had never been visited by Tonti. Greatly disappointed, Iberville determined to continue north to the next Indian nation (Iberville 1981:70). Eager to return to his village and aware that Iberville would not abandon his quest, the Bayougoula chief finally revealed to the Frenchman that the Mougoulacha chief held 3-23 the letter that Tonti left for La Salle with the Quinipissa in 1686 (Iberville 1981:76). Upon returning south to rendezvous with his fleet, Iberville was heartened to discover that his men had negotiated with the Mougoulacha chief and secured Tonti’s letter, which validated Iberville’s route and proved that the Mougoulacha must indeed be the Quinipissa (Iberville 1981:86-87). This information was confirmed by Launay, a soldier who had accompanied Tonti when he made peace with the Quinipissa in 1686 and later served as a guide for Jesuit priests traveling to Biloxi to rendezvous will Iberville. Launay assured Ensign Sauvole at Biloxi that, greatly reduced by disease and warfare, the Quinipissa had joined with the Mougoulacha, who later consolidated with the Bayougoula (Sauvole 1880:453). The Jesuit missionaries who followed Iberville into the LMV documented rampant diseases and population decline among the nations to whom they ministered. St. Cosmé, who would later die at the hands of the Chitimacha, observed that the Acansea, a division of the Quapaw, were virtually destroyed by war and disease, including smallpox “which carried off the greatest part of them” (Shea 1861:72). La Source found a similar situation at the Tunica, who he noted were dying in great numbers (Shea 1861:81). As had Iberville’s expedition before them, the priests and their fellow travelers introduced new diseases into the LMV populations (Galloway 1995:187). On his second foray into the region, Iberville once again served as a vector for devastating disease. One such illness, probably yellow fever, afflicted Indian and French alike and was referred to as the “French disease” (Galloway 1995:189; Sauvole 1969:42n). Revisiting the Ouma, Iberville found half the nation dead from what was probably cholera or dysentery, which had raged in the village for five months (Iberville 1931:122). Father Paul du Ru visited the Bayougoula village shortly after Iberville. He noted the great heritage of the village, which had been in the same location for over 600 years. Du Ru noted two temples in the village, one for the Bayougoula and one for the Mougoulacha. Du Ru persuaded the residents to build a wattle and daub church on land he purchased from Longamougoulacha, presumably a Mougoulacha and not a Bayougoula, although the Bayougoula chief assisted with plastering the structure. While there, the priest planted a garden with seeds and cuttings brought by the Europeans, and erected a large cross (du Ru 1934:41-50). In 1700, Iberville visited the area south of Lake Pontchartrain along Bayou St. Jean, which he found to be “a fine country to live in” (Iberville 1981:112). At about this same time, he learned that the Bayougoula had set upon and murdered the Mougoulacha who shared their village. Father Jacques Gravier attributed the famine and disease he found at the Bayougoula village some months later to God’s punishment for this slaughter, although the famine was surely attributable to European diseases which robbed the population of its ability to hunt and plant in its traditional manner (Gravier 1905:157-159). Iberville was apparently not overly troubled by this betrayal, as he observed that it cleared French claim to most of the village site. On his previous visit, the Mougoulacha chief had made Iberville master of his village, as well as “other sites where formerly there were villages in the direction of the sea” (Iberville 1981:143-144). His statement suggests that, prior to joining with the Bayougoula, the Quinipissa/Mougoulacha occupied villages below the consolidated village, placing them within the presently defined regional setting. The defeat of the Mougoulacha at the hands of their hosts was indicative of the mounting pressures, shifting alliances, and increasing conflicts among the LMV nations. After killing the Mougoulacha, the Bayougoula invited several families of Acolapissa and Tioux to settle with them. Within a few years, the Taensa were forced from the central valley by Yazoo and Chickasaw raiders and relocated to the south where they were also welcomed by the Bayougoula. 3-24 The Taensa, however, desired the village for themselves and massacred almost the entire Bayougoula nation. Fearing retribution by the Ouma for their perfidy, the Taensas left the LMV altogether and settled near the French fort at Mobile (La Harpe 1971:53). The few remaining Bayougoula took refuge near the French Fort de la Boulaye below the place called English Turn (Lee 1997:126; Giraud 1953:78; Pénicaut 1953:68). Driven out of their central valley village by the Tunica, who abandoned the Yazoo basin in response to Chickasaw raids, the Ouma formed a village on Bayou St. Jean, and established another village on Bayou Lafourche (Lee 1997:125- 126; La Harpe 1971:100-101). Combined population estimates for the LMV nations declined from 10,000 in 1700 to 3000 in 1725, and to only 700 in 1750. Nations included in these estimates were the Ouacha, Chaouacha, Mougoulacha, Bayougoula, Chitimacha, Acolapissa, and Houma, either native to, or immigrants into, the regional setting, as well as the Attakapa and Opelousas to the west (Usner 1998:35). Writing to his brother in 1700, Henri de Tonti identified the aboriginal settlements he had visited in the Bayou Lafourche/Mississippi River area as the Ouacha, Chitimacha, and Yagnichitto who together numbered about 250 men, while the Quinipissa, Bayougoula, and Mougoulacha he estimated together made up 180 men (Delanglez 1939:224-225). Galloway (1995:175) concludes that discrepancies between Tonti’s initial and subsequent accounts of nations within the LMV demonstrate that the “entire lower valley was in ferment, with shifting populations and alliances.” A case in point is the Acolapissa nation, first visited by Father du Ru on Pearl River in 1700. Du Ru documented at least two extant villages, but there had been at least four. In the primary village he counted 15 to 20 houses surrounded by a palisade constructed in defense against Chickasaw raiders who had recently destroyed two of their villages and enslaved 50 people. While at the Acolapissa, du Ru destroyed a prominent fertility symbol in the center of the village, replacing it with a large cross (du Ru 1934:65-67). By 1705, the Acolapissa had abandoned Pearl River and settled on Lake Pontchartrain where they were joined by a group of Natchitoches who relocated from Red River. They subsequently abandoned that location and settled on the right bank of the Mississippi 13 leagues above New Orleans (Pénicaut 1953:100-101; 218-219). It was in this location that the Acolapissa, like other host tribes before them, attacked the Natchitoches who shared their village. Reporting the murders in 1713, Governor Cadillac observed that the “all the nations . . . are almost always in strife” (Cadillac 1929:203). French exploration and occupation of the LMV identified several Indian nations either native to, or immigrants into, the regional setting. The Ouacha and Chaouacha made their villages on the natural levees along the both sides of the Mississippi River, frequently shifting village locations (Usner 1998:44). By 1718, the Chaouacha sought French protection from Chickasaw raiders and settled three leagues below New Orleans on the east side of the river, while the Ouacha settled 11 leagues above New Orleans on the east bank (Pénicaut 1953:219). In 1715, Bienville relocated the Ouacha seven leagues above their Chaouacha allies on the left bank, and two leagues above New Orleans. In 1725, Bienville counted 50 warriors reduced from the 200 he first encountered. Bienville counted 40 Chaouacha warriors in a village 25 leagues from the mouth of the river on the east bank, where he had persuaded them to settle in 1712. Bienville confirmed their nomadic tendencies, but noted that they were growing corn at their new location (Bienville 1932:527). Fearing a massacre in New Orleans akin to the recent Natchez uprising, Governor Etienne Périer sent a party of armed Negro slaves to destroy the nation in 1729 (Usner 1998:47; Charlevoix 1977:90[96]). 3-25 The Quinipissa/Mougoulacha consolidated with the Bayougoula near the confluence of Bayou Lafourche and the Mississippi. After they murdered the Quinipissa/Mougoulacha, the Bayougoula were subsequently attacked by the Taensa and moved near Fort de la Boulaye on the lower river (Usner 1998:44-45; Lee 1997:126; Giraud 1953:78; Pénicaut 1953:68). Bienville declared that only 40 Bayougoula men remained in 1725, reduced from the 250 warriors first encountered by the French. He attributed the destruction of the nation to the treachery of the Taensa; however, disease was probably also a factor in their rapid decline. Bienville located them in one small village “on a good tract of land” 16 leagues above New Orleans on the east bank of the river (Bienville 1932:527-528). The Chitimacha claimed the area from the Atchafalaya basin to the Pearl River, but their villages were located west of the Mississippi from Bayou Lafourche to the Atchafalaya. They were forced to settle 34 leagues above New Orleans on the west bank of the river by the treaty that ended the French war against the nation. They spoke the same language as, and were close allies of, the Ouacha and Chaouacha (Bienville 1932:528). Beginning in 1702, this nation was subject to frequent attacks by the French and their Indian allies for the purpose of capturing slaves to sell in Mobile. They eventually rose up against the French, killing a priest and several others, precipitating an extended and costly war (Lee 1989; La Harpe 1971:60). Peace was finally achieved in 1718 when Bienville saw they were reduced to 100 warriors (Bienville 1932:528). The Acolapissa, who numbered around 400 warriors in 1700, were first found living in the Pearl River basin. At least one Acolapissa village has been tentatively identified at the mouth of Pearl River (Lewis 2000:530). The nation was reduced by Chickasaw raids and disease, moving from the Pearl River to consolidate with survivors of the Tangipahoa near Lake Pontchartrain. There they lived in bark cabins while they constructed the typical wattle and daub structures that were more typical of the region (Usner 1998:45-46; du Ru 1934:65-66). In 1725, Bienville counted 100 warriors in the village on Lake Pontchartrain near the mouth of Bayou St. Jean. That nation, he noted, supplied “almost all of the fresh meat that is consumed at New Orleans without... neglecting the cultivation of their lands which produce a great deal of corn” (Bienville 1932:535). The Ouma (Houma) occupied the area below the Natchez on the east bank of the Mississippi in an extended village in present-day West Feliciana Parish. Numbering about 350 warriors when visited by Iberville in 1700, an epidemic of dysentery or cholera had greatly reduced the nation just a few months later (Iberville 1951:69, 122; du Ru 1934:28-29). Displaced by the Tunica, they relocated to the LMV by 1706. They were reduced to only 50 warriors in their Mississippi River village 25 leagues above New Orleans by 1725 (Bienville 1932:528). When New Orleans was established in 1718, the Indian nations within the region gravitated toward the new capital, which at that time consisted of no more than one hut covered with palmetto leaves (Gremillion 2002; Le Page du Pratz 1975:21). The capital quickly expanded, however, bringing more Europeans, their vices, and their pathogens into the area. As noted in Bienville’s 1725 memoir on the Indian nations (1932), the native Acolapissa, Ouacha, Chaouacha, Bayougoula, and Chitimacha, as well as the immigrant Ouma, all lived within 75 miles of New Orleans. Of the nations first encountered by the French in the LMV, the Tangipahoa, Yagnichitto, Quinipissa, and Mougoulacha were either destroyed by murder or disease or absorbed by larger nations. By 1758, the Chaouacha had been eliminated at the order of Périer, and the Acolapissa, Bayougoula, and Ouacha had virtually disappeared. When Spain took over the Louisiana colony, the most ubiquitous Indians in and around New Orleans were groups of Choctaw who continued to participate in the regional economy there well into the twentieth century (Colvin 2006:74; Usner 1998). 3-26 CHAPTER 4 HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF LOWER BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND THE WESTERN BARATARIA REGION Native Americans along Lower Bayou Lafourche and Barataria When the French began to settle lower Louisiana in 1699, the current project area was within the Chitimacha aboriginal territory that extended along the coastal plain from Bayou Teche and the lower Atchafalaya River to just west of Pearl River. Bayou Lafourche was originally identified as Rivière des Chetimachas or La fourche des Chetimachas. When Jean Baptiste LeMoyne d’Iberville made alliance with the Bayagoula in 1699, their leader declared the alliance would include not only his nation but the several others west of the river, including the “Mougoulascha, Ouacha [Washa], Toutymascha [Chitimacha], and Yagueneschyto [Yagnichitto]. Iberville noted that the Chitimacha, Yagnichitto, and Washa spoke the Chitimacha language, and associated the people he called “Toutymascha” (Chitimacha) with the “Yagueneschyto” (Yagnechito) (McWilliams 1981:47), identified as “habitants des lacs” (lake dwellers) by Jean Baptiste Bénard de La Harpe (1831:100) (Figure 4-1). In 1717, the Barataria region was depicted as Chitimacha territory and the Yagnechito were no longer counted as a separate people (Figure 4-2). It seems likely, then, that “Yagnechito” (from the Choctaw “big country” [Swanton 1911:37]) was a term used by Iberville’s Bayogoula hosts to identify Chitimacha people living within the Grande Terre (“big country”)/Barataria region, their “earliest known habitat” (Gatschet 1883:149). Not mentioned in the alliance detailed by the Bayagoula chief were the Chawasha (also Chaouacha), Muskogean-speaking relatives of the Washa who at various times occupied territory to the west and east of the Mississippi River. They are shown living in the coastal Barataria region in 1717 (Figure 4-2). The Bayagoula chief’s assertion regarding his influence with other regional tribes suggests a network of alliances that crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries. These relationships were fluid, however, and subject to the ongoing social and environmental upheavals with which Indigenous populations were faced. These radical and rapid changes were a result of virgin-soil diseases and shifting alliances in response to the growing European presence (McWilliams 1981:47-50; Swanton 1911:38, 337-338). Prior to 1706, a number of Chitimacha settlements were located in the Grande1 Terre region around Barataria Bay and Lac des Ouachas (Lake Salvador) between Bayou Lafourche and the Mississippi River. In 1707, Governor Jean Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville located the Chitimacha “on the southern part of the Mississippi two days march inland,” putting them in the Barataria region below Lac des Ouachas (Margry 1884:155; Swanton 1911:337). In response to French slave-taking in their Barataria villages, the Chitimacha attacked and killed a priest and his companions traveling from Natchez to Biloxi. The resulting twelve-year war between the French and Chitimacha drove the Chitimacha from the Barataria region to join their relatives living west of the Mississippi River in present Iberville and St. Mary Parishes. However, at least one Chitimacha village remained on the lower Lafourche in the 1780s (Hutchins 1784:39; McWilliams 1981:47-50; Swanton 1911:38, 337-338). About 1700, the Chawasha and Washa together with the Okelousa, another Muskogean- speaking group, numbered about 200 warriors or a total population of about 700 persons. La Harpe (1831:18) stated that the Chawasha, Washa, and Okelousa were allies, calling them “wandering people of the seacoast.” Early on, the Chawasha allied themselves with the French, and in 1707 joined with the French to attack the Chitimacha. In 1712, the French relocated the 1 By the nineteenth century, the French feminine “Grande Terre” was Anglicized to “Grand Terre.” 4-1 Figure 4-1: Excerpt from Carte du Mexique et de la Floride… (L’Isle 1703). 4-2 4-3 Figure 4-2: Excerpt from Carte de la Louisiane et du Cours du Mississipi (L’Isle 1717). Chawasha to a site on the west bank of the Mississippi River below New Orleans. However, in 1715, a combined force of the Natchez, Chickasaw, and Yazoo, who the Chawashas had wel- comed to smoke the calumet, attacked the Chawasha. Several Chawasha were killed or captured and their Natchez captors sold some captives into slavery to the English. Following the Natchez massacre of French colonials at Fort Rosalie in 1730, Governor Perrier dispatched a party of slaves to attack the Chawasha, and some were killed. Ten years later the Chawasha were living with the Washa near the Côte Des Allemands post on the west side of the Mississippi River above New Orleans in present St. Charles Parish. The combined tribes consisted of about 30 warriors and their families. The Chawasha/Washa village was last noted in 1758, when together the remnants of the two tribes numbered only 10 to 12 warriors and families. The tribe probably maintained a distinct identity for some time afterward before disappearing; and some Chawasha may have joined the Muskogean-speaking Houma (Swanton 1984:201-202; Kniffen et al. 1987:52, 78; Goins and Caldwell 1995:21). The Houma migrated from the Yazoo River pre-contact to occupy a large village on the Mississippi River opposite the mouth of the Red River where they were living when visited by La Salle in 1682. In 1700, the Houma were joined by the Tunica, who either displaced their hosts or occupied their former village after it was abandoned. The Houma migrated downriver, settling for a time on Bayou St. John near New Orleans, later relocating to present Ascension Parish and along upper Bayou Lafourche. The Houma took in a number of people from diminishing small tribes, including Bayougoula, Acolapissa, Tangipahoa, Quinipissa, and Mougulasha. In 1739, the combined Houma totaled about 270 to 300 adults. In response to mounting pressures from Acadian and Creole settlers and a smallpox epidemic in 1788, the Houma moved southward into present lower Lafourche and Terrebonne parishes, deep within the coastal marshes. Members of the United Houma Nation (UHN) continue to inhabit lower Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes where they practice traditional social and economic strategies. UHN communities along lower Bayou Lafourche include Galliano and Golden Meadow (Brasseaux 2005:120-125; Kniffen et al. 1987:52, 78; Lee 2001; Goins and Caldwell 1995:21; Swanton 1984:201-202; Uzee 1985:98). The Colonial Period to 1803 The area of present-day Lafourche Parish and the Barataria region saw very little settlement before 1765. Spain had acquired the Louisiana colony via the secret Treaty of Fontainebleau on November 3, 1762, although it was not until 1769 that the Spanish administration firmly established itself in the colony. Soon after the arrival in 1765 of the first Spanish governor, Antonio de Ulloa, Acadians displaced from former French Canada began to settle along the west bank of Bayou Lafourche between the modern towns of Donaldsonville and Labadieville. Most received small Spanish grants that fronted the bayou and extended to the forty-arpent line. Their arrival marked the beginning of a wave of immigrants who seized upon the opportunity to select their own homestead sites. During the 1780s, Acadians exiled in France also settled in the Lafourche District. Six hundred of these refugees settled along Bayou Lafourche between modern-day Labadieville and Lafourche Crossing. By 1788, Acadians represented over 60 percent of the Lafourche district’s entire population. The Acadian tendency towards isolationism and cultural independence created friction between themselves and the Creoles of French and German descent who also migrated to the vacant, verdant land along the bayou. The Creole settlers sought to establish a system resembling that which developed along much of the Mississippi River, where large landowners developed extensive plantations (Westerman 1995). For the most part the Acadians maintained their egalitarian outlook and upheld their ideal of small family homesteads. Their tenacity and refusal to conform to the cultural ideals of the 4-4 large-planter-dominated Creole culture further strained relations and inevitably increased their own isolation. Most Acadian settlers along the Lafourche adapted their former agricultural practices from the production of wheat, flax, and apples to crops more suitable to the Louisiana climate and conditions. New crops consisted of corn, cotton, beans, and figs, and they also supplemented their diet and income with fishing, trapping, and hunting (Uzee 1985: 35-36; Brown et al. 2000:72; Uzee 1985:38; Weinstein 1994:50, 72). In the Barataria region, the first French land grant was made by the Company of the Indies on June 14, 1726, to Jean-Baptiste Massy and his partners. On his Barataria plantation, Massy grew cotton and tobacco and raised livestock. In this period, logging roads were built along the east side of what became Bayou des Familles (Swanson 1991:50-51). Like Massy and other colonists, Claude Joseph Villars Dubreuil received large concessions in the Barataria Basin prior to 1732 and engaged in energetic developmental efforts. He had a canal dug from a branch of Bayou Barataria to the Mississippi River, and undertook logging, boat building, ranching, and wax myrtle harvesting at his Barataria holdings. Elsewhere he grew indigo and experimented with sugar cane, and may have attempted farming at Barataria (Holmes 1986:50, 53). For the most part, colonial settlement of the Barataria region took place in the eastern portion and was devoted largely to farming, ranching, and lumbering. Antoine Boudousquié and Elie [or Hery] Hugues engaged in agriculture, but also dealt in furs and probably intended to harvest furs from their Barataria tract (Swanson 1988:85-86). Increasing geopolitical tensions between Spain and Great Britain in the late 1770s caused the Spanish Crown to plan a series of new Spanish settlements in Louisiana. It was hoped that loyal settlers placed in strategic locations would increase Hispanicization of the colony and bolster its defenses, as well as promote commerce and industry in general. Seven hundred soldiers, preferably with families, were to be recruited in the Canary Islands, transported to Louisiana, and there provided with land and supplies (Din 1988:13-14). A settlement was to be placed at Barataria, specifically at the confluence of Bayou Barataria and modern Bayou Des Familles, a strategic route from the Gulf of Mexico to the Mississippi River and New Orleans. The Población de Barataria was the smallest and the most short-lived of the Canary Islander settlements (Din 1988:47). Unfortunately for the settlers and plantation owners in Barataria, an unusual series of natural disasters occurred, beginning within months of their arrival. Hurricanes struck in 1779, 1780, 1793, and 1794; floods inundated the Barataria Basin in 1782, 1796, and 1802-1803; and unusual cold struck southern Louisiana in 1783, with a frost occurring in late summer (Swanson 1991:60). The Isleño community was abandoned and the government seems to have concluded that Barataria was a failure (Din 1988:48, 50). The area slowly rebuilt and again became an agricultural center. In 1807, Jean Baptiste Degruy and François Mayronne partitioned their plantation, which reached from the west bank of the Mississippi into Barataria. Degruy received a smaller portion of the river frontage and the lands extending down to Barataria but subsequently, Degruy purchased Mayronne’s portion. Along with other local settlers in this remote region, Degruy was known to cooperate with the infamous smugglers of the Barataria area, including the Lafitte brothers (Swanson 1991:109-111). Grand Isle and Chênière Caminada were developed in the eighteenth century when Spanish land grants were awarded. In 1763, Monsieur Du Rollin obtained a grant on the neighboring Chênière, later sold to Francisco Caminada who gave it his name. In the 1780s, Grand Isle was split into four large grants awarded to Jacques Rigaud, Joseph Caillet, Francisco Anfrey and Charles Dufrene. Both areas were only sparsely populated and very little documentation exists that might provide more insight into settlement and land use in the area. The four grantees likely engaged in some level of agricultural production, as the next century would see sugar plantations on the Island. In the early nineteenth century, however, both Grand 4-5 Isle and Chênière Caminada became associated with Jean Lafitte and his privateering compatriots. A colorful and legendary figure, Jean Lafitte, his brother Pierre, and their associate and perhaps sibling, Dominique You, moved into Barataria Bay in 1805 to engage in smuggling and privateering. Barataria was an ideal base for these activities, with a deepwater anchorage at Grand Terre. The barrier islands provided cover and protection to Lafitte and his associates who occupied parts of Grand Terre, Grand Isle and Chênière Caminada where they also kept a warehouse for contraband goods. A network of canals and waterways, particularly Bayou Lafourche, allowed transportation of contraband goods to the city of New Orleans and the plantations above the city. Between 1805 and 1814, Lafitte built a commercial empire from his base at Barataria with several hundred men in his company. The Antebellum Period, 1803-1860 The territory along Bayou Lafourche, designated the Lafourche Settlement or District during the Spanish colonial period, stretched from Ascension Parish to the Gulf of Mexico and included the present parishes of Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne. By 1804, after the division of the Orleans Territory into counties, the settlement was called Lafourche County. Three years later, in 1807, the county system was abandoned in favor of parishes, and present Lafourche Parish was established. While settlement of upper Bayou Lafourche proceeded at a rapid pace, especially in the American period after sugar cane agriculture took hold, the lower bayou was not as well developed. Lower Bayou Lafourche was still largely undeveloped in the 1840s, with plantations extending south only about as far as Galliano (Figure 4-3). Although small clusters of trappers and fishers were located further down-bayou, the sparsely populated lower Lafourche and western Barataria were prime real estate for smugglers. In the antebellum period, Grand Isle, Chênière Caminada and Grand Terre were dominated by large sugar plantations situated on the original Spanish grant lands; but Lafitte and his privateers took great advantage of the remote and under-utilized parts of the areas. It was not until the middle nineteenth century that resorts were established in western Barataria (Swanson 1975:159-161). Smugglers’ Mecca: Barataria Bay to Bayou Lafourche. The importance of water transportation in colonial Louisiana would be difficult to overstate. Indigenous people traveled the waterways like Bayou Lafourche in pirogues (dugout canoes) that cut through the marshes and could be portaged around obstructions in rivers and bayous. However, Bayou Lafourche in the colonial period presented significant difficulties for navigation of larger craft. Where the Bayou forked from the Mississippi at modern Donaldsonville, it was often so shallow as to prevent boats of any size from entering from the River; and the length of the Bayou was littered with snags, stumps, and overhanging trees. By 1770, canals had been constructed from the Mississippi River to Lac Des Allemands, and from Lac Des Allemands to Bayou Lafourche (probably via Lake Boeuf). This route made it possible to travel from New Orleans by boat without either descending Bayou Lafourche to the Gulf or ascending it to the Mississippi River (Pearson et al. 1989:104-105). That lack of navigability for larger vessels made Bayou Lafourche ideal for local trade and transportation, trapping and hunting, and for smuggling. Light draft vessels could easily transport contraband up the bayou to the Mississippi River, then downstream to enter New Orleans “by the back door” (Davis 2005:18). Smuggling became endemic in Louisiana during the Spanish colonial period (1762- 1800), as American and other merchants as well as the Creole inhabitants of the colony sought to evade restrictive Spanish commercial regulations. The inlets and bayous between Barataria and Bayou Lafourche were remote and largely inaccessible to ships, and early on were designated avenues for avoiding Spanish Customs at New Orleans. Although smuggling activities took 4-6 4-7 Figure 4-3: Excerpt from La Tourrette's Reference Map of the State of Louisiana (La Tourrette 1848). place all along the coast including Grand Isle and Bayou Lafourche, Grand Terre Island became the hub for offloading contraband as it afforded a better harbor closer to Grand Pass, where sea- going vessels of moderate draft could anchor in the protected waters of Barataria Bay and close to the shore of the island. A single, barely navigable pass separated Grand Isle and Grand Terre Island to access Barataria Bay from which a series of bayous and lakes provided shallow-draft vessels access to numerous points on the Mississippi River and Bayou Lafourche (Davis 2005:32). The principal type of boat utilized by the bayou smugglers was the pirogue. Eighteenth- century pirogues could be very large, up to 50 feet long, and capable of carrying 30 men or over fifteen tons of freight. However, most pirogues in use on the Barataria basin and bayous were probably not nearly so large. The greatest disadvantage of pirogues was their instability, so several types of more stable plank-built craft were used on inland waters during the colonial era, including batteaux, flat-bottomed boats typically 20 to 40 feet in length to an extreme length of around 80 feet. Batteaux were usually rowed or poled, but could be fitted with sails for use on open water. Steadier than the pirogue, the batteaux also weighed less than a pirogue of equivalent cargo and capacity and supplanted the pirogue in settings where maneuverability was not at a premium. Numerous other small vessel types were also used to navigate Louisiana coastal and inland waters, including the flat-bottomed or plank pirogue and the push skiff or Creole rowing skiff with a pointed bow and flat stern (Comeaux 1985; Pearson et al. 1989:79, 89-90). The Spanish administration of Louisiana was well aware that the Gulf Coast was frequented by smugglers. The Armada de Barlovento, consisting of galleys and a few large sailing ships with 30 to 60 guns (Weddle 1991:18) was based at the Balize and patrolled the Gulf Coast on watch for smugglers’ vessels. Throughout the colonial period, the Spanish government devoted great resources to the colonial guardacostas or coastguard squadrons (Faye 1940a:429). However, despite the availability of warships for colonial service, smuggling was still rampant. Smuggling was endemic during the Spanish colonial period (1762-1800) in Louisiana, as American merchants and Creole inhabitants sought to evade restrictive Spanish commercial regulations. The inlets and bayous between Barataria and Bayou Lafourche were remote and largely inaccessible to ships, and early on, avenues for avoiding the Spanish Customs at New Orleans. With the transfer of Louisiana from Spain to France, and then from France to the United States, opportunities for smugglers in Louisiana waters became even greater. U.S. civil authorities did not establish even a token presence at what was already a known and well-used route for smugglers seeking to avoid the customs authorities at the mouth of the Mississippi River or New Orleans. Louisiana Territorial Governor William C.C. Claiborne was aware of the smuggling problem early in his administration; and within the first decade of the American period in Louisiana, smuggling and worse contraventions of law and order would attain unprecedented heights. The surge of smuggling activity in this period was strongly related to the prevalence of international privateering, which was carried on with little or no regard for national law and international conventions; i.e., privateers often descended into piracy. Privateering was considered a legitimate form of warfare between nations in the early- nineteenth century, and this fact has often been invoked in positive depictions of the activities of Jean Laffite and the Baratarians who largely controlled illicit activities between Barataria Bay and Grand Terre Island. However, privateering was regulated by international conventions in international waters, and by national laws where privateers fitted out, where prizes were captured within territorial waters, or where privateers brought prizes into port. Privateers were to sail under national colors with valid commissions, and were only to attack ships under the flags of belligerent nations. Vessels taken as prizes were to be adjudicated at a legitimate prize court. In the United States, the restricting acts made it illegal to outfit privateers within U.S. territory for cruising against the vessels of nations with which the U.S. was at peace. These acts also made it 4-8 illegal to interfere with shipping of the United States or any European nation while in United States waters, under penalty of confiscation of privateer vessels and prizes. Piracy, the indiscriminate capture of vessels of any nation, was held to be a despicable crime punishable by the hanging of perpetrators. In an age when travel by land or sea was often highly unsafe and insecure, piracy was viewed less romantically than in later days when it was no longer a menace to lives and property. However, it was not always easy for the system of due legal process to distinguish clearly between privateering and piracy; and in the case of the Baratarians, a number of interested parties eventually vied to manipulate legal procedures in various courts to their benefit with varying degrees of success. The prominent use of Grand Terre Island as landing place for contraband by privateers of the Gulf and Caribbean began in 1808 and ends with the suppression of the Baratarians by U.S. authorities in 1814. This period of intensive privateer activity in Louisiana waters was a result of four major factors. The first was the course of military developments in the war between Great Britain, Spain, and Imperial France. A large number of privateer commissions were granted by French Caribbean islands during the Directory (1795-1799), Consulate (1799-1804) and the early Empire (from 1804), but by 1806-1807, the number of available commissions began to decline, and with them, friendly ports for these privateers. This was a consequence of British naval success in capturing the French West Indies islands. By the end of 1809, only Guadeloupe and St.-Martin remained in French hands, and the following year both of these islands were captured by the British. The second major factor contributing to the presence of privateers in Louisiana waters were events in the Spanish New World dominions, including the rebellion against Spanish authority in New Granada and unrest in New Spain. As French privateering commissions became unavailable, commissions issued by the new Republic of Cartagena appeared, supplying a premise for privateering against Spain. Third, the privateers were denied access to legitimate but sympathetic prize courts, but developed means to distribute captured cargoes anyway. American markets, particularly in Louisiana, had a great deal of demand, particularly for slaves and consumer goods (Faye 1940a:433-435). In 1804, the importation of slaves into the Louisiana Territory was prohibited (Clark 1970:317) to the consternation of short-handed planters and frustrated slave-dealers. Governor Claiborne personally abhorred the slave trade, and the smuggling of slaves into Louisiana was to him a particularly serious concern (Faye 1940a:440). In 1806, the importation of goods from Britain into the United States was temporarily forbidden, and a general embargo was declared in 1807 by the Embargo Act. This measure was superseded by another embargo in 1809, which prohibited any French or British vessels from entering United States ports, and made it unlawful to import any articles of British or French manufacture (Schmeckbier 1924:12). These regulations, enforced with varying effectiveness by U.S. customs officers, were obvious stimuli to smuggling. Finally, the isolation of Louisiana’s southern coast permitted the privateers and smugglers a base for their operations, since Louisiana politicians discouraged suppression of smuggling by the Federal authorities. The most prominent privateering smugglers in Louisiana were the Baratarians, a conglomeration of smugglers, privateers, and pirates with operations on Grand Isle and Grand Terre. Among the prominent characters were the privateer captains Dominique (or Alexander or Frederic) You (or Youx), Vincent Gambie (Gambi or Gamby), René Béluche, Joseph Sauvinet, Louis Chighizola (alias “Nez Coupé”), Franco Tomas, Antonio Angelo, Captain Marqueire (Marco or Marcos), Antoine Semet, Pierre Cadet, Juan Juanillio (alias Gianni Barbe en Feu or Johnny “Flaming Red Whiskers”), Joseph Clement and several others. More famous yet are the brothers Pierre and Jean Laffite; and preeminent among them all is Jean Laffite. Jean engaged in privateering of goods and slaves, but abandoned that trade for the more profitable and less dangerous smuggling. By fall 1809, the Lafitte brothers had established a “modest smuggling operation … matching buyers with well-established slave importers. Jean took buyers to Grand 4-9 Terre to make the sales, while Pierre staying in New Orleans to handle the Laffites’ business affairs there” (Davis 2005:50-51). Grand Terre Island was already a site for contraband import and trade when the Laffites entered the scene. It would soon become a hub for illegal activities, and with Grand Isle, would be the recognized headquarters of the Baratarians. One advantage Grand Terre Island offered over Grand Isle was that it afforded a better harbor, closer to Grand Pass where sea-going vessels of moderate draft could anchor in the protected waters of Barataria Bay and close to the shore of the island. However, access to Barataria Bay was limited by the shallowness of a bar which from historical documentation seems to have been somewhere from nine to fifteen feet in depth. The shallow bar prevented larger vessels from entering Barataria Bay and anchoring behind Grand Terre or Grand Isle if the tide was out. The back or bayside of Grand Isle along the oak Chênière offered a good place of settlement and refuge from the authorities. Grand Isle dominated the Baratarians’ enterprise….The smugglers and visiting privateers lived in rude quarters among the oaks, but also had camps at Chenière Caminada on the mainland just opposite the western tip of the island, as well as a few other points inside the bay. Their scattered encampments bespoke the fact that no one really commanded them, however much the Lafittes increasingly dominated their business [Davis 2005:76]. Basic facts about the Laffite brothers remain in significant doubt, beginning with where and when they were born. They do not appear in the 1810 U.S. Census, and most sources on the Laffite brothers have given their place of birth as either Bordeaux, Bayonne, or less often, Saint- Malo, France. The name Laffite, Lafitte, or Laffitte (or other variants) is not uncommon in southwestern France. There were other Laffites, apparently unrelated to the Baratarian smugglers, in Louisiana prior to and contemporaneously with the famous brothers (c.f. U.S. Census 1810; Diocese of Baton Rouge 1982:470). Scholars also have not agreed on how to spell the surname of the famous brothers. Transcriptions of original documents, bearing Jean Laffite’s signature, indicate that he most often spelled his surname Laffite, and that spelling is generally used here except in quotes or citations where it is spelled differently. The legitimate occupations of the Laffite brothers are unclear as well. There is no evidence that prior to settling in Louisiana they had any training or significant experience as sailors or seafarers, beyond their possible but unconfirmed relation to a ship captain of Biarritz (Calvet 1998:306). Stories of Jean Laffite having been a sea rover, prior to the period in which he became prominent with the Baratarians, have not been documented. There has been a widespread assumption that the Laffite brothers managed a blacksmith shop in New Orleans, and such an interpretation (as in Faye 1940b:745) is based on a brief mention in Le Moniteur de la Louisiane of September 18, 1802, announcing “the arrival in New Orleans of Herico and Laffite, blacksmiths and toolmakers, whose workshop was ‘au coin de la place d’armes’” (Vogel 1990:72). Whatever their beginnings, the Lafitte brothers arrived in New Orleans and quickly made a name as privateers and, later, pirates. The Jefferson Embargo was an obvious stimulation to smuggling, and smugglers, often supplied by privateers cruising in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, were again making use of Grand Pass and Barataria Bay as an avenue to the bayous south of the city of New Orleans, as they had during the Spanish regime. According to Faye (1940b), in 1808 Pierre Laffite set up a small “establishment” at “Barataria Island” (Faye 1940b:746). Latour refers to Barataria Island as an area between Bayou Barataria, Bayou Pierot, and Lake Ouacha (Latour 1964:13). However, both Grand Isle and Grand Terre were also referred to historically as Barataria Island or the island of Barataria (q.v. Faye 1940b:746; WPA of LA 1940:#746, #760). At the Island of Barataria, Laffite served as an agent or factor for the ships using the Barataria route to avoid customs and revenue inspectors at the mouth of the Mississippi and in New Orleans. It may be 4-10 that Francois Mayronne, owner of Grand Terre since 1795, cooperated with smugglers not only by allowing them to use his plantation canal between Bayou Barataria and the Mississippi but also permitting them to use Grand Terre as a waystation where they could unload goods from ships and reload them onto smaller vessels. It seems more than coincidence that the Mayronne Canal was a main smuggling route throughout the period from 1795 to 1814, and during this same period Mayronne owned Grand Terre, the center of privateer/smuggler activity in Barataria Bay after 1808. New Orleans seemed an obvious base for supply and refitting of vessels carrying French privateer commissions as other bases were closed off by the British navy. However, the United States was at peace with Britain until 1812 and outfitting French privateers was a contravention of law. French privateers were only to be allowed entrance at American ports under conditions of distress. Nevertheless, privateers under French commissions were accustomed to entering New Orleans. French privateers were increasingly unwelcome in New York, Norfolk, and Charleston, but in New Orleans, the technicalities of the law were virtually ignored, and the public reception of the French privateers was not hostile. The United States was neutral in the conflict between France and the British-Spanish alliance and remained at peace with Spain after declaring war on Great Britain in 1812. However, public opinion in New Orleans was strongly anti-Spanish (Faye 1940a:435; de Grummond 1961:10). Commander David Porter’s attempt to prevent privateers from entering New Orleans had little success. In 1808, three French privateers anchored at Pilot Town at the mouth of the Mississippi. Porter (1875) took a gunboat down the river, anchored at Pilot Town, and called upon the French ships to surrender for violation of the restrictive acts. The New Orleans District Attorney refused to cooperate with Porter, and in a direct conflict with the civil authorities, Porter stated that he would fire on the vessels unless they immediately surrendered. The French crews refused to fight, and since Porter was unable to hold them, they were allowed to disembark from the ships. The crews went up to New Orleans, where, says Porter, they “roamed the streets at will, committing all sorts of excesses,” and threw the city into an uproar (Porter 1875:79). Porter took the case to court, stating “under an honest official there could have been no doubt of the result” of the case. Without political support, criticized by the public, and even physically threatened by the crews of the privateers, Porter persevered in pushing the adjudication of the vessels, though he was resisted by the District Attorney and “the many friends of the buccaneers.” Appeals and countersuits beleaguered Porter, and the Spanish government withheld the reward they had offered for the capture of the three privateers. Nevertheless, for the remainder of Porter’s posting at New Orleans, the privateers avoided the Louisiana port. In 1809, the Jefferson Embargo was repealed, eliminating some of the impetus for large- scale smuggling and causing the contraband trade to diminish (Faye 1940a:440). However, the privateers, yet more in need of a base of refitting and repair, began to return to New Orleans. Sooner or later it seemed likely that they would bring British or Spanish prizes with them. In April 1810, a privateer arrived at the mouth of the Mississippi with a prize, a Portuguese slaver with 105 enslaved Africans on board. The vessels and their cargo were embargoed by U.S. gunboats, and the case went into U.S. District Court. Several other cases of privateers with prizes were soon in the District Court in New Orleans (Faye 1940a:435-436), but to little effect. The privateer owners and their friends made use of legal resources in the U.S. District Court, and in the case of the Portuguese slaver that arrived in New Orleans on April 10, the prize was not detained and the Africans were sold privately in the city for $18,000 (Faye 1940a:435-437). Other privateers were merely fined, and some were cleared of embargo and not fined. But the privateers soon had other legal problems. Their short-term commissions from French possessions began to expire, and even if the United States had been at war with Britain or Spain, the privateers could not have acted legally under French commissions. The question of valid French commissions became a moot point on May 1, 1810, when all communication between 4-11 any French vessel and U.S. land, even if the vessel was in distress, was entirely prohibited by the United States government (Faye 1940a:438). By 1810, the privateers began to steer to Grand Terre rather than to the mouth of the Mississippi River. The isolation of Grand Terre was both a positive and negative for the privateers. It did reduce the likelihood they would be molested by the authorities. However, all supplies, such as cordage for rigging, sailcloth, munitions, provisions, hardware, and even lumber for building construction and ship repairs, had to be brought from the mainland or from Grand Isle. In this regard, the loss of access to New Orleans was a serious blow to their operations. A document dated September 12, 1812, reveals that Frederic (Dominique) You paid M. Henri of Grand Isle $544.00 for various goods, including horse fodder, fresh vegetables, meat, and “bread made by the inhabitants” (Evans et al. 1979:31). The privateer Sally, a falouche owned by Louis Prince and Jean Robert, sailed from New Orleans in June 1810. “On the coast,” presumably at Barataria and possibly Grand Terre or Grand Isle, the vessel increased her crew to 50 men, mounted a brass 8-pounder, and took on French Imperial colors. The Sally soon took a Spanish schooner containing $23,000 in cash, and in August, brought to “the coast” a prize cargo of dry goods and a Spanish prize brig with 140 Africans. The cargo was sold at Grand Terre, the first documented case of the island serving as the commercial base of the privateers. The slaves were taken up Bayou Lafourche and openly sold at auction. The Spanish brig was burned (Faye 1940a:441). This was a practice of pirates to destroy evidence, since legitimate privateers could sell prize vessels awarded to them by a prize court. The authorities in New Orleans received complaints from the Spanish Consul and were not inclined to ignore these events. Warrants were issued in New Orleans for the arrest of Prince, Robert, and Captain Ange-Michel Brouard. Only Prince was apprehended, and he eventually jumped bond. Many of the slaves were recovered by the Sheriff and returned to the owners of the Spanish slaver (Faye 1940a:441). There was a strong element of popular opinion in New Orleans in favor of tolerating the smugglers. The Louisiana Gazette editorialized in the summer of 1810: If Mons. Turreau [French Minister to the U.S.] could prevail on Mr. Madison to withdraw the whole of the navy from our coast, we could be supplied with slaves on very moderate terms; as it is, with the assistance of skilful [sic] smugglers, well fee’d lawyers and hard swearing, we get negroes from Africa full as cheap as we formerly did [quoted in introduction by Jane Lucas de Grummond, Latour 1964:xxiv]. Such open defiance of authority and support of the illegal and brutal trade in human beings were typical responses to attempts by U.S. authorities in suppressing the activities of the Baratarians. In July 1810, the privateer Intrépide under Captain Sauvinet appeared off the mouth of the Mississippi with a prize, the Invicta España, with a cargo of iron, wine, dry goods, and $6,000 in cash. The vessels sailed to Grand Terre, where the prize was driven aground by storms. The ships were unloaded and then burned. The Louisiana Gazette, reporting this incident, began a long-lived legend by stating that the privateers took their artillery ashore and constructed a fort. All reports of a fort at Grand Terre have been second-hand or apocryphal, while successive groups of American and British professional military men failed to note fortifications of any kind on the island in the period 1810-1815 (Casey 1983:101). As Spanish envoys in New Orleans and Washington complained vociferously, acting Governor Thomas B. Robertson issued a proclamation on September 6, 1810, concerning Barataria smuggling. Lt. Michael B. Carroll sent a detachment of vessels from the New Orleans station to cruise west of the mouth of the Mississippi. These were the brig Vixen and the 4-12 schooner Carolina that would four years later participate in the raid that destroyed the Baratarians’ base. In December 1814, the Carolina also played a prominent role in actions against the British during the campaign around New Orleans. Accompanying these two ships were three gunboats from the New Orleans naval flotilla. Not satisfied with these measures, the Spanish Consul in New Orleans requested a Spanish warship to cruise Louisiana waters (Faye 1940b:442). It is worth noting that the privateers that sailed out of Barataria were not heavily armed. Their small ships usually carried only a few pieces of ordnance, frequently only one. The idea that the Baratarians were “armed to the teeth” is simply another of the many myths surrounding them. While the privateers could overawe the much smaller crews of unarmed Spanish merchantmen with fast sailing and aggressive threats, they were no match for vessels like the Carolina if it was necessary to fight. This schooner, of 230 tons burden, was armed with fourteen or fifteen guns, a mixture of longer-range guns and short-range, heavy-hitting carronades. The Carolina was only a small warship, but in fact, even the small gunboats on the New Orleans naval station were better-armed than the blue-water vessels employed by the privateers (Chappelle 1949:196-218). The privateers had no desire to encounter well-armed naval ships manned by professional gun crews and soldiers, and they were defeated when they did. Only a few armed vessels supplying the smuggling trade continued to cruise in Gulf waters during 1811. The French commissions had all expired, and in August 1811, the last open ports on Haiti were closed. In October, the attention of the Louisiana-based privateers was directed to a plan for attacking the Cuban port of Baracoa. Governor Claiborne heard rumors of these plans and “took steps” to prevent such a plan from being carried out (Faye 1940b:443). Smuggling in the waterways of the Barataria Basin continued despite Claiborne’s actions. In the autumn of 1811, the Customs authorities heard rumors of an illicit shipment of dry goods at Barataria. Midshipman Francis H. Gregory, acting Lieutenant, went down the Mississippi in a gunboat and sailed for Barataria Pass (Grand Pass), while another officer descended Bayou Barataria to Grand Terre. Upon their arrival at Barataria, the naval forces found a prize Portuguese polacre and two other vessels anchored behind Grand Isle. The Baratarians then set their vessels afire and attempted to flee. The U.S. forces managed to save the contents of the vessels as salvage (Faye 1939:1024). In late fall 1811, the Spaniards were bothered by new political developments. On November 11, 1811, the province of Cartagena in the Viceroyalty of New Granada declared its independence from the Spanish crown. The thriving seaport of Cartagena, comparable in size to New Orleans at that time, and its hinterland, became a republic. Since Cartagena did not have a navy of its own, the issue of commissions for privateers was among its first initiatives to resist the might of Spain. Commissions from Cartagena would soon begin to appear in the hands of Louisiana privateers. Some of these commissions were probably issued in blank and completed at the convenience of the holders (Faye 1940a:747). By the autumn of 1811, the Laffite brothers had acquired two privateer vessels. The first, the Misère, a hermaphrodite brig, had captured the copper-bottomed Spanish schooner Dorado (also Dorada or Dorade). In the winter of 1812, the Dorado, with a commission from Cartagena, captured a Spanish schooner off Havana loaded with a cargo of tobacco. This captured schooner was renamed the Sarpis (Faye 1939:1026-1027). With these vessels, the Laffites began to accumulate more prizes and outfitted some of them as privateers, captained by professional sailors. The Laffites eventually were at least part owners of these three privateers and two more, the Blanque and the Philanthrope, as well as (probably) several other vessels (Faye 1940b:747) 4-13 By March 1812, the Baratarian establishment was quite advanced. The status of Spanish intelligence concerning the Baratarians is revealed in this letter of the Spanish Consul of New Orleans: Now we have to fear not only the French pirates who with their cruisers infest this coast, but also the native American privateersmen. I have quite detailed information on the conduct of these men and on the robberies they have made on our national vessels, carrying their booty to the Grand Isle of Barataria and from there smuggling it in to this city [quoted in Faye 1940a:748] Under increasing financial and legal scrutiny, Pierre Lafitte left his family in New Orleans to take up residence on Grand Isle with his brother. Although he continued to sell a few slaves legally, he used Grand Isle as a base of operations to offload the majority of his human cargo. Although their illegal activities were highly profitable, they were also costly, and Pierre, the money manager, was hard pressed to keep up with Jean’s extravagant lifestyle, his own mounting debts, and those of their joint business. The brothers saw their opportunity to pay off their debts and stockpile profits in the British blockade of the American coast, which led to severe shortages in New Orleans. In October, they purchased a captured schooner brought into Barataria, sending an emissary to New Orleans to take on hands. When about 40 men were engaged, he sent them to Grand Isle via Donaldsonville and Bayou Lafourche to avoid the attention of customs and naval officers on the Mississippi River (Davis 2005:87-92). The level of activity at Barataria accelerated with the war and the availability of privateer commissions from Cartagena. The United States did not recognize the government of the Republic of Cartagena for some years, and during the time the Baratarians were active, any commissions from Cartagena were illegitimate under American laws. For his part, Governor W. C. C. Claiborne sought to maintain a semblance of law in the face of frequent complicity on the part of many Louisianans with the privateers and smugglers. The Louisiana Gazette reported on October 13, 1812, that some days before, Captain Frazer of the U.S. revenue cutter then at New Orleans was informed of a privateer or pirate near Barataria. Frazer raised a party of officers and with a Captain Holden took a small boat down Bayou Barataria toward Lake Ouacha. On the way they encountered a pirogue loaded with goods and crewed by six or seven smugglers; the smugglers fled the revenue officers and disappeared into the woods. Frazer took the pirogue to the head of the bayou, to within one-half mile of the river. He asked a local farmer for the use of a cart and oxen to convey the goods to the river. The farmer promised to oblige, but at length the cart did not appear. Frazer sent an African American boy to hurry the cart along. The boy was taken by the smugglers and tied up. At dark, the smugglers ambushed the revenue men, taking them prisoner and threatening their lives should they resist. The revenue agents were forced to descend the bayou some two leagues with the smugglers; but about ten o’clock at night, the agents escaped into the dark woods. With difficulty they reached the river late in the night (Kendall 1927:389). Governor Claiborne, among others, was incensed by this bold disregard for constituted authority. In mid-November 1812, an expedition under U.S. Army officer Andrew H. Holmes seized a number of boats in Barataria Bay containing a large quantity of cinnamon and other articles (Davis 2005:92-93). On March 15, 1813, Claiborne issued a proclamation against the smugglers, and on April 7, 1813, both Jean and Pierre Laffite were indicted for violation of the revenue and neutrality laws of the United States (Fortier 1914:467-468). Writs were issued against them, but the brothers could not be found (de Grummond 1961:18-21). Despite indictment of the Laffites, the Baratarians grew yet bolder. On May 6, 1813, an armed boat captured a Spanish schooner in the Mississippi River below English Turn, carried the vessel out the unguarded Southwest Pass, and made a landing at Grand Terre. Evidently those who seized this Spanish ship did not know that a detachment of Louisiana Militia, mustered into Federal service as the Second Battalion of Louisiana Volunteers under Major H.D. Pierre, was encamped 4-14 at Grand Terre. When the pirates arrived, the soldiers seized the prize and cargo, but the pirates escaped (Faye 1940b:749). The Baratarians defied federal authority again in October 1813 when a body of revenue officers came upon a large quantity of smuggler’s wares in the marsh. Soon, a body of armed men, allegedly under the orders of Jean Laffite, came upon the revenue officers. In the ensuing melee, a smuggler named Andrew Whitman fired upon and fatally wounded Revenue Officer Stout. The Baratarians recaptured the goods (Faye 1940b:749). In December 1813 and January 1814, revenue officers succeeded in apprehending two large pirogues on Bayou Lafourche loaded with illicit goods. One was laden with corn and dry goods hidden under straw. The other pirogue contained a load of iron, stamped with Spanish marks, and hidden under potatoes (WPA of LA 1940:#746). Claiborne issued a second proclamation proscribing the smugglers and privateers and on December 24th, 1813, a $500 reward was placed for Jean Laffite’s arrest. Two days later, Laffite posted an offer of a reward of $5,000 for the arrest of Governor Claiborne (Gayarré 1866 v.4:302-303; de Grummond 1961:20-21). This blatant defiance of authority amused Laffite sympathizers; however, it was apparent to the Laffites that the authorities were becoming less tolerant of their open activities. Meanwhile, the troops at Grand Terre were withdrawn, allowing the Baratarians to make use of the island once again. In January 1814, the Customs Service learned that a group of Africans from a prize cargo sold by the Laffite brothers at Grand Terre would be ascending Bayou Barataria. The revenue men were attacked while intercepting the Baratarians, with one of the officers killed and eight others captured. The captured officers were threatened by the smugglers with deportation to Cartagena (Faye 1940b:749). Claiborne appealed to the state legislature for men and funds to “disperse these desperate men on Lake Barataria, whose piracies have rendered our shores a terror to neutral flags” (quoted in Fortier 1914:468), but the legislature did nothing. On March 23rd, Claiborne issued a third proclamation against the Baratarians (Faye 1940b:749). Despite the passivity of the Louisiana legislature, the federal government treated the wounding and death of federal agents by the privateers as a serious matter. Public apathy, however, stymied efforts to curb the Laffites and the Baratarians. Throughout the spring and early summer of 1814, Baratarian privateers returned to Grand Terre and Grand Isle with their prizes, aggravating Spanish representatives in the United States and embarrassing federal and state authorities; but, federal authorities, with domestic and international motivations, were nearing successful action against the Baratarians. In July 1814, a grand jury indicted two Baratarian captains (one of them Juan Juanilio) on charges of piracy on the high seas. Pierre Laffite was named as an accessory. The grand jury called on Louisianans to aid in removing “the stain that had fallen on all classes of society in the minds of the good people of other states” (quoted in Fortier 1914:468). On July 8, 1814, Pierre Laffite was arrested on the street in New Orleans, placed in the jail at the Cabildo (Faye 1940b:751), and held without bail (Vogel 1992:162). Jean Laffite publicly expressed disdain for the authorities’ actions. In a letter to the Louisiana Gazette published August 18, 1814, he styled himself “Napoleon Junior” (Vogel 1992:157). However, the arrest of Pierre Laffite may have signaled a change in an important part of public opinion, and Jean Laffite probably became aware that his situation was likely to grow more difficult. On August 10, 1814, the Spanish schooner La Cometa, under captain and owner Jayme Fontenals, sailed from Havana for Pensacola with a cargo of sugar, tafia, and coffee. On August 18th, La Cometa was captured by the Laffites’ La Misère, captained by Antonio Angelo. The master, passengers, and crew of La Cometa were not brutally handled, but were put ashore on the desolate Florida coast with inadequate supplies. After several days the victims of the privateers walked into Pensacola, “nearly naked and perished with hunger” (WPA of LA 1940:#730). Captain Fontenals of La Cometa proved to be a brave and determined man. The captain and 4-15 crew of La Misère had made no attempt to disguise their identity. Fontenals sailed from Pensacola to New Orleans, and then to Grand Terre where he confronted the privateers, and “after some difficulty” he purchased back his ship from the Laffites for $350. The ship was minus its cargo and required extensive repair and refitting. Fontenals was still at Grand Terre trying to get his vessel seaworthy when U.S. forces arrived on the island to suppress the Baratarians on September 16, 1814 (WPA of LA 1940:#730). Later testimony revealed much about the Baratarians’ operations on Grand Terre and Grand Isle. William Hoey, a seaman, left New Orleans to sell provisions at Barataria in May 1814 and remained there until the raid. Hoey observed several prizes taken, including a captured a ship laden with dry goods, gin, and flour, which he believed was under Danish colors. Two other captured ships, one Spanish and carrying ingots of silver and gold on board, both carried cocoa and dry goods in their cargoes that were sold at Barataria. Daniel McMullen and other witnesses estimated that there were usually three or four hundred persons assembled at Barataria buying prize goods and selling supplies brought from New Orleans, and that Jean Laffite had command, with Vincent Gambie as his subordinate. James Haskins went to Barataria in July 1814, seeking work as a sailor. He stated that the privateers brought in a Russian ship laden with dry goods and gin, and that “there was a great concourse of people at Grand Terre, sometimes as many as twelve hundred” (WPA of LA 1940:#760) buying prize goods and selling supplies. Not everyone on Grand Terre participated in Laffite’s organization. Several witnesses make clear that a substantial portion of the people on the island at any one time were there buying and selling, and were not privateer crewmen or otherwise regular members of some Baratarian organization. Further, despite legendary stories about his authority, it seems likely that Jean Laffite had only limited or no real authority over privateer captains that owned their own ships, and their capacity as “fences” for goods taken by the privateers was most likely a relationship of convenience. That the Baratarians were no longer privateers but pirates is supported by a considerable body of evidence. Christoval Iuando of the schooner La Caridad, which was carrying provisions from New Orleans to Cuba. Iuando testified that on October 2, 1813, his ship was pursued by “two vessels of a hostile and piratical character, which on getting within range of cannon shot, fired upon her, first hoisting American colors, and afterwards a strange flag... the flag of the insurgents of Cartagena” (WPA of LA 1940:#760). William Godfrey, who sailed on the Petit Milan, testified that he knew of the operations of the Grand Milan, under Captain Dominique You, which was fitted out at Cat Island. The crew of the Grand Milan was a mixture of Spaniards, French, and Italians, and the vessel had no French commission or any other. The “principal persons engaged at Barataria” were the two Laffites, Dominique Youx, and Captains Marqueire, Sauvinet, and Gambie, none of whom he believed to have any commission. He stated further that the vessels with “Carthagenian” colors had never been to Cartagena, and that he himself helped manufacture the flags. At least three privateers were fitted out and armed at Barataria; when the Dorado was fitted out, the captain was ordered to fly French colors (WPA of Louisiana 1940:#779). At this time (1814) there were no valid French privateering commissions available. Michel Siroc, member of the crew of the privateer Denis Sim under Captain Franco Tomas, testified that under the colors of Cartagena they took Swedish, Spanish and Portuguese vessels, and also took a large Russian brig laden with sailcloth canvas, sheeting, iron, soap, etc. The captain of the Russian vessel died on board, and the remainder of the crew was put ashore at Cuba. Bertrand Priella, a crewman in an English schooner, stated that he was captured by an armed schooner called La Mysell (likely La Misere), flying no colors. Priella and another Frenchman were taken aboard the pirate vessel, and the remainder of the crew was put in a boat. He spent one month on Grand Terre, having been hired by Jean Laffite to work on repairs to the Petit Milan. Joseph Sivane testified that he went to Barataria in August 1814, and while there 4-16 saw the arrival of three privateers and four prizes. He stated that after one of the prizes brought in by the Dorado had been fully unloaded, Laffite ordered the ship burned. Sivane did not believe from what he saw that any of these privateers were commissioned by any nation, and said that he believed them to be pirates. They frequently changed the names of their vessels. It is difficult to estimate the total value of shipping seized by the Baratarian privateers. Throughout this period, a large number of vessels were captured and taken to Chênière Caminada, Grand Isle, and Grand Terre, or plundered at sea and destroyed. Spanish authorities estimated that privateer René Beluche alone captured and liquidated as much as one million dollars’ worth of Spanish shipping between 1812 and 1814 (de Grummond 1961:24). In retrospect, contentions that the Baratarians were really no better than pirates seem perfectly justified. It was finally determined to take military action to suppress the Baratarians’ brazen flouting of law and order. Circumstances for the Laffites had already taken a downturn with the arrest of Pierre Laffite in July; but, in the summer of 1814, Secretary of the Navy ordered (“Commodore”) Daniel T. Patterson, commander of the New Orleans naval station, to destroy or disperse the illicit establishment of Barataria (Cusachs 1919:424). If Jean Laffite had been removed from the dramatis personae of events in Louisiana in the summer of 1814, either by arrest or by leaving the state and its waters, it is doubtful that legends about him would have attained the monumental proportions that have developed. The invasion of Louisiana by the British provided Jean Laffite with the opportunity to begin the rehabilitation of his own reputation. British strategic planners in the Caribbean were well aware of the Baratarians and their activities before their military operations began in Louisiana territory (Sugden 1979:160). In May 1814, the British established a base at the Apalachicola River in Florida to coordinate military activity with the Creek and Seminole Indians. Captain Hugh Pigot of the British warship Orpheus and his subordinate George Woodbine gathered intelligence on the Baratarians and reported to their superior, Admiral Alexander Cochrane: I am informed... the disaffected in Barrataria consist principally of French creoles and Indians that would cheerfully assist in any operations against the Americans if afterwards protected by Great Britain. They act as pirates to all nations, are in number about 800 and are daily increasing to the dread of New Orleans [quoted in Sugden 1979:161, sic throughout]. Cochrane expressed the belief that 3,000 British troops, assisted by the Indians, Spaniards and disaffected French (meaning the Baratarians) “would drive the Americans entirely out of Louisiana and the Floridas” (quoted in Sugden 1979:161). A British contingent was sent to meet with Laffite on Grand Isle, but ultimately made no offer to the Baratarians. After the British departed on September 4th, Laffite prepared a letter that has been reproduced in countless scholarly and popular works about the Baratarian’s leader (Latour 1964:xii-xiii). Laffite sent the letter to Mr. Blanque, a representative in the Louisiana Assembly, who in a note to Governor Claiborne, denied personal acquaintance with Laffite. This is unlikely to have been true since Blanque was the namesake of a Baratarian privateer vessel. Blanque forwarded Laffite’s letter, together with copies of the documents delivered by the British (Latour 1964:vii-xii). In this letter, another sent on September 7th to Mr. Blanque, and one sent on the same date to Governor Claiborne, Laffite trumpeted his patriotism, asked for amelioration of his brother’s situation, and claimed that his privateering activities were regular even if his smuggling was not. He blamed “vices” in U.S. Customs and revenue laws for his inability to abide by them. Many have taken Laffite’s letters at face value, including his suggestions of the military importance of the information he forwarded. In fact, the information contained in Lockyer’s documents was extremely general and contained no specific statement of British strategic 4-17 intentions, as could be expected since it was freely given by British naval officers into the hands of a privateer of unknown loyalty, or worse, a pirate. Realistically, the British could not be expected to reveal the details of their plans to Laffite unless he definitively had entered their service; and Jackson and others knew very well by the end of August that a British strike at New Orleans was likely and that reconnaissance of the coast was under way (Bassett 1935:40). However, the patriotic rhetoric employed by Laffite persuaded many of his sincerity. Laffite’s patriotic posturing has been sufficient to erase the memory of several violent attacks on federal authority and the deaths of federal officers, as well as color any interpretation of his later departure from the United States. Laffite was probably attempting to delay the action against his operations, which he suspected was coming, by making efforts to improve his stock with government officials. It is also possible that his principal motivation in writing the letters was to reduce any provocation that would result from the U.S. government believing he might cooperate with the British. He may not have seriously expected that the offer of service to the United States made in his letter to Claiborne would be accepted, but he could hope that it helped his prospects of remaining unmolested for the time being. On the day after Laffite wrote his first letter, September 5th, Pierre Laffite escaped from the civil prison at the Cabildo (Vogel 1992:164); but, despite Pierre’s escape, Claiborne considered Jean Laffite’s offer of cooperation. Claiborne believed the offer serious enough to address it at a war council meeting with Commodore Patterson, Colonel George T. Ross of the United States Army, and Major General Jacques Villeré, commander of the Louisiana militia. Preparations for the military expedition against Barataria were actually delayed while Laffite’s proposal was being considered. Claiborne was in favor of accepting Laffite’s offer of assistance, but the Governor did not have a vote on the council which voted against the proposal (Vogel 1992:164). By September 10th, Pierre Laffite had reached Grand Isle where he composed letters for Blanque and Claiborne approving his brother’s actions and stating that he was “fully determined to follow the plan that might reconcile us with the government” (Latour 1964:xv). About the same time, however, the Laffites received information the U.S. naval force was being fitted out in New Orleans to proceed against their operations (Latour 1964:23). Lacking confidence that their men would or could mount a defense and with a number of potential buyers there on the island, there was no other option but to hoist the white flag while the Lafitte brothers manned a pirogue and escaped, ascending up Bayou Lafourche and on to the German Coast plantation of Alexander Labranche (Fortier 1914:469; Arthur 1952:89). The Baratarians had not removed or concealed the goods they had despite the knowledge that the expedition was being prepared, but continued to have daily sales, hoping to sell as much as possible before the arrival of the expedition (WPA of LA 1940:#760). Patterson sailed downriver from New Orleans with Colonel Ross and 70 men of the 44th Regiment of U.S. Infantry on September 11th, 1814. The following day the expedition was joined by the Carolina at Plaquemines, and on the 13th, was joined by five U.S. gunboats #5, #23, #156, #162, and #163 (Cusachs 1919:424). Patterson and his men confiscated a variety of goods including spices, medicines, wine and spirits, iron, glassware, cloth, and cannons, as well as large sums of money. Several vessels were captured and those deemed less seaworthy were burned. Among the papers Patterson discovered the signals the pirates used to communicate from Grand Isle to approaching vessels (Davis 2005:189-191). To avoid capture, the Laffites’ escaped using the smugglers’ route up Bayou Lafourche to pass through Canal de Companie to Lake Ouacha and on to the German Coast. They subsequently used the same route back to Bayou Lafourche, then through Attakapas Canal and Lake Verret to Brashear (now Morgan) City, where they stayed for a while under the protection of some associates. Dominique Youx was taken during Patterson’s raid, as was Vincent Gambie. Several vessels taken were “owned” by the Laffites, either purchased by them or taken a prizes 4-18 and subsequently utilized as cruisers. The Laffites must have known that the loss of their ships and prizes in court was possible, if not probable, should the Navy seize them. At least some of the vessels may not have been ready to sail at the time word of the impending raid reached the Laffites, since after the capture of the ships, Patterson’s men required a week to get the vessels seaworthy. It is also possible that the Laffites failed to inform the other Baratarians that the expedition was coming. From the testimony of witnesses at the time of the raid, it appears possible that the Baratarians were not expecting the arrival of the American forces, at least not so soon, and were certainly not prepared to resist with force (Davis 2005:216-217). Lieutenant Patterson estimated some 800 to 1000 persons at Barataria when he arrived, but his later court testimony estimated about 500 persons, which is probably more accurate (WPA of LA 1940:#760). John Oliver, on Grand Isle during the attack, testified in District Court that there were about 400 persons “at Barataria” at the time of the raid, including those persons present for the auction; and that “with their arms and force they were capable, if inclined, of beating off the force or preventing them from coming in.” Oliver stated that there were no cannon mounted on the shore, but about eighteen on the privateer vessels. However, at the time the expedition was sighted, “Laffite’s men did not prepare for action, they had not men enough to move the privateers or fight these guns [on the ships] if they had a mind to” unless assisted by the New Orleanians present. When Oliver was asked if the commanders of the Baratarians manifested any intention to fight when they learned that the expedition had arrived, he replied “no, their intention was to escape” (WPA of LA 1940:#760). About 80 out of the several hundred people gathered there when the flotilla arrived were arrested. Many were not captains or crews of privateers, but tradesmen, merchants, and probably assorted hangers-on. On Grand Isle, Ross’ soldiers found and burned forty badly constructed houses thatched with palmetto leaves (Davis 2005:207; Patterson 1814:166). From this evidence it seems unlikely that the Baratarians had built any elaborate structures to shelter either themselves or their prize goods although they had a sort of warehouse at Chênière Caminada (Davis 2005:205). The Baratarians had apparently erected what has been interpreted as a “telegraph” or semaphore signal on the island (Bassett 1935:66-68; WPA of LA 1940:#760; Vogel 1992:167). Unfortunately, there is no further documentation of what was constructed by the Baratarians at Grand Terre. All of the structures were burned, after being emptied of their contents by the soldiers. Unofficial notification of the Patterson-Ross expedition’s success quickly reached New Orleans, by way of garbled reports of fugitive Baratarians straggling into the city (Bassett 1935:54). The Committee of Safety addressed a letter to General Jackson on September 18th, discussing possible British approaches to New Orleans and suggesting measures to secure them. After several more likely routes were discussed, the letter stated: [T]he last Route to which the Committee will call your attention ... is by Barataria—here is a port occupied until lately by a number of Buccanees [sic] under the Carthiginian [sic] flag, it is accessible only by vessels drawing about 10 feet of water and is capable of being strongly defended against any attack either from the sea or the Bayou and lake by which it is surrounded, this port should be secured by a Battery and two or three Gun Boats ... this approach is naturally very difficult [Bassett 1935:52-53] Both the Committee of Safety and Governor Claiborne recommended posts at Grand Terre and the Temple, at the confluence of Bayou Pierot and Bayou Rigolettes near Lake Salvadore. Claiborne stated: “If the enemy should possess himself of Grand terre, it will be vastly difficult to dislodge him, and he may, and no doubt will be daily reinforced by fugitive slaves” (Bassett 1935:55). In the accelerating course of events, Jackson did not see fit to allocate resources to 4-19 securing the Barataria route by occupying Grand Terre, but instead established a post at the Temple, a shell mound that stood about five feet above high tide (Davis 2005:109). A group of Laffite’s friends consulted United States District Court Judge Dominic Hall on behalf of the Baratarians and the Judge advised them to persuade the legislature to pass a resolution calling for amnesty for the Baratarians (Brooks 1961:87). On December 14, 1814, the Louisiana Legislature passed a resolution that amnesty be offered to all who had been “violators of the Revenue Laws of the United States” if they enlisted in the U.S. Army or Navy for defence of the state, and that the President of the United States should grant a full pardon to such persons if they “continue in such service according to the time of their engagement” (Bassett 1935:114). Claiborne concurred with the terms and on December 17th invited the Baratarians to “join the Standards of the United States” (Rowland 1917:324). Jackson consented to an interview with Jean Laffite, arranged by Livingston, and possibly with help from Latour as well. Laffite offered the services of the Baratarians to the United States, admitted that they had broken the revenue laws, and avowed their loyalty to the country (Latour 1964:71-72). Jackson, in dire need of resources from any quarter, accepted the assistance of the Baratarians, supposedly under the conditions stipulated by the legislature, stating that should their service be creditable he would recommend their pardon by the President, as Claiborne had also said (Brooks 1961:87; Rowland 1917:324). Although the Baratarians made up less than two percent of Jackson’s troops at the Battle of New Orleans, their contributions were celebrated by Jackson and the popular press. On the basis of the Baratarians’ service in the campaign, a pardon was issued by President James Madison on February 6, 1815. Court proceedings had already been dropped at the instruction of Governor Claiborne (Rowland 1917:338). Almost one year after the defeat of the British at Chalmette, Jean Laffite wrote a letter to President Madison in an attempt to receive restitution of some portion of his losses at Grand Isle and Grand Terre, by dint of his service against the British invaders in the campaign. Laffite wrote claiming that he “had not the least happrehension [sic] of the equity of the U.S.;” he stated that he had purposefully left his vessels at Grand Terre knowing that the expedition was being prepared against the establishment “in spite of the representations of my officers who were for making sail to Cartagena... my view in preventing the departure of my vessells [sic] was in order to retain about four hundred skillful artillers [sic] in the country, which could be of the utmost importance for its defence” (quoted in Faye 1939:752). It is difficult to credit Laffite’s claim in light of the observations of less-interested witnesses that the Baratarians at Grand Terre were unable to man their twenty available guns effectively on September 16, 1814 (WPA of LA 1940:#760). Whether or not Madison took any notice of Laffite’s letter ten months later, the federal government made no move to indemnify Laffite (Faye 1939:752; Vogel 1990:68). In 1817, Jean Laffite left United States territory permanently to recoup his fortunes on the coast of Texas, which was at that time part of Mexico. After an adventuresome career based in Galveston, Jean Laffite most likely died on the coast of Yucatan in 1826 (Vogel 1990:68-71, 75- 77). However, many of his men either stayed on or returned to Grand Isle. It was reported that Vincent Gambi lived within thirty miles of Isle Derniere when an 1856 hurricane leveled the resort on that island, killing residents and tourists alike. It was suggested that Gambi’s men were the scavengers who arrived on the island immediately after the hurricane passed, clipping off swollen fingers to steal jewels from the dead bodies and reportedly even finishing off one man by drowning. Six pirates were later hung for the crimes (Sallenger 2009:186, 206-207). Sugarcane Production in the Antebellum Period. The 1820 census of the parish showed a total population of 3,755 persons, of whom 968 were slaves. A large crop of sugarcane in 1828 convinced many Bayou Lafourche planters to abandon cotton growing for sugarcane. A cane culture boom developed across south Louisiana, with a consequent rise in the value of alluvial lands along the Mississippi River, Bayou Lafourche, and Bayou Teche. By 1830, the 4-20 population of Lafourche Parish had increased to 5,503 persons, of whom 2,153 persons were slaves. Many smaller farmers sold their tracts to better-capitalized planters, and settlement by Anglo-Americans along Bayou Lafourche increased in the 1830s, concentrating on the west bank of the upper bayou. By the mid-1830s, tracts along Bayou Lafourche were valued at $50 per superficial arpent, and the Federal government offered rear lands (to the swamp side of the forty- arpent line) for $1.25 per acre. The rear lands were often too wet for the cultivation of sugarcane until the post-Civil War period, when more powerful and efficient pumping machinery was developed. The rear tracts were nevertheless valuable as sources of firewood, used in the processing of sugarcane with steam machinery. Between 1840 and 1860, as the parish’s capacity for growing and manufacturing sugar cane became known, the population experienced tremendous growth. In 1840 there were 7,303 residents of Lafourche Parish, of whom 3,923 were slaves, and by 1860, the total aggregate population swelled to 14,044, of whom 6,395 were slaves (Fortier 1914: 26; Weinstein 1994: 51; Brown et al. 2000: 73; USHCDB; Pugh 1888:167). While the Lafourche region flourished, development of the marshlands below Galliano proceeded slowly. Important to the developing sugar economy of the region was the rise of transportation by steamboats, which replaced the pirogue and the cordelle flat-boat (towed by men, horses, or mules) as the main cargo-carrier. The first steamboat on Bayou Lafourche had been the Eagle of Captain Streck, which appeared about 1825. Streck remained prominent for many years, operating a weekly packet from New Orleans to Lockport. Steamboat traffic on Bayou Lafourche was made significantly easier by a network of navigable canals that were constructed during the antebellum decades. From early in the antebellum period, Harang’s Canal connected Lake Salvador with the Mississippi River. In 1825, a canal was excavated connecting Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Terrebonne at what is now Thibodaux. In 1833 William Fields donated five arpents of frontage on both sides of Bayou Lafourche to the Barataria and Lafourche Canal Company, on the stipulation that a canal be constructed from Lake Salvador to Bayou Terrebonne, crossing Bayou Lafourche at what is now Lockport. By 1847 the Barataria and Lafourche Canal Company canal connecting Bayou Lafourche with Lake Salvador, and the Lake Fields Canal connecting Bayou Lafourche with Bayou Terrebonne, had been completed, although the lock at Longville (now Lockport) was not finished until 1852. A wide variety of small craft traversed Bayou Lafourche and its connecting waterways, carrying the agricultural products of the region, including cotton, corn, indigo, molasses, rice, sugar tafia, and lumber to markets elsewhere, while transporting other products into the region (Pearson et al. 1989:48- 49,104-105). At the end of the antebellum period, there remained little substantial development along Bayou Lafourche below Lockport (Figure 4-3). The barrier islands near the mouth of Bayou Lafourche were, however, developed by enterprising planters. For example, on Grand Terre Island, the Forstall Plantation was a successful sugar plantation. Albeit short-lived, the plantation was at the end of the steamboat circuit that originated in New Orleans by way of Bayou Lafourche through Donaldsonville. The New Orleans Custom House contains records of vessels associated with the plantations on Grand Terre, particularly under the ownership of the Forstalls. Table 4-1 is a compilation of vessels associated with Grand Terre, and indicates that the vessels calling on Grand Terre were larger and of deeper draft than the vessels associated with Grand Isle (Saltus and Pearson 1990:14). This is consistent with the superior harbor on the bay side of Grand Terre. Thirty-six percent of the vessels associated with Grand Terre were steamboats, which likely carried a major share of the sugar produced on the Grande Terre Plantation. The steamboats tended to be substantially longer and wider than the sailing vessels associated with Grand Terre, but of much shallower draft (Table 4-1). Table 4-2 is a list of steam boats specifically associated with the Forstall plantation. 4-21 Table 4-1. Vessels enrolled at the New Orleans Custom House associated with Grand Terre, 1804-1870 (from Saltus & Pearson 1990:16). Vessel Number Construction Length Width Depth Type of ves- location sels Sloop 2 North Atlantic 50.4’ - 57’ 16.3’ - 20’ 5.3’ - 5’ Schooner 7 Western River 32 13.8’ 4’ Schooner 6 North Atlantic 45’ - 71’ 15.1’ - 22.5’ 4.3’ - 7.6’ (avg. 60.3’) (avg. 17.2’) (avg. 6.4’) Bark 2 North Atlantic 94.5’ - 98.0’ 23.9’ - 26.3’ 12’ - 13’ Brig 7 North Atlantic 70.4’ - 117.1’ 21.0’ - 26.1’ 8.7’ - 12.4’ (avg. 85.4’) (avg. 20.7’) (avg. 10.0) Ship 4 North Atlantic 81.3’ - 110.0’ 23.3’ - 30.0’ 9.4’ - 13.3’ (avg. 93.2’) (avg. 26.5’) (avg.12.6’) Steam- 8 Eastern River 96.5’ - 177.5’ 11.3’ - 25.3’ 3.9’ - 13.0’ boat (after 1823) (avg. 123.7’) (avg. 20.9’) (avg. 8.1’) Steam- 8 Western River 76.4’ - 172.0’ 18.3’ - 28.0’ 4.1’ - 8.0’ boat (after 1837) (avg. 123.5’) (avg. 19.9’) (avg. 5.9’) Table 4-2. Steamboats associated with the Forstall Plantation (from Saltus, n.d.). Vessel Name Place Built Date Built Tons Burden Depth Walker Pennsylvania 1839 195 6.5’ Aid Cincinnatti 1834 138 4.14’ Bolivar New York, NY 1826 153 7.67’ Clipper Indiana 1840 299 6.75 Phenix Louisiana 1837 420 10.1’ Rebecca New York -- 60 3.9’ Southerner South Carolina 1839 179 7.6’ Alexander Gordon Cincinnatti 1837 65 5.4’ Bonita Cincinnatti 1832 140 6.3’ Delta Cincinnatti 1834 100 5.2’ Levant Cincinnatti 1835 270 8’ Cuba Marylands 1837 563 13’ The Forstall’s Grande Terre plantation appears in P.A. Champomier’s Statement of the Sugar Crop Made in Louisiana for only five years in the antebellum period. The crops of 1850 through 1854 show a high yield of 314 hogsheads of sugar in 1850 and a low of 150 hogsheads in 1852. It seems that the extreme southern latitude of Grand Terre and the moderating influence of the Gulf may have allowed the Forstalls to produce a reasonable (but not extremely large) crop in what were otherwise not ideal cane-growing conditions. In Louisiana, cane grows best in rich alluvial soils like the silty loams of the natural levees of the Mississippi. The mucky soil of Grand Terre was certainly not ideal, and frequent inundation of the island with salt water by hur- ricanes also would not have improved cane productivity. It is not known that the Forstalls perse- vered with cane cultivation after 1854, although an article in the St. Nicholas Magazine in 1888 suggested that cane growing had continued into the post-Civil War period (Kendall 1940:468). There are numerous possibilities as to why cane cultivation is not documented at Grande Terre in 4-22 the late antebellum period, but unfortunately, events and conditions on the plantation during the Civil War and emancipation periods are largely unknown. That sugarcane cultivation was a possibility at all was testament to the fact that conditions were much different than they are today. The land was much more robust and fresh groundwater more plentiful before the erosional forces of the twentieth century prevailed; these lower barrier islands are vestiges of their former largess. Then too, the area around Port Fourchon has eroded on a massive scale. The Civil War, 1861-1865 The current project area saw little direct effect from military action during the Civil War. Most military activity in the Bayou Lafourche region involved the rail line of the New Orleans, Opelousas, and Great Western Railroad, which ran from New Orleans to Brashear City (Morgan City) via Boutte, Paradis, Des Allemands, Raceland Junction, Lafourche Crossing (east of Thibodaux) and Gibson. In October of 1862, General Godfrey Weitzel led a Union Army down Bayou Lafourche from Donaldsonville while other Union troops approached Bayou Lafourche from New Orleans on the rail line. After defeating the Confederates at Labadieville on October 27, the Union forces occupied Thibodaux on October 28. A small earthwork fortification was constructed on the northern bank of Bayou Lafourche at the Company Canal lock (at modern Rita). The Confederates under General Richard Taylor struck across the Atchafalaya Basin in June 1863, advancing past Thibodaux before being defeated by Union forces at Lafourche Crossing on June 21. Following Taylor’s thrust eastward, the Lafourche region was relatively quiet, and in October 1863, the Federal army established the District of Lafourche, with Thibodaux as its headquarters. The district included Assumption, Terrebonne, and Lafourche parishes, as well as portions of other parishes located east and west of Bayou Lafourche (Bergeron 1985: 204). The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries The population of Lafourche Parish continued to grow throughout the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. In 1870, the population consisted of 14,719 persons, of whom 6,659 were African American. The aggregate population grew to 19,113 persons in 1880 and 22,095 persons in 1890. The 1895 atlas shows the Cut Off community as the southernmost named settlement on Bayou Lafourche (Figure 4-4). The population increased dramatically to 28,882 in 1900 and to 33,111 in 1910. At this time, the population remained mostly rural, with 88 percent of residents (or more than 29,000 persons) living outside of urban areas. The population of the parish declined in 1920, to 30,344 residents, but it recovered slightly in 1930, when the census registered 32,419 residents. In 1940, 38,615 persons resided in the parish, of whom 5,635 were African American. In 1950, Lafourche Parish had an aggregate population of 42,209 residents (USHCDB). The end of the Civil War brought with it a complete upheaval in the labor system of the sugar plantations of south Louisiana. Most plantations were severely burdened by debt and handicapped by the sudden loss of slave labor. Faced with impending financial disaster, owners turned to wage labor and share-cropping. In the Louisiana cane region, some plantations were subdivided among smaller growers, but as economies of scale became more important in cane production, other plantations were consolidated into larger units. On the larger farms, plantation railways developed in the late-nineteenth century carrying the harvested cane to advanced industrial sugarhouses, which each processed the cane of thousands of acres. Lafourche Parish above Golden Meadow remained characterized by cane culture, and the parish was a leading producer in the Louisiana cane industry throughout the end of the historic period. In 1910, Lafourche was in the top three sugar-growing parishes in the state, but farmers also grew truck 4-23 4-24 Figure 4-4: Excerpt from Louisiana (Rand McNally and Co. 1895). vegetables and fruit trees, and raised cattle (Borne 1945: 182; Bouchereau 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1911; Goins and Caldwell 1995). The Barataria plantations on Grand Isle and Chênière Caminada began to accommodate tourists after the war. The Grand Isle Hotel opened in 1866, and the tourist trade was well- developed by 1889, when Lafcadio Hearn wrote of the conversion of former plantations to “bathing-resort[s]” in his novel, Chita. Since the war, the ocean reclaimed its own; -- the cane-fields have degenerated into sandy plains, over which tramways wind to the smooth beach; --the plantation-residences have been converted into rustic hotels, and the negro- quarters remodeled into villages of cozy cottages for the reception of guests [quoted in Swanson 1975:161]. Like Isle Derniere in 1856, the nineteenth-century resort industry on Grand Isle and Chênière Caminada was shattered by the 1893 hurricane that swept away large swaths of the already tenuous land (Swanson 1975:161-167). Louisiana during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries experienced a boom in cypress timber extraction and processing, and the upper Bayou Lafourche region shared in the phenomenon. The so-called “golden age” of cypress lumbering in Louisiana was a brief but intense episode of dramatic change in the cultural and natural geography of southern Louisiana. In 1938, Lafourche Parish was calculated to have 20 to 40 million board feet of standing timber, and had produced 5,970,544 feet of cypress lumber and 5,961,811 feet of ash and hickory lumber during the years 1934, 1935, and 1936 (Laney 1938: 173). Characteristic of this industrial logging period was the purchase or lease of large swamp tracts by logging companies, who moved in with temporary support and processing facilities. The logging companies altered the landscape by building canals or railway/tram embankments, and then removed virtually all trees of marketable size. Workers moved throughout the cypress region, residing in barracks or quarters boats while employed in a particular area, and then leaving when extraction on any tract had been completed. By 1925, virgin cypress stands were almost entirely depleted, and the large cypress mills went into decline. Smaller, portable mills became more prevalent (Holmes 1986:109). By the early 1920s, Lafourche Parish was producing commercial quantities of sugar, corn, sweet and Irish potatoes, garden truck, oats, peas, beans, figs, pears, oranges, and grapes. The parish was also known for its game and fur industry, with trappers bringing in muskrat, mink, otter, and raccoon pelts. The population of the parish had reached more than 30,000 persons, with 3,500 of those residing in Thibodaux. By 1928, the parish boasted of 16 sugar factories (all in upper Bayou Lafourche), one cotton gin, one moss factory, and three sawmills. A covert economic activity in the lower Lafourche area during Prohibition (1917-1933) was liquor smuggling. The cultural and economic isolation of the lower Lafourche area was reduced by the Huey Long-era Louisiana Highway Commission construction of an improved, second- class (or “automobile”) road to Grand Isle, designated LA Hwy 620 (LA Dept. of Ag.: 1924: 169; LA Dept. of Ag. 1928; State Farm Road Atlas 1939; Kane 1944:218-219; WPA of LA 1945). The next great chapter in the economic life of Lafourche Parish was the growth of the petroleum industry. Petroleum exploration began in Lafourche Parish in the late 1920s, and the Louisiana Land and Exploration Co drilled the Leeville Field Well No. 1 in April 1930. The shrunken hamlet of Leeville began slow regrowth, since it was some time before workers in the surrounding oil field began to reside in the area full-time. During the 1930s, the Leeville Field developed into one of the largest in the Louisiana Gulf Coast region, and the town of Leeville received an influx of settlers. However, Golden Meadow eclipsed Leeville in size and economic 4-25 importance. By 1936, Lafourche parish had produced 7,885,141 barrels of oil and 592,192 cubic feet of natural gas; in 1938, nearly one hundred wells were active in the Leeville field, and the following year, the Leeville field alone produced 1.33 million barrels of oil (Borne 1945: 182; WPA of LA 1945:416-417; Laney 1938: 173; Ditto 1980; Richadelle 2001; Louisiana GIS CD 1999). The area of lower Bayou Lafourche, from Raceland to Grand Isle, was described during the World War II era in the W.P.A.’s Louisiana: A Guide to the State: ...To the left across the bayou, between Raceland and Golden Meadow, occasional sugar refineries, cane fields, and plantation homes are visible; on the right, bordering the road, is a continuous row of unpretentious houses, with small adjoining fields and gardens. The southern part of the route, from Golden Meadow to Grand Isle, traverses bleak marshes, open stretches of water, and “floating prairies”… Desolate and devoid of dwellings, this section is in marked contrast with the populous upper reaches of Bayou Lafourche... Lockport … [is] a small shrimping town with its own canning factory, occupies both sides of Bayou Lafourche at a point where the Intracoastal Waterway branches west from the bayou, connecting with Lake Long Field Lake, popular places for fishing and duck hunting. The Cajuns of the Lockport vicinity have several curious customs. A married woman is often referred to by her husband’s first name. Thus the wives of men whose Christian names are Jacques, Philip, and Edmond are called “Miss Jacques,” “Miss Philip,” and “Miss Edmond.” Trucks are sent out along the road by owners of dance halls to transport people to the weekly dances-- separate trucks for men and women in order that the occupants may be packed closely. Before the days of automobiles, groups went to dances on barges and boats. Figs, plums, pears, peaches and vegetables are widely grown... Some of the small sugar cane farmers crop on shares, but almost all of them have gardens, cows, and chickens. The highway... passes the derricks of the Harang Oil Field, discovered by seismograph in 1933. La Rose (5 alt, 185 pop.), on the east side of the bayou and reached by bridge, has a small residential area on the west side. ... South of La Rose the levee banks gradually grow lower and the bayou widens out. The arable land along the bayou extends only a short distance backs and the homes are close together. The natives use the levee for vegetable plots, fruit trees, and small patches of cane. Highly elevated clotheslines display family wash to passing boats. Because of the limited farm land, cattle are pastured on the ridges and mounds that rise a few feet above the swamps bordering the bayou. Pirogues, instead of horses, are employed by the herdsmen in rounding up their hardy livestock, and trained cow hounds are used to find cattle that have bogged in muck. Dairy animals, pastured on coteaux (little hills) nearer the levee, go back and forth to their grazing islets through fenced in lanes called manches. Cut-Off (4 alt., 450 pop.) is another shrimping village bisected by the bayou. 4-26 South of Cut-Off houses become fewer and houseboats moored among water hyacinths begin to make their appearance. Small cemeteries are seen at intervals. On the bayou, fishing luggers and trim motor launches pass frequently... the old- fashioned fishing luggers with their varicolored sails have been superseded by motorboats... With the rapid development of the oil and fish industries, much of the former provincialism formerly existing along lower Bayou Lafourche is disappearing. A French patois is still quite commonly spoken, but many of the natives have adopted their own brand of English... Golden Meadow, (2 alt., 2,500 pop.), chiefly on the west side of the bayou, is a thriving community with shrimp factories and packing sheds. A fleet of 300 fishing luggers, bringing in shrimp, oysters, speckled trout, redfish, sheepshead, and pompano, makes its headquarters here. The town is also a receiving station for fish shipments from other sections, chiefly Barataria. Of comparatively recent origin, Golden Meadow might be described as a “boom” fishing center. Its business and residential sections have not had time to grow up to its commercial importance; they retain the picturesqueness of the old fishing village. Wooden stores and houses, interspersed with shrimp-drying platforms and packing sheds, are built on piles out over the water and other buildings crowd the highway on the inland side. Numerous houseboats bob up and down in slips or are pulled up high and dry on the bayou bank. Skiffs are moored to every available post... Boats [for sport fishing] can be rented here.... South of Golden Meadow, farms come to an end. Bayou Lafourche is wide and clear, its low banks bordered with green bushes and palmetto. Occasional shacks and outbuildings are thatched with palmetto. Levell, grassy marshes, the haunt of fur-bearing animals and migratory birds, stretch away to the horizon. Although from the road these marshes appear as dry as a western prairie, they are interspersed with wet patches and “floating prairies.” La 620 crosses Bayou Lafourche... to Leeville, which consists of little besides an oil field with a few scattered stores and shacks. The oil men who work here usually have living quarters farther up the bayou and travel back and forth by boat or automobile... Boats can be rented at Leeville ($8-$10 a day) for fishing in nearby Lake Pelican and Timbalier Bay... Between Leeville and Grand Isle La 620 passes through marshland in which, for miles at a stretch, there are no signs of human habitation. Grassy growths, broken only by stretches of open water, and with an underlying ooze of indeterminate depth, fill the landscape as far as the eye can see, creating an atmosphere of bleakness and desolation peculiar to the unreclaimed areas of the coast. Waterfowl wing past or swim in nearby lagoons, while an occasional rabbit or possum shares the right-of-way with the motorist. Perched on the telephone wires that line the highway brilliant blue kingfishers scream at intruders. In the warmer months white and blue herons reluctantly abandon fishing in the reedbrakes beside the road and flap awkwardly to more secluded feeding grounds [WPA of LA 1945:414-417]. Hurricanes Flossie (1956), Hilda (1964) and particularly Betsy (1965) did extensive damage to derricks in the Lafourche oil and gas fields. Petroleum production continued to expand in Lafourche Parish until the 1970s; in 1978, there were 979 petroleum wells in the 4-27 Parish. In recent decades, onshore production of petroleum in Lafourche Parish has declined significantly (Ditto 1980; Richadelle 2002). As a collection of structures, the more than 4,000 offshore platforms represent a significant part of the nation’s stock of productive physical capital. As habitat for fish and other sea life, these structures are some of the largest additions to a natural ecosystem ever made as a consequence of human activity. The repercussions on labor markets and local economies of the movement offshore changed communities, institutions and businesses all along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in fundamental and defining ways. New Orleans, linked to Harvey on the opposite bank of the Mississippi River, became a regional hub of operations for offshore activities, second only to Houston. Morgan City and Houma grew as fabrication centers and staging bases for the offshore rigs and platforms. Humble Oil Company built its headquarters on the barrier island at Grand Isle, as did Freeport at its company town of Port Sulphur along the lower Mississippi River. Lafayette aggressively led as a regional administrative oil center. In the often indeterminate edge between land and water, ports were built to access the Gulf. The envy of these now is Port Fourchon at the end of Highway 1 along Bayou Lafourche, supplying and servicing the newest expanse of deepwater exploration and production [Austin et al. 2008:1]. Port Fourchon was established in 1960 when Louisiana State Senator A. O. Rappelet, considered the founding father of Port Fourchon, passed legislation to create the Greater Lafourche Port Commission. The port at “Fouchon City” was located at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche, at that time little more than a rough channel running through barely accessible marshland. Fourchon provided crucial access to the Gulf of Mexico. Rappelet and later the GLPC board of commissioners garnered support and tax money to build the “Port of the Future,” building infrastructure and clearing channels little by little. Today, Port Fourchon has become a central location providing support and services needed for domestic deepwater oil and gas exploration, drilling, and production in the Gulf of Mexico. Port Fourchon also supports a strong commercial and recreational fishing industry (Greater Lafourche Port Commission 2018). Port Fourchon Project Area Land Use Overview In 1844 the U.S. Committee on Commerce introduced Bill H. R. 402 enacted by the 28th Congress to authorize a survey of Lafourche Bayou, referred to as River Lafourche, an outlet of the Mississippi River. The Secretary of War was directed to engage engineers for the survey in order to determine ways and costs for the removal of obstructions in the waterway. In 1857, Congress passed another bill, S. 403, allowing for funds to be spent on clearing impediments from the mouth of Lafourche placed there during the War of 1812 on orders from General Andrew Jackson in an attempt to keep British vessels from entering the waterway. The present- day waterway known as Pass Fourchon was labeled as the East Fork of Bayou Lafourche on the original 1842 survey plat map of the area. By 1867 the name had changed to Fourchon Pass and was the primary entrance to the main branch of Lafourche Bayou (U.S. Congress; Blunt 1867:406). All of the townships included within the current Port Fourchon project area were surveyed in 1837 by Deputy Surveyor F. G. Connelly, and approved in 1842 by Surveyor General, Francis D. Newcomb out of the Donaldsonville land office. After the original surveys, the land area within the various townships was ceded to the state of Louisiana by the United States under the Swamplands Act of March 1849. This provided the state the opportunity to sell land to private interests for projects such as reclamation and flood control and to land speculators 4-28 who sold timberland to timber and logging companies. The state also sold to private individuals with various occupations, i.e. farmers and merchants. Large portions of the project area are situated within the Atchafalaya River Basin; and in 1890, Act No. 97 of the Louisiana Legislature created the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District. By the turn of the twentieth century large land tracts had been transferred to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board. This was also the period when the logging of cypress and other valuable timber began in south Louisiana (Louisiana Board of State Engineers 1890:12; Louisiana State Land Office Records; U. S. Track Books). Township 21 South, Range 22 East. The northern boundary of the current project area encompasses portions of Section 34 And Section 35. In 1850 the entire acreage of both sections was selected as swampland by the state of Louisiana under Swampland Act March 1849 (U.S. Track Bk:48A:182). Sections 34 and 35. In 1861 wealthy dry goods retailer, A. Courtade, purchased a land tract in Section 34 under Patent No. 12391 for $25.64 that included Lot Nos. 2, 4, and 7 of Section 34 and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35. According to the 1860 Federal census, French-born Courtade resided in New Orleans with his wife, Julie, two young children, and a German housemaid. In 1879 Alex McVay purchased a land tract that contained the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 34 and the north half of the south half and the south half of the north half of Section 35 under Patent No. 3227. The tract also included part of Section 36. The land sale totaled 680 acres for $170.00 (State Tract Book 11A:209; U.S. Census 1860). In 1883 Jules Lapene purchased the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35 that was part of a land parcel of 560 acres under Patent No. 5073. He also purchased the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 35 in a 160-acres parcel under Patent No. 5237. In 1860, the French-born Jules Lapene was a grocer who resided in New Orleans, and had a real estate value of $5,000 and personal value of $7,000. His household consisted of his one- year old son, Jules, and three year old daughter, Anne. By 1880 Lapene, age 60, resided as a farmer in Terrebonne Parish with 22-year-old Jules, a “mulatto” servant, and “mulatto” boarder (State Tract Book 11A:202; U.S. Census 1860, 1880). In April 1901 a total of 491.86 acres in Section 34 that contained Lots 1,2,5 and 6, the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter and the west half of Section 34 was transferred to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board. In May 1901, John M. Dresser purchased several land tracts in Section 35 under Cert. No. 606: the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the south half of the southeast quarter, the north half of the northeast quarter and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter. Along with tracts from Section 36, the entire land purchase totaled 557.36 acres at the cost of $69.67. In 1900, John Dresser, originally from New York, was a Real and Loan Estate agent who resided in Ouachita Parish. By 1910, he and his family resided on Prytania Street in New Orleans with his occupation was identified as land speculator. In the first two decades of the twentieth century, Dresser along with his partner, Edward Wisner, sold large land tracts of timber in the Atchafalaya Basin to various logging companies (U.S. Census 1900, 1910; Southern Reporter 1920; State Tract Book 11A:209). Township 22 South, Range 22 East. The current project area encompasses all sections of Township 22 South, Range 22 East. The majority of the sections were selected by the state as swamplands under Act March 2 1849 and approved by the Secretary of Interior in 1852. A 4-29 various land tracts in various sections were purchased by private citizens (U.S. Tract Bk:48A:184-195). Sections 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 22, 26, 27, 35, and 36. In May 1901 land speculator, John Dresser (see above) purchased the total acreage of all these sections under Patent Nos. 7924, 7925, 7928, 7929, 7930, 7932, 7935, and 7936, 7938, 7939, respectively (Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A:295, 298, 299, 302, 303, 306). Sections 3 and 4. In 1862, Villefred D'Hue purchased Lot Nos. 8, 12, and 13 of Section 3 under Patent No.11096. In 1860, Villefred D'Hue resided in Ward 5 of Lafourche Parish as a farmer with his wife and two young children. In 1883, Jules Lapene (see above) purchased under Patent No. 5238, the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 3, and, under Patent No.5074, Lot Nos. 9 and 10 of Section 3, and Lot No. 3 of Section 4. In May 1901, John Dresser (see above) purchased, under Patent No. 7926, the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 3. Lots 3 and 4 of Section 3 were transferred to the Atchafalaya Levee Board in April 1901 (U.S. Census 1860; Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A: 295, 305). Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 16-20, 31, and 32. In April 1901, the entire land area of these sections were transferred to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board. There were no other land transactions recorded in the state land records (Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A: 296, 297, 300, 301, 305). Section 9. The entire land tract of Section 9 was selected as swampland except for 29.00 acres in Lot No.2. In 1861, Isaac Gray purchased Lot No.2 for $36.25 under Cert. No. 3354, and received Patent No. 10435 in 1880. The 29-acre lot was located on the west side of Lafourche Bayou at the location of Gray's Canal. In 1860 Isaac Gray resided in Ward 5 of Lafourche Parish and was listed as 'cow keeper' with a real estate value of $2000 and personal estate value of $1,500. His household consisted of his wife, two adult sons, and seventeen-year-old daughter (Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A: 296; U.S. Tract Bk:4A:186). In 1883, Jules Lapene purchased several land tracts situated along Lafourche Bayou in Section 9 under Patent No. 5074: Lot Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8. He also purchased the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the east half of the southeast quarter of Section 9 under Patent No. 5238 (Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A: 295, 305). Section 10. The entire land tract of Section 10 was selected as swampland except for 3.38 acres in Lot No.1 that was situated along the east side of Bayou Moreau. In 1845, Thomas W. Reed along with 21 other individuals purchased Lot No. 1 for $4.23 under Cert. No. 2564. In 1862 Villefred D'Hue purchased Lot No.2 of Section 10 under Patent No. 11096 (Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A:298; U.S. Tract BK:48A:187). Section 11. In 1862, Francois Pelletier purchased Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Section 11 along Bayou Moreau under Patent No. 111097. Also in 1862, Celestin Dusset purchased Lot Nos. 6 and 7 either side of Bayou Moreau under Patent No. 111098. The east half of the northwest quarter and the entire east half of Section 11 was part of John Dresser immense land acquisition of May 1901 under Patent No. 7927 (Louisiana State Track Bk: 11A:298). Section 14. In February 1862, several land tracts were purchased in Section 14: Celestin Dusset: Lot Nos. 1 and 2 under Patent No. 11098; Joseph Aucalade: Lot Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 under 4-30 Patent No. 11099; and Leon Landry: Lot Nos. 7 and 8. All of the land parcels were along Bayou Moreau (Louisiana State Tract Bk: 11A:299, 302). Section 21. In 1883, Jules Lapene purchased, under Patent No.5074, Lot Nos.1, 4, 5 and 8 and the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21. The land tracts were along Lafourche Bayou. In 1901, under Patent No.7931, John M. Dresser purchased the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21 (Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A:301, 305). Section 23. In 1862, Leon Landry purchased Lot No. 1 of Section 23 under Patent No. 11100. In May 1901, John Dresser acquired under Patent No. 7931 the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the west half of Section 23 (Louisiana State Tract Bk: 11A:301, 302). Section 24 and 25. In 1862, Chauvier Hebert purchased under Patent No. 11102 Lot No. 4 in Section 24 and Lot Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in Section 25. Also in 1862, Martial Pitre purchased Lot Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Section 25 under Patent No. 11103. These land tracts were situated along Bayou Moreau. In 1860, Martial Pitre and his wife Rosalie was part of David Pitre's household in Lafourche Parish; by 1870, Martial is listed as a farmer and resided with Rosalie and their three children outside of Riceland. In 1873, Martial Pitre was a rice farmer with crops along both banks of Lafourche Bayou. In May 1901, John Dresser purchased the east half of the northeast quarter, the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter, the west half of the northwest quarter and the southwest quarter of Section 25 under Patent No. 7934 (U.S. Census 1860, 1870; Champomier et.al. 1873:64; Louisiana State Track BK: 11A: 303). Section 28. The entire land tract of Section 28 was selected as swampland except for 1.82 acres in Lot No.2 along Lafourche Bayou. In 1844, William Bloomfield purchased Lot No.2 for $2.28 under Cert. No. 2258 and received a patent in 1845. In 1883, Jules Lapene purchased land tracts under Patent No. 5074, situated along Lafourche Bayou: Lot Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 of Section 28 under Patent No. 5074. As part of his immense land acquisition of May 1901, John Dresser purchased the north half of the southeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 28 under Patent No. 7933. Dresser also purchased the northeast quarter of Section 28 under Patent No. 7934 (Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A: 302, 303, 305; U. S. Tract Bk: 48A:193). Section 33. Jules Lapene's 1883 Patent No.5074 included Lot Nos. 1, 4, and 5 that was located along Lafourche Bayou. In April 1901, a total of 417.87 acres of Section 33 was transferred to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board. (Louisiana State Tract BK: 11A:305). Section 34. The entire land tract of Section 34 was selected as swampland except for 1.10 acres in Lot No.2. In 1844, Francis Miller and others purchased Lot No.2 for $1.38 under Cert. No. 2256 and received a patent in 1845. In 1883, Jules Lapene purchased the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter and Lot No. 1 of Section 34. This acreage was included in the total 741.65 acres of Patent No. 5074 and was located along Lafourche Bayou. In 1901, John M Dresser (see above) purchased, under Patent No.7937, the east half of the northwest quarter, the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the east half of Section 34 (Louisiana State Tract BK; 11A:305, 306; U.S. Track BK:48A:195) Township 22 South, Range 23 East. In 1842, Deputy Surveyor, G. F. Connelly surveyed this township as he did the other townships within the current project area. In 1848, S. A. Phelps, Deputy Surveyor, resurveyed the private claims of Antoine Michoud consisting 4-31 of Section 38 and Section 39 in Township 22 South, Range 23 East. In 1849, the Surveyors General Office in Donaldsonville approved the plat map of the resurvey. Sections 38 and 39. The project area encompasses sections 38 and 39 that were private land claims of Antoine Michoud. In 1848, A. S. Phelps, D. S., resurveyed Township 22 South, Range 23 East for the sole purpose of representing Michoud's claims and the fractional public land sections. The plat was approved in 1849 by the Surveyor General's Office in Donaldsonville (Figure 4-5). Antoine Michoud was a Frenchman and the son of a political appointee of Napoleon in France. Michoud purchased property formerly owned by Spanish claimants in New Orleans and other places in south Louisiana. He was appointed Consul of Sardinia and Savoy, and became a wealthy sugar planter after he purchased the Lafon sugar plantation on the site of the present-day Coast Guard's Base New Orleans and NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility. He also opened an art and antique shop on Royale Street and was instrumental in the construction of the lighthouse at the Rigolets to guide ships into Lake Pontchartrain (Manto 2014:8). Section 38 (Figure 4-5) was designated as claim B. No. 45 and in 1834 was confirmed by Congress as a legitimate claim of Michoud. Class B land claims were held by claimants under incomplete Spanish titles, such as surveys. Michoud maintained he purchased the tract of land from Juan Carmanche, who obtained an order of survey in 1785 for the land from Spanish Governor Miro. Section 39 (Figure 4-5) was designated as claim C. No. 220 and was also confirmed by Congress in 1834 as a legitimate claim of Michoud. Class C land claims were granted on the premise that they met the requirements of the act of March 3, 1807, that states persons who had been in possession of a tract of land, not exceeding 2,000 acres or claimed by anyone else, for ten years prior to 1803 (American State Papers 1834). Township 23 South, Range 22 East. The township was originally surveyed in 1837 by Deputy Surveyor, F. G. Connelly and approved in 1842 by Surveyor General, Francis D. Newcomb out of the Donaldsonville land office (BLM GLO). The current project area encompasses all sections of Township 23 South, Range 22 East. Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 26 and 35. In May 1901, Frank H. John purchased the entire acreage of these sections under Patent Nos. 8033, 8034, 8036, 8037, 8042, and 8044, respectively (Louisiana State Tract Bk: 12:030, 033, 038, 041). Section 3. In 1883, Jules Lapene purchased, under Cert. No. 5239, Lot Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 that were located on Lafourche Bayou, along with the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 3. In April 1901 Lot Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 7 along with the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 3 were transferred to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board. In May 1901, Frank John purchased, as part of Patent No. 8035, the east half of the east half and the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 3 (Louisiana State Track BK:12:033, 038). Sections 4 through 9, 16 through 21, and 28 through 33. The entire acreage of these sections were transferred in April 1901 to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board (State Track BK:12:031, 032, 038, 039, 040). Section 10. In April 1901, the entire acreage west of Lafourche Bayou was transferred to Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board. In May 1901 Frank John purchased the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 10 under Patent No. 8035 (Louisiana State Track BK:12:030). 4-32 4-33 Figure 4-5. 1849 map by the Surveyor General’s Office of the South Eastern District, LA showing Township 22S, Range 23E Sec- tions 38 and 39. Section 13. In 1883, Jules Lapene purchased the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 13 as part of Patent No. 5239. In May 1901 Frank John purchase the entire acreage of Section 13 except the land tract purchased by Lapene (Louisiana State Track BK:12:034, 038). Section 14 and 15. As part of his Patent No. 5239, Jules Lapene purchased the west half of the northwest quarter, the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter and the south half of the southeast quarter and Lot Nos. 1 and 3 of Section 14. The majority of Section 15 was transferred to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board in 1901 except for Lot No. 1 that Lapene purchased in 1883 (Louisiana State Track BK:12:034, 038). Section 23. In 1844, Jules and Henri Tuyes and A. Denis purchased Lot No.1 on the north bank of the East Fork of Lafourche Bayou, presently known as Pass Fourchon. The 1850 census enumerated Jules Tuyes as an insurance company secretary with a household that consisted of his wife, three children and three servants. By 1861, Jules Tuyes was the President of the New Orleans Insurance Company (City Directory 1861; Louisiana State Track BK:12:038; U.S. Census 1850). Section 24 and 25. As part of his Patent No. 5239, Jules Lapene purchased the west half of the northeast quarter and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24. In 1901 Frank John purchased the remaining acreage in Section 24 under Patent No. 8040 Lapene also acquired Lot No. 1 of Section 25 as part of Patent No. 5239. In May 1901 Frank John purchased the entire acreage of Section 25 except for Lot No. 1 under Patent No. 7713 (Louisiana State Track BK:12:038). Section 27. In April 1901 the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter and the west half of the northwest quarter of Section 27 were transferred to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board. In May 1901 Frank John acquired the remaining acreage of Section 27 (Louisiana State Track BK:12:038). Section 34. In April 1901 Lot Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 7 of Section 34 were transferred to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Board. In May 1901 Lot Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8 and the east half of Section 34 were part of Frank H. John's immense land acquisition (Louisiana State Track BK:12:041). Township 23 South, Range 23 East. In the original survey of 1837 by D. S., G. F. Connelly, only Sections 4, 5, 6, and 30 contained acreage. The 1842 plat map depicts the land area of the township as covering large portions along the Gulf of Mexico. Sections 4, 5, and 6 contained within the current project area are only a fraction of the original coastal marshes. These sections were all purchased in May 1901 by Frank H. John, who also purchased large land areas in Township 22 South, Range 22 East. Currently, no records have been found for a Frank H. John that demonstrates if he was another land speculator such as John M. Dresser. It may be a possibility that Mr. John also bought large areas of coastal timberland to sell to various lumber companies. Township 24 South, Range 22 East. This township is another example of how much the coastal areas of Louisiana have vanished over the past 180 years. The current project area within the township stretches south over what was the original channel of the west fork of Lafourche Bayou and Bell Pass at the time of G. F. Connelly's 1837 survey. The actual entrance to the mouth of Lafourche Bayou has moved northward due to the loss of the marshes. In 1886, portions of the township were designated as a military reservation. In 1907, coastal areas of the 4-34 township were reserved by the Department of Agriculture as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds, designated as “East Timbalier Island” (Figure 4-6). The only state land records of the former sections indicate they were selected as swamplands in 1830 but were rejected as such in 1916 (Louisiana State Track BK:12:075). 4-35 4-36 Figure 4-6. 1842 map by the Surveyor General’s Office of the mouth of Bayou Lafourche showing Township 24S, Range 22E, Sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. CHAPTER 5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Numerous archaeological investigations, architectural surveys, and general cultural resource management projects have been undertaken in and around the project area. For the purposes of the background research, previous investigations within the overall study area were reviewed. A total of 28 archaeological sites, identified by 26 terrestrial and hydrologic surveys or assessments occurred in the entire project area. The overall project area entails the excavation of the 50-Foot Navigation Channel and Turning Basin, Schedule A (immediate potential deposition of dredge material), and All Sites (potential deposition of dredge material over the next 50 years (Figure 5-1). Fourteen archaeological surveys, identifying sixteen sites occurred within the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin and in Schedule A of the project area. Within the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, there were four of those sixteen archaeological sites and six cultural resource or hydrologic studies. Portions of four pipelines bisected the area of the channel; 75 shipwrecks were noted in these waterways; their positions are mapped in Figure 5-2. Summaries of these investigations and sites are detailed below. Of these fourteen surveys, six overlapped with those in the footprint of the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin; results of these surveys and sites near the 50- Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A are divided into their appropriate sections, below. A list of obstructions and shipwrecks along the coastline, bayous, and pipelines within the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A and their coordinates are listed in Table 5-1. Finally, twelve terrestrial archaeological sites, identified by twelve cultural resources investigations were located under All Sites and a one-mile buffer of the entire Port Fourchon project area (Figure 5-1). Obstructions and shipwrecks along the coastline, bayous, and pipelines are listed with their coordinates in Table 5-2. The surveys are listed in Table 5-3; the sites identified by these surveys are listed in Table 5-4, and the standing structures identified by these surveys are listed in Table 5-5. One historic cemetery, the Cheniere Cemetery, is located within the one-mile buffer from the proposed dredging for all sites. For readability, Figures 5-1 and 5-2 are on the following page, and all tables are at the end of the chapter. Surveys and Sites conducted within the Proposed 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin (Construction Area) There were four terrestrial resource investigations and two hydrographic studies within the direct construction area (50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin). The first was a cultural resources investigation (22-0002) performed by Coastal Environments, Inc in 1976 to test for cultural resources near the mouth of the former distributary, Bayou Lafourche, for proposed development of a port facility (Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden 1976). The 1976 project area was within the boundary of the flotation canal (running east/west), Rappelet Road, the southern coastline of the Gulf of Mexico, and the east bank of Belle Passe/ Bayou Lafourche. A literature review and comprehensive field survey, including pedestrian and boat search, was conducted in the footprint of potential affect. The project area investigated by Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden (1976) includes the east bank of the 50-Foot Navigation Channel near the confluence of Pass Fourchon and Belle Passe at the base of Bayou Lafourche. Within this area, one previously identified site (16LF7) and three previously unidentified sites (16LF82, 16LF85, 16LF86) were documented as being within the proposed project area footprint. Three more previously identified sites and two more previously unidentified sites were also addressed during the course of this survey within the project area Schedule A, and are described in later in this chapter. 5-1 16LF37 16LF50-51-52 16LF12 16LF49 16JE30 16JE222 16LF34 16LF11 16LF263 16LF250 Prehistoric 16LF10 Cemetery 16LF71 16LF272 16LF249 16LF271 16LF83 Cheniere 16LF273 Cemetery 16JE221 16LF84 16LF274 16LF282 16LF291 16LF82 16LF9 16LF86 16LF85 16LF8 16LF7 Project area Previously recorded sites All Sites and One-Mile Buffer All Sites (Potential Disposal Area) Schedule A (Immediate Disposal Area) Turning Basin 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel Meters ² 0 5,000 Figure 5-1. Excerpts fro the USGS quadrangle depicting the location of previously recorded sites within the one mile buffer. 5-2 1:175,000 !. AWOIS Obstruction NOAA ENC Pipelines Previously recorded sites Project area All Sites and One-Mile Buffer Schedule A (Immediate Disposal Area) Turning Basin 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Meters ² 0 5,000 Figure 5-2. Current aerial photograph depicting the location of obstructions and wrecks and previously recorded sites near the Proposed 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, Construction Area. 1:49,173 5-3 Subsequently, in 1980, archaeologists from UNO conducted a cultural resources management study (22-0645) along portions of Fourchon Island in order to determine if any cultural resources would be adversely impacted in the case of further development on Fourchon Island (Beavers and Lamb 1980). The project area was within Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden’s (1976) survey of the landform south of Belle Passe/ Pass Fourchon and the Gulf of Mexico. The sites that share a footprint with these two project areas and the current 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel include 16LF7, 165LF85, and 16LF86, the latter of which UNO archaeologists could not locate (Beavers and Lamb 1980). Neither site revisited displayed any in situ deposits; in fact, most of the shell and ceramic deposits that had marked these areas had been further eroded. No further artifact scatters, features, or middens were located during the course of the survey. Erosion and dune migration were likely responsible for the progressively "deteriorated physical condition" of the sites located by CEI (Beavers and Lamb 1980:34). Beavers and Lamb (1980) conclude that all the sites located were destroyed, no further cultural resources with research potential were located, and that if 16LF86 were ever located, it should be reevaluated (38). Finally, in 2006, Coastal Environment Inc. conducted a Phase I terrestrial cultural resources survey (22-2966) concerning the Caminada Headland Restoration Feasibility Study area in both Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes (Braud 2008). The Phase I activity in Lafourche Parish occurred within the project area of the Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel in a 10,345 acre (4,186.62 ha) area between LA-1 and the Gulf of Mexico, hugging the west bank of Belle Passe along the east bank of the proposed 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. The focus of the project was to restore marsh area; requiring sandy sediments to be removed from nearby borrow areas for deposit. CEI conducted a pedestrian survey of the surrounding area. Natural levees, bayou bank lines, and chenier ridges (high probability areas) were probed and augered at 30 m intervals (Braud 2008:117). Low probability areas included active beach zones. During the 2006 survey along portions of the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, sites 16LF85, and 16LF86 were searched for, but not relocated. Four new sites were located within the Caminada Headland Restoration Feasibility area, but none directly in the path of the proposed 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. Finally, Robert Neuman (1976) surveyed a pipeline planned from Bay Marchand northward along Bayou Lafourche (22-0065); the southern portion of the project area, where Bayou Lafourche becomes Belle Pass, overlaps with the northern footprint of the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. No sites were located on either bank of the channel. West of Belle Pass (16LF7). West of Belle Pass site was a shell midden originally located by McIntire (1958) to the west of Belle Pass along the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico. Ceramic material associated the site with the Plaquemine period, however, by the time Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden (1976) revisited the site, it had been destroyed -- eroded "by wave action and shoreline retreat" (Gagliano, Weinstein, Burden 1976:25). No in situ deposits were located. This site is located directly within the 50-foot Navigation Channel at the confluence of Belle Pass and the Gulf of Mexico. As this site was later determined to be ineligible, it will not impact the current proposed construction along the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. 16LF82. Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden (1976) recorded 16LF82 on the west bank of Belle Pass for approximately 1.4 km. This lateral deposit consisted of "wave-washed oyster- shell midden" along the west bank of Bayou Lafourche (Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden 1976:26). Ceramic material was also present within the extensive oyster shell deposit. It was the only site recorded in this survey that contained sufficient data to indicate a period of occupation. It is suggested that early Medora and later Delta Natchezan phases could be represented at this 5-4 site (Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden 1976: 35). Subsequent visits to this site observed the erosion processes; as of this time, it is determined ineligible (Beavers and Lamb 1980; Weinstein 1994). No further investigation is required along this site. 16LF85. Site 16FL85 consisted of oyster-shell midden deposited along the east bank of Belle Pass just south of the confluence of Belle Pass and Bayou Lafourche. This is along what is scheduled to be the east bank of the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. Additionally, it lies within the footprint for the planned excavation of the current project’s Turning Basin. In 1976, Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden report the potential for some in situ material at the site, which appeared to be predominately wave-washed (27). Although it was later searched for, it was not relocated; at the time of writing its eligibility was not determined. This area will require a pedestrian survey, including auger testing along portions of the east bank of Belle Pass to attempt to relocate the site or any cultural deposits that could be associated with it; however, it is likely that the site has been eroded. 16LF86. Site 16FL86 was observed across Belle Pass from 16FL82 and consisted of shell midden that ranges from 30 to 40 m long and 15 to 20 meters wide. This deposit was noted during the Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden’s (1976) pedestrian survey portion. Western portions of the site have been disturbed; it has been dredged and covered by two levees. The rest of the site appeared to consist of in situ deposits. Additionally, its proximity to 16FL82 suggested the two deposits were related (Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden 1976:27). Beavers and Lamb (1980) revisited the site, at which point most of the in situ shell and ceramic deposits that had marked these areas had been further eroded. No further artifact scatters, features, or middens were located during the course of the survey. Erosion and dune migration were likely responsible for the progressively "deteriorated physical condition" of the sites located by CEI (Beavers and Lamb 1980:34). By 2006, Braud (2008) failed to locate the aforementioned deposits. At the time of writing, NRHP eligibility has not been determined; a pedestrian survey and auger testing along the proposed location of the site will be required to determine if cultural resources associated with 16LF86 remain; however, the site has likely been eroded. Two hydrographic studies were performed in the waterways along the Gulf of Mexico within the footprint of the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. A hydrographic study (22-3542) conducted by Science Applications International Corps runs south of East Timbalier Island, Port Fourchon, and the southern Gulf coastline near Belle Pass (n.a. 2009). The extent of the project area bisects the proposed Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. The area was surveyed with single beam sonar and bow mounted side scan sonar from March 16, 2009- June 26 2009 using survey vessel M/V Sea Beneath and F/V Lacey Marie. Charts 11340, 11357, 11358, 11346, and ENC US4LA29M and ENC US5LA26M were compared with the Hydrographic Survey Statistics gathered as a result of this survey, but no obstruction points or shipwrecks were located directly within the portion of the project area that overlaps with the deepening of the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel (see Table 5-1). The second hydrographic study (22-4649) conducted by C.C. Technologies was south of Port Fourchon in the Gulf of Mexico aboard the vessel S/V Brooks McCall (n.a. 2007). It intersects the southern portion of the proposed Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. The study used a variety of systems to detail the project area, including multibeam sonar, side scan sonar, single beam sonar, motion sensor, primary, secondary, and tertiary positioning systems, sound speed at transducer, and sound velocity profiler (n.a. 2007:Table B.1). Chart Numbers 11346, 11357, 11358 were updated with the survey findings (n.a. 2007:Table D.1). Most of the survey’s recommendations removed wrecks from the maps. In total, there is only one wreck recorded near the footprint of the proposed project area of the Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel (Figure 5-2). There are seventeen recorded obstruction points recorded near, but not within, the southernmost portion of the project area (Table 5-2). 5-5 Cultural Resources Investigations within Schedule A (Dredge Spoil Deposition Areas) Within the overall study area for Schedule A, 14 cultural resources investigations were referenced, locating 12 archaeology sites. The first cultural resources surveys in Schedule A are terrestrial; they include the investigations by Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden (1976), Beavers and Lamb (1980), Braud 2008, and Neuman 1976, as introduced above. These surveys relocated sites that were outside of the 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, four of which were in Schedule A: 16LF8, 16LF9, 16LF34, and 16LF271. These four surveys identified five more sites in Schedule A: 16LF83, 16LF84, 16LF272, 16LF273, and 16LF274. Of the six remaining cultural resource surveys, one (Weinstein 1994) located two new sites 16LF249, 16LF250. The final site identified in Schedule A is 16LF282 (Bayou Moreau Complex) was identified during BP Oil spill recovery efforts, and subsequently tested by archaeological survey lead by R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates (RCGA) (Goodwin, Brooks and Larson 2012). These sites identified two sites in All Sites and the associated One-Mile Buffer (Table 5-4). The first of these surveys (22-0216) included one for a borrow pit overseen by Philip Rivet (1976). The area is positioned approximately four miles southeast of Grand Isle, just south of Lake Laurier, in what is now the eastern edge of Schedule A. Rivet did a cultural resources survey that was negative, but recommended that cheniers are ideal locations for native American occupation, and that a State Archaeologist be notified if cultural resources are located during activity. Weinstein’s (1994) survey (22-1793) conducted a cultural resources pedestrian survey from the intersection of the Havoline Canal and Bayou Lafourche along the western levee of Bayou Lafourche. The nature of the project was to develop marsh restoration plans by introducing dredge material south and west of Port Fourchon. Three sites were revisited during the course of the investigation: 16LF82, 16LF83, 16LF84. 16LF82 had eroded considerably from the original description. No in situ deposits of shell midden were located, although surface collection yielded aboriginal ceramics and invertebrate faunal remains (Weinstein 1994: 71-78). Sites 16LF83 and 16LF84 did not display in situ midden either; relatively few cultural remains were noted during surface pedestrian survey (Weinstein 1994: 87). Since their observation in 1976, erosion has considerably impacted these sites, destroying middens (Weinstein 1994:88). Weinstein recommends no further testing necessary, as these sites were not considered NRHP eligible (Weinstein 1994:128-129). The two new sites that were located were numbered 16LF249 and 16LF250. Site 16LF249 was located along Bayou Lafourche just north of 16LF83, and 16LF250 was located near the junction of Bayou Lafourche and a formerly unnamed distributary south of Leeville. Phase I investigations of RCGA (22-2019) document potential cultural resources along the Discovery Gas Transmission LLC Pipeline, a 168.7 km (104.8 mi) long pipeline routed from an offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico to Larose Valve Station in Lafourche Parish (Miller et al. 1996). Of the survey area, approximately 105.8 km (65.8 mi) was offshore and surveyed independently by KC Offshore. RCGA completed the terrestrial survey, measuring a total of 40.1 km (24.9 mi), all of which was routed west of the Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and the associated one-mile buffer. Approximately 23.7 miles occurred within shallow water; this portion overlaps with the intended Port Fourchon Project area, just west of East Timbalier Island. In this portion, prehistoric remains, in the form of shell midden or other type related deposits, and historic, in the form of shipwreck or pit obstructions, were possible. Airboat survey covered approximately the first third of the project area (Miller et al. 1996:Table 4). The airboat surveyed the project area corridor, including the banks and patches of land formation near it. Select auger tests were placed along bankline adjacent to the project areas where possible; additionally, shell deposits were carefully analyzed to determine if they 5-6 could be reminiscent of a prehistoric midden or associated deposit. No cultural resources were noted on the airboat portion of the marsh (Miller et al. 1996:189). Shallow water survey reported a total of 190 magnetic anomalies, 59 percent of which were located in the southern portion of the project area. Of this area, the southern portion of what Miller et al. 1996 described as “Segment 3” was located in the project area of Port Fourchon, while Segments 1 and 2 were located in the one-mile buffer. Of the anomalies, many were associated with pipelines and modern debris, including an area near Havoline Canal and its corresponding existing pipeline running east/west, and to the south of the Gulf shoreline and the East Timbalier Islands (Miller et al. 1996:200). Segment 3 included a variety of avoidance areas, including three areas that could be unmarked pipelines (Possible Uncharted Pipelines B, C, D) and two avoidance areas (V and VI) which could be remnants of shipwrecks. Uncharted pipelines B and C are near the eastern end of East Timbalier Island, within the project area of Port Fourchon (Miller et al. 1996:211). In 2009, RCGA performed an additional cultural assessment and probability study (22- 3433) for portions of Lafourche and Terrebonne parishes to the western perimeter of Schedule A (Novak, Goodwin, Brooks 2009). The scope of the project evaluated six Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration project areas, including: Raccoon Island, Whiskey Island, Trinity and East Island, Timbalier Island, and East Timbalier Island. Only the western portion of East Timbalier Island overlapped current project area in Schedule A and All Sites/associated one-mile buffer (Figure 5-1). RCGA designed a probability model for encountering cultural resources during the course of work which suggested a low-probability for encountering cultural resources related to terrestrial sites given the amount of erosion in the area, but higher probability for encountering cultural resources related to historic wrecks (Novak, Goodwin, Brooks 2009:50). As of 2009, East Timbalier was associated with antebellum artifacts, including pearlware ceramic sherds, that could have been affiliated with a historic wreck, or possibly the Last Island (Isle Derniere) resort community that was destroyed in a 1856 hurricane (Novak, Goodwin, Brooks 2009:48) However, Novak, Goodwin, and Brooks (2009) suggest that the area specifically within the confines of the Schedule A has a lower probability for any cultural resources, historic sites or wrecks, considering that it is a new landform created in the early- to mid-twentieth century (62). Areas to the north within Schedule A were surveyed primarily along Bayou Lafourche. In 2003, Earth Search Inc. was contracted to perform an intensive pedestrian survey, airboat survey, architectural survey and marine survey along 27 km (16.74 mi) of the right-of-way of LA 1 from Golden Meadow to Port Fourchon, in Lafourche Parish (22-2602) (Apollonio et al. 2004). The total project area measures 450 acre (182 ha). The southern end of the project area intersects with Schedule A, while the northern area intersects with All Sites (Figure 5-1). Site 16LF50 had been previously located within the right-of-way of LA1; it is situated in All Sites. It could be NRHP eligible but because the site was located slightly outside the proposed ROW for the 2003 project area, no further testing was recommended (Apollonio et al. 2004). It is described in Table 5-4. No new sites, historic structures, or cultural resources were located during the course of the survey, which included three alternatives (Apollonio et al. 2004: 1-1, 6-1). The results for the architectural portion of the survey included 18 buildings greater than 50 years of age at the time of posting the results (Apollonio et al. 2004: 43). Six wrecks or submerged obstructions were recorded for that project area, including a butterfly rig, two barges, a shrimp boat, a gill net vessel, and one object that was not able to be identified, but none requiring future testing (Apollonio et al. 2004:58). All coordinates for obstruction points are listed in Table 5-2. In 2008, an alternative west of Bayou Lafourche was also proposed, called Phase 2/ North alignment (22-2602-1) (Smith 2008). The area was positioned in a marshy environment, measuring approximately 9.5 m (15.4 m) and 240 ft (70 m) wide. Because of the marsh, an airboat was required to survey the new project area, and ESI implemented judgmental shovel 5-7 tests and bankline inspections in select areas, when possible. ESI recommended that no additional cultural resources were necessary, and the project addendum was allowed to proceed (Smith 2008:7). Other areas surveyed include the coast along the Gulf of Mexico in Lafourche Parish. In 2012, a portion the Bayou Moreau Site Complex called Cathy I located along the Lafourche Beach east of Caminada Bay in Lafourche Parish was reinvestigated with Phase II terrestrial survey and vibracore testing (22-3988). These tests examined what was located at the site, which consisted of shell midden and aboriginal ceramics, to determine if it was an in situ deposit or the result of erosion from the general area. The Phase II fieldwork included pedestrian survey of the area, controlled surface collection, and subsurface tests (n=109) in the form of both auger and shovel tests (Goodwin, Brooks, and Larson 2012:20). No in situ or subsurface deposits were located during the terrestrial portion of the survey. A variety of vertebrate and invertebrate remains were recovered, as were ceramic material; decorated sherds indicate a variety of occupations. Vibracore sampling collected fifteen cores from select areas around the Lafourche Delta plain. Sediment analysis, including carbon dating, indicated reverse patterns of deposition in the upper layers, exemplifying the erosive processes occurring in the area (Goodwin, Brooks, and Larson 2012:32). Additionally, vibracore sampling of the project area indicated that the natural levee deposits with a high probability for in situ cultural deposits were covered from .5 to 1.5 m of sand (Goodwin, Brooks, and Larson 2012:32). In summary, Goodwin, Brooks, and Larson suggest that the Cathy I site has little research potential. The artifacts collected on the beach had been redeposited from surrounding surfaces that could not be clearly distinguished, suggesting that the site does not possess the integrity and research potential necessary for NRTHP status. No further work was recommended (Goodwin, Brooks, and Larson 2012:37). The Phase II survey of the Cathy I site was carried out by RCGA in 2012. At the time, it appears that Cathy I was designated site number 16LF283, as that number is associated with the work done in the Lafourche Delta Plain (Goodwin, Brooks, and Larson 2012). However, at the time of writing this report, the site number 16LF283 now details an area near Houma. It appears that once the sites associated with the Bayou Moreau Site Complex (16LF282) were determined to be redeposited artifacts from unknown areas in the region, the eight distinct areas, of which Cathy I was included, were reabsorbed into one homogenous site, Bayou Moreau Site Complex (16OR282). To the south, a hydrographic study (22-5051) is mapped on the Louisiana Cultural Resource Map Database hugging the coast along the Gulf of Mexico (Babiri and Hanks 2015). Unfortunately, this survey is not available from the Louisiana Cultural Resource Map Database. The title was also missing from the Louisiana Cultural Resource Map Database, but was available by searching the project number at the Louisiana Cultural Resource Management Bibliography. According to the mapped footprint at the Cultural Resource Map Database, no obstructions or wrecks are recorded in the project area. Only a portion this project area intersects with the Schedule A. One site is recorded within the overlap of the two project area footprints along the coast, east of Bayou Moreau’s termination at the coast: Valella Site (16LF274). Bay Marchand (16LF8). This site was listed by McIntire (1958). Bay Marchand site consisted of a shell midden located along the Gulf beach south of Belle Pass and Timbalier Bay. It had been sited by boat, but no artifact data had been collected at the time of documentation. During the 1976 survey, only two ceramic sherds were collected in the area that the site had been recorded previously. What had been the site had badly eroded (Gagliano, Weinstein, Burden 1976:25). East of Belle Pass (16LF9). East of Belle Pass site was located between Fourchon Pass and Bay Champagne. McIntire (1958) located the shell midden, but no artifact data had been collected at the time of the site's documentation. Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden revisited the 5-8 site during the 1976 survey, but noted that "only wave-washed artifacts may be expected" and that "[n]othing was found by the survey team" (Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden 1976:26). Bayou Lafourche (16LF34). Bayou Lafourche site was located on the banks of a natural levee along Bayou Lafourche, almost a mile from Grey’s Canal. Cultural features of the site included a small shell midden. Shell and pottery sherds dating to the Plaquemine period were recovered; however, canal dredging could have disturbed the site. By Neuman’s investigation in 1976, the site was declared destroyed (Neuman 1973). 16LF83. Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden (1976) recorded 16LF83, a shell midden along Bayou Lafourche, on the western bank, 1.4 km north of Evans Canal. Like 16LF82, 16LF83 was an oyster-shell midden without depositional integrity. It was interpreted as a wave- washed collection of shell and ceramic (Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden 1976:26). 16LF84. Site 16FL84 was located along the levee of Belle Pass where a pipeline crossed its west bank, and consisted of shell deposit that comprised both oyster and Rangia cuneata shell. Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden (1976) hypothesized that Rangia is not naturally occurring in saltwater environments, it could be related to fill from another area, covering the wave-washed oyster shell and ceramic. Additionally, the entire deposit of oyster, Rangia, and ceramic could be redeposited fill from a geographically unrelated shell midden (Gagliano, Weinstein, and Burden 1976: 27). The Gadris Site (16LF249). The Gadris Site was located on a natural levee along the west bank of Bayou Lafourche. The site was characterized by shell midden and aboriginal ceramic from presumably an early Mississippian occupation. Auger core tests revealed some in situ stratigraphy, and a few wave-washed historic ceramic sherds were encountered in a portion of the midden (Weinstein 1993: 93). The few ceramic sherds (n=239) and auger tests (n=2) representing intact deposits indicated that the site could provide “potential” research value (Weinstein 1993:130). However, since the site would not be impacted by the scope of work that directed the cultural resources survey in 1993, the work was allowed to proceed. 2nd Fiddler’s Bend (16LF250). Located south of Leeville on the west bank of Bayou Lafourche, across from Bayou Cochon, 2nd Fiddler’s Bend was originally located by Weinstein & Hutchins in 1993. Originally observed because of shell surface scatter, auger borings and a controlled test unit uncovered pottery, animal bone, and human bone that confirmed the presence of an in situ prehistoric camp. The diverse collection of decorated pottery suggested that multiple components occupied the site from Early Coles Creek to Late Mississippi periods (Weinstein 1993:99, 109). Controlled testing revealed invertebrate and vertebrate faunal remains but were biased by the erosive conditions of the area; however, those components suggested a “marsh-estuarine adaptation” (Weinstein 1993:122). The human bone suggests the area includes a prehistoric cemetery. The site demonstrated potential to be nominated to the National Register, but because it was identified in a portion of the project area that would not be impacted, the work was allowed to proceed (Weinstein 1993:136). Weinstein stated that: The site is suffering from extensive erosion resulting from boat wakes and wind-generated waves coming off Bayou Lafourche. Much of the locale, including several human burials has already succumbed to these destructive forces, and it is likely that the site will be completely destroyed in the near future…if it is determined that these erosional forces are the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers, then additional testing in the southern shell deposit should be conducted to determine if that area of the site actually is the locus of the major portion of the intact shell midden responsible for the wave-washed remains found on the marsh surface along the bank” (Weinstein 1993:130). 5-9 Feti (16LF271). Feti site is located within the boundaries of the Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel; it is located on Bayou Moreau between Lake Laurier and the Gulf of Mexico. This site was first described by McIntire in 1974; he estimated that the site was 300- 400 years old, but did not submit a site form to accompany his description (Braud 2008:7-2). The site was probed by 10 x 5 m intervals to determine the perimeter (70 m [230 ft] long and 30 m [98.4 ft] wide) (Braud 2008:7-2, 8-1). A shovel test was excavated to better determine the nature of the shell midden. The site contained both Rangia and oyster shell, as well as organic material (Braud 2008:8-1). Further testing was recommended. LOOP (16LF272). The LOOP site was located on the natural levee of Bayou Moreau, just south of the intersection of Louisiana Highway 3090 and LA-1. An unnatural levee was constructed along the natural levee without permit, leveling the surface area of the natural levee. Subsequently, portions of the LOOP site were likely adversely affected (Braud 2008:7-12). Surface scatter was collected. Auger tests were conducted to investigate the extent of impact, as well as the site integrity. Unfortunately, no substantial deposits were located, leading Braud to the conclusion that the site may have been removed completely, or had been scant to begin with (2008:7-12). Levee Bend (16LF273). The Levee Bend site displayed a surface scatter of aboriginal pottery. Like the LOOP site, no auger tests were productive for cultural resources (Braud 2008: 7-20). The Levee Bend Site was located in a slight Bend in the natural levee of Bayou Moreau, occurring across from Bayou Tartellon. Levee Bend was not considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register (Braud 2008: 8-2). Valella (16LF274). The Valella site is a rather long site that parallels the Gulf Coast for 225 m (738 ft) east to west. It was located just south of the Caminada Headland study area, but is within the project area for the Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. This area had a surface scatter of aboriginal pottery, Rangia and oyster shell midden. CEI tested this area and suggested that the midden, if still present, could be considered eligible for nomination to the National Register (Braud 2008). However, because the Caminada Headland restoration project was likely not to affect that area, no further archaeological investigations were recommended before that project was to proceed. Bayou Moreau Site Complex (16LF282). The site form indicates that 16OR282 was identified during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response in 2010. Artifacts were being deposited, and possibly redeposited, along Fourchon Beach, a low-lying sandy beach along the Gulf of Mexico. The site mushroomed into eight distinct areas, each of which, at the time, was called different sites: 16LF282-16LF288 and 16LF290, inclusive of Cathy I (16LF283) (Goodwin, Brooks, and Larson 2012:14). In total, eight different prehistoric components were represented at the site from Coles Creek to Protohistoric. Faunal remains were identified as well, though not all of the species represented were associated with the archaeology. Human remains were also discovered; 22 elements were identified and given to a professional osteological facility until the Chitimacha requested their return. Finally, a historic component on the site, primarily associated with the antebellum period, was identified by ceramic and glass scatter. 5-10 Table 5-1. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A (Dredge Deposition) in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Longitude Latitude Type Category Source Source Date Dataset Name Comments -90.248 29.086 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.248 29.086 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US4LA29M.000 -90.248 29.086 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.244 29.086 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.244 29.086 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.244 29.086 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US4LA29M.000 -90.242 29.087 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US4LA29M.000 -90.242 29.087 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.241 29.087 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.234 29.088 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 5-11 -90.234 29.079 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.234 29.079 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.234 29.079 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.23 29.074 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.23 29.074 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.23 29.074 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.226 29.079 NOAA ENC Snag/Stump US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.226 29.078 NOAA ENC Snag/Stump US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.226 29.078 NOAA ENC Snag/Stump US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 Table 5-1. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A (Dredge Deposition) in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Longitude Latitude Type Category Source Source Date Dataset Name Comments "LMN39/84 - CGD8, (9/12/84); The Submerged object previously located in Belle Pass in approximate position Lat. 29.04.54N; Long. 090 13 42W (NAD 27) has been determined to be in approximate position AWOIS Obstruction - Lat. 29 04 55.8N, Long 090 13 -90.225 29.082 Obstruction Submerged 11,365.00 30W (NAD 27) outside t" Obstruction Pt: -90.225 29.082 NOAA ENC Snag/Stump US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.225 29.082 NOAA ENC Snag/Stump US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.179 29.108 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, report, L-1143/09 20090000 US3LA02M.000 -90.176 29.109 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 5-12 -90.176 29.11 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.173 29.111 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.173 29.111 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.173 29.111 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt, L-1143/09 20090000 US3LA02M.000 LMN 40/05; Sunken Platform is Reported in Approx. Position AWOIS Obstruction - 29/00/06.5N 90/14/53.8W -90.248 29.002 Obstruction Submerged 11,366.00 (Entered 10/18/05,SME) -90.25 29 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11366 20020900 US3GC04M.000 -90.254 28.999 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 Table 5-1. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A (Dredge Deposition) in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Longitude Latitude Type Category Source Source Date Dataset Name Comments Submerged platform. Due to hurricanes, platforms have been reported as obstructions. These platforms may be damaged, destroyed or sunken with scattered, wreckage on the seafloor. Mariners are urged to US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LMN use extreme caution near these -90.254 28.999 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 37/08 (CDG8 185-08) 20080909 US5LA26M.000platforms. H11457/2008;NOS - Oil field debris found with 100% MB and 400% SSS. Recommended charting as 46 ft obstruction at AWOIS Obstruction, Not 28.9949674N 90.2498650W -90.25 28.995 Obstruction Charted 11, 357.00 (ETR 10/16/08) 5-13 US, US, graph, H-11457 (NWID:16004), OPR-K362-KR- -90.25 28.995 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 05, x-ref: DD-12486 20070101 US5LA26M.000 LMN 40/05; Sunken platform is Reported in approx Position AWOIS Obstruction - 28/59/44.3N 90/14/52.3W -90.248 28.996 Obstruction Submerged 11,366.00 (Entered 10/18/05, SME) LMN 40/05; Sunken platform is Reported in approx Position AWOIS Obstruction - 28/59/40.1N 90/14/51.5W -90.248 28.994 Obstruction Submerged 11,366.00 (Entered 10/18/05, SME) LMN 40/05; Sunken platform is Reported in approx Position AWOIS Obstruction - 28/59/33.8N 90/14/33.3W -90.243 28.993 Obstruction Submerged 11,366.00 (Entered 10/18/05, SME) Table 5-1. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A (Dredge Deposition) in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Longitude Latitude Type Category Source Source Date Dataset Name Comments H11457/2008; NOS - Oil field debris found using 100% MB and 400 % SSS. Recommended charting as 48 ft obstruction at 28.9937638 Degrees N, AWOIS Obstruction - Not 90.2339085 Degrees W. (ETR -90.234 28.994 Obstruction Charted 11,357.00 10/16/08) -90.234 28.994 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, HS-11457 20070101 US3GC04M.000 US, US, graph, H-11457 (NWID:16004), OPR-K362-KR- -90.234 28.994 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 05, x-ref: DD-12486 20070101 US5LA26M.000 -90.234 28.994 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.237 29.001 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, HS-11457 20070101 US3GC04M.000 US, US, graph, H-11457 5-14 (NWID:16004), OPR-K362-KR- -90.237 29.001 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 05, x-ref: DD-12486 20070101 US5LA26M.000 -90.237 29.001 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 H11457/2008; NOS - Oil field debris found with 100% MB and 400% SSS. Recommended charting as 46ft obstruction 29.0014301 Degree N, AWOIS Obstruction - Not 90.2373190 Degree W. (ETR -90.237 29.001 Obstruction Charted 11,357.00 10/16/2008). -90.235 29.088 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.233 29.088 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 -90.233 29.088 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.227 29.089 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 -90.227 29.089 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US4LA29M.000 Table 5-1. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A (Dredge Deposition) in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Longitude Latitude Type Category Source Source Date Dataset Name Comments -90.227 29.09 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LNM -90.225 29.089 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 37/08 (CDG8 170-08) 20080909 US5LA26M.000 -90.222 29.098 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LNM -90.222 29.099 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 37/08 (CDG8 172-08) 20080909 US5LA26M.000 H11228/03 S-K907, NRT1-03; During Office Processing the Evaluator Located an Obstruction on the Side Scan Sonar Records with an Estimated Depth of 23 ft in Pos. AWOIS Obstruction - 29 06 04, 43N, 090 13 13.57. -90.221 29.101 Obstruction Submerged 11,346.00 Entered 4/04 MCR 5-15 US, US, reprt, 8th CGD, LNM -90.22 29.103 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 37/08 (CDG8 180-08) 20080909 US5LA26M.000 -90.231 29.215 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.227 29.217 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.223 29.213 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.211 29.224 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.211 29.225 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.166 29.104 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000Platform -90.167 29.113 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000Platform -90.16 29.107 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000Platform Table 5-1. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A (Dredge Deposition) in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Longitude Latitude Type Category Source Source Date Dataset Name Comments LNM23/07 8th CGD, 06/06/07; Platform 15, in Bay Marchand, Block 1, has reportedly been damaged and unable to support its regular navigational aids in approximate position 29-06- 22.0N 09-09-32.0W. Mariners AWOIS Obstruction - are urged to use extreme caution -90.159 29.106 Obstruction Submerged 11, 358.00 in this area. -90.151 29.112 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000Platform -90.148 29.118 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 -90.148 29.12 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 5-16 -90.147 29.121 NOAA ENC Dangerous Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20070200 US4LA32M.000 US, US, reprt, 8th CGD, LNM, -90.209 29.114 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 37/08 (CDG8 173-08) 20080909 US5LA26M.000 US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LNM -90.209 29.115 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 37/08 (CDG8 169-08) 20080909 US5LA26M.000 US, US, reprt 8thCGD, LNM -90.215 29.121 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 37/08 (CDG8 174-08) 20080909 US5LA26M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.216 29.121 NOAA ENC Snag/Stump US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 H11228/03 Sk907-NRT1-03; During Office Processing the Evaluator Located an Obstruction on the Side Scan Sonar Records with an Estimated Depth of 20 ft in Pos AWOIS 29 07.11N, 090 12 58.28. -90.216 29.124 Obstruction Obstruction 11,346.00 Entered 4/04 MCR Table 5-1. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin, and Schedule A (Dredge Deposition) in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Longitude Latitude Type Category Source Source Date Dataset Name Comments H11228/03 Sk907-NRT1-03; During Office Processing the Evaluator Located an Obstruction on the Side Scan Sonar Records with an Estimated Depth of 24 ft in Pos AWOIS Obstruction - 29 07.17N, 090 13 03.8. Entered -90.218 29.129 Obstruction Submerged 11,346.00 4/04 MCR H11228/03 Sk907-NRT1-03; During Office Processing the Evaluator Located an Obstruction on the Side Scan Sonar Records with an Estimated Depth of 19 ft in Pos AWOIS Obstruction - 29 07 18.42 N, 090 13 37.23. 5-17 -90.21 29.122 Obstruction Submerged 11,346.00 Entered 4/04 MCR US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LNM -90.202 29.123 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt 37/08 (CDG8 181-08) 20080909 US5LA26M.000 -90.157 29.129 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.238 29.179 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 -90.232 29.211 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.228 29.215 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.224 29.217 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.221 29.218 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.218 29.223 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.225 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.157 29.129 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Latitude Longitude Type Category Source Source Date Dataset Name Comments -90.259 29.376 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 -90.258 29.375 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.21 29.253 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LN 20040316 US4LA29M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.21 29.253 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 -90.208 29.249 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt, L-471/08 20080410 US4LA29M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.209 29.247 NOAA ENC Snag, Stump US, US, reprt, L-042/10 (NW 20100405 US4LA29M.000 Old Pier #1 Footing Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.209 29.246 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LM 20131126 US5LA26M.000 -90.212 29.249 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 5-18 -90.213 29.248 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.215 29.248 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.214 29.248 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.214 29.2474 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.217 29.247 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.208 29.243 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 19940000 US4LA29M.000 -90.21 29.242 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.21 29.241 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 -90.211 29.241 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.21 29.241 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.21 29.24 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.21 29.238 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.21 29.237 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.212 29.236 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.213 29.235 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.212 29.233 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. -90.211 29.241 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.211 29.242 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.242 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.242 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.242 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.214 29.241 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.215 29.24 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.24 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.239 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.215 29.237 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.214 29.237 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.215 29.237 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.236 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.215 29.236 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 5-19 -90.215 29.235 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.214 29.231 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.229 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.216 29.228 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.215 29.226 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.217 29.225 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.221 29.226 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.222 29.225 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Obstruction -90.261 29.224 NOAA ENC Area US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 Obstrution Pt: -90.105 29.265 NOAA ENC snag/stump US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LM 20090818 US5LA38M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.1 29.258 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.1 29.358 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20030600 US4LA32M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.1 29.358 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 USLA02M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.091 29.254 NOAA ENC Snag, Stump US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LM 20090818 USLA02M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.091 29.254 NOAA ENC Snag, Stump US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LM 20090818 USLA38M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.091 29.254 NOAA ENC Snag, Stump US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 USLA32M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.083 29.25 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.083 29.25 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20030600 US4LA32M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous 5-20 -90.045 29.209 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 -90.048 29.207 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 USLA02M.000 -90.046 29.207 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 -90.045 29.207 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20030600 US4LA32M.000 -90.044 29.205 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LM 20090707 US5LA38M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.043 29.205 NOAA ENC Snag, Stump US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LM 20090707 US4LA32M.000 -90.034 29.19 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt L-542/09 20090311 US3LA02M.000 -90.034 29.191 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.034 29.191 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20121200 US5LA38M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.038 29.194 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20030600 US4LA32M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.038 29.194 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Wreck Pt: Wreck Showing -90.039 29.194 NOAA ENC Mast/Masts US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.043 29.195 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.043 29.195 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US report L-2197/99 20000107 US4LA32M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.043 29.195 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 Wreck Pt: Wreck Showing -90.045 29.197 NOAA ENC Mast/Masts US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 Wreck Pt: 5-21 Dangerous -90.045 29.197 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20030600 US4LA32M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.045 29.196 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 CL-210/04; Louisiana Dept of Natural Resources Reports Obstn at approx position 29/09/55.8N AWOIS Obstruction - 90/03/58.8W (Entered 01/04/05, -90.066 29.165 Obstruction Submerged 11,358.00 SME) Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.09 29.159 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.09 29.159 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.009 29.155 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 -90.099 29.155 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt, L-1749/04 20040000 US4LA32M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Wreck Pt: Wreck Showing Any Portion of -90.1 29.148 NOAA ENC h US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.1 29.15 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, reprt, L-2193/99 20120700 US4LA32M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.1 29.15 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, reprt, L-2193/99 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.103 29.149 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 -90.104 29.148 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt, CL-763/04 20040603 US4LA32M.000 -90.103 29.148 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 -90.12 29.137 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 -90.12 29.136 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt, CL-763/04 20040603 US4LA32M.000 -90.12 29.137 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11365 20060300 US5LA38M.000 5-22 -90.147 29.113 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.144 29.112 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.144 29.112 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.144 29.112 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.138 29.107 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.138 29.107 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, H-11804 (N 20090405 US5LA26M.000 -90.139 29.106 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.136 29.105 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.136 29.105 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.149 29.112 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.148 29.111 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 wellhead -90.148 29.111 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20070200 US4LA32M.000 wellhead -90.149 29.11 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.148 29.109 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.151 29.11 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.151 29.11 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. LNM51/05-8thCGD, 12/20/05: Bay Marchand 1 Platform 7 has reportedly sunk in the Gulf of Mexico in approximate position 29- 06-26.0N 090-08-56.0W. The obstruction is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.149 29.107 Obstruction Submerged 11, 358.00 caution in this area. Platform LNM36/06-8thCGD, 9/5/06: A sunken platform has been reported in the Gulf of Mexico in Bay Marchand Block 1, in approximate position 29- 06-08.0N 090-08-42.0W. The platform is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.145 29.102 Obstruction Submerged 11, 358.00 "Record: 14,278.00" caution in this area. LNM 20/96: A pipe reported in 5-23 AWOIS Obstruction - approx position 29/06/06N -90.147 29.102 Obstruction Submerged 11, 356.00 "Record: 13,460.00" 90/08/48W (Entered 01/04/05,SME) LNM51/05-8thCGD, 12/20/05: Bay Marchand 1 Platform 7 has reportedly sunk in the Gulf of Mexico in approximate position 29- 06-26.0N 090-08-56.0W. The obstruction is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.148 29.101 Obstruction Submerged 11,358.00 "Record: 14,278.00" caution in this area. Platform Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. LNM51/05-8thCGD, 12/20/05: Bay Marchand 1 Platform 7 has reportedly sunk in the Gulf of Mexico in approximate position 29- 06-26.0N 090-08-56.0W. The obstruction is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.152 29.107 Obstruction Submerged 11,358.00 "Record: 14,283.00" caution in this area. Platform LNM51/05-8thCGD, 12/20/05: Bay Marchand 1 Platform 7 has reportedly sunk in the Gulf of Mexico in approximate position 29- 06-20.0N 090-09-22.0W. The obstruction is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.156 29.106 Obstruction Submerged 11,358.00 "Record: 14,280.00 caution in this area. Platform 5-24 Due to hurricanes, platforms have been reported as obstructions. These platforms may be damaged, destroyed, or sunk with scattered wreckage on the seafloor. Mariners are urged to use extreme caution -90.156 29.106 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt 8thCGD, LNM, 51/05 US5LA26M.000 near these platforms Caisson. The obstruction is reportedly marked with a white buoy -90.156 29.106 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, report8thCGD, LNM, 40/08 (CGUS5LA26M.000 displaying a white light. LNM51/05-8thCGD, 12/20/05: Bay Marchand 1 Platform 7 has reportedly sunk in the Gulf of Mexico in approximate position 29- 06-12.0N 090-09-13.0W. The obstruction is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.154 29.103 Obstruction Submerged 11,358.00 caution in this area. Platform Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. -90.151 29.098 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.00 -90.151 29.098 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.151 29.098 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 LNM51/05-8thCGD, 12/19/06: A sunken platform has been reported in the Bay Marchand Area in the Gulf of Mexico in approximate position 29-05-53.0N 090-09-08.0W. The obstruction is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.152 29.098 Obstruction Submerged 11,358.00 Record "14,285.00" caution in this area. -90.147 29.096 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11358 20120700 US4LA32M.000 -90.146 29.095 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, H-11804 (N 20090405 US5LA26M.000 Caisson. The obstruction is reportedly marked with a white buoy -90.158 29.104 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt, 8thCGD, LN 20080930 US5LA26M.000 displaying a white light. 5-25 LNM51/05-8thCGD, 12/20/05: Bay Marchand 1 Platform 28 has reportedly sunk in the Gulf of Mexico in approximate position 29- 06-10.0N 090-09-40.0W. The obstruction is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - "Record: Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.161 29.103 Obstruction Submerged 11,358.00 14,282.00" caution in this area. Platform LNM51/05-8thCGD, 12/20/05: Bay Marchand 1 Platform 23 has reportedly sunk in the Gulf of Mexico in approximate position 29- 05-42.0N 090-09-39.0W. The obstruction is reportedly not marked. AWOIS Obstruction - Mariners are urged to use extreme -90.163 29.095 Obstruction Submerged 11,358.00 caution in this area. Platform -90.196 29.087 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US4LA29M.000 -90.196 29.087 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. -90.196 29.086 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.205 29.081 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US4LA29M.000 -90.205 29.081 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.205 29.081 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 Dangerous -90.216 29.022 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 Dangerous -90.216 29.022 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, report,8thCGD, LN 20120306 US5LA26M.000 Dangerous -90.216 29.022 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 H11457/2008;NOS - Oil field debris found with 100% MB and 400% SSS. Recommended charter as 46 foot obstruction at 29.0004961 AWOIS Degree N 90.2258784 degree W -90.226 29 Obstruction Obstruction 11,357.00 (ETR 10/16/2008). 5-26 -90.226 29.001 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, HS-11457 20070101 US3GC04M.000 -90.226 29 NOAA ENC Obstruction US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 Dangerous -90.25 28.983 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, chart 11366 20020900 US3GC04M.000 H11457/2008; NOS - Oil field debris found using 100% MB and 400% charting as 46ft obstruction at AWOIS 28.9803559 degrees N, 90.2479604 -90.248 28.98 Obstruction Obstruction 11,357.00 degrees W (ETR 10/16/08). -90.248 28.98 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, HS-11457 20070101 US3GC04M.000 -90.248 28.98 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, H-11457 (N 20070101 US5LA26M.000 -90.248 28.98 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 Dangerous -90.27 29.005 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11340 20120500 US3GC04M.000 Dangerous -90.27 29.005 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, H-11457 (N 20070101 US5LA26M.000 Dangerous -90.27 29.005 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.258 29.011 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt,8thCGD,LNM 20051004 US3GC04M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Due to hurricanes, platforms have been reported as obstructions. Thesee platforms may be damaged, destroyed or sunk with scattered wreckage on the seafloor. Mariners are urged to use extreme caution -90.258 29.011 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt,8thCGD,LNM 20051004 US5LA26M.000 near these platforms -90.256 29.015 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.257 29.015 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt,8thCGD, LNM 20051004 US3GC04M.000 Due to hurricanes, platforms have been reported as obstructions. Thesee platforms may be damaged, destroyed or sunk with scattered wreckage on the seafloor. Mariners are urged to use extreme caution -90.257 29.015 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt,8thCGD,LNM 20051004 US5LA26M.000 near these platforms Dangerous 5-27 -90.269 29.016 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11340 20120500 US3GC04M.000 Dangerous -90.269 29.016 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Dangerous -90.269 29.017 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.252 29.035 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.252 29.035 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.252 29.035 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Obstruction Pt: -90.258 29.049 NOAA ENC Snag, Stump US, US, reprt, 8thCGD,LNM 20121225 US4LA29M.000 -90.256 29.054 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.256 29.054 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.255 29.054 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.256 29.076 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.256 29.076 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.256 29.077 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.258 29.083 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.258 29.083 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 Wreck Pt: Dangerous -90.258 29.083 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.264 29.08 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.264 29.081 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.264 29.081 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20120500 US5LA26M.000 -90.281 29.076 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.283 29.077 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.283 29.077 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US5LA26M.000 Possible building -90.285 29.076 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 5-28 -90.287 29.077 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US5LA26M.000 -90.287 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.287 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US5LA26M.000 Guy Wire Anchor -90.287 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US3LA02M.000 -90.287 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.287 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US5LA26M.000 Tower -90.287 29.076 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US5LA26M.000 Guy Wire Anchor -90.287 29.076 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US3LA02M.000 -90.287 29.076 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.288 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.288 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US3LA02M.000 -90.288 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US5LA26M.000 Guy Wire Anchor -90.296 29.079 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, GC-10790 20080305 US5LA26M.000 -90.296 29.08 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 Platform -90.326 29.059 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.326 29.059 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 Table 5-2. Shipwrecks and Obstructions Located within All Sites (Dredge Deposition after 50 Years) and the One-Mile Buffer in the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Wreck Pt: Wreck Showing Any Portion of -90.335 29.061 NOAA ENC H US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.335 29.059 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 -90.335 29.059 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.34 29.057 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20120700 US3LA02M.000 -90.34 29.058 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, reprt L-1143/09 (N 20090703 US4LA29M.000 Exposed Pipelines, Position -90.35 29.075 NOAA ENC Obstruction Pt US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 Approximated Wreck Pt: Wreck Showing Any Portion of -90.309 29.089 NOAA ENC H US, US, graph, Chart 11357 201205 US4LA29M.000 Wreck Pt: Wreck Showing Any Portion of 5-29 -90.309 29.089 NOAA ENC H US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 Dangerous -90.267 29.116 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11352 20070100 US3LA02M.000 Dangerous -90.267 29.117 NOAA ENC Wreck US, US, graph, Chart 11346 20040800 US5LA26M.000 Table 5-3. Archaeological Surveys Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Report Year Title Author(s) Methods Used Associated Sites Recommendations Archaeological, Engineering, and Hazard Study of Proposed Gulf 12 Inch and 16 Inch Gas 16LF291 is located in the Pipeline Route from Block .35, Sides, project area, but was not South Timpalier Area to Block Racioppi, Remote Sensing, investigated during the course Placement of pipeline was not 22-0176 1977 6, Bay Marchand Area and Behrens Hydrosurvey, of this survey determined to present ay problems. Environmental Assessment of Proposed Pipeline No Site was located in the survey Construction in Terrebonne, area; in reference to Port Fourchon Lafourche, Jefferson, and Saltus, Pedestrian and 16TR215, 16TR193, 50-Foot Navigation Access Plaquemine Parishes, Hudson, Helicopter 16TR194, 16TR32, 16PL147, Channel, no sites were located in 22-0317 1975 Louisiana. Clendenon Survey 16PL8 Lafourche Parish. A Cultural Resource Survey of Dredging operations and spoil the Larose to Golden Meadow disposal be kept 65 m from site Hurricane Protection Levee perimeter, and staging operations Sections "F" First Left and "A" McIntire et Air Photos, Field additionally should not happen on 5-30 22-0723 1981 East First Lift. al. Survey 16LF36, 16LF76, 16LF97 the site No in situ cultural remains were located during the course of the Pedestrian survey; an historic vessel was Cultural Resources Survey of Cultural located (Larose), built before 1905. Larose Floodgate, Larose to Resources Stout and Muller suggest avoiding Golden Meadow, LA, Project Stout and Survey; Visual impact to the vessel until its 22-0856 1983 Lafourche Parish, Louisiana Muller Inspection 16LF36 eligibility is assessed. A Cultural Resources Survey for the Coastal Use Permit Care must be taken with Application P851379 construction to ensure that three Lafourche Parish Water historic cemeteries is not impacted; District No. 1 Sec. 16, T21S- Pedestrian sites 16LF49 and 16LF50 were out 22-1117 1986 R22E Beavers Survey 16LF49, 16LF50 of area of potential effect. Cultural Resources Survey of the Western Sections of the No further survey recommended Larose to Golden Meadow after initial survey; no cultural Hurricane Protection Project, Pedestrian resources located during the course 22-1143 1986 Lafourche Parish, Louisiana Poplin et al. Survey None of the survey. Table 5-3. Archaeological Surveys Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Report Year Title Author(s) Methods Used Associated Sites Recommendations Multiple Sites; Bayou Thunder von Tranc (16LF11), Southern 1994 Annual Report for Thunder (16LF263, Management Units 4 an 5 Thundercrash (16JE221) and Regional Archaeology Scattered Thundr (16JE222) Program Museum of Natural Surface in the Port Fourchon Science Louisiana State Collection, Site Navigation Access Channel Purpose was to gather data, update 22-1876 1994 University Saunders Documentation Area of Potential Affect sites Archaeological Survey of the None. Letter report suggests that Bayou Lafourche and 16LF31, 16LF39, 16LF40, all sites have been documented Lafourche-Jump Waterway, 16LF41, 16LF42, 16LF43, with artifact surface collections and 22-2018 1973 Louisiana Neuman Airboat Survey 16LF50 photographs. Recommends to avoid two magnetic targets located near a Phase I Remote-Sensing shipwreck symbol on NOAA Chart Submerged Cultural Resources No. 11346 by placing a 300 ft Survey of Offshore Borrow buffer zone around the magnetic 5-31 Sites Located in LaFourche targets. Same NOAA Chart No. and Terrebonne Parish, 11346 currently maps an Louisiana in Association with Watts, Hydrographic Obstruction Pt in Area A, within 1- the West Belle Pass Barrier Daniel, and Survey; Remote mile buffer of Port Fourchon 22-3276 2009 Headland Restoration Project Arnold Sensing Project Area, not a "shipwreck." There would be moderate potential to encounter prehistoric or historic watercrafts, and low potential to encounter prehistoric sites. Phase I Submerged Cultural Additionally, activity could Resources Investigation for the adversely impact cultural resources Caminada Headland Beach on the seafloor if cultural resources and Dune Restoration Project, were present. Remote sensing Increment II (CAM-II), Schmidt et Phase I and should encounter cultural resources 22-4083 2012 Lafourche Parish, Louisiana al. Remote Sensing None before they would be damaged. No cultural material located during Phase I Cultural Resources testing. No further archaeological Survey - Negative Findings Site Visit and Bayou Thunder von Tranc testing required for this area; 22-4371 2013 Report na. Shovel Testing (16LF11) construction may proceed Table 5-3. Archaeological Surveys Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Report Year Title Author(s) Methods Used Associated Sites Recommendations Phase I Cultural Resources Site 16LF71 will not be impacted Survey of the LA 1 Bridges due to the scope of the project in Near Grand Isle Project, question. No further work was Jefferson and Lafourche Kelley, recommended concerning cultural 22-4909 2015 Parishes, Louisiana (22-4909). Wells, Hahn 16LF71 resources in the project area. 5-32 Figure 5-4. Archaeological Sites Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana Site No. Site Name Site Type Affiliation Location NRHP By 16LF10 Cheniere Caminada Shell Midden/ Beach Wash Prehistoric (Unknown)_ Natural Levee Ineligible Orton Bayou Thunder von Nathanael 16LF11 Tranc Rangia Shell Midden Prehistoric; Mississippi Natural Levee Undetermined Heller Prehistoric (Marksville or Eroded Landform 16LF12 Caminada Bay Shell Midden Later) "Water" Undetermined M. Church 16LF37 Leeville No Information No Information Natural Levee Undetermined Unknown Prehistoric (unknown), 16LF49 N/A Series of Shell Middens probably Neo-Indian Natural Levee Ineligible Soileau 16OR50 is Ineligible; N/A (Formerly 16OR50_16OR 16LF50_16L 16LF50, 16LF51, Rangia and Ostrea shell Coles Creek, Plaquemine, 51_16OR52 is F51_16LF52 16LF52) midden, historic cemetery Mississippian, historic Natural Levee Undetermined Soileau Natural levee of Prehistoric Woodland or deltaic distributary Bayou Laurier Mississippi period (based on reoccupied by Bayou 5-33 16LF71 Bridge Shell Midden previous data) Laurier Undetermined David Kelley 16LF263 Southern Thunder Rangia Midden Prehistoric; Coles Creek Natural Levee Undetermined Saunders Woodland (Unknown - Marksville or Later, From Prehistoric Artifact Scatter; Previous Site Form), Historic Artifact Scatter Antebellum, Industrial & Resulting from Offshore Modern (From Previous Site D. Bernis, A 16LF291 East Timbalier Shipwrecks Form) Sandy Beach Ineligible Davidhizer Native American in age Chip 16JE30 Theriot Pirogue Pirogue Shipwreck pending radiocarbon date Coastal Marsh Ineligible McGimsey 16JE221 Thundercrash Rangia Shell Midden Prehistoric; Mississippi Cheniere Undetermined Gerald L. Plaisance? 16JE222 Scattered Thunder Rangia Midden NeoIndian Natural Levee Undetermined (Owner) Table 5-5. Standing Structures Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Structure ID Name Addresss Parish Use Form Date 29-02558 Bouzigard House 19223 E. Main Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1935 29-02590 Rousse Estate c/o 1800 Avenue B Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Double-Shotgun ca. 1950 29-02596 Rousse House 29505 E. Main Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Double-Shotgun ca. 1950 29-03389 N/A 226 West 220th Street Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1935 29-03390 N/A 241 West 222nd Street Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1930 29-03391 N/A 22210 West Avenue East Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1930 29-03392 N/A 145 Lefort Lane Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1935 29-03393 N/A 2602 LA Highway 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1940 29-03394 N/A 2604 LA Highway 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Camelback ca. 1940 29-03395 N/A 2608 LA Highway 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1940 29-03396 N/A 2614 LA Highway 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1940 29-03397 N/A 2624 LA Highway 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1940 29-03403 N/A LA Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Central Hall ca. 1940 5-34 29-03403 N/A LA Hwy 1 Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Central Hall ca. 1940 29-03405 N/A Louis Bernard Memorial Dr. Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1930 29-03405 N/A Louis Bernard Memorial Dr. Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1930 29-03406 N/A Louis Bernard Memorial Dr. Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1940 29-03406 N/A Louis Bernard Memorial Dr. Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1940 29-03408 N/A Louis Bernard Memorial Dr. Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Camelback ca. 1930 29-03408 N/A Louis Bernard Memorial Dr. Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Camelback ca. 1930 29-03410 N/A 175 Martin Lane Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1943 29-03410 N/A 175 Martin Lane 29-03411 N/A 164 Martin Lane Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Freestanding Commercial ca. 1940 29-03411 N/A 164 Martin Lane Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Freestanding Commercial ca. 1940 29-03412 N/A 165 Martin Lane Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1940 29-03412 N/A 165 Martin Lane Lafourche Residential- Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1940 29-07290 Unavailable 2639 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Double-Shotgun ca. 1954 Domestic, Multiple Dwelling and 29-07293 N/A 2643 Hwy 1 Lafourche Commerce/Trade, Business Freestanding Commercial 29-07294 Unavailable 2625 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Bungalow ca. 1953 Table 5-5. Standing Structures Located within All Sites and the One-Mile Buffer of the Port Fourchon Project Area in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Structure ID Name Addresss Parish Use Form Date 29-07296 Unavailable 2613 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Double-Shotgun ca. 1957 Domestic, Single Dwelling and 29-07298 Williams Grocery 2600 Hwy 1 Lafourche Commerce/ Trade Business Shotgun ca. 1921 29-07303 Repois House 2509 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Double-Shotgun ca. 1945 29-07304 Gisclaire House 2511 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Double-Shotgun ca. 1949 29-07323 Forest House 2305 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Minimal Traditional Cottage ca. 1930 29-07324 Dantin Estate 2303 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Double-Shotgun ca. 1951 29-07333 Unavailable 2219 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Bungalow ca. 1955 29-07337 Lafont House 2213 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Shotgun ca. 1935 29-07349 Plaisance House 2121 Hwy 1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Row House ca. 1960 29-07399 Golden Lbr 1600 Hwy 1 Lafourche Commerce/Trade, Business Freestanding Commercial ca. 1941 29-07434 Gaspard House 1023 Hwy1 Lafourche Domestic, Single Dwelling Double-Shotgun ca. 1926 5-35 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PROBABILITY MODEL Conclusions and Recommendations Cultural resources investigations in the Port Fourchon Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin and associated areas for dredge spoil disposal have documented erosive processes that have had a marked impact on previously recorded archaeological sites. Many sites have eroded into the newly formed bays and then have been re-deposited on adjacent shorelines. This process of erosion is, in part, a natural deltaic event, but has been exacerbated by numerous human activities. Damming Bayou Lafourche in the early-twentieth century has allowed the Gulf to reclaim much of the land that surrounded the once powerful distributary. Additionally, pipelines and man-made canals have ushered saltwater to inland areas. Wakes from boats intensified wave-action, further increasing the rate of erosion to coastal archaeological sites. Erecting artificial levees has helped protect some cultural resources, but also has damaged others during levee construction. Furthermore, the levees restrict the natural flow of sediment and freshwater into the marshes, thus allowing for more saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, there are few intact archaeological sites left in and around the project area(s) and the probability of finding new sites is diminished because of the aforementioned forces. In spite of these factors, intact sites have been documented recently in nearby areas (Braud 2008; Goodwin et al. 2012). Any area that has not been subject to archaeological testing is recommended for survey. Areas that cannot be transected by foot should be accessed by boat, and core samples should be taken if construction or dredge disposal activities will disturb the seafloor in those areas. Shorelines should be inspected to determine if there are any eroding buried archaeological deposits. If any cultural deposits are located, these should be delineated to gauge horizontal and vertical extents according to standards set forth by the Division of Archaeology, Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Previously recorded sites should be revisited and reevaluated. Given the constant erosion of the Lafourche delta plain, all sites in areas to be impacted by construction or dredge spoil dumping, even those determined ineligible, should be revisited to determine if sites that had been formerly protected/buried are now exposed and/or destroyed. Finally, it is recommended that exact areas to be impacted by dredge spoil be mapped and a cultural resources testing plan implemented. For instance, certain exposed areas could be more sensitive than others, necessitating limiting where the trucks could access dumping areas and where the excavators and bulldozers could be working in order to protect archaeological sites. Such exposed site areas will need to be covered carefully to prevent machinery from rolling directly over the site before it is covered with material. Furthermore, the treatment of active or inactive cemeteries and sites with undetermined eligibility should be discussed with the SHPO. It is important to note that cultural resources covered with dredge material might not be adversely affected, and in fact, additional damage to an existing site might be mitigated because additive soil prevents further erosion of cultural resources. This is true as long as care is taken when dumping dredge material; heavy machinery that could mix soils should not roll onto the site before a buffer protecting the site from damage is in place. Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel and Turning Basin (Construction Area). The construction area is that area where dredging is proposed for the access channel and where the turning basin and diked area are to be constructed (Figure 1-2). Phase I terrestrial survey should be undertaken where the turning basin is to be constructed but should also include the 170 A (68.8 ha) diked area. Any cultural resources located in the proposed 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel from Port Fourchon to the Gulf of Mexico are 6-1 most likely related to pipeline and oil/gas production, as well as historic shipwrecks and prehistoric sites. Only one previously recorded site, the West of Belle Pass site (16LF7), is located in the direct path of the channel. Sites 16LF82, 16LF85 and 16LF86 are (or were) located on the edge of the channel. Erosional processes have displaced 16LF85 and 16LF86. Once observed to be in situ, these deposits were washed away and mixed with remains of other sites, such as the Bayou Moreau Site Complex (16LF282) along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Recent studies have failed to relocate any remnants of these sites. Despite the negative findings, areas within the construction footprint should be revisited in an effort to document these or other sites. Points of obstruction have also been documented within the project area of the channel near Belle Pass and should be investigated further (Table 5-1). Six points for wrecks are currently recorded within the Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel project area between the Discovery Gas Transmission pipeline and the Gulf waters; three more can be seen between the Discovery Gas Transmission pipeline and the buffer of the Port Fourchon 50-Foot Navigation Access Channel. Twenty-two obstruction points are clustered near the coast of Port Fourchon and the mouth of Bayou Lafourche (Belle Pass). Sixteen points are similarly concentrated at the southernmost section of the proposed channel improvement; most are related to gas and oil platforms. Only one potential shipwreck is plotted in this offshore portion of the project area. All of these previously recorded obstructions and any new anomalies (after magnetometer and side scan sonar surveys) indicative of potential shipwrecks within the proposed construction areas should be investigated further during marine survey. Schedule A (Immediate Disposal Area). The immediate disposal area is for the material initially dredged from the construction area (Figure 1-2). Much of this area has not undergone cultural resources survey. Because Bayou Lafourche was the major distributary to the region, its remaining natural levee is the highest of the delta plain, and therefore the most likely area to have intact deposits. Many of the sites located along Bayou Lafourche and Belle Pass (16LF7, 16LF34, 16LF82, 16LF83, and 16LF84) have been determined ineligible for NRHP nomination due to erosion. The NRHP eligibility for sites 16LF85, 16LF86, 16LF249, and 16LF250 along Bayou Lafourche and its biggest distributary, Bayou Moreau (16LF272 and 16LF273), are undetermined. These sites should be revisited and re-evaluated before any activity could affect them. Specifically, the 2nd Fiddlers’ Bend site (16LF250) could have culturally significant deposits, including a prehistoric cemetery and in situ midden. Any of the sites that are found to retain depositional integrity or exhibit research potential will require mitigation prior to the placement of dredge spoil. Mitigation plans would need to be developed through consultation among the USACE, SHPO, and other interested parties. The rest of the sites mapped in the Schedule A deposition area hug the Gulf shoreline. While 16LF282 is not NRHP eligible, the eligibility of Bay Marchand (16LF8), East of Belle Pass (16LF9), Feti (16LF271), and Vellela (16LF274) have not been determined. These sites should be revisited prior to dredge deposition and mitigations plans should be developed if the sites are determined NRHP eligible. The shipwrecks and obstructions recorded in Schedule A are primarily mapped immediately south of Leeville and along the Gulf Coast (Table 5-1). Most of the obstructions are related to pipeline debris and gas/oil platforms. These locations should be investigated to determine if they could be historic resources or if they are just modern oil and gas debris/obstructions. All Sites and One-Mile Buffer (Potential Disposal Area Over 50 Years). Areas scheduled for dredge spoil deposits over the next 50 years (All Sites) include areas to the east and west of LA 1 between Leeville and Golden Meadow (Figure 1-2). These areas should be surveyed for cultural resources prior to activity; as of now, no current work is recommended for 6-2 these areas. Prior to future maintenance dredging projects, it is recommended that exact areas should be proposed within the general project area, and those specific areas surveyed to inventory the archaeological sites that are present. These proposed areas should be decided upon a year in advance so that archaeological survey can proceed through Phase III data recovery, if necessary. The cultural resources background research should be revised before the dredge is deposited within these areas. As in the case of the project area scheduled for immediate dredge deposition, care should be taken when dumping dredge material, but archaeological investigations should be undertaken in the specific proposed areas after consultation with the SHPO and the USACE. At the time of writing this report, previously recorded sites within the potential deposition (All Sites) disposal area that may contain intact cultural deposits include those in surrounding area of East Timbalier Island (16LF291), as well as sites along the Gulf Coast to the south, Caminada Bay to the East near the Lafourche/Jefferson parish line, and sites around Leeville. The NRHP eligibility of Bayou Thunder von Tranc (16LF11), Caminada Bay (16LF12), Leeville (16LF37), Bayou Laurier Bridge (16LF71), Southern Thunder (16LF263), Thundercrash (16JE221), and Scattered Thunder (16JE222) are undetermined; these areas should be reexamined. Furthermore, obstruction points and wrecks within this area that also fall within the future proposed specific disposal areas should be investigated (Table 5-2). Probability of Locating a Prehistoric Site Although Bayou Lafourche did undergo a cultural resource investigation (Neuman 1976), the natural levee could support archaeological sites that have not yet been identified. As the areas undergo erosion, soils recede and banks and shorelines of Bayou Lafourche that had previously been covered and excluded from the Neuman survey are becoming exposed. Additionally, at the time of writing, the west bank and portions of the east bank of Bayou Moreau between the Flotation Canal and the Gulf had not been surveyed. As Bayou Moreau is currently the largest distributary of Bayou Lafourche, and the most influential distributary of the Lafourche Delta Plain, cultural resources could be located on any extant or relict natural levee. Information for areas north of Port Fourchon stem from a helicopter survey of the banks of Bayou Lafourche (Neuman 1976) and a Department of Transportation survey by Earth Search, Inc., between Port Lafourche and Leeville (Appollonio et al. 2004; Smith 2008). Areas between Lake Raccourci and Bayou Lafourche towards the west of the project area that have not been surveyed could have supported prehistoric and historic occupations; most cultural resources would be on what was the natural levee of Bayou Lafourche. Wherever these natural land formations exist in this portion of the project area, in situ deposits could be present. Areas to the east of Bayou Lafourche, except for the Bayou Moreau natural levee, have less potential for productive, in situ cultural deposits, but would still require boat and pedestrian survey to identify any extant sites are in the project area. As for those parcels within the Schedule A project area, elevated landforms, such as natural levees along waterways, offer a higher potential of retaining cultural resources than lower lying landforms in the marsh. Because of the delta’s state of erosion, the silty, clayey areas between Grand Isle and the mainland are in a natural state of collapse, so that only the highest lands would retain intact and accessible cultural deposits. It is likely that as the distance from the coast, Bayou Lafourche, and Bayou Moreau increases, the likelihood of locating intact archaeological deposits wanes. Additionally, because most of the natural landforms in the project area are eroding, the likelihood of detecting in situ deposits decreases over time. The probability of finding intact prehistoric cultural resources is low within the interdistributary areas within project area as a whole. Probability increases along the natural levees within the project area, specifically bayous Lafourche and Moreau. Research concerning the geomorphological 6-3 development of the area, with particular interest in relict natural levees, as well as, examination of historic maps of the project area is recommended prior to cultural resource investigations at specific areas of dredge disposal (see Chapter 2). Probability of Locating a Historic Site As with prehistoric sites, the probability of locating a historic site increases with proximity to naturally formed waterways. Historically, both Native Americans and European peoples cut channels in this coastal area to more efficiently navigate the local waters by boat; the remains of their local watercraft, pirogues and dugouts, could be located near the Gulf or the remaining natural distributaries. Additionally, remnants of historic European/American ships navigating the Gulf could be wrecked along the coast, as the land surrounding Bayou Lafourche was directly north of the natural currents passing from Mexico to Havana; storm winds or poor navigation could have routed ships to crash along the shallow coastal areas surrounding Bayou Lafourche. Finally, these coastal areas could hold remnants of the cargo from these historic ships, if not the wreck itself. Sites such as East Timbalier (16LF271) include a historic component that could have been strewn from a shipwreck (Novak, Goodwin, and Brooks 2010). Oil and gas activity along Port Fourchon, the Gulf of Mexico, and associated pipelines around the area could be older than 50 years of age and should be evaluated as historic cultural resources. Because the area is so marked by oil and gas activity, it is known that cultural resources related to gas and oil are currently present in abundance. Cultural resource surveys should document the remaining oil/gas infrastructure within the project area. 6-4 REFERENCES CITED American State Papers 1834 House of Representatives, 23rd Congress, 1st Session. Public Lands Volume 6 : No. 1177. Pp. 678, 698 Apollonio, Heather, Bethany Bingham, Tatum Evans, Aubra L. Lee, Kathryn B. Lintott, Kerriann Marden, Benjamin D. Maygarden, Allen Saltus, and Rhonda L. Smith 2004 Intensive Cultural Resources Survey LA 1 Improvements Golden Meadow to Fourchon Route LA 1 Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-2602). Submitted to the Louisiana of Department of Transportation and Development. Submitted by Earth Search, Inc. Arthur, Stanley Clisby. 1952 Jean Laffite, Gentleman Rover. Harmanson, New Orleans. Asch, Nancy B., Richard I. Ford, and David L. Asch 1979 Paleoethnobotany of the Koster Site: The Archaic Horizons. Report of Investigations 24, Illinois State Museum, Carbondale. Austin, Diane, Tyler Priest, Lauren Penney, Joseph Pratt, Allan G. Pulsippher, Joseph Abel, and Jennifer Taylor 2008 History of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in Southern Louisiana, Volume 1: Papers on the Evolving Offshore Industry. Prepared under MMS Contract 1435- 01-02-CA-85169, Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies. U.S. Department of the Interiar, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans. Babiri, Stuart and Matthew Hanks 2015 A Geohazard and Archaeoloical Assessment Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation Project, Lafourche, Louisiana. Bassett, John Spencer 1935 Correspondence Of Andrew Jackson. Volume II. Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. Beavers, Richard C. 1982a Data Recovery for Area of Adverse Impact by Proposed Access Facilities at the Barataria Basin, Marsh Unit-Core Area. Submitted to Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, New Orleans. 1982b Archeological Site Inventory: Barataria Basin Marsh Unit-Core Area, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, New Orleans. 1986 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Coastal Use Permit Application P851379 Lafourche Parish Water District No. 1 Sec. 16, T21S-R22E (22-1117). Submitted to Larry J. Picciola, Inc., Larose. Beavers, Richard and Teresia Lamb 1980 A Level I Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of Fourchon Island, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-0645). Submitted by University of New Orleans. R-1 Suubmitted for Edward Wisner Donation Advisory Committee New Orleans, Louisiana. Belmont, John S. 1967Cultural Sequence at the Greenhouse Site, Louisiana. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 6:27-35. 1980 Goldmine (16RI13): Preliminary Report on the 1980 Season. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. 1982 Toltec and Coles Creek: A View from the Southern Lower Mississippi Valley. In Emerging Patterns of Plum Bayou Culture, edited by Martha Rolingson, pp. 64- 70. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, Fayetteville. 1984 The Troyville Concept and the Gold Mine Site. Louisiana Archaeology 9:65-98. Bergeron, Jr., Arthur W. 1985 The Lafourche Country in the Civil War. In The Lafourche Country, edited by Philip D. Uzee, Center For Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, pp. 198-205. Bienville, Jean Baptiste Le Moyne de 1932 Memoir on Louisiana, the Indians and the Commerce That Can Be Carried On with Them. In Mississippi Provincial Archives 1704-1743: French Dominion, compiled, edited, and translated by Dunbar Rowland and Albert Godfrey Sanders, vol. 3, pp.499-540. Press of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Bitgood, Mark J. 1989 The Baytown Period in the Upper Tensas Basin. Bulletin No. 12, Lower Mississippi Survey, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge. Blitz, John H. and C. Baxter Mann 2000 Fisherfolk, Farmers and Frenchmen: Archaeological Explorations on the Mississippi Gulf Coast: Vol. 30. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Blunt, Edmund March 1867 The American Coast Pilot: Containing Directions for the Principal Harbors, Capes, and Headlands, on the coast of North and Port of South American. G. W. Blunt, publisher, New York. Bouchereau, Alcee and Louis 1868-1917 Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crops Made in Louisiana. Pelican Steam Book and Job Printing, New Orleans. Borne, L. A. 1945 The Longest Street in the World. In Jefferson Parish Yearly Review, Police Jury of Jefferson Parish, Kenner, LA. Brain, Jeffrey P. R-2 1982 La Salle at the Natchez: An Archaeological and Historical Perspective. In La Salle and His Legacy: Frenchmen and Indians in the Lower Mississippi Valley, edited by Patricia Galloway, pp. 49-59. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson. 1989 Winterville: Late Prehistoric Culture Contact in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Archaeological Report No. 23. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS. Brasseaux, Carl A. 2005 French, Cajun, Creole, Houma: A Primer on Francophone Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA. Braud, Melissa R. with contributions from Richard A. Weinstein, Paul V. Heinrich, William D. Reeves, Donald Davis, George J. Castille III and Joanne Ryan 2008 Cultural Resources Survey of the Caminda Headland Restoration Feasibility Study, Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, Louisiana (22-2966). Prepared for Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Prepared by Coastal Environments, Inc. Britsch, Louis, and Joseph B. Dunbar 1990 Geomorphic Investigation of Davis Pond, Louisiana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg. Brooks, Charles S. 1961 The Siege Of New Orleans. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Brown, Clifford T., Dave D. Davis, Julian Granberry, Roger Saucier, Lynn A. Berg, Christine Herman, J. Cinder Griffin Miller, Jeremy Pincoske, Susan Barrett Smith, Patrick P. Robblee, William P. Athens 2000 Morganza to the Gulf Feasibility Study: Cultural Resources Literature and Records Review, Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana, Vol. 1. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Brown, Ian W. 1984 Late Prehistory in Coastal Louisiana: The Coles Creek Period. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory. Dave D. Davis editor. pp. 94 – 124. Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History No. 5. The Florida State Museum. 1985 Plaquemine Architectural Patterns in the Natchezz Bluff and Surrounding Regions of the Lower Mississippi valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10:251-305. Burnett, Barbara A. and Katherine A. Murray 1993 Death, Drought, and De Soto. In The Expedition of Hernando de Soto West of the Mississippi, 1541-1543, edited by Gloria A. Young and Michael P. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Byrd, Kathleen M. 1976 The Brackish Water Clam (Rangia cuneata): A Prehistoric “Staff of Life” or a Minor Food Resource. Louisiana Archaeology 3:23-31. R-3 1991 Poverty Point Culture: Its Local Manifestations, Subsistence Practices, and Trade Networks. Geoscience and Man 29, School of Geoscience, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Cadillac, Antoine de Lamothe de 1929 Lamothe Cadillac to Pontchartrain. In Mississippi Provincial Archives 1701-1729: French Dominion, compiled, edited, and translated by Dunbar Rowland and Albert Godfrey Sanders, vol. 2, pp.162-204. Press of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. Caldwell, Joseph R., and Robert L. Hall (editors) 1964 Hopewellian Studies. Scientific Paper No. 12, Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Calvet, Louis-Jean 1998 Barataria: L’Étrange Histoire De Jean Laffite, Pirate. Plon, Paris. Casey, Powell 1983 Encyclopedia Of Forts, Posts, Named Camps, And Other Military Installations In Louisiana, 1700-1981. Claitor’s Publishing Division, Baton Rouge. Champomier, P. A. 1873 Statement of the Sugar Crop Made in Louisiana. Cook, Young, and Company, New Orleans. Chappelle, Howard I. 1949 The History Of The American Sailing Navy. W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., New York Charlevoix, Pierre F. X. de 1977 Charlevoix’s Louisiana: Selections from the History and the Journal, edited by Charles E. O’Neill. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Originally published in 1744. Clark, John G. 1970 New Orleans 1718-1812: An Economic History. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Clayton, Lawrence, Vernon James Knight Jr., and Edward C. Moore, eds. 1993 The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, 2 Vols. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Coastal Environments, Inc. 1996 Project Plan and Environmental Assessment for Brady Canal Hydrologic Restoration, PTE-26b, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Colvin, Thomas A. 2006 Cane and Palmetto Basketry of the Choctaw of St. Tammany Parish. In The Work of Tribal Hands: Southeastern Indian Split Cane Basketry, edited by Dayna Bowker Lee and H. F. Gregory. Northwestern State University Press, Natchitoches, Louisiana. Comeaux, Malcolm R-4 1985 Folk Boats of Louisiana. Folklife in Louisiana: A Guide to the State. Office of Cultural Development, Baton Rouge, LA. Connolly, B. P. 1999 1999 Annual Report: Station Archaeology Program at Poverty Point State Commemorative Area. Submitted to Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Cusachs, Gaspar 1919 Lafitte, the Louisiana Pirate and Patriot. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 2(4):418- 437. Cusick, James G., Todd McMakin, Shannon Dawdy, and Jill-Karen Yakubik 1995 Cultural Resources Documentation Black River Bridge at Jonesville JCT. LA 3037 to LA 565, Catahoula and Concordia Parishes Route LA-U.S. 84. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Davis, David D. 1981 Ceramic Classification and Temporal Discrimination: A Consideration of Later Prehistoric Stylistic Change in the Mississippi River Delta. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6:55-89. Davis, Dave D. and Giardino, M.J. 1981 Some Notes Concerning Mississippian Period Ceramics in the Mississippi River Delta. Louisiana Archaeology 7: 53-66. Davis, Dave D., Tristram R. Kidder, and David A. Barondess 1982 Reduction Analysis of Simple Bone Industries, an Example from the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Archaeology of Eastern North America, Volume 11:98-108. Davis, William C. 2005 The Pirates Lafitte: The Treacherous World of the Corsairs of the Gulf. Harcourt, Inc., Orlando. De Grummond, Jane Lucas 1961 The Baratarians And The Battle Of New Orleans. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Delanglez, Jean, S. J. 1939 Documents: Tonti Letters. Mid-America 22 (1):209-238. DeMarcay, Gary B. n.d. A Preliminary Report on Isle Bonne, 16JE60. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of New Orleans, New Orleans. Din, Gilbert C. 1988 The Canary Islanders of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Diocese of Baton Rouge 1982 Catholic Church Records Of The Diocese Of Baton Rouge, Vol. 3. Diocese of Baton Rouge. Ditto, Tanya R-5 1980 The Longest Street: A Story Of Lafourche Parish And Grand Isle. Moran Publishing Corporation, Baton Rouge. Dobyns, Henry 1983 Their Number Become Thinned. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1987 Demographics of Native American History. In The American Indian and the Problem of History, edited by Calvin Martin, pp. 67-74. Oxford University Press, New York: 1991 New Native World: Links between Demographic and Cultural Changes. In Columbian Consequences: The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Perspective, edited by David Hurst Thomas, vol. 3, pp. 541-560. Smithsonian University Press, Washington, D.C. Duhe, Brian J. 1977 Preliminary Evidence of Seasonal Fishing Activity at Bayou Jasmine. Louisiana Archaeology 3:33-74. Du Ru, Paul 1934 Journal of Paul du Ru, edited and translated by Ruth Lapham Butler. Caxton Club, Chicago, Illinois. Evans, Sally Kitteridge, Frederick Stielow, and Betsy Swanson 1979 Grand Isle On The Gulf: An Early History. Jefferson Parish Historical Com- mission, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Farrell, Kathleen M. 1989 Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of Holocene Overbank Deposits of the Mississippi River, False River Region, Louisiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana state University, Baton Rouge. Faye, Stanley 1939 Privateersmen of the Gulf and Their Prizes. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 22(4):1012-1094. 1940a Privateers of Guadeloupe and Their Establishment in Barataria. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 23(2):428-444. 1940b The Great Stroke of Pierre Laffite. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 23(3):733-827. Fisk, H. N. 1947 Fine-grained Alluvial Deposits and Their effects on Mississippi river Activity. Mississippi River Commission, War Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Flores, Romero M., Frank G. Ethridge, Andrew D. Miall, William E. Galloway, and Thomas D. Fouch 1985 Recognition of Fluvial Systems and Their Resource Potential. SEPM Short Course No. 19. Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa. Ford, James A. R-6 1951 Greenhouse: A Troyville-Coles Creek Period Site in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Papers Vol. 44, Pt. 1, American Museum of Natural History, New York. Ford, James A. and George I Quimby, Jr. 1945 The Tchefuncte Culture, an Early Occupation of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 2 Fortier, Alcée 1914 Louisiana. Volume II. Century Historical Association, New Orleans. Fowke, Gerard 1927 Archaeological Work in Louisiana. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 78(7):254-259, Washington, D.C. 1928 Archaeological Investigations II: Explorations in the Red River Valley in Louisiana. In Archaeological Investigations II. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 44. Washington D.C. Franks, Herschel A. and Jill-Karen Yakubik 1990 Archeological Survey on 65 Acres of Land Adjacent to Bayou des Familles. Professional Papers No. 26, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, National Park Service, Santa Fe. Fritz, Gayle J. 1994 Coles Creek and Plaquemine Landscapes. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Lexington, Kentucky. 1997 Archaeological Plant Remains from the Birds Creek Site (16CT416), Catahoula, Parish. Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. Fritz, Gayle J., and Tristram R. Kidder 1993 Recent Investigations into Prehistoric Agriculture in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 12:1-14. Fuller, Richard S., Jr. 1991 Identification and Anallysis of Artifacts from Thirteen Sites in ad Adjacent to the Barataria Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to National Park Service, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, New Orleans. Gagliano, Sherwood M. 1963 A Survey of Preceramic Occupations in Portions of South Louisiana and Mississippi. Florida Anthropologist 16:105-132. 1978 Hydrologic and Geologic Studies of Coastal Louisiana, Report No. 14: Canals, Dredging, and Land Reclamation in the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Gagliano, Sherwood, Susan Fulgham, and Bert Rader 1979 Cultural Resources Studies in the Pearl River Mouth Area Louisiana – Mississippi: Surveys and Assessments of Five Areas in Conjunction with Proposed Construction of Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection Barrier. CEI R-7 report submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge (22- 0529). Gagliano, Sherwood M., Kathleen G. McCloskey, Johannes L. Van Beek, Richard A. Weinstein, Diane Wiseman and Karen M. Wicker 1979 Cultural Resources Survey of the Empire to the Gulf of Mexico Waterway, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Unpublished report on file with the Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Gagliano, Sherwood, Charles E. Pearson, Richard A. Weinstein, Diane E. Wiseman, and Christopher M. McClendon 1982 Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites: Criteria for the Identification of Submerged Archaeological Sites of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf. Submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Gagliano, Sherwood M., and Roger T. Saucier 1963 Poverty Point Sites in Southeastern Louisiana. American Antiquity 28:320-327. Gagliano, Sherwood M., R.A. Weinstein, and E.K. Burden 1975 Archaeological Investigations Along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway: Coastal Louisiana Area. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. 1976 Archeological Survey of the Port Fourchon Area, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-0002). Report Submitted by Coastal Environments, Inc. Submitted to Greater Lafourche Port Commission, Galliano, Louisiana. 1978 A Preliminary Study of the Cultural Resources of the St. Bernard Parish Wetlands, LA: An approach to management. A Coastal Environments, Inc. report submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology (22-1397). Gagliano, Sherwood M., Richard A. Weinstein, Eileen K. Burden, Katherine L. Brooks, and Wayne P. Glander 1979 Cultural Resources Survey of the Barataria, Segnette, and Rigaud Waterways, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Galloway, Patricia 1995 Choctaw Genesis 1500-1700. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln Galloway, William E., and David K. Hobday 1983 Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Systems. Springer-Verlag, New York. Gatschet, Albert 1883 The Shetimasha Indians of St. Mary’s Parish, Southern Louisiana. Transac-tions of the Anthropological Society of Washington II:148-159. Gayarre, Charles 1866 History Of Louisiana. James A. Gresham, New Orleans. R-8 Gertjejansen, Doyle J. and J. Richard Shenkel 1983 Laboratory Simulation of Tchefuncte Period Ceramic Vessels from the Pontchartrain Basin. Southeastern Archaeology 2(1):37-63. Giardino, Marco J. 1984 Report on the Ceramic Materials from the Coquille Site (16JE37), Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. Submitted to the National Park Service, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, New Orleans. 1985 Ceramic Attribute Analysis and Ethnic Group Composition: An Example from Southeastern Louisiana. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans. 1993 Cultural Chronology for 16SC27. Manuscript on file at Earth Search, Inc., New Orleans. n.d. Overview of the Archeology of the Coquilles Site, Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, Louisiana. Submitted to the National Park Service, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, New Orleans. Gibson, Jon L. 1970 Intersite Variability at Poverty Point: Some Preliminary Considerations on Lapidary. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 12:13-20. 1974a Poverty Point, the First North American Chiefdom. Archaeology 27(2):96-105. 1974b The Tchefuncte Culture I the Bayou Vermilion Basin, South Central Louisiana: A Developmental Case Study. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 45:67- 95. 1977 Archaeological Survey of Portions of Little River, Boeuf River, and Big Creek, East Central and Northeastern Louisiana. Center for Archaeological Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. 1978 Archaeological Survey of the Lower Atchafalaya Region, South Central Louisiana. Report No. 5, Center for Archaeological Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. 1980 Poverty Point. Anthropological Study No. 7, Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission, Baton Rouge. 1982 Old Creek, A Troyville Period Ossuary in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana: Reflections After a Quarter Century. Louisiana Archaeology 9:127-204. 1987 The Poverty Point Earthworks Reconsidered. Mississippi Archaeology 22:14-31. Gibson, Jon L. 1990 Search for the Lost Sixth Ridge: The 1989 Excavations at Poverty Point. Center for Archaeological Studies Report 9. University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. 1994 Before Their Time? Early Mounds in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 13(2):162-186. R-9 1996 Ancient Earthworks of the Ouachita Valley in Louisiana. Technical Reports 5, Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee. 2000 The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point: Place of Rings. University Press of Florida, Gainsville. Girard, Jeffrey S. 1994 Regional Archaeology Program, Management Unit I, Fifth Annual Report. Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana. 1997 Excavations at the Fredericks Site (16NA2), Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 24:1-106. Giraud, Marcel 1953 Histoire de la Louisiane Française: Le Règne de Louis XIV. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. 1974 Histoire de la Louisiane Française: La Louisiane après le Système de Law (1721-1723). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. 1991 A History of French Louisiana, Volume V: The Company of the Indies, 1723- 1731, translated by Brian Pearce. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Goins, Charles R., and John M. Caldwell 1995 Historical Atlas of Louisiana. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Goodwin, Christopher R., Gregg R. Brooks, and Rebekka A. Laron 2012 Phase II National Register Testing and Evaluation of Terrestrial and Offshore Components of the Cathy I Site, 16LF283, in the Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration Project Area, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-3988). Submitted to Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Gravier, Father Jacques 1905 Relation or Journal of the voyage of Father Gravier, of the Society of Jesus, in 1700, from the Country of the Illinois to the Mouth of the Mississippi River. In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610-1791, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites, vol. 65, pp. 100-179. Burrows Brothers, Cleveland, Ohio. Originally published in 1700. Greater Lafourche Port Commission 2018 Port History. Electronic document, http://portfourchon.com/seaport/port-history/, accessed March 13, 2018. Greengo, Robert E. 1964 Issaquena: An Archaeological Phase in the Yazoo Basin of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Memoirs 18, Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City. Gremillion, Kristen J. 2002 Human Ecology at the Edge of History. In Between Contacts and Colonies: Archaeological Perspectives on the Protohistoric Southeast, edited by Cameron B. Wesson & Mark A. Rees. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. R-10 Hally, David J 1993 The Territorial Size of Mississippian Cheifdoms. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 143-168. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological 25. Jackson Handley, Martin, Brandi Carrier, Nathanael Heller, Susan Barrett Smith, Shane Poche, Jill Langenberg, and William Athens. 2006 Monitoring of a Proposed Fire Protection Program Waterline Replacement Project, Jonesville, Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge.Harris, Eva Jeanne, James M. Wojtala, John A. Turner, Leslie McFaden, and R. Christopher Goodwin Harris, William H. 1881 Louisiana: Products, Resources, and Attractions. State Commission of Agriculture and Immigration, New Orleans. Hayes, Christopher T. and Richard A. Weinstein 2010 Tchefuncte and Early Woodland. In Archaeology of Louisiana, edited by Mark A. Rees, pp. 97-119. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Heartfield, Lorraine, Dennis Price, and Glen Greene 1985 Data Recovery at Archaeological Site 16NA37 (Montrose Site), Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge. Heller, Nathanael, Troy Nowak, Lindsay Hannah, Emily Crowe and William P. Athens 2009 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Marine Remote Sensiong Investigation of the Proposed Lake Borgne Bank Stabilization and Marsh Creation Project, Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. Report prepared by R.C. Goodwin and Associates, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. Heller, Nathanael, Dave Davis, Haley Holt, David Chatelain, Wayne Boyko, Charlotte Pevny, Raegan Buckley, Emily Meaden, Martha Williams, and R. Christopher Goodwin 2013 The Tchfuncte Culture and the Early Woodland in Coastal Louisiana: New Analysis of the Tchfuncte, Bayou Jasmine, Lafayette Mounds, and Little Woods Sites. Submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), New Orleans. Hinks, Stephen J., Paul V. Heinrich, and James P. Mooney 2001 Assessmnet of Archaeological Potential for the LA 2 Improvements Project, Golden Meadow to Port Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Holley, George R., and Gary B. DeMarcay 1977 Preliminary Report on the Prehistory of Barataria. Paper Presented at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, New Orleans. Holmes, Barbara 1986 Historic Resources Study: The Barataria Unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 5, Santa Fe. House, John H. R-11 1982 Powell Canal: Baytown Period Occupation on Bayou Macon in Southeast Arkansas. Research Series 19. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville. Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Hunter, Donald G. and William S. Baker, Jr. 1970 The Catahoula Phase of the Poverty Point Complex in East-Central Louisiana. In The Poverty Point Culture, edited by B.J. Broyles and C.H. Webb, pp. 73-89. Bulletin No. 12, Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Morgantown, West Virginia. 1979 Excavations in the Atkins Midden at the Troyville Site, Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 4:21-51. Hunter, Donald G., Charles E. Pearson, and Sally K. Reeves 1988 An Archaeological Survey of Golden Ranch Plantation, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Hunter, Donald G., Gayle J. Fritz, Whitney J. Autin, and Kam-biu Liu 1995 Manifest East: Cultural Resources Investigations Along Portions of Louisiana Highway 8, Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge. Hunter, Donald G. and Katherine M. Roberts 2005 The Charles E. Klueppel Site (16CT479): An Early Mississippi Period Ceramic Anomaly in the Lower Tensas Basin, Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 26:1-16. Hutchins, Thomas 1784 An Historical Narrative and Topographical Description of Louisiana and West- Florida…. Robert Aitken, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hyland, William D. 1980 St. Bernard Parish History. In St. Bernard Parish Celebrates Its Bicentennial. St. Bernard Parish Bicentennial Committee, Chalmette, Louisiana. Iberville, Pierre Le Moyne de 1981 Iberville’s Gulf Journals, translated by Richebourg Gaillard McWilliams. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Jackson, H. Edwin 1977 A Preliminary Report on Analysis of Bowie Site (16LF17) Materials. Manuscript on file, Center for Archaeology, Tulane University, New Orleans. 1986 Sedentism and Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations in the Lower Mississippi Valley: Subsistence Strategies During the Poverty Point Period. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Department of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. 1991a Bottomland Resources and Exploitation Strategies During the Poverty Point Period: Implications of the Archaeobiological Record from the J.W. Copes Site. In The Poverty Point Culture: Local Manifestations, Subsistence Practices, and Trade Networks, edited by Kathleen M. Byrd, pp. 131-157. Geoscience and Man 29, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. R-12 1991b The Trade Fair in Hunter-Gatherer Interaction: The Role of Intersocietal Trade in the Evolution of Poverty Point Culture; In Between Bands and States, edited by S. A. Gregg, pp. 265-286. Occasional Papers 9. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Jackson, Joyce Marie 2006 Declaration of Taking Twice: The Fazendeville Community of the Lower Ninth Ward. American Anthropologist 108 [4]:765-780. Jenkins, Ned J., and Richard A. Kraus 1986 The Tombigbee Watershed in Southeastern Prehistory. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Jeter, Marvin D., Jerome C. Rose, G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., and Anna M. Harmon 1989 Late Prehistoric Cultures, A.D. 1000-1500. In Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana, by M. D. Jeter, J. C. Rose, G. I. Williams, Jr., and A. M. Harmon, pp. 171-220. Research Series 37, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Johnson, Jay K. 1980 Poverty Point Adaptive Social Organization in the Yazoo Basin, Mississippi: A Preliminary Consideration. Louisiana Archaeology 6:253-284. Jones, Kenneth R., and Herschel S. Franks 1993 Archeological Monitoring, Jackson to Thalia Street Floodwall (Phase III), Orleans Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Jones, Dennis and Carl Kuttruff 1994 Prehistoric Earthen Enclosures and the Marksville Site: Results of 1993 Archaeological Investigations. Louisiana Archaeological Society, Baton Rouge. Jones, Kenneth R., Herschel A. Franks, and Tristram R. Kidder 1994 Cultural Resources Survey and Testing for Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, 2 volumes. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Jones, Kenneth R., Herschel A. Franks, Tristram R. Kidder, Jill K. Yakubik, and Benjamin Maygarden 1993 Cultural Resources Survey of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Dredged Material Disposal Areas, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Jones, Dennis and Malcolm Shuman 1987 Archaeological Atlas and Report of Prehistoric Indian Mounds in Louisiana: Ascension, Iberville, Pointe Coupee, St. James, West Baton Rouge, vol. II. Museum of Geoscience, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Jones, Olive 2000 A Guide to Dating Glass Tableware: 1800-1940. In Studies in Material Culture Research, ed. by Karlis Karklins. SHA Press, California, Pennsylvania. R-13 Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan with contributions by George L. Miller, E.Ann Smith, Jane E. Harris, and Kevin Lunn 1989 Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures. Canadian Parks Service, Quebec, Canada. Kane, Harnett 1944 The Bayous of Louisiana. The Hampton Publishing Company, New York. Kelley, David B. 1989 Archeological and Historical Investigations of Four Proposed Revetment Areas Located Along the Mississippi River in Southeast Louisiana. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. 1992 Coles Creek Period Faunal Exploitation in the Ouachita River Valley of Southern Arkansas. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 17(2):227-264. Kelman, Ari. 2006 A River and Its City: The Nature of Landscape in New Orleans. University of California Press, Berkeley. Kendall, John Smith 1927 Early New Orleans Newspapers. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 10(3):383-401. 1940 The Humors of the Duello. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 23(2): 445-470 Kidder, Tristram R. 1991 Ceramic Chronology and Culture History of the Southern Ouachita River Basin: Coles Creek to Early History Period. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 15:51-99. 1992 Coles Creek Period Social Organization and Evolution in Northeast Louisiana. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by Alex W. Barker and Timothy R. Pauketat, pp. 145-162. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 3, Washington, D.C. 1993 1992 Archaeological Test Excavations in Tensas Parish, Louisiana. Archaeological Report 2, Center for Archaeology, Tulane University, New Orleans. 1994 Ceramic and Cultural Chronology. In Cultural Resources Survey and Testing for Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, edited by K.R. Jones, H.A. Franks, and T.R. Kidder, pp. 397-432. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. 1996 Recent Radiocarbon Dates from the Tensas Basin and their Implications for the Chronology of the Coles Creek and Early Mississippi Periods. Paper Presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, Alexandria. 1998 Mississippi Mound Groups and Communities in the Lower Mississippi Valley. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces, edited by R. Barry Louis and Charles Stout, pp. 123-150. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2000 Coles Creek Culture in the Tensas Basin, Louisiana: A View form the Heartland. In Coles Creek Culture and Its Neighbors, edited by Tristram R. Kidder, pp. 39- 54. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. R-14 2002a Mapping Poverty Point. American Antiquity 67:89-101 2002b Woodland Period Archaeology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 66-90. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Kidder, Tristram R., and Gayle J. Fritz 1993 Subsistence and Social Change in the Lower Mississippi Valley: Excavations at the Reno Brake and Osceola Sites, Louisiana. Journal of Field Archeology 20:281-297. Kidder, Tristram R., and Douglas C. Wells 1994 Baytown Period Social Organization and Evolution in the Lower Mississippi Valley. On file, Center for Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans. Kidder, Tristram R., Timothy Schilling, and Lee Arco 2007 Geoarchaeology of Mound A at Poverty Point. Paper present at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Archaeology Society, Leesville. Kniffen, Fred B. 1936 A Preliminary Report on the Indian Mounds and Middens of Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes. In Lower Mississippi River Delta: Reports on the Geology of Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, by R.J. Russell, H.V. Howe, J.H. McGuirt, C.F. Dohm, W. Hadley, Jr., F.B. Kniffen, and C.A. Brown, pp. 407-422. Geological Bulletin 8. Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, New Orleans. Kniffen, Fred B., Hiram F. Gregory,and George A. Stokes 1987 The Historic Indian Tribes of Louisiana: Froma 1542 to the Present. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Knight, Vernon J., Jr. 1984 Late Prehistoric Adaptation in the Mobile Bay Region. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by D.D. Davis, pp. 198-215. Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History No. 5, University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Kowalski, Jessica, Richard A. Weinstein, Sara A. Hahn, Sally A. Morehead, Anne Marie M. Blank and Richard Fuller 2011 Terrestrial Cultural Resources Investigations for the MRGO Ecosystem Restoration Project, Southeast Louisiana. A Management Summary. Report prepared by Coastal Environments, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. La Harpe, Jean Baptiste Bénard de 1831 Journal historique de l'établissement des Français à la Louisiane. A.-L. Boimare, Libraire-Éditeur, Paris, Nouvelle-Orléans. 1971 The Historical Journal of the Establishment of the French in Louisiana, translated by Virginia Koenig and Joan Cain. University of Southwestern Louisiana Press, Lafayette. R-15 Labadia, Chaterine, Katy Cole, Paul Heinrich, Jeremy Pincoske and William P. Athens 2004 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Archeological Inventory of the Proposed Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Dredged Material FY98 Disposal Areas, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Report prepared by R.C. Goodwin and Associates, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. Laney, Rex (Editor) 1938 Louisiana Resources and Purchasing Power. Department of Commerce and Industry, Baton Rouge. La Salle, Nicolas de 1875 Récit Fait Par Le Jeune Nicolas De La Salle De L'entreprise De Robert Cavelier Pendant L'année 1682. In Découvertes et Etablissements des Français Dans L’Ouest et dans Le Sud de L’Amérique Septentrionale, edited by Pierre Margry, vol. 1, pp. 545-570. Imprimérie D. Jouaust, Paris. Originally published in 1682. La Salle, Réne-Robert 1846 Account of the Taking Possession of Louisiana by M. de La Salle. In Historical collections of Louisiana, Embracing Translations of Many Rare and Valuable Documents Relating to the Natural, Civil and Political History of that State. Compiled with historical and biographical notes, and an introduction by B.F. French, pp. 45-50. Wiley and Putnam, New York. Originally published in 1682. Latour, Arsène Lacarrière 1964. Historical Memoirs Of The War In West Florida And Louisiana In 1814-1815. Translated by H.P. Nugent. Reprinted. University of Florida Press, Gaines-ville. Originally published 1816. John Conrad, Philadelphia. 2008 (1999) Historical Memoir of the War in West Florida and Louisiana in 1814-15. Gene Allen Smith, ed., Historic New Orleans Collection and University Press of Florida, New Orleans and Gainesville. Lee, Aubra L. 2006 Gregory, Gibson, and Hunter: Batting Clean Up is Not So Bad. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, Monroe. . 2006b Troyville: Embankment and Riverbank Excavations. Louisiana Archaeological Society Newsletter 34:5-8. 2007 Update on Recent Archaeological Work at Troyville. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Louisiana Archaeology Week, Jonesville. 2008 Pre-Caddoan Connection between the Mississippi and Red River Valley. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Caddo Conference, Natchitoches. Lee, Aubra L. and Jill-Karen Yakubik 2003 A Research Design for Archaeological Data Recovery and Monitoring at the Troyville Mounds Site (16CT7). Submitted to Louisiana Department of Transportation, Baton Rouge. Lee, Aubra L., Rhonda Lee Smith, Jill-Karen Yakubik, Tristram R. Kidder, Ruben Saenz II, Benjamin Maygarden, Gayle Fritz, and Roger T. Saucier. R-16 1997 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Birds Creek Site (16CT416), Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge Lee, Aubra L., Jennea Biddescombe, David Bruner, David Harlan, Justine McKnight, Angele Montana, and Catherine Nolan, 2011 Archaeological Data Recovery and Monitoring at the Troyville Mounds Site (16CT7, Catahoula Parish, Louisiana (State Project Nos. 022-06-0040 & 022-07- 0050. Submitted to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge. Lee, Dayna Bowker 1989 Indian Slavery in Lower Louisiana During the Colonial Period: 1699-1803. Unpublished Master's thesis, Northwestern State University. 1997 The Historic Houma of Louisiana: 1699-1835. Southern Studies VIII (3-4):119- 155, 187-194. 2001 The Historic Houma of Louisiana, 1699-1835. In Southern Studies, vol. VIII, Nos. III & IV, 119-156. Le Page Du Pratz, Antoine Simone 1975 The History of Louisiana: Translated from the French of M. Le Page du Pratz, edited by Joseph G. Tregle, Jr. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Originally published in 1774. Lewis, R. Barry 2000 Sea-Level Rise and Subsidence Effects on Gulf Coast Archaeological Site Distributions. American Antiquity 65:535-541. Louisiana Board of State Engineers 1890 Report of the Board of State Engineers of the State of Louisiana to Governor of Louisiana. E. Marchand, State Printer, New Orleans. Louisiana Department of Agriculture (LA Dept. of Ag.) 1924 Louisiana Today. Louisiana Department of Agriculture, Baton Rouge. 1928 Louisiana Today. Louisiana Department of Agriculture, Baton Rouge. Louisiana GIS CD 1999 Louisiana GIS CD: A Digital Map of the State. Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Louisiana State Site Files Site forms for previously recorded archaeological sites Mann, Rob 2007 Recent Investigations at the Bayou Sorrel Mound (16IV4). Louisiana Archaeological Society Newsletter 35:14-16. Manto, Cindy Donze 2014 Michoud Assembly Facility. Arcadia Publishing, Manuel, Joseph O., Jr. R-17 1983 The Fleming-Berthoud Site16JE36. Louisiana Archaeological Society Newsletter 11(2):5-7. Margry, Pierre, ed. 1884 Découvertes et Etablissements des Français dans L’Ouest et dans Le Sud de L’Amérique Septentrionale. Paris: Imprimérie D. Jouaust. Matthews, Dayton 1984 Soil Survey of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, New Orleans. McGimsey, Chip 2003 The Morton Shell Mound Project and Other Stories of Southwest Louisiana Prehistory. Louisiana Regional Archaeology Program, Management Unit III, 2002/2003 Annual Report, Lafayette. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. 2004 The Goldmine Site (16RI13): An AD 825 Ossuary in Northeast Louisiana. Louisiana Regional Archaeology Program, Management Unit III, 2003/2004 Annual Report, Lafayette. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. McGimsey, Chip, Katherine M. Roberts, H. Edwin Jackson, and Michael L. Hargrave 1999 Markville Then and Now: 75 Years of Digging. Louisiana Archaeology 26:75- 98. McIntire, William G. 1958 Prehistoric Indian Settlements of the Changing Mississippi River Delta. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. McIntire, William G., Donald W. Davis, William H. Conner, and Randall A. Detro 1981 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection Levee Sections “F” First Lift and “A” East First Lift (22-0723). Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. McWilliams, Richebourg G., trans., ed. 1981 Iberville's Gulf Journals. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa Miller, Cinder Griffin, Dave Robinson, Roger Saucier, Susan Barrett Smith, John Seidel, Glenn Walter, Clifford T. Brown, Michele Williams, and William P. Athens 1996 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory of the Proposed Discovery Gas Transmission LLC Pipeline Project, Gulf of Mexico to Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-2019). Submitted to Discovery Gas Transmission LLC. Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates. Misner, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth J. Reitz 1994 Vertebrate Fauna from 16SC27. In Cultural Resources Survey and Testing for Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, vol. 2, by Kenneth Jones, Herschel A. Franks, and Tristram R. Kidder, pp. 439-502. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Mississippi River Commission 1883 Survey of the Mississippi River, Chart No. 76. Surveyed 1874. R-18 n.a. 2007 Hydrographic Survey H11457, Louisiana Safety Fairways, Louisiana, Port Fourchon (22-4649). Submitted by C.C. Technologies. 2009 Report of a Submerged Hydrographic Multibeam and 200% Sidescan Sonar Survey of a Tract of Land between Timbalier Bay and Belle Passe (22-3542). Submitted by Science Applications International Corp. 2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey - Negative Findings Report (22-4371). Submitted by EBI Consulting. Nassaney, Michael S. and Kendra Pyle 1999 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central Arkansas. American Antiquity 64:243-263. Neuman, Robert W. 1970 Archaeological Survey of the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Project Area, Southeast Louisiana. LAS report submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge (22-0226). 1973 Archaeological Survey of the Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche-Jump Waterway, Louisiana (22-2018). Prepared by the Louisiana State University. 1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Pipeline Route from Bay Marchand Northward Along Bayou Lafourche, Louisiana (22-0065). Report Submitted by the Department of Art, Historical and Cultural Preservation. 1984 An Introduction to Louisiana Archaeology. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Novak, Troy J. R. Christopher Goodwin, Gregg Brooks with contributions by Kathryn Kuranda, David Benae, Nathanael Heller, and Katy Coyle 2010 Cultural Resources Assessment/ Probability Study for the Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana (22- 3433). Submitted by Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration. Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates. Patterson, Daniel T. 1814 Pirates of Barataria. Niles’ Weekly Register VII (November 19, 1814):166-167. Pauketat, Timothy R. 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. AltaMira Press, New York. Pearson, Charles E., George J. Castille, Donald Davis, Thomas E. Redard, and Allen R. Saltus 1989 A History of Waterborne Commerce and Transportation Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District and an Inventory of Kown Underwater Cultural Resources. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Pearson, Charles E., Bryan L. Guevin, and Sally K. Reeves R-19 1989 A Tongue of Land near La Fourche: The Archaeology and History of Golden Ranch Plantation, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Pearson, Samuel and Beth Ryba 2014 A Negative Findings Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Rigolets Telecommunications Tower, Orleans Parish. MRS report submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge (22-4529). Pénicaut, André 1953 Fleur de Lys and Calumet, edited by Richebourg Gaillard McWilliams. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Penland, S., R. Boyd, and J. R. Suter 1988 Transgressive depositional systems of the Mississippi delta plain: A model of barrier shoreline and shelf sand development. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 58:932-949. Penland, S., J. R. Suter, R. A. McBride, and R. Boyd 1991 New depositional model for the Mississippi River delta plain. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 75:1534. Phillips, Philip 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 60, Harvard University, Cambridge. Poplin, Eric C., Kenneth G. Kelly, Donald Bascle, and R. Christopher Goodwin 1986 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Western Sections of the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection Project, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-1143). Submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Lousiana. Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Porter, David D. 1875 Memoir Of Commodore David Porter, Of The United States Navy. J. Munsell, Albany, N.Y. Pugh, W. W. 1888 Bayou Lafourche from 1840 to 1850 – Its Inhabitants, Customs and Pursuits. The Louisiana Planter and Sugar Manufacturer, Vol. I, No. 16. Ramenofsky, Ann F. 1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Rees, Mark A. and Patrick C. Livingood (editors) 2007 Plaquemine Archaeology. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Richadelle, Kathryn 2002 A Short History Of Leeville, Louisiana. Memoires du Bayou Lafourche 23 (2):1- 3. Ring, Diane M. R-20 1985 Evaluation of the Hegwood Bayou Phase as a Late Marksville Period Phase in the Northern Boeuf Basin, Louisiana. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. Rivet, Philip G. 1976 Cultural Resources Survey of the Relocation of LA 1 (Golden Meadow-Larose), Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-0216). Submitted to the State of Louisiana Department of Highways. Roberts, Katherine M. 1995 Laboratory Notes on file. Paleoethnobotanical Laboratory, Washington University, St. Louisiana. Roe, Lori M. and Timothy M. Schilling 2010 Coles Creek. In Archaeology of Louisiana. Mark A. Rees ed. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Rolingson, Martha A. 1990 The Toltec Mounds Site: A Ceremonial Center in the Arkansas River Lowland. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 27-49. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2002 Plum Bayou Culture of the Arkansas-White River Basin. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 44-65. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Rolingson, Marth A. and J. Michael Howard 1997 Igneous Lithics of Central Arkansas: Identification, Sources, and Artifact Distribution. Southeastern Archaeology 16:33-50. Rowland, Dunbar 1917 Official Letter Books Of W.C.C.C. Claiborne, 1801-1816, Vol. VI. The Missis- sippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi. Ryan, Joanne (editor) 2004 Data Recovery Excavations at the Hedgeland Site (16CT19), Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg. Ryan, Joanne, Douglas C. Wells, and Justine Woodard McKnight 2007 Phase III Data-Recovery Excavations at 16IV94 and 16IV109, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeological Society Newsletter 35:10. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2004 Complex Hunter-Gatherers in Evolution and History: A North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12:227-280. 2005 Poverty Point as Structure, Event, Process. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12:335-364. Saltus, Allen R. n.d. Vessels associated with Grand Terre Island. Compiled from Ship Registers And Enrollments Of New Orleans, Louisiana, Works Progress Administration Survey R-21 of Federal Archives in Louisiana, 1942. Unpublished manuscript on file, Earth Search, Inc. Saltus, Allen R., Kay G. Hudson, and Leslie Clendenon 1975 Environmental Assessment of Proposed Pipeline Construction in Terrebonne, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemine Parishes, Louisiana (22-0317). Submitted by Gulf South Research Institute. Saltus, Allen R., Jr. and Charles E. Pearson 1990 Cultural Resources Investigations at Island 86, Mississippi River, Arkansas- Mississippi. Submitted by Coastal Environments, Inc. to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District. Saucier, Roger T. 1963 Recent Geomorphic History of the Pontchartrain Basin. Louisiana State University Studies, Coastal Studies Series 9. 1994a Geomorphology and Quaternary Geologic History of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Submitted to Mississippi River Commission, Vicksburg. Saunders, Rebecca Saunders, Rebecca 1994 Annual Report for Management Units 4 and 5 Regional Archaeology Program Museum of Natural Science Louisiana State University (22-1876). Saunders, Joe and Reca B. Jones 2003 2003 Annual Report for Management Unit 2, Louisiana Regional Archaeology Program, Monroe. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. 2004 2004 Annual Report for Management Unit 2, Louisiana Regional Archaeology Program, Monroe. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Saunders, Joe, Reca B. Jones, and Thurman Allen 2005 2005 Annual Report for Management Unit 2, Louisiana Regional Archaeology Program, Monroe. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Saunders, Joe, Reca B. Jones, and Thurman Allen 2006 2006 Annual Report for Management Unit 2, Louisiana Regional Archaeology Program, Monroe. Submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. Saunders, Rebecca A. 1997 Stylistic Influences on the Gulf Coastal Plains: New Evidence from Paddle Stamped Pottery in Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 23:93-124. Sauvole 1880 Letter de Sauvole. In Découvertes et Etablissements des Français Dans L’Ouest et dans Le Sud de L’Amérique Septentrionale, edited by Pierre Margry, vol. 4, pp. 445-462. Imprimérie D. Jouaust, Paris. Originally published in 1700. R-22 1969 The Journal of Sauvole, edited by Prieur Jay Higginbotham. Colonial Books, Mobile, Alabama. Originally published in 1699-1701. Schilling, Timothy M. 2004 Excavations at the Bayou Grande Cheniere Mounds (16PL159): A Coles Creek Period Mound Complex. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Schmeckbier, Laurence F. 1924 The Customs Service: Its History, Activities, And Organization. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Schmidt, James S., Kathryn A. Ryberg, David A. McCullough, and R. Christopher Goodwin 2012 Phase I Submerged Cultural Resources Investigation for the Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration Project, Increment II (CAM-II), Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-4083). Submitted to Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Setzler, Frank M. 1934 Pottery of the Hopewell Type from Louisiana. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 82:1-21. Washington, DC. 1935 Hopewell Type Pottery from Louisiana. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 23:149-153. Shea, John Gilmary, ed. and trans. 1861 Early voyages Up and Down the Mississippi. Joel Munsell, Albany, New York. Shenkel, J. Richard 1980 Oak Island Archaeology: Prehistoric Estuarine Adaptations in the Mississippi River Delta. Manuscript on file, University of New Orleans. 1981 Oak Island Archaeology: Prehistoric Estuarine Adaptations in the Mississippi River Delta. Report prepared for the National Parks Service, New Orleans. 1984 An Early Marksville Ossuary in Coastal Louisiana. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 9. Shenkel, J. Richard, and Jon L. Gibson 1974 Big Oak Island: An Historical Perspective of Changing Site Function. Louisiana Studies 8:173-186. Sides, James, Dean A. Racioppi, and William K. Behrens 1977 Archaeological, Engineering, and Hazard Study of Proposed Gulf 12 Inch and 16 Inch Gas Pipeline Route from Block .35, South Timpalier Area to Block 6, Bay Marchand Area (22-0176). Submitted by Geophysical and Oceanographic Surveys. Smith, Rhonda L. 1996 Vertebrate Subsistence in Southeastern Louisiana Between A.D. 700 and 1500. Unpublished Master’s thesis Submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. R-23 2008 Addendum to Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of LA 1 Improvements, Golden Meadow to Fourchon, Route LA 1, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-2602-1). Submitted to Wilbur Smith Associates. Prepared by Earth Search, Inc. Smith, Rhonda L., Jill-Karen Yakubik, Aubra “Butch” Lee, Jason L. Parrish, and Eylene Parrish 2014 Phase III Excavations and Analysis at 16SB8/46, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Report prepared for Louisiana Division of Administration Office of Community Development for submission to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA. Soard’s Directory Co., Ltd. 1861 Soard’s New Orleans Directory. New Orleans. Southern Reporter 1920 Atchafalaya Land Co. v. F. B. Williams Cypress Co., et al. In Southern Reporter, Vol. 84. p. 351. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN. Speaker, John, Joanna Chase, Carol Poplin, Herschel A. Franks, and R. Christopher Goodwin 1986 Archeological Assessment Barataria Unit Jean Lafitte National Historic Park. Professional Paper No. 10, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, National Park Service, Santa Fe. Springer, James W. 1973 The Prehistory and Cultural Geography of Coastal Louisiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven. State Farm Road Atlas 1939 State Farm Road Atlas: United States, Canada, Mexico. The State Farm Insurance Companies Travel Bureau, Bloomington, Illinois. Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15:363-404. Stoltman, James B. 1978 Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example from Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 19(4):703-746. Stout, Michael E., John W. Muller 1983 Cultural Resources Survey of Larose Floodgate, Larose to Golden Meadow, LA, Project Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (22-0856). Submitted by the Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Sugden, John 1979 Jean Lafitte and the British Offer of 1814. Louisiana History 22(2): 159-167. Swanson, Betsy 1975 Historic Jefferson Parish From Shore to Shore. Pelican Publishing, Gretna, LA. 1988 Historic Land-Use Study of a Portion of the Barataria Unit of The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. Submitted to the Division of Archeology, Baton Rouge 1991 Terre Haute De Barataria. Monograph 11, Jefferson Parish Historical Commission, Harahan, Louisiana. R-24 Swanton, John Reed 1911 Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 43. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. 1984 The Indian Tribes of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Tonti, Henri de 1846 Memoir by Le Sieur de La Tonty. In Historical collections of Louisiana, embracing translations of many rare and valuable documents relating to the natural, civil and political history of that state. Compiled with historical and biographical notes, and an introduction by B.F. French, pp. 52-83. Wiley and Putnam, New York. 1875 Établissements et Découvertes De M. De La Salle, de 1678 à 1683. In Découvertes et Etablissements des Français Dans L’Ouest et dans Le Sud de L’Amérique Septentrionale, edited by Pierre Margry, vol. 1, pp. 571-617. Imprimérie D. Jouaust, Paris. Originally published in 1684. Toth, Edwin Alan 1988 Early Marksville Phases in the Lower Mississippi Valley: A Study of Culture Contact Dynamics. Archaeological Report No. 21. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson United States Census 1810 The Third Census of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1850 Seventh Census of the United States. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 1860 Eighth Census of the United States. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. 1870 Ninth Census of the United States. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C 1880 Tenth Census of the United States. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. 1900 Twelfth Census of the United States. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. 1910 Thirteenth Census of the United States. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. United States Historical Census Data Browser (USHCDB) n.d. United States Historical Census Data Browser. Online resource. http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/ U. S. Congress 1844 Bills and Resolutions, House of Representatives, 28th Congress, 1st Session, Read, and committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. Labranche, from the Committee on Commerce, reported the following bill: A Bill To authorize a survey of the river Lafourche. In A Century R-25 of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U. S. congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875. Library of Congress. http://memory.loc.gov 1857 Bills and Resolutions, Senate, 34th Congress, 3rd Session, Reported without amendment, and committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. An Act To remove obstructions in the Bayou Lafourche, Louisiana. In A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U. S. congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875. Library of Congress. http://memory.loc.gov U. S. Track Books. Volume 1 , pp. 080. Washington D. C. Usner, Daniel H. Jr. 1998 American Indians in the Lower Mississippi Valley: Social and Economic Histories. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Uzee, Philip D. (editor) 1986 The Lafourche Country: The People and the Land. Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. Vogel, Robert C. 1990 Jean Laffite, the Baratarians, and the Historical Geography of Piracy in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Historical Review 5(2):64-77. 1992 The Patterson and Ross Raid on Barataria, September 1814. Louisiana History 33(2):157-170. Walker, Winslow M. 1936 The Troyville Mounds, Catahoula Parish, La. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Walthall, John A., Clarence H. Webb, Stephen H. Stow, and Sharon I. Goad 1982 Galena Analysis and Poverty Point Trade. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7(1):133-148. Watts, Gordon P., Joshua Daniel and Robin Arnold. 2009 Phase I Remote-Sensing Submerged Cultural Resources Survey of Offshore Borrow Sites Located in LaFourche and Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana in Association with the West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration Project (22- 3276). Submitted by Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. Webb, Clarence H. 1970 Intrasite Distribution of Artifacts at the Poverty Point Site, with Special Reference to Women’s and Men’s Activities. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 12:21-34. Webb, Clarence H. 1982 The Poverty Point Culture. Geoscience and Man 17 (second edition, revised). School of Geoscience, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Weddle, Robert S. 1991 The French Thorn: Rival Explorers In The Spanish Sea. Texas A & M University Press, College Station. R-26 Weinstein, Richard A. 1986 Tchefuncte Occupation of the Lower Mississippi Delta and Adjacent Coastal Zone. In The Tchula Period in the Mid-South and Lower Mississippi Valley, edited by D.H. Dye and R.C. Brister, pp. 102-127. Archaeological Report 17, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. 1987 Development and Regional Variation of Plaquemine Culture in South Louisiana. In The Emergent Mississippian, edited by R.A. Marshall, pp. 85-106. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, Starkville. Weinstein, Richard A. With contributions by DOnita G. Burton, Paul V. Heinrich, David B. Kelley, Kam-biu Liu, Stephanie L. Perrault, William D. Reeves 1994 Cultural Resources Investigations Related to the West Belle Pass Headland Restoration Project, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Submitted for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Submitted by Coastal Environments, Inc . Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers. Submitted by Coastal Environments, Inc. Weinstein, Richard A. and Thurston H.G. Hahn III 2011 Cultural History of the Lake Borgne Region. In Archaeological Assessment of Sites 16SB64 and 16SB164, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Report prepared by Coastal Environments, Inc. for the Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration, Baton Rouge. Weinstein, Richard A., and David B. Kelley 1992 Cultural Resources Investigations in the Terrebonne Marsh, South-Central Louisiana. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Weinstein, Richard A., and Sherwood M. Gagliano 1985 The Shifting Deltaic Coast of the Lafourche Country and its Prehistoric Settlement. In The Lafourche Country: The People and the Land, edited by P. D. Uzee. University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. Weinstein, Richard A. and Philip G. Rivet 1978 Beau Mire: A Late Tchula Period Site of the Tchefuncte Culture, Ascension Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Report No. 1. Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission, Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Baton Rouge. Wells, Douglas C. 1998 The Early Coles Creek Period and the evolution of Social Inequality in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tulane University, Department of Anthropology, New Orleans. 2001 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Upper Atchafalaya Backwater Area, Iberville and Pointe Coupee Parishes, South Louisiana. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans Westerman, Audry, B. 1995 First Landowners and 1810 Annotated Census of Lafourche Interior Parish, Louisiana. Terrebone Genealogical Society, Houma. Williams, Stephen and Jeffrey P. Brain R-27 1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Volume 74, Cambridge. Wiseman, Diane E., Richard A. Weinstein, and Kathleen G. McCloskey 1979 Cultural Resources Survey of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. Submitted to the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans. Woodiel, Deborah K. 1994 The St. Gabriel: Prehistoric Life on the Mississippi. Louisiana Archaeology. 20:1-136. Works Progress Administration of Louisiana (WPA) 1940 Louisiana: A Guide To The State. Hastings House, New York. 1945 Louisiana: A Guide to the State. Hastings House, New York. Yakubik, Jill-Karen 1989 Archeological Investigations of Six Spanish Colonial Period Sites. Professional Papers 22, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, National Park Service, Santa Fe. R-28 APPENDIX A SCOPE OF WORK "SOW - GLPC - 39130-1010-0202" Earth Search, Inc Scope-of-Work Cultural Resources Background Research and Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deeping Project Feasibility Study Lafourche Parish, Louisiana The Greater Lafourche Port Commission is considering the development of a multi- modal facility for the transshipment of containers and other types of deep-draft cargo at Port Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Development and use of the multi-modal facility will require the construction and maintenance of a 50-foot project depth channel from the port to the Gulf of Mexico. The channel will be 400 feet wide (122 meters) at project depth and approximately 9.8 miles (15.7 kilometers) long. The upper or inland reach will be located along the east side of Belle Pass and approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) long. The lower or gulf reach will extend 7.8 miles (12.5 kilometers) into the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed project will also require the construction and maintenance of a turning basin that will be 1500 x 1500 feet (457 x 457 meters) and located south of the existing port facilities. Dredged material from part of the inland reach and the turning basin will be pumped into a 170 acre (68.8 hectares), diked area, 1000 feet (304 meters) wide, extending from the turning basin to near the Gulf of Mexico along the east side of Belle Pass. Some dredged material from the construction and maintenance of the turning basin, inland reach of the channel, and the first 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) of the gulf reach will be deposited along the gulf shoreline on either side of the jetties at the mouth of Belle Pass. All material dredged for the construction and maintenance of the remaining 5.3 miles (8.5 kilometers) of the gulf reach will be placed in an Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). The ODMDS will run parallel to the channel and extend from approximately 1.9 miles (3 kilometers) from the gulf shoreline to approximately 4.3 miles (6.9 kilometers) from the shoreline. The ODMDS will be located 3000 feet (914 meters) from the channel and will be 3000 feet (914 meters) wide. Dredging the channel and turning basin will adversely effect any cultural resource, terrestrial and/or marine, if located within the project area. Similarly, creating the dike around the inland disposal area will also adversely effect cultural resources if located within the dike construction area. Earth Search, Inc. proposes to conduct comprehensive cultural resources background research to determine the nature and extent of cultural resources located within the project area and assess the potential effects of the project on these resources. No cultural resources field investigations will be undertaken at this time. Task 1. Background Research Earth Search, Inc. will perform a comprehensive literature search and records review for the project area, terrestrial and marine. ESI will review reports of regional and local cultural resources investigations in order to gain an understanding of the resource sensitivity in the general project area and to detennine the kinds of resources that might be found in the areas covered by this investigation . This overview will pay particular attention to data concerning the natural environment, development of maritime traditions, past navigational improvements, and shoreline changes. Terrestrial background research will include examination of site files and NRHP records on file at the Louisiana Division of Archaeology and Office of Historic Preservation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Marine background research will review databases containing information on previously recorded submerged cultural resources, navigation obstructions, and pipelines. Geomorphological data, maps, and aerial photographs will also be examined and reviewed. Historical research will include a review of available secondary documentation to provide a general overview of the historical development of the general project area. Background research will determine the nature and extent of any previous cultural resources investigations conducted within the project area, determine if previously recorded Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX F CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(b)1 EVALUATION August 2018 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. LOCATION The proposed Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project (Project) at Port Fourchon (Port) is located at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) coastal zone. The Port sits north of the west Belle Pass and Chenier Caminada headlands; and is bound by Barataria Bay to the east, Timbalier and Terrebonne Bays to the west, the associated wetlands of the bays to the north, and the Gulf to the south. The greater Port Fourchon area is dominated by shallow open water with aggregated salt marsh and barrier headlands with beach and dune habitats. The Project area includes areas which may be directly impacted by the proposed actions; and encompasses the proposed channel enlargements, other navigational features, and shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas for the beneficial-use of Project dredged material. Specifically, the Project area footprint includes approximately 4,717 acres of proposed marsh creation placement areas, 1,447 acres of shoreline nourishment placement acres, and 299 acres of undisturbed Gulf water bottom. Areas adjacent to the Project area within a 9 mile radius comprise the Project study area. b. GENERAL DESCRIPTION This Section 404(b)1 Evaluation addresses the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the U.S. A draft feasibility study and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) have been developed which identify the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP). The recommended improvements of the TSP would deepen the downstream Belle Pass Federal channel (station [sta.] 130+00 to 589+93) to -50 feet, widen this reach of the channel from the existing 300-foot width to 475 feet, and extend the entrance channel approximately 5.2 miles into the Gulf. The following total dredging depth requirements of the Belle Pass Federal channel include advanced maintenance and a 2-foot safety factor: -53 feet deep from sta. 130+00 to 220+00, -56.5 feet deep from sta. 220+00 to 330+00, and - 54.5 feet deep from sta. 330+00 to 589+00. Modifications to the upstream interior channels (sta.0+00 to sta. 130+00) – Bayou Lafourche; Flotation Canal; and Slips A, B, and C (and berthing areas) – would deepen the channels to -30 feet and retain the existing 300-foot width in this interior section. The total dredging depth requirement of the Bayou Lafourche Federal channel would be -33 feet deep, which includes 3 feet of advanced maintenance. Fourchon Island Slip and the turning basin would be deepened to -50 feet. The deep loading hole in this Slip would be dredged to a depth of - 85 feet. The existing pair of Federal jetties would not be altered and would be maintained as needed. The TSPTSP would require the relocation of 15 pipelines, all of which would be performed by contractors prior to the initiation of channel dredging contracts. The construction of retention dikes estimated for inland march creation dredge placement is 75,144 linear feet. The total acreage of new work impact to water bottoms resultant of the extension of the Belle Pass entrance channel would be 299 acres. The TSP would require the following allocation of dredged material quantities for placement areas: 49,975,734 cubic yards for marsh creation and 36,426,198 cubic yards for shoreline F-2 nourishment. Project construction would occur over an estimated period of 4 years. Maintenance dredging would begin after the fourth year of construction, and would be conducted for a period of 50 years thereafter. Channel reaches would be dredged on cycles necessary to maintain the authorized depths and widths. New work and maintenance dredged material would be fully utilized as beneficial-use sediments, with dredged material placed in nearshore areas as shoreline nourishment in active feeder berms and in the proposed marsh creation areas. It is the intention of the non-Federal interest to use all dredged material beneficially to provide long- term storm surge protection and risk reduction to the Port and surrounding areas, and to counter coastal land loss resulting from continued sea level rise and subsidence. The dredge pipeline corridors were optimized as a function of distance and equipment mobilization and demobilization costs. Pipeline corridors were further optimized to maximize avoidance of adverse wetland impact resulting in all but one pipeline segment estimated to impact 3.0 acres of wetland habitat. All other pipeline corridors would be constructed within existing waterways and the proposed placement areas, and would float atop the water surface. c. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE The study is authorized by Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as amended by Section 1014 of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 to evaluate the feasibility and Federal interest of channel improvements to the existing Port Fourchon Federal project. d. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF DREDGED AND FILL MATERIAL (1) General Characteristics of Material Located in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain physiographic province, the study area topography is characterized by generally flat terrain, with notable features consisting of terraces and natural levee systems that were created by the meandering Mississippi River and its distributaries. Dominant vegetation types range from a mix of broadleaf hardwood ecosystems at higher elevations to coastal marshes at elevations closer to sea level. Sandy areas along the barrier island headland shorelines of the Gulf drain more significantly than the marsh areas. The proposed Project area consists of poorly drained, semifluid organic and mineral soils. These soils, which are particularly characteristic of saline marsh, tend to be inundated most of the year (NRCS, 2017). The parent surface material of the Project area consists of fluid clayey alluvium decomposed organic material overlain by fluid clay backswamp deposits. The general site stratigraphy consists of marsh and relic beach deposits to an approximate elevation of -40 feet underlain by point bar and substratum sands (Holocene deposits) followed by deep Pleistocene deposits (Geogineers, LLC, 2018). Soil borings were obtained from each Project channel reach proposed for improvements. Grain-size analyses of the soil borings from F-3 Bayou Lafourche provided that the average percent composition of sand to silt/clay sediments (indicative of sediment particle size) is 38 percent sand and 57 percent silt/clay; the average percent composition of borings from Belle Pass in depths up to 40 feet is 34 percent sand and 66 percent silt/clay, and 7 percent sand and 93 percent silt/clay in depths up to 50 feet. (2) Quantity of Material The recommended TSPTSP would generate approximately 23.0 million cubic yards (MCY) of new work material from initial construction and 63.4 MCY of maintenance material over the 50-year period of analysis. Table F-1. TSP Dredged Material Quantities (cubic yards) Dredged Material Source New Work Annual Maintenance Bayou Lafourche 861,634 151,313 Belle Pass 16,911,891 916,475 Fourchon Island Slip/Turning Basin 3,675,826 160,588 Flotation Canal 518,735 12,649 Slips A, B, and C 830,059 19,041 Deep Loading Hole 231,687 7,376 Total 23,029,832 1,267,442 Total Project Quantity1 86,401,932 1Total Project quantity includes total new work quantities and annual maintenance assumed for 50 years (3) Source of Material The sources of material routinely dredged by the Corps in the main Bayou Lafourche-Belle Pass navigation channel are fluvial inputs from upstream areas of Bayou Lafourche and episodic events from the Gulf, such as summer tropical storms and hurricanes and winter cold fronts (Henry and Twilley, 2013). Redistributed Gulf sediments settle in nearshore waters as a result of migration by wind and wave actions. The sources of material dredged within Project areas north of the Belle Pass- Pass Fourchon confluence are primarily surface sediments from adjacent disaggregated salt and brackish marsh habitats and Bayou Lafourche fluvial sediment transport processes. Material used for the construction of earthen retention dikes for inland marsh creation placement areas would be dredged from within the marsh creation areas. e. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE SITES (1) Locations As a result of coordination with the Corps, USFWS, LDWF, and NMFS, it is proposed to place new work and maintenance sediments in the nearshore areas for shoreline nourishment and in the new marsh creation areas to fully utilize dredged materials as beneficial-use sediments. The TSPTSP dredged material management plan (DMMP) requires the authorization of four new marsh creation placement areas and the extension of the existing shoreline nourishment areas along the west Belle F-4 Pass and Caminada headland beaches. Maintenance dredging would utilize the same placement areas as those constructed for new work material. The placement areas identified for this plan are shown in Figure F-1. Figure F-1. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Area (light purple polygons indicate proposed inland marsh creation and shoreline nourishment sites) New work and maintenance dredged material quantities by reach and placement area are presented in Table F-2. The marsh creation areas would be temporarily confined by retention dikes, the capacities of which are also detailed in Table F-2. These areas would accommodate the total Project sediment quantities (minus shoreline nourishment quantities) for the assumed 50-year period of maintenance. Sediment placement in the shoreline nourishment areas would be in active feeder berms up to a maximum depth of 13 feet, with the distance seaward from the shoreline varying between 4,640 to 4,875 feet. The shoreline nourishment areas are located in dispersive environments, and therefore, have unlimited capacities. Sediments placed in these areas during maintenance dredging events would allow for the regular replenishment of sediments back into the littoral system, available for cross shore and longshore sediment transport to the headlands. F-5 Table F-2. Capacity of New Placement Areas and Project Dredged Material Quantities Placement SLN_001W SLN_002E SLN_001E MC_004 MC_003 MC_002 MC_001 Area Capacity Open Open Open 19,945,653 2,614,613 8,815,022 32,042,844 (cy) Discharge Discharge Discharge Project Dredged Material Quantity (cy) Year 1 0 0 0 0 553,373 0 0 2 0 6,038,721 0 0 795,421 0 3,345,858 3 882,995 0 0 0 0 0 9,266,844 4 0 0 2,146,620 0 0 0 0 5 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 6 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 193,095 7 0 0 1,616,155 0 158,450 0 1,184,094 8 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 9 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 10 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 11 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 12 1,616,155 0 0 0 158,450 0 193,095 13 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 14 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 15 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 16 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 17 0 1,616,155 0 0 158,450 0 1,184,094 18 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 193,095 19 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 20 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 21 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 22 0 0 1,616,155 0 158,450 0 193,095 23 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 24 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 193,095 25 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 26 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 27 1,616,155 0 0 0 158,450 0 1,184,094 28 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 29 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 30 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 193,095 31 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 32 0 1,616,155 0 0 158,450 0 193,095 33 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 0 34 0 0 279,908 0 0 193,095 0 35 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 0 36 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 0 37 0 0 1,616,155 0 158,450 1,184,094 0 38 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 0 39 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 0 F-6 40 0 0 279,908 0 0 193,095 0 41 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 0 42 1,616,155 0 0 0 0 351,545 0 43 0 0 279,908 0 0 1,184,094 0 44 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 0 45 279,908 0 0 1,184,094 0 0 0 46 0 0 279,908 193,095 0 0 0 47 0 1,616,155 0 1,342,544 0 0 0 48 279,908 0 0 193,095 0 0 0 49 0 0 279,908 1,184,094 0 0 0 50 0 279,908 0 193,095 0 0 0 51 279,908 0 0 1,184,094 0 0 0 52 0 0 1,616,155 351,545 0 0 0 53 0 279,908 0 1,184,094 0 0 0 54 279,908 0 0 193,095 0 0 0 Total 8,767,177 8,767,177 9,823,516 7,202,845 1,109,150 8,421,584 19,280,646 Material Belle Pass Belle Pass Belle Pass Bayou Slips A, B, C Bayou Bayou Source 270+00 to end 270+00 to end 270+00 to end Lafourche Flotation Lafourche Lafourche Belle Pass Canal Belle Pass Belle Pass 130+00 to 130+00 to 130+00 to 270+00 270+00 270+00 Fourchon Fourchon Fourchon Island Island Island Turning Basin Turning Basin Turning Deep Hole Deep Hole Basin Slips A, B, C Slips A, B, C Deep Hole Flotation Canal Flotation Slips A, B, C Canal Flotation Canal (2) Size Table F-3 details the size of each proposed marsh creation (MC) and shoreline nourishment (SLN) placement area. The total area of marsh creation sites is 4,717 acres. The total nearshore bottom habitat of shoreline nourishment areas is approximately 1,447 acres, with 982 acres along the east Caminada shoreline and 465 acres along the west Belle Pass shoreline. Table F-3. Size of New Marsh Creation Placement Areas Mean Standard Maximum Site Name Size Water Depth Deviation of Water Water Depth (feet) (feet) Depth (feet) MC_001 2,248 acres 8.54 4.44 0.81 MC_002 717 acres 5.20 4.05 0.51 MC_003 217 acres 4.63 3.69 0.75 MC_004 1,535 acres 5.53 4.45 0.56 F-7 (3) Types of Sites and Habitat There are two types of placement sites with associated habitat types – marsh creation areas with existing open water habitat and shoreline nourishment areas with existing nearshore marine habitat. NOAA provided the following biological opinion in the 2010 Environmental Assessment of the West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration CWWPRA Project (Federal Number TE-52): “Although open water is essential fish habitat (EFH) to several managed species, the trend toward increasing the amount of open water habitat generally is considered a problem to be addressed by the project. An increase in open water habitat comes at the expense of submerged vegetation and emergent marsh habitat, which are much less common and more vulnerable to disturbance.” Further, this creeping trend of inundation around the Port exacerbates rapid rates of marsh disaggregation, and increases the susceptibility of the Port to adverse effects of storm surge. The trade-off of this habitat conversation is new wetlands that would be colonized by estuarine- dependent managed species and their prey, and would thereby substantially increase the availability of estuarine prey species, as well as marsh edge and emergent marsh habitats. The Project would result in approximately 1,055 average annual habitat units (AAHUs) and 2,361 acres of saline marsh habitat over the 50 year project life under the intermediate sea level rise rate scenario (3.3 feet by year 2100). (4) Timing and Duration of Discharge Construction is forecasted to last approximately 4 years after Project authorization by the U.S. Congress. The duration of construction includes a 25 percent work day delay (including adverse weather conditions), and accounts for a total of 92 off days per year. Retention dikes are anticipated to be constructed at a rate of 600 linear feet per day. Pipeline relocations would be performed by pipeline owners and operators; permitting is not included in the Project dredging schedule. Tables J-6 and J-7 provide the estimated duration of the discharge of construction and maintenance dredged material. Maintenance dredging is forecasted to begin on the fourth project year, with the duration of maintenance events estimated to last a total of 96 days. The dredging cycles of the Project channels were derived from the predicted sedimentation rate, advanced maintenance depths, and additional depths for navigational safety specific to each channel segment. Channel segments with a higher sedimentation rate require more frequent dredging; and thus, shorter maintenance intervals (or cycles). Bayou Lafourche (sta. 0+00 to 130+00), Belle Pass (sta. 130+00 to 220+00), Fourchon Island Slip/turning basin, and the deep loading hole would be dredged every two years. Flotation Canal; Slips A, B, and C; and Belle Pass (sta. 330+00 to 589+93) would be dredged every five years. Belle Pass (sta. 220+00 to 330+00) would be dredged annually. Months specified for Belle Pass sta. 220+00 to 589+93 dredging events in Table J-6 were restricted to December and January to March based on the environmental sensitivity of threatened or endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); which resulted in the overlap of dredging events specified with an asterisk (*) and would require the use of more than F-8 one dredge at a given time. Project contingencies (including cost, scheduling and contracts) account for this type of impact to the dredging schedule. Table J-7. Maintenance Dredging Duration by Channel Reach Maintenance Reach Duration1 Interval (years) Retention dikes n/a 21 days Bayou Lafourche - sta. 0+00 to 130+00 2 10 days Flotation Channel 5 2 days Slips A, B, and C 5 3 days Belle Pass - sta. 130+00 to 220+00 2 12 days Belle Pass - sta. 220+00 to 330+00 1 15 days* Belle Pass - sta. 330+00 to 589+93 5 42 days* Fourchon Island Slip/Turning Basin 5 11 days Deep Loading Hole 5 1 day 1Maintenance dredging duration assumptions are the same as those for new work dredging (see Table #) *Dredging events for Belle Pass sta. 220+00 to 589+93 should be restricted to December to mid-April in order to avoid impacts to the following threatened and endangered species: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and west Indian manatee Table J-6. New Work Dredging Duration by Channel Reach Reach Duration1 Year Month(s) Retention dikes 157 days 1 January to June Pipeline Relocations 1,356 days 1-2 January to March of Year 2 Bayou Lafourche 27 days* 3 August to September Sta. 0+00 to 130+00 Flotation Channel 17 days 2 April to May Slips A, B, and C 26 days* 2 April Belle Pass 150 days* 2-3 November to April Sta. 130+00 to 220+00 Belle Pass December of Year 3, January to March of 192 days 3-4 Sta. 220+00 to 330+00 Year 4 Belle Pass 190 days 2-3 January to April, December to February Sta. 330+00 to 589+93 Fourchon Island 116 days 3 April to August Slip/Turning Basin Deep Loading Hole 8 days* 3 April 1All dredging durations assume a production rate of 40,000 cubic yards per day (2,000 cubic yards per hour) with two dredge crews each working 10 hours per day using a single hydraulic cutterhead dredge vessel, and 92 off days per year. *Dredging events which may overlap resultant of the determinations of seasonal environmental sensitivity of protected species under the ESA F-9 f. DESCRIPTION OF DISPOSAL METHODS Dredging and placement techniques employed under the TSPTSP would be similar to those the Corps has implemented previously in the Federal channels. A thirty inch hydraulic cutterhead suction dredging vessel would be used for sediment removal in all Project channels. This dredging method functions with a rotating cutterhead mounted on the end of the suction pipeline to dislodge sediments, and pump dredge slurries from the dredge vessel to the main trunkline pipeline. Thirty inch discharge pipelines powered by booster pumps would transfer the slurries from the trunkline pipeline to the proposed placement areas, thereby utilizing all Project dredged materials as beneficial-use sediments for marsh creation and shoreline nourishment. All but one segment of the designed pipeline corridors (estimated to impact 3.0 acres of wetland habitat) would be constructed within the proposed placement areas, and would float atop the water surface. Other equipment which may be utilized during marsh creation events would be airboats, bucket dredges, marsh buggy excavators, supply barge, and marsh masters. Retention dikes required for temporary containment of beneficial-use sediments for inland marsh creation would be breached once marsh creation areas reach target elevation (1.9 feet). Best management practices (BMPs), such as the use of silt curtains around the dredging location, employed by the contracted dredge operator may be implemented where appropriate to control and reduce turbidity during dredging and placement operations. II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS a. PHYSICAL SUBSTRATE DETERMINATIONS (1) Substrate Elevation and Slope Channel side slopes vary along the existing authorized channel. Channel side slopes required for Project implementation would be constructed to have a uniform slope of 1-foot vertical over 2 feet horizontal (1V:2H) for the total length of the proposed main navigation channel Bayou Lafourche (starting at sta. 0+00) to Belle Pass and its entrance channel (sta. 130+00 to 589+93). (2) Sediment Type Dredged sediments are discussed in ‘General Characteristics of Material’ section I.d.1 of this report. (3) Dredged and Fill Material Movement Sediments placed in the marsh creation areas would settle and subside overtime. Temporary retention dikes would prevent the undesired migration of sediments until the areas reach the target marsh elevation (1.9 feet), and would thereby be less susceptible to wave- or wind-induced F-10 movement. To predict the migration of sediments deposited in the shoreline placement areas, the Sediment Mobility Tool (SMT) provided on the Corps public web domain was used to optimize the maximum depth of the seaward limit for the shoreline nourishment placement areas along the west Belle Pass and Caminada headlands (Corps, 2018). Sediment mobility trends were predicted using varying nearshore depths, from which a depth value of 13 feet was chosen as the maximum seaward limit for nearshore placement. The tool predicted that the sediment masses, primarily composed of silt and clay, would be mobilized onshore. Generally, heavier sediments not mobilized onshore would be available for longshore transport eastward of the Caminada shoreline nourishment areas (SLN_001E and SLN_002E) and westward of the west shoreline nourishment area (SLN_001W). The SMT details are provided in the DMMP Appendix J of the DEIS. To predict the direction and magnitude of longshore transport along the headlands, the regional longshore transport rates derived from historical records of shoreline erosion were studied. East of Belle Pass, longshore sediment transport is assumed to move from east to west, originating at a nodal point approximately five miles east of Belle Pass near Bayou Moreau. In this context, a nodal point is a shoreline location with zero net longshore transport, and indicates that there is contrasting (opposite) transport directions along its neighboring shorelines. Longshore transport rates are likely highest immediately west of the nodal point. The spatially-averaged longshore sediment transport rate from the nodal point to Belle Pass is likely on the order of 100,000 cubic yards per year (cy/yr) (Georgiou et al., 2005; CEC, Inc., 2012). East of the nodal point on the Caminada headland, longshore sediment transport travels from west to east. Based on predictions from a 2004 Corps study, longshore transport along the eastern headlands is on the order of 1,000,000 cy/yr. There is another nodal point approximately 1,000 to 2,000 feet west of Belle Pass. East of that point, longshore sediment transport travels east toward Belle Pass at a rate on the order of 10,000 cy/yr. West of that point, longshore sediment transport monotonically increases in rate with distance from Belle Pass, indicating pronounced shoreline erosion, and is on the order of 100,000 cy/yr as it reaches Raccoon Pass (Thomson et al., 2009). To ensure the transport and dispersion of dredged sediments along the littoral zone, sediments would be placed landward to the shore/beach area that experiences active sediment transport. Using the SMT, it was estimated that the seaward limit of the active littoral transport zone is around the 17-foot Gulf contour. Previous regional analyses suggest that waves begin to influence sediment transport at depths less than 5 feet for sand and at depths less than 20 feet for silts (CEC, Inc., 2012). Considering the typical beach profile of the Caminada headlands and a mean sea-level of 0.0 feet NAVD88 (a conservative estimate), the width of longshore sand transport would be on the order of 500 feet and the width of longshore silt transport on the order of 2,500 feet. To the west of Belle Pass, complex geomorphology due the presence of multiple barrier islands interspersed with significant deep passes makes it more difficult to predict the longshore sediment transport width. As a first order estimate, longshore sand transport would likely be transported along a 1,000-foot swath parallel the seaward face of the barrier islands while silt would be transported along a 3,000-foot swath. F-11 (4) Physical Effects on Benthos Non-motile sessile and/or benthic prey species may be buried/smothered during dredging and dredge placement events. The entrainment of organisms within the suction field generated at surficial sediment surfaces of the water bottom near the dredging cutterhead is expected to produce by-catch. Benthic organisms with limited swimming ability in the Project channels would be entrained, which could result in either mortality or the transfer of benthos from the dredge sites to the placement areas during beneficial placement events. Entrainment- and buried/smothered- induced mortality would occur only during Project dredging operations; and therefore, would be temporary and localized. While entrainment-induced mortality may be high for benthic organisms in the Project channels, entrained benthos are expected to represent a small proportion of the local benthic population. (5) Other Effects. None known. (6) Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts Impacts to substrates in the proposed Project area were minimized through an iterative process with the resource agencies which lead to the elimination of barrier island headland placement areas, which were initially designed in the Project dredged material management plan. Beneficial- use sediments were planned to overlay these areas on the west Belle Pass and Caminada headland beaches. Resultant of the removal of this placement area type, impacts to benthos were confined to Project channels and marsh creation and shoreline nourishment areas. Impacts were further minimized by the design of dredging intervals (or cycles) to be the longest duration feasibly possible while still maintaining the proposed channel dimensions to ensure the continuous navigational safety of vessels. New work construction impacts would be the greatest for the offshore reach of the proposed Belle Pass entrance channel (sta. 330+00 to 589+93). Maintenance dredging for this channel segment would be every five years, which would allow plenty of time for benthos to re-colonize the areas during the 5-year recovery period between dredging cycles. Pipeline corridors were optimized to maximize avoidance of adverse wetland impact resulting in all but one pipeline segment estimated to impact 3.0 acres of wetland habitat. All other pipeline corridors would be constructed within the proposed placement areas, and would float atop the water surface; and therefore would have no negative effects on the aquatic system. b. WATERCIRCULATION, FLUCTUATION AND SALINITY DETERMINATIONS Numerical modeling was used to predict the impact of different dredging scenarios on regional flow, geomorphology, and water quality properties in and around Port Fourchon, Louisiana (Yuill et al., 2018). This modeling employed the Delft3D software suite and included hydrodynamic/morphodynamic, wave, and water quality modules (Yuill et al., 2018). F-12 (1) Water Modeled output did not indicate that water volume residence times were long enough to promote significant biological/chemical reactions capable of altering the water quality condition relative to the values estimated at the model boundaries (Yuill et al., 2018). The model was set up with the same water quality model coefficients used in similar studies of analogous environments because of the relative absence of observed data sets for initial conditions, calibration, and validation. The water quality model was compared to the observed monthly mean data for salinity, total suspended sediment (TSS), dissolved oxygen (DO), ammonium (NH4), nitrite (NO3), and phosphate (PO4) at Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality water quality sampling stations ST020403 and ST021102 (Yuill et al., 2018). a. Salinity Water quality modeling indicated that the proposed channel dimensions would likely have an insignificant impact on the salinity in the Port waterways. Generally, modeling predicted that the Port waters are currently, and will remain, relatively saline (greater than 25 parts per thousand [ppt]) (Yuill et al., 2018). b. Water Chemistry There are no indications of water or elutriate problems; no impacts are expected. c. Clarity There would be local and temporary increases in turbidity during dredging and placement operations. Water clarity is expected to return to normal background levels shortly after dredging and placement events. d. Color Water immediately surrounding the dredging locations may become temporarily discolored due to the disturbance of the sediments. BMPs may be implemented to reduce and control turbidity should environmental concerns arise. e. Dissolved Gas Levels New work and maintenance materials are likely to contain variable concentrations of organic matter. It is expected that the organic matter will decompose following placement events; and dependent upon the rate of decomposition at each placement site, temporary reductions in DO or the release of ammonia may occur. However, these effects are expected to be minor considering that water quality modeling indicated that DO in the Project areas is not predicted to change significantly resultant of dredging activities. F-13 f. Nutrients Nutrient levels may be elevated surrounding dredging locations and in placement areas during operations, but these increases would be local and temporary. g. Eutrophication The segment of the proposed Belle Pass entrance channel from sta. 350+00 to 589+93, which spans a distance of 4.6 miles in Gulf waters, has been reported as being part of the north central boundary of the Gulf “Dead Zone,” the second largest zone of coastal hypoxia (oxygen-depleted waters) in the world (Rabalais, 2002). The major causes of hypoxia in the Dead Zone are high nutrient loads which enhance primary production. Hypoxic conditions cause the emigration or die off of marine invertebrates and the elimination of these organisms from the water masses (Rabalais et al., 2002). Resultant of Project implementation, it is predicted that DO and salinity concentrations in the aquatic system would remain the same, as would the non-stratified water column conditions and high flushing rates. These anticipated TSP parameters provide that the greater Project area is likely not susceptible to dredging-induced eutrophication (in the form of hypoxia). It is also unlikely that DO concentrations would fall below 0.2 ppm, conditions which cause benthic habitats to become oxygen-deficient, and thereby induce hypoxic stress in benthos causing emigration or mortality (Rabalais et al., 2002). Further, dredging operations have been conducted in the Port channels by the Corps since 2001, and no historic dredging events have been recorded as causing anoxic fish kills or harmful algal blooms. h. Others as Appropriate. None known. (2) Current Patterns and Circulation a. Current Patterns and Flow The TSPTSP would not affect freshwater inflows to the aquatic system surrounding the Project area. Modeling indicated that the proposed Project channel dimensions generally decreased predicted flow velocities (up to -0.4 feet per second [ft/s]) and water levels (up to -0.1 feet). Therefore, only negligible differences in water surface elevations would occur with construction of the TSPTSP. The placement of beneficial-use sediments in the shoreline nourishment areas would not block or significantly alter longshore drift or currents. The anticipated longshore transport of beneficial-use sediments is detailed in ‘Dredged and Fill Material Movement’ section II.a.3 of this report. Longshore transport currents would mobilize the sediment masses and replenish sediments along the erosional headlands. Overtime, sediments mobilized shoreward of the placement areas will be worked into the beaches. Further, no effect on tidal ranges is expected. The cessation of freshwater inflows to the aquatic system is attributed to the historical damming of Bayou Lafourche at Donaldsonville in 1905. The high salinity concentrations of the overall aquatic system are resultant of this damming, and indicate that salinity intrusion is not of concern. F-14 b. Velocity Modeling predicted that the proposed channel dimensions generally decreased predicted flow velocities (up to -0.4 ft/s) (Yuill et al., 2018). c. Stratification Results provided that flow within the channels was generally well mixed with little vertical stratification and quickly advected out of the system (e.g., high flushing rates) (Yuill et al., 2018). No change in these conditions is expected. d. Hydrologic Regime Hydrologic regimes are not predicted to be significantly altered (Yuill et al., 2018). (3) Normal Water Level Fluctuations Results provided that the proposed channel dimensions generally decreased predicted water levels (up to -0.1 feet) (Yuill et al., 2018). (4) Salinity Gradients The model showed no vertical gradient for salinity in the channels. Based on data records from monitoring systems in these areas, it was found that the proposed channel dimensions would likely have an insignificant impact on the salinity in the Project area (Yuill et al., 2018). (5) Actions That Will Be Taken To Minimize Impacts Modeling results indicated there would be no significant impacts to water quality, water column stratification, hydrologic regime, and salinity gradients in the aquatic system of the Project vicinity. Modeling did predict that flow velocities and channel water levels would decrease. However, these Project effects would not support significant change to the hydrologic and morphologic regime of the surrounding aquatic system. Therefore, no actions are considered necessary. c. SUSPENDED PARTICULATE AND TURBIDITY DETERMINATIONS (1) Expected Changes in Suspended Particulates and Turbidity Levels in Vicinity of Disposal Sites Dredged sand sediments are expected to fall out of suspension in the water column and settle to the water bottom at quicker rates, as compared to dredged silt/clay sediments, due to their larger particle sizes and densities (MMS, 2002). Lighter silt/clay sediments are expected to have slower settlement rates due their relative small weight. The portion of silt/clay sediments from dredged materials would likely preferentially concentrate at the top layer of the water bottom. The potential of lighter sediments to re-suspend in the water column during storm events is higher than that of F-15 denser sand sediments due to their surficial location in the sediment column (MMS, 2002). TSS and turbidity are predicted to be a very indirect measure of mineral resources in the Project area. Sediment plumes form as the losses of sediments are released into the water column, and are a byproduct of dredging operations (Nieuwaal, 2001). Sediment plumes reduce light penetration through the water column, and increase the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity levels in aquatic systems. The impacts to environmental resources from TSS and turbidity would be directly related to the degree for tolerance of disturbance, exposure rate, duration of the exposure, and life stage. Turbid waters beyond normal levels of the area can visually impair predator species that rely on sight to forage. Further, when TSS and turbidity parameters exceed species’ tolerance thresholds the visual acuity of prey species is impaired, which may result in their inability to avoid predators (Wilbur and Clarke, 2001). The primary source of sediment plume generation would be material disturbed around the cutterhead. Sediment plumes which may occur within the lower water columns near Project channel bottoms and adjacent seabed are expected to quickly advect out of the aquatic system and dissipate into deeper offshore Gulf waters due to the high flushing rates of Project channels and wind and ocean currents. High flushing rates would minimize long-term impacts to water quality. Temporary increases in TSS and turbidity in the water column at dredging locations is anticipated. Generally, water turbidity is expected to be greater than existing conditions in the vicinity of dredging operations. Elevated TSS concentrations would reoccur in alignment with maintenance dredge cycles; but are anticipated to decrease to background levels (dependent upon wind and oceanic currents) in a matter of hours to days, and would be below significant levels due to high flushing rates (MMS, 2002). Sediment dispersion by wave action generally occurs in offshore waters in depths up to 98 feet, and is likely to quicken the dispersion of sediments proposed for removal within the Belle Pass entrance channel due to the boundaries of the offshore entrance channel extension length into the Gulf (5.2 miles from the existing channel end sta. [270+00]). The dispersion of sediments by wave action is likely to further aid the quick dissipation of TSS and lower turbidity levels. (2) Effects on Chemical and Physical Properties of the Water Column a. Light Penetration The reduction of light penetration through the water column has the potential to cause optical effects on managed fishes and their prey. Turbidity levels would be temporarily increased during dredging and placement operations. Dredging operation controls would be appropriately managed by the dredge contractor. Employment of BMPs by the contractor during Project implementation would minimize unintentional sediment losses and impacts to non-motile demersal organisms. Further, BMPs would prevent potential overflows of sediments extracted from Project channel water bottoms into the water column resultant of the movement of dredge slurries through the F-16 pipelines of cutterhead suction dredge vessels. b. Dissolved Oxygen Water quality modeling indicated that the proposed channel dimensions would likely have an insignificant impact on the DO concentrations in the Project area. Predicted DO values showed significant seasonal fluctuations, but were approximately spatially-uniform throughout the Project area due to energetic secondary currents (Yuill et al., 2018). DO concentrations in the system ranges between 5.7 and 6.1 mg/L, and are not predicted to change significantly. c. Toxic Metals and Organics Appendix A of the Final 2016 Integrated Report of Water Quality in Louisiana released in February of 2017, concluded that the water quality of areas in and surrounding the Project area fully support designated waterway uses as determined by Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ, 2017). Soil borings from Project channels were obtained during the spring of 2018. Results were compared against LDEQ Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) screening standards for non-industrial soil use in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods. There were no exceedances of RECAP metals or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which indicates that there should be no cause for concern related to chemical contaminants, and that these sediments are suitable for beneficial-use placement purposes. The following screening methods were used: 1. RECAP metals – EPA method SW7471A and SW6010B 2. VOCs – EPA method SW8260B 3. Semivolatiles – EPA method SW8270C d. Pathogens Pathogens are not expected to be present in sediments proposed for removal and placement. e. Aesthetics The aesthetics of the proposed Project channels, four new marsh creation, and three shoreline nourishment placement areas will change during Project construction and subsequent placement events. Turbidity, expected to affect Project channel aesthetics, would be temporary and should subside within a few hours to days of dredging events. These effects would be short-term and minimal. The same conditions are expected for effects to the aesthetics of the placement areas. However, as Project implementation continues, the aesthetics of these areas would exhibit long- term benefits from the beneficial-use of dredged materials as the total land area of marsh and beach habitat increases. Further, the overall aesthetics of the greater Project area are expected to increase as flora and fauna colonize the new habitats as they become functional overtime. f. Others. None known. F-17 (3) Effects on Biota a. Primary Production, Photosynthesis The dominant primary producers of photosynthetic biomass released into the water column of the Gulf continental shelf are phytoplankton and bacteria (MMS, 2002). Of the total eukaryotic species presently known to occur in the Gulf, only 9 percent are known to be endemic to the region (Felder, Camp, and Tunnell, 2009). Pelagic phytoplankton drift passively in the water column with ocean currents. Shelf phytoplankton are more abundant, productive, and seasonally variable than those which inhabit deep offshore Gulf waters due to salinity changes, greater nutrient availability, and increased vertical mixing of the water column (MMS, 2002). Modeling indicated that there would not be significant changes to salinity or water column stratification. Therefore, no impacts to primary producers and their photosynthetic nutrient production are expected other than temporary, localized losses due to entrainment and light attenuation resultant of increased levels of TSS and turbidity in the water column during Project dredging and placement operations. Further, phytoplankton travel through the water column, and thus, would be less susceptible to entrainment. These water quality parameters are expected to return to normal conditions within hours to days of Project activities. b. Suspension/Filter Feeders The major species present in the Gulf continental shelf are suspension feeders, of which the susceptibility of species to the effects from sedimentation is not thought to limit species composition (MMS, 2002). The release of suspended sediments into the water column resultant of Project operations may obstruct filter-feeding mechanisms of biota which consume nutrients through this physiological process (MMS, 2002). This obstruction, combined with light attenuation, could lead to reduced productivity, susceptibility to infection, and mortality. Modeling and geotechnical analyses of Project area sediments indicated no significant impacts to water quality parameters would occur resultant of Project implementation. Therefore, no impacts to suspension/filter feeders are expected other than temporary, localized losses due to entrainment and the potential to be smothered/buried during Project dredging and placement operations. These water quality parameters are expected to return to normal conditions within hours to days of Project activities. c. Sight Feeders Temporary and localized impacts to sight feeders are expected. Motile sight feeders which exhibit avoidance behaviors of the project area should not be significantly impacted. Sessile, demersal sight feeders incapable of avoiding the Project areas would be more susceptible to direct impacts caused by entrainment and smothering/burial, and indirect impacts such as decreased productivity resultant of inhibited feeding ability from increased turbidity and suspended solids in the water column. These impacts, both direct and indirect, are expected to subside to normal background F-18 levels coinciding with the timing of Project operations. (4) Actions taken to Minimize Impacts Employment of BMPs by the contractor during dredging and beneficial-use placement events is expected, and would thereby minimize unintentional sediment losses and impacts to non-motile demersal organisms. Further, BMPs would prevent potential overflows of sediments extracted from Project channel water bottoms into the water column resultant of the movement of dredge slurries through the pipelines of cutterhead suction dredge vessels. d. CONTAMINANT DETERMINATIONS Results of the geotechnical analyses in respect to environmental contamination provided that dredged material proposed for removal is suitable for marsh creation and shoreline nourishment, and would not adversely affect habitat quality. Results were compared against LDEQ Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) screening standards for non-industrial soil use. There were no exceedances of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and chlorinated herbicides; which indicates that there should be no cause for concern related to chemical contaminants and that these sediments are suitable for beneficial-use purposes. The following chemical screening methods were used: 1. TPHs – EPA Method SW8015B 2. Pesticides – EPA method 8081B 3. PCBs – EPA method 8082A 4. Chlorinated herbicides – EPA method 8151A e. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ORGANISM DETERMINATIONS (1) Effects on Plankton Dredging and placement events are expected to have minor temporary, localized impacts on plankton resultant of entrainment from dredging activities and increased turbidity levels. (2) Effects on Benthos The loss of benthic resources in the seabed would be a direct, unavoidable consequence of the proposed dredging operations (Nieuwaal, 2001). New work dredging of Project channels would likely result in the temporary unsuitability of these benthic habitats for some sessile and/or benthic organisms, the effects of which could indirectly affect managed fish and their prey which utilize these areas as foraging, nursery and spawning habitat. Non-motile sessile and/or benthic prey species may be buried/smothered during dredging and placement events. Port Fourchon is located in a temperate coastal area where fish habitats such as marine soft-bottom mud (sta. 270+00 to 589+93) experiences frequent wave, wind, and current induced disturbances meaning that the aquatic system is adapted to frequent disturbances. The relatively rapid rates of benthic recovery studied in this type of habitat have been attributed to higher abundances of opportunistic species F-19 which inhabit benthic communities occurring at these latitudes (Wilber and Clarke, 2007). It is expected that the sloughing of non-dredged sediments into the dredged channel furrow would transport benthic infauna into the Belle Pass entrance channel (Wilber and Clarke, 2007). It is also possible that the colonization by infauna which remain after dredging in “hummocks” of unexcavated sediments within the footprint of the Project channels may occur. The 5-year maintenance interval for this channel reach would allow for a long recovery period after dredging events. It is expected that the re-colonization of benthic macrofauna in the placement areas would occur through the transfer of adult and/or juvenile organisms from the dredge sites to the placement areas during placement events, and by the vertical migration of the organisms through the deposited sediments and the existing underlying sediments (Wilber and Clarke, 2007). Therefore, temporary and localized impacts to benthic organisms and Gulf water bottom habitats is anticipated. Benthic organisms are expected to recolonize quickly from these short-term impacts. (3) Effects on Nekton Geotechnical analyses of soil borings from Project channels indicate that there would be no long- term effects to the water-column or benthic toxicity resultant of Project implementation. Effects are anticipated to be short-term and localized, and therefore would not impact the total production or migration of the local nekton population. (4) Effects on Aquatic Food Web Primary producers such as seagrasses and submerged aquatic vegetation have been overwhelmingly absent in the greater Project area for several decades. Temporary reductions to the existing sources of primary production resultant of dredging and placement activities would occur in the Project areas. However, primary productivity is expected to return to existing levels within days of Project events. (5) Effects on Special Aquatic Sites The TSPTSP is not expected to have adverse effects on special aquatic sites such as sanctuaries and refuges in the Project study area. Elmer’s Island Wildlife Refuge is located about five miles northeast of the east shoreline nourishment placement area (SLN_002E). Consultation with LDWF confirmed that no impacts of concern to the refuge resultant of placement plans. The abundance of wetland habitat would increase over the Project life. Mudflats and vegetated shallows are not common in the Project study area, and therefore are not expected to be affected. (6) Threatened and Endangered Species Potential impacts of the TSPTSP on threatened and endangered species have been assessed and coordinated with USFWS and NMFS. The Biological Assessment is provided in Appendix B of the DEIS. Through consultation with these agencies, it was concluded that Project dredging and placement activities may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the following species: Atlantic sturgeon, green sea turtle, Hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea F-20 turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, piping plover, Rufa red knot, west Indian manatee, blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, Sei whale, and sperm whale. There are no candidate species which occur in the Project study area. Critical habitat for piping plover exists on the west Belle Pass and Caminada headlands. (7) Other Wildlife The TSP operations may affect, but are not likely to affect managed fish species, their prey and other marine fisheries resources. The Essential Fish Habitat Assessment is provided in Appendix G of the DEIS. (8) Actions to Minimize Impacts In order to allow for longer benthic recovery periods and the re-colonization of plankton, and nekton in the water column of the Project channels, dredging cycles were optimized to provide the longest possible duration between dredging events while still maintaining the navigational safety of the proposed Project channels. The barrier island nourishment placement areas which were originally designed to be on the west Belle Pass and east Caminada headlands were removed from the dredged material management plan to avoid impacts to those areas designated as critical habitat for piping plover. f. PROPOSED DISPOSAL SITES DETERMINATION (1) Mixing Zone Determination The discharge of sediments into the new marsh creation areas would be confined by retention dikes, which would temporally separate the areas from the surrounding tidal channels and open water habitats until the new wetland habitats reach target elevation (1.9 feet). Based on the sediment analyses, there is no concern for contamination to occur during placement events. Thus, a mixing zone is not required for these activities. The majority of sediments placed in the shoreline nourishment areas would be mobilized onshore, and widespread dispersion of the remaining sediments (as discussed in ‘Dredged and Fill Material Movement’ section II.a.3 of this report) along the large area of nearshore substrate parallel to the headlands would occur naturally by the longshore littoral transport current. Therefore, no significantly adverse environmental effects would result from the beneficial discharge of Project sediments into the proposed placement areas. (2) Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality Standards Water quality standards would be in accordance with those promulgated by the Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) Title 33 Part IX Chapter 11 Sections 1113 (33:IX.1113) and 1115 (33:IX.1115). As detailed in sections II.d ‘Toxic Metals and Organics’ and II.c.2.c ‘Contaminant Determinations,’ analyses of sediments expected to be representative of new work and maintenance material from Project channels provided that there were no exceedances of LDEQ F-21 RECAP screening standards for non-industrial soil use. These RECAP standards are provided in Appendix J-2 (page B1-B6). Further, water quality modeling indicated no significant changes to DO and salinity would occur resultant of construction of the TSPTSP. Thus, the discharge of new work and maintenance sediments from Project channels into the marsh creation and shoreline nourishment placement areas would be in compliance with LAC 33:IX.1100. (3) Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristic Golden Meadow and Galliano are the most populated areas near the study area. Other population centers in the region include Grand Isle and Leeville, which are located about 11 miles northeast and 8 miles north respectively. These developments are characterized by a mosaic of land use designations; with rural residential housing, commercial, special purpose, and industrial land uses being the most prominent. The Port itself consists of mixed commercial/industrial land uses with some marsh associated recreation activity. Unincorporated areas within Lafourche Parish have no zoning regulations; therefore, no zoning conflicts should arise. a. Municipal and Private Water Supply Port waterways receive saline water flows from upstream Bayou Lafourche areas which have high connectivity to salt and intermediate marsh habitat, adjacent bays and surrounding basins. Therefore, the Project would not change existing municipal and private water supply conditions. b. Recreational and Commercial Fisheries; Water Related Recreation The public boat launch, Irvin P. Melancon Public Boat Launch, is located near the southeastern border of the Project area along LA Highway 3090. The boat launch provides recreational fishermen and boaters with a launching site that is within close proximity to the highly productive waters of the coastal marshes, as well as the offshore waters beyond the shelf break of the Gulf. The Project would create an unanticipated wealth of new marsh habitat Thus, recreational and commercial fisheries and related water recreation activities would exhibit a positive net impact over the 50-year project life. c. Aesthetics Deposition sites will be temporarily disrupted; however, the value of the surrounding wetland aesthetics will increase resulting from beneficial dredged material placement for marsh creation and shoreline nourishment. d. Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Seashores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves The Project study area does not contain scenic streams that have been designated under the Louisiana Natural and Scenic River System. Elmer’s Island Wildlife Refuge, located approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project area, provides the closest public beach access proximal to the Project area. Port Fourchon Mitigation Area is located immediately north of F-22 Flotation Canal, and north of the Mitigation Area is the Maritime Forest Ridge (MFR). Fourchon Beach is located southeast of Project areas. During March of 2018, GLPC initiated the deconstruction of the public access bridge to Fourchon Beach; the public can no longer access the beach. The following coastal restoration projects and research studies have been completed or funded (in the engineering and design phase), and are located within the Project study area: 1. CIAP Performance Evaluation Borrow Area Management and Monitoring LA-0012-7: completed 2. West Belle Pass Headland Restoration TE-0023: completed 3. West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration TE-0052: completed 4. Breach Management Plan BA-0170: completed 5. West Fourchon Marsh Creation and Nourishment TE-0134: completed 6. Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration BA-0045: completed 7. Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration Increment 2 BA-0143: completed 8. Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation BA-0171: engineering and design 9. Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation Increment 2 BA-0193: engineering and design 10. CIAP Performance Evaluation – Caminada Moreau Subsidence Study LA-0012-6: completed No special sites would be negatively impacted by the proposed TSP. g. DETERMINATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM The TSP is expected to have only temporary and localized effects on the water column and benthic habitats, including the associated effects on the biota (if present) during Project dredging and placement activities. Flora and fauna should quickly re-colonize the areas following these events. Over the life of the Project, there would be an increase of 2,361 net acres of marsh habitat which would provide 1,055 average annual habitat units of emergent marsh. A mitigation and monitoring plan for the proposed Project would be implemented, and would thereby prevent adverse cumulative environmental effects (see Appendix C of the DEIS). Therefore, Project impacts are not anticipated to result in negative cumulative effects on the aquatic system. F-23 References: Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. (CEC, Inc.), 2012. Caminada headland beach and dune restoration (ba-45) Final Design Report LDNR no. 2503-12-22 Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, 116 pages. Felder, D.L., Camp, D.K., and Tunnell, J.W. 2009. Gulf of Mexico Origin, Waters, and Biota, Volume 1, Biodiversity. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX. Geoengineers. 2017. Desktop Geotechnical Evaluation and Phase 2 Scoping, Federal Navigation Improvements – Port Fourchon Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. (Report prepared for GIS Engineering, LLC). Georgiou, I.Y., FitzGerald, D.M. and Stone, G.W., 2005. The impact of physical processes along the Louisiana coast. Journal of Coastal Research, pp.72-89. Henry, K. M., & Twilley, R. R. (2013). Soil development in a coastal Louisiana wetland during a climate-induced vegetation shift from salt marsh to mangrove. Journal of Coastal Research, 29(6), 1273–1283. Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region (MMS). 2002. Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2003-2007, Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201, Western Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume I: Chapters 1-10. U.S. Department of the Interior. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Custom Soil Resource Report of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration CWPPRA Project Fed. No. TE-52 Environmental Assessment, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. Nieuwaal, M. 2001. Requirements for Sediments Plumes Caused by Dredging – Final Thesis Report. Delft University of Technology. Rabalais, N., Turner, R., Wiseman, W. 2002. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. “The Dead Zone.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 33(1): 235-263. Thomson, G., Wycklendt, A., and Rees, M., 2009. West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration Project (TE-52) - 95% Design Report. Boca Raton, Florida: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 176p. (Report prepared for the Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration). F-24 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2004. Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration Study, Volume 1: LCA Study – Main Report, November 2004, 506 pages. Retrieved from http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/docs/LCA/Main%20Report.pdf?ver=2016- 07-01-095948-907. ______. (2018). Sediment Mobility Tool (SMT). Retrieved from http://navigation.usace.army.mil/SEM/SedimentMobility. Wilber, D.H. and D.G. Clarke. 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: A review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 21(4): 855-875. ______. 2007. Defining and Assessing Benthic Recovery Following Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal. Presentation from the 2007 WODCON XVIII Conference in Lake Buena Vista, FL Yuill, B., Hoonshin, J., Meselhe, E., Baustain, M., Allison, M., Jerabek, A. 2018. Screening Alternatives of the Port Fourchon Channel Deepening Feasibility Project – Technical Memorandum. The Water Institute of the Gulf. F-25 Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement G. APPENDIX G ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT August 2018 Abbreviations Meter (m) Feet (ft) Feet per year (ft/yr) Cubic yards (cy) Million cubic yards (MCY) Linear feet (LF) Miles (mi) Year (yr) Years (yrs) Hour (hr) Parts per thousand (ppt) Conversions 1 m = 3.281 ft Glossary SAV Submerged aquatic vegetation WCA Water column associated Shallow water marsh creation sites Estuarine open water areas in depths from 3 to 9 feet Estuarine waters Waters within estuaries buffered by barrier islands Nearshore waters Marine waters in depths up to 60 ft Offshore waters Marine waters in depths greater than 60 ft Gulf Gulf of Mexico Port Port Fourchon Project Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Project area Project channels, marsh creation and shoreline nourishment areas Project study area Areas adjacent to the Project area within a 9 mile radius CMP Coastal migratory pelagic FMU Fisheries management unit FMP Fisheries management plan All elevations referred to in this report, unless specifically noted otherwise are based on the mean lower low water (MLLW) datum. This vertical datum, as defined by the Corps District New Orleans, accounts for wind and tide. MLLW is defined as 1.14 feet below National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) for the reach of Bayou Lafourche adjacent to Port Fourchon. G-2 Contents INTRODUCTION ...... G-4 PROJECT AREA ...... G-4 PURPOSE & NEED ...... G-5 ALTERNATIVE PLANS ...... G-5 Alternative 1 No-Action (FWOP Conditions) ...... G-7 Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) ...... G-11 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...... G-13 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ...... G-13 FEDERALLY MANAGED FISH SPECIES ...... G-13 FEDERALLY MANAGED FISH SPECIES ...... G-17 Prey o Managed Species ...... G-18 Marine Fisheries Resources ...... G-19 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EFH AND MANAGED SPECIES ...... G-19 Navigation, Dredging Impacts ...... G-19 8.1.1 Conversion of Shallow Open Water to Marsh Habitat ...... G-20 8.1.2 Water Quality Impacts ...... G - 2 0 8.1.3 Impacts to Benthic Habitats ...... G-23 8.1.4 Entrainment Impacts ...... G-23 8.1.5 Dredging Vessel/Equipment Strike Impacts ...... G-24 8.1.6 Underwater Noise Impacts ...... G-24 LIFE HISTORIES & IMPACTS TO MANAGED SPECIES ...... G-25 Penaeid Shrimp ...... G-25 9.1.1 Impacts to Penaeid Shrimp ...... G-25 Red Drum ...... G-26 9.2.1 Impacts to Red Drum ...... G - 2 6 Reef Fish ...... G-27 9.3.1 Impacts to Reef Fishes ...... G-28 Coastal Migratory Pelagics ...... G-28 9.4.1 Impacts to Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) ...... G-29 Gulf Stone Crab ...... G-30 9.5.1 Impacts to Gulf Stone Crab ...... G-30 Highly Migratory Pelagics (HMP) ...... G-30 9.6.1 Impacts to Highly Migratory Pelagics ...... G-31 Cumulative Impacts to Managed Species ...... G-31 G-3 INTRODUCTION A draft feasibility study and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) have been developed to evaluate the feasibility and Federal interest of channel improvements to the existing Port Fourchon Federal project. The study is authorized by Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as amended by Section 1014 of Water Resources and Reform Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014. Pursuant to Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law [PL] 104-297), this essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment evaluates the proposed actions of the Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project (Project) which may adversely impact essential fish habitat (EFH), Federally managed fish species, and marine fisheries resources known to occur in the Project area and proximal habitats. Adverse effect to EFH is defined as any impact which reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH; and may include direct, indirect, site specific or habitat impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. This report is appended to the DEIS of the proposed Project. PROJECT AREA The proposed Project at Port Fourchon (Port) is located at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) coastal zone as shown in Figure G-1. The Port sits north of the west Belle Pass and Chenier Caminada headlands; and is bound by Barataria Bay to the east, Timbalier and Terrebonne Bays to the west, associated wetlands of the bays to the north, and the Gulf to the south. The proposed Project area footprint differs among Project alternatives; and is dominated by open water with aggregated salt marsh and barrier Figure G-1. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Area G-4 headlands with beach and dune habitats. The Project area includes areas which may be directly impacted by the proposed actions; and encompasses the proposed channel enlargements, other navigational features, and shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas for the beneficial-use dredged material. PURPOSE & NEED The non-Federal sponsor, the Greater Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC), is continuing to grow the size and capability of Port Fourchon (Port) at a significant rate to capitalize on its location to attract foreign and domestic entities involved in oil and gas exploration and production. The Port is increasing its terminal area with plans for Port expansion to service the needs of oil rigs and their appurtenant components. In 2015, the non-Federal sponsor studied the importance of continued growth at Port Fourchon by projecting the potential economic growth at the Port based on the anticipated long-term growth in oil and gas activity in the Gulf. Excluding external market forces, the study forecasted that deep water exploration and development wells will nearly double in the next 20 years, even while the total number of exploration and development wells (shallow and deep water) will decline due to the decrease in shallow water wells in the Gulf (Port Fourchon 2035 Master Plan, 2015). Opportunities for the Port include increasing the navigational efficiency of deep-draft vessels which traverse Port channels, and increasing the ability of the channel to accommodate current and aging offshore rigs for maintenance and repair as well as the fabrication of new rigs. Benefits that would accrue from the channel improvements at Port Fourchon include reductions in the light loading of vessels and vessel delays which would continue unabated under FWOP conditions (Alternative 1 No-Action). The operators of OSVs and PSVs will be able to use larger, more efficient vessels. The “light loading” of vessels increases unit transportation costs, which are eventually passed onto the consumer. Less efficient vessels also generally result in higher shipping costs. If the Project is not constructed, vessel operators will continue to incur costs due to vessel delays and light loading of vessels and resultant supply chain inefficiencies. The economic benefits increase with each additional increment of channel deepening. ALTERNATIVE PLANS The following sections of this EFH Assessment provide descriptions of the no-action alternative plan (Alternative 1 No-Action [FWOP conditions]) and eight action alternatives that were formulated for the proposed Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project. The following channel depth scenarios were evaluated in combination with widening scenarios for action alternatives: -30, -35, -40, -45, and -50 feet. Widening scenarios include widening of channel bottoms to 400 feet, 450 feet, and 475 feet. The recommended plan includes additional depths required for navigational safety and advanced maintenance. Shown in Figure G-2 is the station (sta.) numbering convention, and associated miles, used for Port navigation and access channels. The figure has been adapted to include stationing of the existing Federal channels and new stationing for the proposed channel improvements detailed in this chapter. The Gulfward extent of the Belle Pass entrance channel is presently at sta. 270+00. G-5 Figure G-2. Station Numbering Convention used for Port Fourchon Navigation and Access Channels G-6 Alternative 1 No-Action (FWOP Conditions) Alternative 1 would be the continuance of operations and maintenance of the existing project; thereby, limiting the scope of services to those which the Port currently provides tenants. However, it is anticipated that Port management would increase resultant of continued Port development; thus, it is likely that an increase in ship traffic would occur resulting from this growth of existing business and new business. The no-action component of Alternative 1 refers only to the taking of no federal action in order to deepen, widen, or extend the Federal channels and Port access channels, Fourchon Island Slip and the construction of a deep loading hole within the Slip, and the turning basin. Alternative 1 No-Action is a representation of FWOP conditions. Port expansion activities detailed in the Port Fourchon 2035 Master Plan are considered FWOP conditions, and include the construction of the Fourchon Island Slip and the turning basin to the existing authorized depth of the Belle Pass Federal channel. The Port intends to implement expansion activities regardless of activities pertaining to the proposed Project. Therefore, in comparing the potential ecological impacts of dredging activities required for Project implementation to those of Alternative 1 No-Action (FWOP conditions), the no-action alternative includes the dredged material quantities estimated for Fourchon Island development and the turning basin. FWOP impacts, as compared to Project alternatives, are included in this analysis only in terms of the difference in dredged material quantities and placement plans. Existing Port conditions as shown in Figure G-3: Bayou Lafourche (sta. 0+00 to 130+00) Presently, Bayou Lafourche is federally authorized to a width of 300 feet and 24-foot depth. Belle Pass (sat. 130+00 to 270+00) Starting at sta. 130+00, Belle Pass is federally authorized to a width of 300 feet and a 24-foot depth. The Belle Pass entrance channel, flanked by a pair of jetties, begins at sta. 240+00 where the channel deepens to -26 feet and extends to the 26-foot Gulf contour. Flotation Canal (sta. 0+00 to 70+00) Located north of Port facilities east of the Federal channels, Flotation Canal provides access to Slips A, B, and C. The canal is 600 feet wide to have a 24-foot depth and has an approximate length of 15,000 feet. Slips A, B, and C Slip A is authorized to a width of 700 feet to have a 24-foot draft and is nearly 2,000 feet long. Slips B and C are 700 feet wide with a 24-foot depth and have a length of 7,000 feet. Fourchon Island (sta. 140+00 to 150+00) Fourchon Island sits east of Belle Pass and south of Pass Fourchon. Planned for construction on Fourchon Island between sta. 140+00 and 150+00, Fourchon Island Slip will open west toward Belle Pass and the turning basin will have a 1,500-foot diameter. The determination of impacts and required mitigation for these plans will be resolved during the respective regulatory permitting processes for Port implementation. Three pipeline relocations would be required, as well as the construction of 16,350 linear feet of retention dikes to contain sediments removed during the construction of Fourchon Island Slip and the turning basin. G-7 Figure G-3. Alternative 1 No-Action (FWOP Conditions) – Port Fourchon Navigation and Access Channels G-8 3.2 Alternative Action Plans The components of the proposed Project action alternatives 2a through 6c include: x Federal channels – Bayou Lafourche (starting at sta. 0+00) and Belle Pass and its entrance channel (sta. 130+00 to 270+00) x Flotation Canal (sta. 0+00 to 70+00); Slips A, B, and C; Fourchon Island Slip with a deep loading hole, and the turning basin Alternatives 6a, 6b, and 6c include dredging for a deep loading hole within Fourchon Island Slip. The proposed improvements to deepen interior Port navigation channels (Bayou Lafourche; Flotation Canal; and Slips A, B, and C) are constant across all actions alternatives. The proposed modification scenarios to deepen Belle Pass (starting at sta. 130+00) vary for each action alternative and require the extension of the entrance channel to the Gulf contour respective to each alternative depth. The proposed scenarios to widen this channel include widening to 400 feet, 450 feet, and 475 feet. All action alternatives include dredging of the turning basin to the respective depth and engineeringly appropriate width proposed for Belle Pass in each alternative plan. The length of Gulfward extension for the proposed Belle Pass entrance channel under all action alternatives is derived from a 2-foot additional allowance of wave action for each alternative plan. Maintenance dredging intervals are specific to each channel reach. Dredging conducted by the Corps and the non-Federal sponsor would maintain the new channel design dimensions through annual maintenance dredging practices similar to Alternative 1, with the exception of increased dredged material quantities and new placement areas. The total Project quantity of dredged material estimated for each action alternative assumes 50 years of maintenance beginning after the completion of construction. A thirty inch hydraulic cutterhead suction dredging vessel would be used for sediment removal in all Project channels. This dredging method functions with a rotating cutterhead mounted on the end of the suction pipeline which dislodges sediments, and would pump dredge slurries from the dredge vessel to the main trunkline pipeline. Thirty inch discharge pipelines would transfer the slurries from the trunkline pipeline to the proposed dredge placement areas, thereby utilizing all Project dredged materials as beneficial use sediments for marsh creation. Table G-1 details the footprints of all nine Project alternative plans, including the no-action alternative. G-9 Table G-1. Alternative Plan Footprints of Project Implementation and the Beneficial-Use of Dredged Materials. Channel Reach Allocation of Sediments New Marsh Gulfward Impact to Required Dredged Acres of Required for Beneficial-Use Creation Extension of Gulf Construction Alternatives Bayou Lafourche Material Marsh Pipeline Belle Pass & Placement Entrance Water Retention Flotation Canal Removed1 Marsh Shoreline Created3 Relocations Entrance Channel Sites2 Channel4 Bottoms5 Dikes6 Slips A, B & C Creation Nourishment 22.8 1 No-Action FWOP – Retain authorized dimensions 24.8 MCY 2.0 MCY 1 1,024 none none 16,400 LF 2 MCY Deepen to 30 feet/ 25.2 same as 2a 26.4 MCY 1.2 MCY 1,189 0.7 miles 25 acres 41,900 LF 7 Retain 300-feet width throughout MCY Alternative 1 Deepen to 30 feet throughout 32.2 same as same as 2b Widen to 400 feet 37.1 MCY 5.0 MCY 2 1,520 34 acres 43,800 LF Retain 300-feet width MCY Alternative 2a Alternative 2a sta. 130+00 to 339+92 Deepen to 35 feet/ Deepen to 30 feet/ 35.7 same as 3 Widen to 400 feet 49.9 MCY 14.2 MCY 1,687 1.6 miles 78 acres 51,300 LF 8 Retain 300-feet width sta. 130+00 to 388+03 MCY Alternative 2b Deepen to 40 feet/ Deepen to 30 feet/ 38.0 same as 4 Widen to 400 feet 57.6 MCY 19.6 MCY 1,797 2.9 miles 141 acres 57,500 LF 11 Retain 300-feet width sta. 130+00 to 460+08 MCY Alternative 2b Deepen to 45 feet/ Deepen to 30 feet/ 39.7 same as 5 Widen to 400 feet 63.7 MCY 24.0 MCY 1,874 4.1 miles 199 acres 62,800 LF 12 Retain 300-feet width sta. 130+00 to 520+91 MCY Alternative 2b Deepen to 50 feet/ Deepen to 30 feet/ 43.4 same as 6a Widen to 400 feet 72.6 MCY 29.2 MCY 3 2,052 5.2 miles 525 acres 71,800 LF Retain 300-feet width sta. 130+00 to 589+93 MCY Alternative 5 Deepen to 50 feet/ Deepen to 30 feet/ 47.8 same as same as 6b Widen to 450 feet 81.8 MCY 34.0 MCY 4 2,258 284 acres 74,100 LF Retain 300-feet width sta. 130+00 to 589+93 MCY Alternative 6a Alternative 5 Deepen to 50 feet/ Deepen to 30 feet/ 50.0 same as same as same as 6c TSP Widen to 475 feet 86.4 MCY 36.4 MCY 2,361 299 acres 75,150 LF Retain 300-feet width sta. 130+00 to 589+93 MCY Alternative 6b Alternative 6a Alternative 5 1Dredged material removed includes new work and 50 years of annual maintenance (includes additional quantities required for navigational safety and advanced maintenance depths) 2The quantity of new placement sites is required for inland marsh creation 3The acreage of marsh created accounts for all new work and maintenance assumed for 50 years of Project implementation 4The length (miles) of Gulfward extension proposed for the Belle Pass entrance channel accounts for sta. 270+00 and beyond 5The impact to Gulf water bottoms accounts for sta. 270+00 and beyond 6The quantity of retention dikes (LF) is required for temporary containment of beneficial-use sediments for inland marsh creation (retention dikes would be breached once marsh creation sites reach target elevation [1.9 feet]) Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) The locations of the improvements recommended by the TSP are shown in Figure G-4. The recommended improvements of the TSP would deepen the downstream Belle Pass Federal channel (sta. 130+00 to 589+93) to -50 feet, widen this reach of the channel from the existing 300-foot width to 475 feet, and extend the entrance channel approximately 5.2 miles into the Gulf. The following total dredging depth requirements of the Belle Pass Federal channel include advanced maintenance and a 2-foot safety factor: -53 feet deep from sta. 130+00 to 220+00, -56.5 feet deep from sta. 220+00 to 330+00, and -54.5 feet deep from sta. 330+00 to 589+00. Modifications to the upstream interior channels (sta.0+00 to sta. 130+00) – Bayou Lafourche; Flotation Canal; and Slips A, B, and C (and berthing areas) – would deepen the channels to -30 feet and retain the existing 300-foot width in this interior section. The total dredging depth requirement of the Bayou Lafourche Federal channel would be -33 feet deep, which includes 3 feet of advanced maintenance. Fourchon Island Slip and the turning basin would be deepened to -50 feet. The deep loading hole in this Slip would be dredged to a depth of -85 feet. The existing pair of Federal jetties would not be altered and would be maintained as needed. The TSP would require the relocation of 15 pipelines, all of which would be performed by contractors prior to the initiation of channel dredging contracts. Project construction would occur over an estimated period of 4 years. Maintenance dredging would begin after the fourth year of construction, and would be conducted for a period of 50 years thereafter. Tables J-6 and J-7 in the DMMP (Appendix J of the DEIS) provides the estimated durations of environmental disturbance resultant of TSP dredging activities. Channel reaches would be dredged on cycles necessary to maintain the authorized depths and widths. New work and maintenance dredged material would be fully utilized as beneficial-use sediments, with dredged material placed in nearshore areas as shoreline nourishment in active feeder berms and in the proposed marsh creation areas. TSP dredge plan details are provided in Chapter 2 of the DEIS (section 2.9.1). Figure G-4. TSP Alternative 6c: 50-foot Depth/475-foot Width G-12 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT EFH designated by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is present in areas proposed for channel modifications (deepening, widening, and extension into the Gulf) and proposed placement areas for beneficial and non-beneficial use dredged material. The proposed Project occurs in the East Texas and West Louisiana eco-region 4 as designated by GMFMC (GMFMC, 2016). Habitat zone categories included in this analysis are estuarine (inside barrier islands and estuaries) and nearshore (60 feet or less in depth). The primary categories of EFH which may be affected by project implementation are estuarine water bottoms, estuarine water column, marine water bottoms, and marine water column. Estuarine EFH expected to occur in the Project study area includes emergent saline marsh, non-vegetated soft bottoms (mud), oyster beds, and water column. Marine EFH expected to occur in the Project study are non-vegetated soft bottoms (mud) and water column. Soft muddy bottom EFH are dominated by benthic polychaete organisms. The dominant groups of benthic fauna in the central Gulf are infauna (i.e. burrowing worms, crustaceans, and mollusks) and epifauna (crustaceans, echinoderms, and mollusks). The prevalence of opportunistic species in the inner continental shelf of coastal Louisiana is an indication that the region is regularly disturbed and stressed, and therefore is a highly unpredictable environment (U.S. EPA, 2003). Frequent disturbance to benthic habitats causes the macroinfaunal community of the inner shelf to be dynamic and unstable, thereby significantly limiting the species richness of these communities (U.S. EPA, 2003). The macroinvertebrate population structure of the Caminada headland is composed of crustaceans, bivalve molluscs, haustoriid amphipods, annelids, polychaetes and insects. The amphipod, Lepidactylus triarticulatus; the polychaete, Scolelepis squamata; and the bivalve mollusk, Donax variablilis, are the most populous of benthic organisms in this habitat (McLelland, 2016). It is assumed that the west Belle Pass headland invertebrate community would be similar to that of the Caminada headlands. SAV and seagrass (i.e. floating Sargassum) populations historically occurring in the central coastal zone of Louisiana has experienced significant declines in the last several decades. In 2003 and 2004, boat and seaplane surveys were conducted in Gulf waters surrounding around the Timbalier Island which found no presence of SAV in the area (Poirrier, 2006). The West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (TE-52) documented that there was no SAV present in the TE-52 project area in May of 2006 (NOAA, 2010). Further, there was no SAV found in Bay Champaign and several marsh creation areas during a Project site visit with the Corps and USFWS on February 26, 2018. Therefore, it is unlikely that SAV occurs in the areas of the proposed Project; including the Belle Pass entrance channel and shoreline nourishment and open water marsh creation placement areas. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern There are no habitat areas of particular concern in the Project area or proximal habitats. FEDERALLY MANAGED FISH SPECIES Regional fishery management councils for U.S. estuarine and marine waters (within the seaward limit of the exclusive economic zone) were created resultant of the 1996 amendments to the G-13 MSFCMA. MSFCMA amendments mandated that councils be formed in order to advise NMFS on regional fishery management issues (NOAA, 2015). In the first amendments to Gulf fishery management plans (FMPs) published in 1998, as promulgated under the 1996 MSFCMA mandate, GMFMC selected ecologically representative species of those remaining within their respective fishery management units (FMUs) (GMFMC, 1998). These species were identified as the most important among other species in their FMUs in terms of commercial and recreational harvest. In support of the nation’s goal of maintaining sustainable fisheries, the representative species are designated as those which require federal management to protect fishery habitat quality and quantity. Since the first 1998 Gulf FMP amendments were authorized, GMFMC has worked in tandem with NMFS to produce a series of generic amendments for Gulf FMPs. The list of federally managed species (Table G-4) discoursed in this section was derived from the 5-Year Review of Essential Fish Habitat Requirements (2016) published by GMFMC. The GMFMC, in cooperation with NMFS, has delineated EFH for federally managed species identified in Gulf FMPs. Federally managed species likely to occur in the proposed Project area are managed under the following FMPs for the Gulf of Mexico: shrimp, red drum, reef fish, coastal migratory pelagic fishes and other marine biota, and highly migratory species. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (GMFMC, 2016). Tables G-4 and G-5 detail the federally managed species, their life stages and EFH which may occur in the Project area which have the potential to be impacted by the proposed actions of the Project. G-14 Table G-5. List of Federally Managed Fishes in the Project Study Area. Common Scientific Name Life Stage System EFH1 Name Shrimp FMU Brown Penaeus aztecus Eggs Marine (M) Soft bottom, sand/shell 59-361 ft shrimp Larvae Estuarine (E)/M WCA, planktonic <269 ft SAV, emergent marsh, oyster reef, Postlarvae/juveniles E soft bottom, sand/shell <3.3 ft Sub-adults E/M Soft bottom, sand/shell <59.1 ft Adults M Soft bottom, sand/shell 46-361 ft White Penaeus Eggs E/M 29-112 ft shrimp setiferus Larvae E/M <269 ft, planktonic Emergent marsh, SAV, oyster reefs, Postlarvae/juveniles E/M soft bottom, mangroves <3.3 ft Sub-adults E/M Soft bottom, sand/shell <98.4 ft Adults E/M Soft bottom <78.7 ft Red Drum FMU Red drum Sciaenops Eggs E WCA 6-98 ft ocellatus Larvae E SAV, soft bottom, WCA SAV, emergent marsh, soft bottom, Postlarvae E/M sand/shell SAV, soft bottom, emergent marsh, Juveniles E/M sand/shell, early juveniles <9.8 ft, late juveniles <16.4 ft SAV, emergent marsh, soft bottom, Adults E/M sand/shell, WCA <229.7 ft Reef Fish FMU Lane Lutjanus Eggs M WCA 13-433 ft snapper synagris Larvae/postlarvae E/M WCA, SAV, planktonic <164 ft SAV, sand/shell, soft bottom, Juveniles E/M banks/shoals, mangrove <78.7 ft Adults M Sand/shell, banks/shoals 13-433 ft Gray Lutjanus griseus Soft bottom, sand/shell, banks/shoals, Adults E/M snapper emergent marsh <590.6 ft Red Lutjanus Eggs/larvae/postlarvae M WCA 59-413 ft snapper campechanus Banks/shoals, soft bottom, sand/shell, Juveniles M early juveniles 56-600 ft, late juveniles 59-180 ft Sub-adults M Banks/shoals, soft bottom, sand/shell Adults M Banks/shoals, 23-479 ft Almaco Seriola rivoliana Juveniles M WCA, drifting algae jack Gray Balistes Larvae/postlarvae M WCA, drifting algae triggerfish capriscus Juveniles M Drifting algae, mangrove 33-328 ft Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMU King Scomberomorus Juveniles M WCA, <29.5 ft mackerel cavalla Adults M WCA <656 ft Spanish Scomberomorus Larvae M WCA 29-275 ft Mackerel maculatus Postlarvae M WCA 29-275 ft Cobia Rachycentron Eggs E/M WCA, surface waters canadum WCA, 10-984 ft, in surface waters, Larvae E/M planktonic M WCA, 36-174 ft, in or near surface Postlarvae waters, planktonic WCA, early juveniles 16-984 ft, in or Juveniles M near surface waters, late juveniles 3-230 ft Adults M WCA, banks/shoals 3-230 ft Gulf Menippe adina Eggs E/M Sand/shell and soft bottoms <131.2 ft Stone Larvae/postlarvae E/M Pelagic <131.2 ft Crab Oyster reefs, sand/shell and soft Juveniles/adults E/M FMU bottoms <131.2 ft 1EFH descriptions provided in feet detail the range of depths at which EFH has been designated for life stages. Sources: GMFMC, 2004; GMFMC, 2016 G-16 FEDERALLY MANAGED FISH SPECIES Regional fishery management councils for U.S. estuarine and marine waters (within the seaward limit of the exclusive economic zone) were created resultant of the 1996 amendments to the MSFCMA. MSFCMA amendments mandated that councils be formed in order to advise NMFS on regional fishery management issues (NOAA, 2015). In the first amendments to Gulf fishery management plans (FMPs) published in 1998, as promulgated under the 1996 MSFCMA mandate, GMFMC selected ecologically representative species of those remaining within their respective fishery management units (FMUs) (GMFMC, 1998). These species were identified as the most important among other species in their FMUs in terms of commercial and recreational harvest. In support of the nation’s goal of maintaining sustainable fisheries, the representative species are designated as those which require federal management to protect fishery habitat quality and quantity. Since the first 1998 Gulf FMP amendments were authorized, GMFMC has worked in tandem with NMFS to produce a series of generic amendments for Gulf FMPs. The list of federally managed species (Table G-4) discoursed in this section was derived from the 5-Year Review of Essential Fish Habitat Requirements (2016) published by GMFMC. The GMFMC, in cooperation with NMFS, has delineated EFH for federally managed species identified in Gulf FMPs. Federally managed species likely to occur in the proposed Project area are managed under the following FMPs for the Gulf of Mexico: shrimp, red drum, reef fish, coastal migratory pelagic fishes and other marine biota, and highly migratory species. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (GMFMC, 2016). Tables G-4 and G-5 detail the federally managed species, their life stages and EFH which may occur in the Project area which have the potential to be impacted by the proposed actions of the Project. Table G-5. Essential Fish Habitat of Highly Migratory Shark Species in the Project Area Managed by NOAA Common Name Scientific Name Life Stage EFH1 Shallow coastal waters Atlantic sharpnose Rhizoprionodon terranovae Juveniles <150 ft Shallow inshore coastal waters Bonnethead Sphyrna tiburo Juveniles/adults with sandy or muddy bottoms <150 ft Blacknose Carcharhinus acronotus Adults Shallow coastal waters <150 ft Blacktip Carcharhinus limbatus Neonates/juveniles Shallow coastal waters <150 ft Finetooth Carcharhinus isodon Juveniles/adults Shallow coastal waters <150 ft Scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini Juveniles Shallow coastal waters <150 ft Shallow coastal waters, soft Spinner Carcharhinus brevipinna Neonates bottoms <150 ft 1EFH descriptions provided in feet detail the range of depths at which EFH has been designated for life stages. Source: NOAA, 2009 Prey o Managed Species Table G-6. Prey of Managed Species Common Name Life Stage Prey Brown shrimp Eggs Phytoplankton, zooplankton Larvae Benthic algae, marine worms, peracarid crustaceans Postlarvae/juveniles Marine worms, amphipods, other benthic invertebrates Sub-adults/adults Omnivorous White shrimp Larvae Phytoplankton, zooplankton Postlarvae/juveniles Omnivorous, detritus, annelid worms, pericarid crustaceans, caridean shrimp, diatoms Sub-adults Omnivorous Adults Omnivorous, annelids, insects, detritus, gastropods, copepods, byrozoans, sponges, corals, fish, filamentous algae, vascular plant stems and roots Red drum Larvae Copepods Juveniles Copepods, mysids, amphipods, shrimp, marine worms, insects, fish, bivalves, and decapod crabs Adults Crab, shrimp, and fish: menhaden, anchovies, lizardfish Lane snapper Larvae/postlarvae Plankton, rotifers Juveniles Copepods, grass shrimp, and other small inverts Adults Fish, crustaceans, annelids, mollusks, and algae Gray snapper Adults Fish, shrimp, and crabs Red snapper Eggs/larvae Phytoplankton and rotifers Juveniles Zooplankton, shrimp, arrow worms, squids, and copepods Adults Shrimp, fish, squid, octopus, and crabs Almaco jack Juveniles Fish, shrimp, and copepods Gray triggerfish Juveniles Algae, hydroids, barnacles, and marine worms King mackerel Juveniles Squid and estuarine-dependent fish Adults Fish, squid, and shrimp Spanish Mackerel Larvae Larval fish, and some crustaceans Cobia Larvae/postlarvae Zooplankton Juveniles Mosquito fish, shrimp, other fish and squid Adults Crustaceans and fish Gulf stone crab Juveniles/adults Oysters, small mollusks, polychaete worms, other crustaceans Source: GMFMC, 2016 Marine Fisheries Resources Table G-7 details the economically important marine fishery species which occur in the Project study area. Table G-7. Marine Fisheries Resources which Commonly Occur in the Study Area. Common Name Scientific Name Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Blue crab Callinectes sapidus Gulf menhaden Brevoortia patronus Inland silverside Menidia beryllina Sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius Sea catfish Ariopsis felis Southern kingfish Menticirrhus americanus Spot Leiostomus xanthurus Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus Striped mullet Mugil cephalus POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EFH AND MANAGED SPECIES This section evaluates the potential impacts associated with implementation of the TSP Alternative 6c on EFH and associated managed species. Impacts to water quality and habitat will be described, as well as potential impacts caused by entrainment, vessel/equipment strikes, and underwater noise. Navigation, Dredging Impacts Potential impacts to EFH and associated federally managed species, and their prey, which occur resultant of proposed Project dredging and dredge placements for beneficial-use. Dredging and beneficial-use placement activities may impact the following water quality parameters in the study area: total suspended solids and turbidity, light penetration, and nutrient levels. Decreases in light penetration in the water column could result in behavioral responses from fishes due to the effects of disturbance and the potential for limited visual acuity (Wenger et al., 2017). Dredging could result in burial and/or smothering of some managed species, and has the potential to release nutrients in the water column which could impact fishes, prey, and their habitat. Additional effects to EFH and managed species may occur when fish and prey are entrained or struck by dredging vessels/equipment. Managed species may be impacted by noise disturbances resultant of dredging activities. These dredging-related stressors may cause short-term avoidance behaviors and limit foraging, and could potentially alter fitness levels and the long-term habitat range of organisms (Wenger et al., 2017). However, beneficial-use dredge placement activities would result in the increase of 2,361 acres of new marsh habitat in the Project area overtime and provide estuarine- dependent species a wealth of new essential fish habitat such as estuarine emergent wetlands, marsh edge habitat, and mangrove wetlands. Therefore, it is expected that the avoidance behaviors of species which may emigrate outside of the Project area would re-colonize the area overtime as the aquatic system returns to usual TSS/turbidity conditions. G-19 To evaluate changes to the aquatic system, The Water Institute of the Gulf conducted Delft3 numerical hydrodynamic and morpho-dynamic modeling to predict the impact of the alternative plans on regional flow, geomorphology, and water quality properties in and around Port Fourchon. The process for implementing use of the models is detailed in the Numerical Modeling Technical Memorandum (see Appendix I). As the models were being developed, an iterative consultation process with the natural resource agencies determined the type of data necessary to extrapolate from modeling in order to evaluate impacts to resources in the Project area. Table G-1 details the allocation of Project dredged material placement. The predicted dredging durations and estimated durations of fish exposure to environmental disturbances caused by dredging activities have a first- order relationship. Tables J-6 and J-7 of the DMMP (see Appendix J of the DEIS) detail the predicted durations of construction and maintenance (assumed for 50 years) dredging events required for implementation of the TSP. 8.1.1 Conversion of Shallow Open Water to Marsh Habitat The Project would impact approximately 299 acres of marine soft bottom habitat. However, there would be no conversion of the bottom habitat type. The Project is not expected to impact the total abundance of soft bottom habitat in the area. The placement of beneficial-use of dredged sediments from Project channels in marsh creation placement areas is expected to convert 4,717 acres of open water to 2,361 net acres marsh habitat. NOAA provided the following biological opinion in the 2010 Environmental Assessment of the West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration CWWPRA Project (Federal Number TE-52): “Although open water is essential fish habitat (EFH) to several managed species, the trend toward increasing the amount of open water habitat generally is considered a problem to be addressed by the project. An increase in open water habitat comes at the expense of submerged vegetation and emergent marsh habitat, which are much less common and more vulnerable to disturbance.” Further, this creeping trend of inundation around the Port exacerbates rapid rates of marsh disaggregation, and increases the susceptibility of the Port to adverse effects of storm surge. While the project would cause adverse impacts to a soft bottom EFH and associated species, the trade-off is new marsh habitat that would be colonized by estuarine-dependent managed species and their prey, thereby substantially increasing the availability of estuarine prey species, as well as EFH marsh edge and emergent marsh habitats. 8.1.2 Water Quality Impacts The 3D hydrodynamic model was set up with the same water quality model coefficients used in similar studies of analogous environments because of the relative absence of observed data sets for initial conditions, calibration, and validation. Modeled water quality outputs were compared to the observed monthly mean data for salinity, total suspended sediment (TSS), dissolved oxygen (DO), ammonium (NH4), nitrate+nitrite (NO3), and phosphate (PO4) at Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) water quality sampling stations ST020403 and ST021102. The model showed no vertical gradient for water quality constituents (including salinity) in the channel, which indicates that the system is well mixed (not stratified). Modeled output did not indicate that water volume residence times were long enough to promote significant biological/chemical reactions capable of altering the water quality condition. Modeled results indicated that flow within the Project channels (including the proposed Belle Pass Gulf entrance channel) quickly advects from the system meaning that the system has high flushing rates capable of dispersing sediments at similar rates. Salinity and Dissolved Oxygen G-20 Overall, results indicated that increasing maintenance dredge depths within the Federal navigation channels (Bayou Lafourche and Belle Pass) would likely have an insignificant impact on salinity, and also showed a good agreement with observed data and represented seasonal change well in the aquatic system. Waters in the system are currently, and will remain, relatively saline (> 25 ppt). DO concentrations in the system ranges between 5.7 and 6.1 mg/L, and are not predicted to change significantly. The segment of the proposed Belle Pass entrance channel from sta. 350+00 to 589+93, which spans a distance of 4.6 miles in Gulf waters, have been reported as being the north central boundaries of the Gulf “Dead Zone,” the second largest zone of coastal hypoxia (oxygen-depleted waters) in the world (Rabalais, 2002). The major causes of hypoxia in the Dead Zone are high nutrient loads which enhance primary production. Hypoxic conditions cause the emigration or die off of marine invertebrates and the elimination of these organisms from the water masses (Rabalais et al., 2002). Resultant of Project implementation, it is predicted that DO and salinity concentrations in the aquatic system would remain the same, as would the non-stratified water column conditions and high flushing rates. These anticipated future with Project implementation parameters provide that the greater Project area is likely not susceptible to dredging-induced eutrophication (in the form of hypoxia) (Rabalais et al., 2002). It is also unlikely that DO concentrations would fall below 0.2 mg/L (or ppm) and cause benthic habitats to become oxygen- deficient, thereby inducing hypoxic stress in benthos causing emigration or mortality (Rabalais et al., 2002). Further, dredging operations have been conducted in the Port main navigation channel by the Corps since 2001, and no historic dredge events have been recorded as causing anoxic fish kills or harmful algal blooms. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids Soil borings were obtained from each Project channel reach proposed for improvements. Grain- size analyses of the soil borings from Bayou Lafourche provided that the average percent composition of sand to silt/clay sediments is 38:57 respectively; the average percent composition of borings from Belle Pass in depths up to 39 feet is 34:66, and 7:93 in depths up to 49 feet. Dredged sand sediments are expected to fall out of suspension in the water column and settle to the water bottom at quicker rates, as compared to dredged silt/clay sediments, due to their larger particle sizes and densities (DOI MMS, 2002). Lighter silt/clay sediments are expected to have slower settlement rates due their relative small weight. The portion of silt/clay sediments from dredged materials would likely preferentially concentrate at the top layer of the water bottom. The potential of lighter sediments to re-suspend in the water column during storm events is higher than that of denser sand sediments due to their surficial location in the sediment column (DOI MMS, 2002). Suspensiods resultant of wind-induced disturbance may cause fish mortality (Bruton, 1985). However, Bruton (1985) attributes this type of mortality to the deoxygenation of the water column. As previously stated, oxygen levels are not anticipated to be significantly impacted. Therefore, fish mortality indirectly caused by suspended solids are not expected to occur as a result of Project implementation. TSS and turbidity are predicted to be a very indirect measure of mineral resources in the Project area. Sediment plumes form as the losses of sediments are released into the water column, and are a byproduct of dredging operations (Nieuwaal, 2001). Sediment plumes reduce light penetration through the water column, and increase the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity levels in aquatic systems. TSS concentrations are a measurement of the dry weight of G-21 suspended particles per unit of water volume. Whereas, turbidity is a measurement of the transmission of unobstructed lines of light energy passing through the water column (Nieuwaal, 2001). The impacts to protected species from TSS and turbidity are directly related to: the species tolerance, exposure rate, duration of the exposure, and life stage. Turbid waters beyond normal levels of the area can visually impair predator species that rely on sight to forage. Further, when TSS and turbidity parameters exceed species’ tolerance thresholds the visual acuity of prey species is impaired, which may result in their inability to avoid predators (Wilbur and Clarke, 2001). The deposition of suspended sediments may induce impacts to fish eggs and larvae through, abrasion, and/or smothering, especially in the dredging and placement areas (Wilbur and Clarke, 2001). Changes in water quality parameters can cause adverse impacts to EFH, benthic vegetation and infauna; and directly impact managed fish species and their pray. The reduction of light penetration through the water column has the potential to cause significant optical effects on managed fishes and their prey. The primary source of sediment plume generation would be material disturbed around the cutterhead. Dredging operation controls would be the responsibility of the contracted dredge company. Employment of best management practices (BMPs) by the contractor during dredge and beneficial-use placement events is assumed, and would thereby minimize unintentional sediment losses and impacts to non-motile demersal organisms. Further, BMPs would prevent potential overflows of sediments extracted from Project channel water bottoms into the water column resultant of the movement of dredge slurries through the pipelines of cutterhead suction dredge vessels. Sediment plumes which may occur within lower water columns near Project channel bottoms and adjacent seabed are expected to quickly advect out of the aquatic system and dissipate into deeper offshore Gulf waters due to the high flushing rates of Project channels and wind and ocean currents. High flushing rates would minimize long-term impacts to water quality. Temporary increases in TSS and turbidity in the water column at dredging areas is anticipated. Generally, water turbidity is expected to be greater than existing conditions in the vicinity of dredging operations. Elevated TSS concentrations may reoccur in alignment with maintenance dredge cycles; but are anticipated to decrease to pre-construction conditions (dependent upon wind and oceanic currents) in a matter of days to weeks, and would be below significant levels due to high flushing rates (DOI MMS, 2002). Sediment dispersion by wave action generally occurs in offshore waters in depths up to 98 feet (30 meters), and is likely to quicken the dispersion of sediments proposed for removal within the Belle Pass entrance channel due to the boundaries of the offshore entrance channel extension length into the Gulf (5.2 miles from existing channel end station [270+00]). Dredged sediments proposed for removal are limited to depths up to 50 feet (Newell et al., 1998). The dispersion of sediments by wave action is likely to further aid quick dissipation of TSS and lower turbidity levels. Dredged Material Suitability Soil borings were obtained from Project navigation and access channels for geotechnical analysis in order to evaluate the suitability of dredged material to be placed beneficially for inland marsh creation and shoreline nourishment for the west Belle Pass and Caminada headlands. Results of the geotechnical analyses in respect to environmental contamination provided that dredged material proposed for removal is suitable for marsh creation and shoreline nourishment, and would not adversely affect habitat quality. Results were compared against LDEQ Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) screening standards for non-industrial soil use; there were no exceedances. These results are detailed in the Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) Appendix J of the DEIS. G-22 8.1.3 Impacts to Benthic Habitats The loss of benthic resources in the seabed would be a direct, unavoidable consequence of the proposed dredging operations in the Project channels (Nieuwaal, 2001). New work (construction) dredging of Project channels would likely result in the temporary unsuitability of these benthic habitats for some sessile and or benthic organisms, the effects of which could indirectly affect managed fish and their prey which utilize these areas as foraging, nursery and spawning habitat. Non-motile sessile and/or benthic prey species may be buried and smothered during dredging and dredge placement events. There are several physical factors which would affect benthic recovery in the proposed Project channels: habitat type (disturbance history), sediment type, spatial scale of disturbance, and time and frequency of disturbance (Wilber and Clarke, 2007). Port Fourchon is located in a temperate coastal area where EFH such as marine soft-bottom mud (sta. 270+00 to 589+93) experiences frequent wave, wind, and current induced disturbances. Therefore, the aquatic system is adapted to frequent disturbances. The relatively rapid rates of benthic recovery studied in this type of habitat have been attributed to higher abundances of opportunistic species which inhabit benthic communities occurring at these latitudes (Wilber and Clarke, 2007). It is expected that the sloughing of non-dredged sediments into the dredged channel furrow would transport benthic infauna into the Belle Pass entrance channel (Wilber and Clarke, 2007). It is also possible that colonization by infauna which remain after dredging in “hummocks” of unexcavated sediments within the footprint of the Project channels may occur. The maintenance interval for this channel reach would be every 5 years (see DMMP Appendix J of the DEIS). Dredged sediments beneficially placed in marsh creation sites would be deposited in water with depths of 3 to 9 feet. It is expected that the re-colonization of benthic macrofauna in the marsh creation placement areas would occur through the transfer of adult and/or juvenile organisms from the dredge sites to the placement areas during placement events, and by the vertical migration of the organisms through the deposited sediments and the existing underlying sediments (Wilber and Clarke, 2007). Some managed demersal species require specific substrates for foraging and spawning. Estuarine and shoreline substrates would not change resultant of beneficial-use placement of sediments in the marsh creation and shoreline nourishment areas. Therefore, only temporary impacts to substrates required for foraging and spawning of managed fishes are anticipated, including the potential loss and displacement of non-motile benthos. Further, there are a number of studies which have documented the re-colonization of benthos in areas disturbed by dredging activities - McCauley et al. (1977), Diaz (1994), Wilber and Clarke (2007). Therefore, dredging would likely result in the temporary loss of some benthic habitat and foraging grounds. 8.1.4 Entrainment Impacts Generally, adverse impacts to aquatic organisms caused by hydraulic entrainment resultant of cutterhead dredging operations are evaluated using observed damage/mortality rates of entrained organisms. The uptake of organisms within the suction field generated at surficial sediment surfaces of the water bottom near the cutterhead is expected to produce by-catch. By-catch may include fish eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults. A meta-analysis of the direct effects of dredging on fish by Wenger et al. (2017) details that early life-history stages of fishes are most vulnerable to the direct lethal effects of entrainment. These life stages are characterized as having limited or no swimming ability, such as eggs and larvae. Relative to WCA fish, demersal species and species which spawn in or near to the Project channels and dredged material placement areas would have G-23 a higher potential for entrainment. The following factors would influence fish entrainment rates for the proposed Project include: size and suction power of the cutterhead dredge; dimensions and extent of construction; dredge operation methods unique to the contractor; foraging, rearing, and spawning habitat preferences; and fish swimming stamina and length of individuals. The potential for entrainment is the highest for abundant demersal species (Wenger et al., 2017). Still, entrainment-induced mortality rates could be low for these species. Further, while the mortality rates may be high for entrained fish, it is generally thought that lethal entrainment rates resultant of dredging activities represent a small proportion of total fish production (Reine & Clarke, 1998; Reine et al., 1998). 8.1.5 Dredging Vessel/Equipment Strike Impacts Fish injury/mortality is possible resultant of vessel strikes during Project implementation. All maintenance events are estimated to last a total of 96 days. For implementation of the TSP, offshore reaches of the Belle Pass entrance channel would require approximately 57 days for dredging and placement activities. Maintenance dredging events are not anticipated to pose substantial threats to local fish abundances or physiological behaviors. Additionally, these effects to fish species would likely be negligible to minor and temporary, with the highest risks imposed on species and life stages of fishes which have limited motility. Compared to strike impacts to fishes during maintenance events, strike impacts may occur at slightly higher rates during Project construction due to longer dredging durations (see Tables J-6 and J-7 of Appendix J of the DEIS). 8.1.6 Underwater Noise Impacts The effects of dredging noise on aquatic communities present within the designated EFH categories resultant of Project implementation would vary among fish species/life stages present in the Project channels and the marsh creation and shoreline nourishment beneficial-use placement areas. Noise pollution is another term used to describe anthropogenic causes of undesired changes to underwater soundscapes with the potential to affect the hearing or bioacoustics of fishes (Popperetal et al., 2014). Specifically, these effects have been proven to influence the following characteristics among fishes: reproductive behavior, navigation, defense, territoriality functions, foraging, and orientation and timing of larval settlement. The presence or absence of gas bladders (swim bladders) in fishes is one of the most important determinants of effects from underwater noise to these traits (Popperetal et al., 2014). The following managed fish species potentially occurring in the Project areas have a gas bladder organ: red drum, lane snapper, red snapper, gray snapper, almaco jack, and gray triggerfish. These species may be more vulnerable to the aforementioned fish characteristics as compared to the remaining managed species listed in Tables G-4 and G-5. G-24 LIFE HISTORIES & IMPACTS TO MANAGED SPECIES Penaeid Shrimp Brown shrimp The estuarine-dependent life cycle of brown shrimp begins as spawning adults lay demersal eggs on marine soft bottom or sand/shell habitats (GMFMC, 2016). Demersal planktonic larval stages occur year-round, and migrate to associated shallow vegetated estuarine nurseries during their transition to benthic postlarval and juvenile stages. Brown shrimp larvae are likely to exhibit the highest densities in marsh edge habitat and areas near to SAV, followed by tidal creeks, inner marsh, shallow open water, and oyster reefs. This life stage also occurs in less densities over silty sand and non-vegetated mud bottoms. Larval and juvenile brown shrimp are highly abundant in the lower estuaries of the Barataria and Timbalier Bays (Nelson, 1992). Sub-adults occur in estuarine and nearshore waters on soft bottom and sand/shell habitats where they are most abundant during the spring through fall. Adult brown shrimp occur year-round in offshore waters on soft bottom and sand/shell habitats with spawning occurring in depths of 59-361 feet during the fall and spring (GMFMC, 2016). White Shrimp In environments with salinity gradients (ideal for white shrimp) across estuarine, nearshore, and offshore waters; the demersal eggs of white shrimp are spawned in offshore waters from spring through fall, transition to pelagic larval stages, and become planktonic (GMFMC, 2016). However, when the connectivity between estuarine and offshore waters is significant and waters are well mixed with little gradience in salinity (like the hydrological system of the Project area), white shrimp eggs can be found in estuarine, nearshore, and offshore waters. During late spring to fall, juveniles recruit into estuarine and nearshore waters on emergent marsh, SAV, oyster reef, soft bottom, and mangrove habitats. Like brown shrimp, postlarval and juvenile white shrimp are found in highest densities around edge habitat and areas near to SAV where detritus and vegetative cover is readily available; and therefore, are likely present in the open water marsh creation areas. White shrimp sub-adults occur on soft bottom and sand/shell habitats during the summer and fall. Adults are found on soft bottom habitats during late summer and fall; however, unlike brown shrimp, non- spawning white shrimp adults occur in salinities no greater than 21 parts per thousand (ppt). Therefore, non-spawning adults are not expected to be present in the Project area. Spawning occurs in waters with salinities greater than or equal to 27 ppt at depths of 30-112 feet from spring to late fall, peaking from June to July. Larval, juvenile, and adult white shrimp are highly abundant in the lower estuary of Timbalier Bay; and are slightly less abundant in lower Barataria Bay (Nelson, 1992). 9.1.1 Impacts to Penaeid Shrimp Depending on species life stages, penaied shrimp may be present in all areas of the proposed Project; including the Belle Pass entrance channel and shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas. Spawning adult and egg brown shrimp would not be impacted as these life stages which occur in depths nearly two miles gulfward of the Project area dredging activities. Similarly, spawning adult white shrimp would not be impacted due to their salinity preference which limits their EFH to less saline waters. White shrimp eggs would be impacted by Belle Pass dredging activities, of which the direct effects would be caused by the potential for entrainment. Sub-adult and adult penaeid shrimp may occur in the Belle Pass entrance channel. Impacts to sub-adult and adult shrimp are expected to be minimal due to their ability to migrate to undisturbed habitats G-25 nearby, while impacts to white shrimp eggs may be greater due to their limited motility. Compared to other life stages, these stages would have a greater potential to be adversely impacted since they are demersal and therefore, are more susceptible to entrainment. However, while entrainment- induced mortality rates may be high for sub-adult and adult penaeid shrimp, entrained fish are expected to represent a small proportion of shrimp total production. If present – penaeid shrimp larvae, postlarvae, juveniles, and sub-adults occurring near the marsh creation placement areas would only be impacted during sediment placement events. The duration of these events would coincide with channel dredging activities, with the greatest impacts occurring during Project construction. However, marsh creation areas would be confined by retention dikes, thereby limiting direct impacts to those individuals (if present) in the placement areas. Once marsh creation areas reach target elevation (1.9 feet), the dikes would be breached allowing these life stages of penaeid shrimp to recolonize the areas. By employing BMPs during placement events, indirect impacts to life stages occurring outside the placement areas would be very minimal. Indirect impacts to penaeid shrimp may occur during dredging activities in the Belle Pass entrance channel resultant of increased and localized turbidity and TSS, with the greatest indirect effects occurring during Project construction. While the Project may cause adverse impacts to a small proportion of the local shrimp population, the trade-off is increased new marsh habitat which would attract estuarine-dependent fish and their prey appreciably over the Project life. Red Drum In 1990, Gulf commercial and recreational harvest of red drum in federal waters were prohibited due to over-fishing and habitat loss in order to restore Gulf spawning stocks (Pattillo et al., 1997). Larval, juvenile, and adult red drum are common in the lower estuary of Barataria Bay; while only juveniles are common in lower Timbalier Bay (Pattillo et al., 1997). Eggs are WCA and occur in estuarine waters in depths of 30-112 feet (GMFMC, 2016). Larval red drum are associated with estuarine water column and SAV. Demersal postlarvae and juveniles occur on estuarine and marine soft bottom, sand/shell habitats, and in emergent marsh and areas near to SAV. Adults migrate to offshore waters in depths up to 230 feet to spawn near the mouth of bays and inlets, and on the Gulf side of barrier islands during mid-August to October; spawning peaks from September to October (GMFMC, 2016). 9.2.1 Impacts to Red Drum Red drum may be present in all areas of the proposed Project; including the Belle Pass entrance channel and shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas. If present, red drum eggs and larvae would only be impacted during marsh creation sediment placement events. However, the EFH of eggs is defined as estuarine waters in depths greater than 6 feet, and there are only four marsh placement sites which are greater than 6 feet (GMFMC, 2016). Therefore, impacts to eggs would only occur in the following marsh creation placement areas: MC_006, MC_001, MC_002, and MC_003 (see Figures 2-6 and 2-7 in Chapter 2 of the DEIS for the location of these sites). The duration of these events would coincide with channel dredging activities, with the greatest impacts occurring during Project construction. However, marsh creation areas would be confined by retention dikes, thereby limiting direct impacts to those individuals (if found to be present) in the placement areas. Once marsh creation areas reach target elevation (1.9 feet), the dikes would be breached allowing these life stages of red drum to recolonize the areas. By employing BMPs during placement events, indirect impacts to these life stages occurring outside the placement areas would be very minimal. Spawning adults may occur in the shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas and the Belle Pass entrance channel. Impacts to this life stage are expected to be G-26 minimal due to their ability to migrate to undisturbed habitats nearby. Compared to other life stages, postlarvae and juveniles would have a greater potential to be adversely impacted since they are demersal and therefore, are more susceptible to entrainment. However, while entrainment- induced mortality rates may be high for postlarvae and juvenile red drum, entrained fish are expected to represent a small proportion of red drum total production. Indirect impacts to postlarvae/juvenile/adult red drum may occur during dredging activities in the Belle Pass entrance channel resultant of increased and localized turbidity and TSS, with the greatest indirect effects occurring during Project construction. While the Project may cause adverse impacts to a small proportion of the local red drum population, the trade-off is increased new marsh habitat which would attract estuarine-dependent fish and their prey appreciably over the Project life. Reef Fish Lane Snapper The life cycle of the lane snapper species begins as spawning adults lay WCA eggs in offshore waters over reefs and shelf edge/slope habitats from March to September, peaking in July and August, at depths of 13-433 feet (GMFMC, 2016). Early larval stages are WCA, which later settle on SAV in depths up to 164 feet where they are planktonic and most abundant from June to August. Juveniles occupy a variety of habitats including grass flats (SAV), sand/shell, reefs, soft bottom, banks/shoals, and mangroves. Juveniles are found from late summer to early fall in depths up to 79 feet. Adults occupy nearshore and offshore waters with depths of 13-433 feet (GMFMC, 2016). Gray Snapper Demersal adults inhabit estuarine, nearshore, and offshore waters up to 590.6 feet over soft bottom, sand/shell, banks/shoals, and emergent marsh habitat, with spawning occurring offshore from June to August on reef and hard bottom habitat which do not occur in the Project area (GMFMC, 2016). Gray snapper are estuarine-dependent; postlarvae migrate from offshore waters to estuarine nurseries in order to complete their life cycle. Juvenile gray snapper are common in the lower estuary of Barataria Bay, and are not federally managed in eco-region 4 (Pattillo et al., 1997). Red Snapper Adult red snapper occur year-round in nearshore and offshore waters in depths of 23-479 feet, with adults found most abundantly between depths of 131-361 feet (GMFMC, 2016). Red snapper begin their life cycle as spawning adults lay WCA eggs in offshore waters at depths of 59-413 feet on sand/shell and bank/shoal habitats from April to October. Pelagic larval red snapper are also WCA occurring most abundantly from July to November. Juveniles may occur on soft bottom and sand/shell habitats in water depths of 55.8 feet. In these habitats, early juveniles are found from July to November and late juveniles occur year-round (GMFMC, 2016). Almaco Jack Federally managed almaco jack life stages in eco-region 4 are juveniles and adults (GMFMC, 2016). Juveniles are WCA and can be found in nearshore and offshore waters in depths of 23-56 feet near drifting algae from July to January. Benthopelagic adults occur in offshore waters in depths of 69-587 feet. Spawning adults are not federally managed in eco-region 4. G-27 Gray Triggerfish Spawning adult gray triggerfish are nest builders and harem spawners. Adults and their eggs occur in nearshore and offshore waters at depths of 33-328 feet, and use reefs and hard bottom habitats which do not occur in the Project area (GMFMC, 2016). The eggs of gray triggerfish are benthically associated and occur during late spring to summer. Pelagic larvae are WCA and found near drifting algae. 9.3.1 Impacts to Reef Fishes Reef fishes may be present in all areas of the proposed Project; including the Belle Pass entrance channel and shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas. The following life stages of reef fishes would only be impacted during marsh creation sediment placement events: larvae/postlarvae/juvenile lane snapper and adult gray snapper. The duration of these events would coincide with channel dredging activities, with the greatest impacts occurring during Project construction. However, marsh creation areas would be confined by retention dikes, thereby limiting direct impacts to those individuals (if found to be present) in the placement areas. Once marsh creation areas reach target elevation (1.9 feet), the dikes would be breached allowing these life stages of red drum to recolonize the areas. By employing BMPs during placement events, indirect impacts to these life stages occurring outside the placement areas would be very minimal. The following life stages of reef fishes would only be impacted by Belle Pass dredging activities, of which the direct effects would be caused by the potential for entrainment: juvenile lane snapper, adult gray snapper, sub-adult/adult red snapper. Compared to other life stages, these life stages of fishes would have a greater potential to be adversely impacted since they are demersal and therefore, are more susceptible to entrainment. Still, impacts to this life stage are expected to be minimal due to their ability to migrate to undisturbed habitats nearby. While entrainment-induced mortality rates may be high for entrained reef fishes, the amount of entrained fish relative to those which exhibit avoidance behaviors to the Project area would represent a very small proportion of reef fish total production. Indirect impacts to juvenile almaco jack and larvae/postlarvae/juvenile gray triggerfish would only occur during dredging activities in the Belle Pass entrance channel resultant of increased and localized turbidity and TSS, with the greatest indirect effects occurring during Project construction. While the Project may cause adverse impacts to a small proportion of the local reef fish population, the trade-off is increased new marsh habitat which would attract estuarine-dependent reef fishes and their prey appreciably over the Project life. Coastal Migratory Pelagics King Mackerel Adult and juvenile king mackerel may be present in the shoreline nourishment placements areas and the Belle Pass entrance channel. All stages of the king mackerel life cycle are WCA (GMFMC, 2016). Adult king mackerel occur in nearshore and offshore waters and over reefs at depths up to 656.2 feet, generally occurring in less than 262.5 feet. Pelagic adults migrate from the eastern Gulf south of Florida and the western Gulf near Mexico to the northern Gulf during the spring. Spawning adults, their eggs, and larvae occur offshore in depths beginning at 114.8 feet of the middle and outer continental shelf, with spawning occurring from May to October and larval stages are most abundantly present during the same months. Early juveniles occur in nearshore waters of depths less than or equal to 29.5 feet. The prey of juvenile king mackerel are estuarine-dependent. G-28 Spanish Mackerel Federally managed Spanish mackerel life stages in eco-region 4 are larvae and post-larvae (GMFMC, 2016). Larval stages occupy waters in depths of 29-275 feet from May through October. In the Gulf, the distribution of this species is centered off the Florida coast. Non-Federally managed life stages of Spanish mackerel in eco-region 4 are juveniles and adult which are common in the lower estuary of Barataria Bay; while only juveniles are common in lower Timbalier Bay (Pattillo et al., 1997). Spawning EFH occurs outside of eco-region 4. Cobia All life stages of cobia are WCA. Spawning and non-spawning adult cobia occupy nearshore and offshore waters at depths starting at 3.3 feet. Spawning occurs from April to September. Adult cobia migrate seasonally from March to October in the northern Gulf. Cobia eggs are generally found in estuarine and nearshore surface waters during the summer. Larval stages occur near the surface above waters of depths greater than 9.8 feet in bays and inlets to the continental shelf, and are most prevalent from May through September. Juveniles occur from April to October in nearshore and offshore surface waters with depths greater than 3.3 feet. 9.4.1 Impacts to Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) CMP fishes may be present in all areas of the proposed Project; including the Belle Pass entrance channel and shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas. If present, only cobia eggs and larvae would be impacted during marsh creation sediment placement events. The duration of these events would coincide with channel dredging activities, with the greatest impacts occurring during Project construction. However, marsh creation areas would be confined by retention dikes, thereby limiting direct impacts to those individuals (if found to be present) in the placement areas. Once marsh creation areas reach target elevation (1.9 feet), the dikes would be breached allowing cobia eggs/larvae to recolonize the areas. By employing BMPs during placement events, indirect impacts to these life stages occurring outside the placement areas would be very minimal. CMP fishes may be impacted by Belle Pass dredging activities, of which the direct effects would be caused by the potential for entrainment. Cobia eggs/larvae and Spanish mackerel larvae are transported through the water column, and have a greater potential relative to later life stages to be impacted by Project activities during spawning and recruitment due to limited swimming ability. King mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia are all WCA highly migratory species, and therefore, would have a very low potential for entrainment. Direct impacts to juveniles and adults resultant of entrainment are expected to be very minimal due to their ability to migrate to undisturbed habitats nearby. While entrainment-induced mortality rates may be high for entrained pelagic fishes, the amount of entrained fish relative to those which exhibit avoidance behaviors to the Project area would represent a very small proportion of total production. Indirect impacts to migratory pelagics may occur resultant of increased and localized turbidity and TSS, with the greatest indirect effects occurring during Project construction. The Project may cause adverse impacts to a small proportion of the local migratory pelagic population, the trade-off is increased new marsh habitat which would attract cobia eggs/larvae and estuarine-dependent prey species appreciably over the Project life. Of the managed fish species detailed in this assessment, CMPs would have the least adverse impacts second to highly migratory shark species, and therefore are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by Project activities. G-29 Gulf Stone Crab Gulf stone crab adults and eggs are benthic and utilize rock ledges, coral heads, dead shell, grass clumps, burrows in seagrass beds and tidal channels (GMFMC, 2004). Spawning occurs from spring to summer (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2018). Juveniles use shell bottom habitat, sponges, Sargassum mats, channels, grass flats, and oyster reefs. Planktonic larvae are feeble swimmers, however, they primarily migrate inactively by drifting with currents (GMFMC, 2004). EFH for Gulf stone crabs include estuarine, nearshore, and offshore waters in depths up to 131.2 feet. 9.5.1 Impacts to Gulf Stone Crab Gulf stone crab may be present in all areas of the proposed Project; including the Belle Pass entrance channel and shoreline nourishment and marsh creation placement areas. If present, Gulf stone crabs may be impacted during marsh creation sediment placement events. The duration of these events would coincide with channel dredging activities, with the greatest impacts occurring during Project construction. However, marsh creation areas would be confined by retention dikes, thereby limiting direct impacts to those individuals (if found to be present) in the placement areas. Once marsh creation areas reach target elevation (1.9 feet), the dikes would be breached allowing stone crabs to recolonize the areas. By employing BMPs during placement events, indirect impacts to crabs occurring outside the placement areas would be very minimal. Compared to larvae, adults/eggs/juveniles crabs would have a greater potential to be adversely impacted since they are demersal and therefore, are more susceptible to entrainment. However, while entrainment-induced mortality rates may be high for these life stages, entrained crabs are expected to represent a small proportion of Gulf stone crab total production. Direct impacts to these life stages (if present) resultant of Belle Pass dredging activities would be caused by potential entrainment. Indirect impacts to crabs may occur during dredging activities in the Belle Pass entrance channel resultant of increased and localized turbidity and TSS, with the greatest indirect effects occurring during Project construction. While the Project may cause adverse impacts to a small proportion of the local crab population, the trade-off is increased new marsh habitat which would attract stone crabs and their prey appreciably over the Project life. Highly Migratory Pelagics (HMP) Atlantic Sharpnose Shark EFH for juvenile Atlantic sharpnose shark in the Project study area includes shallow waters in depths up to 150 feet (NOAA, 2006). Bonnethead Shark EFH for juvenile and adult bonnethead shark in the Project study area includes shallow waters with muddy bottoms in depths up to 150 feet (NOAA, 2006). This species often migrates in schools in inshore waters with depths less than 82 feet (Hoese and Moore, 1998). Blacknose Shark EFH for adult blacknose shark in the Project study area includes shallow waters in depths up to 150 feet (NOAA, 2006). This species has been said to be an infrequent visitor to the shallow waters of the north-central Gulf (NOAA, 2009). G-30 Blacktip Shark EFH for neonate and juvenile blacktip shark in the Project study area includes shallow waters to the mouth of the Terrebone Timbalier Bay System and offshore surface waters of the continental shelf in depths up to 150 feet (NOAA, 2006). Nursery areas do not occur in the Project area. Finetooth Shark EFH for juvenile and adult finetooth shark in the Project study area includes shallow waters in depths up to 150 feet and may be important nursery habitat (NOAA, 2006). Scalloped Hammerhead Shark EFH for juvenile scalloped hammerhead shark in the Project study area includes shallow waters in depths up to 150 feet (NOAA, 2006). Spinner Shark EFH for neonate spinner shark in the Project study area includes shallow waters with muddy bottoms in depths up to 150 feet (NOAA, 2006). Nursery areas are in coastal waters of the Carolinas and the west coast of Florida, the extent of nursey areas beyond these locations is unknown. 9.6.1 Impacts to Highly Migratory Pelagics Direct and indirect impacts to species HMPs would be short-term and minimal. Most of these species utilize offshore habitats; however, a few species do utilize the nearshore and in-shore waters during their life histories. Indirect impacts to these species in Project study area are expected to be temporary. These species are highly motile and most likely utilize nearshore waters for foraging. Overall, these species are rare in the vicinity of the Project area; therefore, impacts would be temporary and localized. HMP species and their prey would be temporarily displaced, but should quickly return to the Project study area. Cumulative Impacts to Managed Species The TSP is expected to have only temporary and localized effects on the water column and benthic habitats, including the associated effects on the biota (if present) during Project dredging and placement activities. Flora and fauna should quickly re-colonize the areas following these events. Over the life of the Project, there would be an increase of 2,361 net acres of marsh habitat which would provide 1,055 average annual habitat units of emergent marsh. A mitigation and monitoring plan for the proposed Project would be implemented, and would thereby prevent adverse cumulative environmental effects (see Appendix C of the DEIS). Therefore, Project impacts are not anticipated to result in negative cumulative effects on the aquatic system. G-31 References Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC). 2016. Final Report 5-Year Review of Essential Fish Habitat Requirements. Accessed 5 May 2018. Retrieved from http://archive.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/EFH%205- Year%20Revew%20plus%20App%20A%20and%20B_Final_12-2016.pdf ______. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1: Text. Retrieved from http://archive.gulfcouncil.org/Beta//GMFMCWeb/downloads/Final%20EFH%20EIS.pdf Bruton, M.N. 1985. The effects of suspensoids on fish. Hydrobiologia. 125: 221-241. Diaz, R.J. 1994. Response of tidal freshwater macrobenthos to sediment disturbance. Hydrobiologia. 278: 201-212. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. College of William and Mary. Gloucester Point, Virginia. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. New Cut / Marsh Restoration and Whiskey Island West Flank Restoration Projects Using Ship Shoal Sediment: Survey, Data Collection, and Analysis for Use by EPA in Determination of Impacts from Use of Ship Shoal Sand: Benthic Impacts – Sampling and Analysis. Hoese, H.D. and R.H. Moore. 1998. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico – Texas, Louisiana, and Adjacent Waters. Second Edition, pp. 422. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, Texas. Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA). 2012. Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration Final Construction Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement – Engineering Appendix. pp. 1423. McCauley, J.E., Parr, R.A., and D.R. Hancock. 1977. Benthic infauna and maintenance dredging: a case study. Water Research. 11: 233-242. Nelson, D.M. 1992. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, Volume I: Data Summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 10. pp. 273. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. Nieuwaal, M. 2001. Requirements for Sediments Plumes Caused by Dredging – Final Thesis Report. Delft University of Technology. NOAA. 2006. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/management-plan/consolidated-atlantic-highly- migratory-species-management-plan. ______. 2010. West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration CWPPRA Project Fed. No. TE- 52 Environmental Assessment, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. G-32 ______. 2015. Gulf of Mexico Guide: Essential Fish Habitat – Gulf of Mexico. NMFS Southeast Region Habitat Conservation Division. ver082015. Retrieved from http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat_conservation/documents/efh_gmfmc_ver082015.pdf. Accessed May 2018. O’Connell, A. M., Hijuelos, A. C., Sable, S. E., and Geaghan, J. P. 2017a. 2017 Coastal Master Plan: Attachment C3-13: Brown Shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus, Habitat Suitability Index Model. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. pp. 1-34. ______. 2017b. 2017 Coastal Master Plan: Attachment C3-14: White Shrimp, Litopenaeus setiferus, Habitat Suitability Index Model. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. pp. 1-32. Pattillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1997. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, Volume II: species life history summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 11, pp. 377.NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. Poirrier, M.A. 2006. Statewide Summary for Louisiana. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/pdf/StatewideSummaryforLouisiana.pdf. Popper, Arthur & Hawkins, Anthony & R. Fay, Richard & Mann, David & Bartol, Soraya & Carlson, Thomas & Coombs, Sheryl & Ellison, William & L. Gentry, Roger & Halvorsen, Michele & Løkkeborg, Svein & H. Rogers, Peter & Southall, Brandon & Zeddies, David & N. Tavolga, William. 2014. Sound Exposure Guidelines. pp. 33-51. 10.1007/978-3-319-06659-2_7. Scavia, D., Field, J., Boesch, D., Buddemeier, R., Burkett, V., Cayan, D., Titus, J. 2002. Climate Change Impacts on U. S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. Estuaries, 25(2): 149-164. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1353306 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Gulf Stone Crab (Menippe adina). Retrieved from https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/species/stonecrab/. Accessed 15 July 2018. Rabalais, N., Turner, R., Wiseman, W. 2002. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. “The Dead Zone.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 33(1): 235-263. Reine, K. J., & Clarke, D. G. 1998. Entrainment by hydraulic dredges – A review of potential impacts. Technical Note DOER-E1, pp. 1-14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Reine, K. J., Dickerson, D. D., & Clarke, D. G. 1998. Environmental windows associated with dredging operations. Technical Note DOER-E1, pp. 1-14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Wenger AS, Harvey E, Wilson S, et al. 2017. A critical analysis of the direct effects of dredging on fish. Fish and Fisheries. 18: 967-985. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12218 G-33 Wilber, D.H. and D.G. Clarke. 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: A review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 21(4): 855-875. ______. 2007. Defining and Assessing Benthic Recovery Following Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal. Presentation from the 2007 WODCON XVIII Conference in Lake Buena Vista, FL ______. 2007. Dredging Activities and the Potential Impacts of Sediment Resuspension and Sedimentation on Oyster Reefs. Presentation from the 2007 WODCON XVIII Conference in Lake Buena Vista, FL. Yuill, B., Hoonshin, J., Meselhe, E., Baustain, M., Allison, M., Jerabek, A. 2018. Screening Alternatives of the Port Fourchon Channel Deepening Feasibility Project – Technical Memorandum. The Water Institute of the Gulf. G-34 Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX I 6(',0(17$7,21 :$7(548$/,7< MODELING Prepared by: $XJXVW 2018 Screening Alternatives of the Port Fourchon Channel Deepening Feasibility Project TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2/28/2018 To: GIS From: The Water Institute of the Gulf Dr. Brendan Yuill, Hoonshin Jung, MS, Dr. Ehab Meselhe, Dr. Melissa Baustian, Dr. Mead Allison, Andrea Jerabek, MS. Date: February 28th, 2018 Re: Port Fourchon Channel Deepening Preliminary Notes This document describes the development and assumptions of the numerical model employed to support the Port Fourchon channel deepening feasibility project. The full datasets of numerical model output referenced in this document were previously delivered to GIS, INC. and may have been excluded in this document in favor of summary tables for brevity. To obtain copies of the full datasets not included in this document, please contact Brendan Yuill at [email protected]. Please note the model was developed using metric units and, therefore, the model description uses metric units for continuity. Modeling results are reported in Imperial units as per standard U.S. engineering convention. Contents Overview...... 2 Objectives ...... 2 Field Site...... 3 Description of Port Fourchon...... 4 Methods ...... 4 Overview...... 4 Model Set Up ...... 8 Scenarios...... 12 Calibration...... 15 Water Quality Modeling ...... 17 Water Quality Model Set up ...... 17 Water Quality Model Calibration ...... 20 Results...... 23 Channel Sedimentation ...... 23 Affected Environment...... 28 Predicted Change in Hydrodynamics...... 31 Predicted Change in Water Quality ...... 32 Jetty Modification Analysis ...... 33 Summary of Key Assumptions and Conclusions...... 35 References...... 37 1 Overview This Technical Memorandum summarizes numerical modeling conducted by the Water Institute of the Gulf in support of on-going environmental assessments related to planned Port Fourchon (the Port) improvements. The primary improvements of interest to this study includes expansion of the navigation channel (i.e., maintaining a deeper channel bed and width) and construction of a deep-water loading hole. This document contains brief overviews of the study area, numerical model set up and calibration, and model results. The overview of Port Fourchon offers environmental and economic context for this study. The description of the model set up and calibration describes the key physical and numerical properties of the numerical models employed by this study, as well as the working assumptions that guided model development and interpretation of output. The description of the model results focuses on summarizing the most important findings derived from the raw output in regard to addressing the study objectives. Objectives The objective of this analysis was to utilize numerical modeling to investigate the potential effect of alternative dredging scenarios on regional flow, geomorphology, and water quality properties for Bayou Lafourche Waterway Federal Navigation Channel and surrounding waters in Port Fourchon, Louisiana. The research questions addressed by this study are: [1] How will increasing the maintenance dredge depths affect navigation channel sedimentation rates at the annual time scale in terms of magnitude and spatial distribution? [2] How will increasing the maintenance dredge depths affect flow velocities and water level in the Port waterways? [3] How will increasing the maintenance dredge depths affect water quality parameters (i.e., salinity and dissolved oxygen) in the Port waterways, with special focus on the proposed deep-water loading hole? [4] How might jetty expansion alter the predicted navigation channel sedimentation rates? 2 Field Site Port Fourchon is a large multi-use facility that services the Gulf Coast oil and gas production industry and provides deep-water access to Bayou Lafourche (Figure 1). Bayou Lafourche, approximately a 110-mile bayou, delineates the barrier between two major basins, Terrebonne and Barataria, and ultimately drains into the Gulf of Mexico through Port Fourchon. Bayou Lafourche was originally a Mississippi River distributary, but was dammed at Donaldsonville in 1905 (Henry & Twilley, 2013). The Mississippi River Deltaic Plain was constructed by a series of major delta-building events (over 1,000- 2,000 years) leading to six delta complexes, Maringouin, Teche, St. Bernard, Lafourche, Balize, and Atchafalaya, which each produced roughly 15,000 km2 of marshlands (Roberts, 1997). However, the natural delta building cycle was interrupted by hydrological alterations (i.e., channelization, leveeing of waterways, and canal dredging) of the Mississippi River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after the flood of 1927 (Barry, 1998). Figure 1 Map of the study area showing the A) location of important Port Fourchon waterways including the proposed deep-water loading hole. Inset map B) shows the regional location of the site. 3 Currently, coastal Louisiana contains approximately 37% of the estuarine herbaceous marshes in the contiguous United States that supports regional key ecosystem services such as recreation, fisheries, carbon sequestration, wave attenuation, and surge reduction (Batker et al., 2014; Couvillion et al., 2011; Visser et al., 2012). Bayou Lafourche, divides two of the major river basins, Terrebonne and Barataria basins, which together contain approximately 5,858 km2 of Louisiana wetlands (Sasser et al., 2014). Barataria Basin is dominated by bottomland hardwoods and fresh to brackish marshes, with saline marshes present on the fringes of the basin. In Terrebonne Basin the marsh habitats include a range from fresh to saline (LDWF, 2005). However, coastal Louisiana is currently experiencing drastic rates of disaggregation (i.e., fragmentation) and wetland loss due to factors such as sea level rise, subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and reduced sediment inflow (Day et al., 2011; Scavia et al., 2002). An estimated 5,000 km2 of wetlands were lost between 1932 and 2010, and Louisiana is predicted to lose an additional 2,000-4,600 km2 over the next 50 years (Couvillion et al., 2011). Specifically, the saline marshes in Barataria and Terrebonne basins have the second and third highest rates of disaggregation in Louisiana (Couvillion et al., 2016). Due to the combination of key ecosystem services provided and the high disaggregation rates of coastal wetlands, it is important to understand the potential effects that deepening of the navigation channel can have on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF PORT FOURCHON The legislation to establish the Greater Lafourche Port Commission passed in 1960, ultimately created the economically, environmentally, and geographically ideal location for what is now the prime multi-use port facility for logistic support and services for the Gulf of Mexico domestic deep-water oil and gas industry (Port Fourchon Operations Center, 2018b). Specifically, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) uses Port Fourchon as its home base and handles 10-15% of the nation’s domestic and foreign oil and serves as a connection to 50% of the United States reefing capacity (Port Fourchon Operations Center, 2018a). In addition to LOOP, Port Fourchon is an operations base for more than 250 companies. As a result, 400 large supply vessels and 1,200 trucks traverse the Port, while 1.5 million barrels of crude oil are transported (via pipelines) through the Port on a daily basis (Port Fourchon Operations Center, 2018a). A major component of the contemporary Port expansion plans is the development of a ‘deep-water loading hole’ along the left descending bank, downstream of station 130+00 (see Figure 1). This feature is planned to consist of a ~2000-acre basin maintained at a bed depth of -50 ft NAVD88 with a ~333-acre sub-basin maintained at a bed depth of -85 ft NAVD88. This feature would house facilities to repair and refurbish the deepwater oil and gas rigs that are currently serviced from the Port. Methods OVERVIEW Numerical modeling was used to predict the impact of different dredging scenarios on regional flow, geomorphology, and water quality properties in and around Port Fourchon, Louisiana. This modeling employed the Delft3D software suite (www.oss.deltares.nl) and included the hydrodynamics and morphology (D-FLOW-SED-ONLINE), wave (D-WAVE, which is an interface for the SWAN model), 4 and water quality (D-WAQ) modules. Delft3D is an open-source multidimensional sediment and hydrodynamics modeling package (Lesser et al., 2004). Delft3D computes flow using the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid motion and sediment transport by solving the continuity and transport equations on a two- or three-dimensional curvilinear finite-difference grid. Turbulence is simulated using a range of possible closure schemes (e.g., k-Epsilon). The Delft3D code is well documented (Deltares, 2014), and it is routinely used by The Water Institute of the Gulf to model river morphodynamics for a range of peer- reviewed studies (Meselhe et al., 2016; Yuill et al., 2016) To predict the hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and morphodynamic response of the Port Fourchon channel system to modifications of the maintenance dredge depth, a regional-scale two-dimension (2D) model was created. To predict the evolution of water quality constituents due to alternations of the maintenance dredge depth, a three-dimensional (3D) water quality model of the lower Port Fourchon channel system and near-shore area was created. It was necessary to employ a 3D water quality model to simulate water quality dynamics to resolve the potential influence of vertical stratification within the flow depth profile. The water quality model (D-WAQ) can simulate the evolution of a wide variety of water quality constituents in the water column and sediment/soil layers. D-WAQ solves the mass transport equations to calculate the advection and diffusion transport of mass with internal/external sources and sinks (i.e., loads and biogeochemical reaction processes) for each water quality state variable: ߲ܥ ߲ܥ ߲ܥ ߲ܥ ߲ ߲ܥ ߲ ߲ܥ ߲ ߲ܥ ൰ܵܲ ܦ൰ ൬ ܦ൰ ൬ ܦൌെݑ െݒ െݓ ൬ ߲ݐ ߲ݔ ߲ݕ ߲ݖ ߲ݔ ௫ ߲ݔ ߲ݕ ௬ ߲ݕ ߲ݖ ௭ ߲ݖ where, C : mass concentration (g/m3), t: time (sec), x, y, z: coordinates in three spatial dimension (m), u, v, w: velocity (m/sec) in x, y, z directions, Dx, Dy, Dz: dispersion coefficients in x, y, z directions, S: source and sinks of mass due to loads and boundaries (g/m3/sec), and P: source and sinks of mass due to biogeochemical processes (g/m3/sec). The horizontal and vertical advection and diffusion transport information used by D-WAQ are provided by Delft3D hydrodynamics module. For sediment layers, zero horizontal advection and diffusion transport was assumed because of relatively slow transport to the horizontal direction. The vertical mass transports in sediment/soil layers and between bottom water and sediment top layer are caused by settling, resuspension, dispersion, and seepage processes (Smits, 2013; Smits & van Beek, 2013). The last term of the equation above, P, contains many biogeochemical and ecological processes in the Delft3D library, which are related to the dynamics for dissolved nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon, and sulfur), marine and freshwater phytoplankton species biomass, organic matter/detritus, and dissolved oxygen. During model development a paucity of field (in-situ) measurements for the Port Fourchon channel network was available to provide observational data for calibration and validation testing. Some regional 5 monitoring instrumentation were identified to parameterize model boundary conditions (Table 1; Figure 2); these include Coastwide Reference Monitoring System (CRMS) stations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tide gauges, and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) stations. However, because the estuarine environment surrounding Port Fourchon contains very complex hydrodynamics (highly variable in time and space, multi-dimensional flows), it is unclear if the monitoring instrumentation can capture the full range of hydro-morphodynamic influences affecting the Port. To mitigate potential problems that might arise from the lack of available field verification observations, the model was developed with reduced complexity in mind, relying on conservative assumptions and generalized relationships derived from previous theoretical research. Table 1: Monitoring instrumentation used in model development. Instrumentation locations are shown in Figure 2. Map ID Type Station ID Parameters Acquired A CRMS 318 Water level, salinity, temperature B CRMS 292 Water level, salinity, temperature C CRMS 175 Water level, salinity, temperature D CRMS 164 Water level, salinity, temperature E NOAA Tide Gauge 8761724 Water level, astronomic /tidal constituents F NOAA Tide Gauge 8762075 Water level G Weather KXPY Wind H LDEQ 021102 Salinity, dissolved oxygen I LDEQ 020403 Salinity, dissolved oxygen J LDEQ 020905 Salinity, dissolved oxygen K LDEQ 020402 Salinity, dissolved oxygen 6 Figure 2: Locations of long-term monitoring instrumentation in the greater Port Fourchon area. White circles are CRMS stations; blue circles are NOAA tide gauges; red circles are USACE stage gauges; the brown circle is the location of a weather station associated with the Port Fourchon heliport; yellow circles are LDEQ water quality sampling stations. Lettered circles were used in model development and are referenced in Table 1. 7 MODEL SET UP Figure 3: Map of the 5 model sub-domains: Upper Channel, Mid channel, Lower Channel/Marine, West Basin, and East Basin. The yellow lines show the connections of the channel sub-domains. The dashed orange lines show the open water-level boundaries. The downward facing white arrow shows the discharge boundary at the Upper Channel inlet boundary. To simulate flow and sediment transport processes through Port Fourchon, a computational grid network was created to encompass the surrounding influential water bodies (Figure 3). To optimally fit the geometry of these water bodies, five separate sub-domain grids were created; the extent of each was set to include long-term hydrodynamic monitoring stations that could provide boundary condition 8 parameterization (if available) and to provide spatial separation between areas of interest (the Port Fourchon channel system) and domain boundaries. Three sub-domains were created along Bayou Lafourche, an Upper Channel domain that reached the Golden Meadow flood gates, the Mid Channel (Port Fourchon area) domain, and a Lower Channel/Marine domain that included a large (120 mi2) near- shore expanse of the Gulf of Mexico. It was necessary to include the Lower Channel/Marine domain into the model because the Port Fourchon navigation channel may span up to 8 mi below the outlet of Bayou Lafourche/Belle Pass depending on the maintenance dredge depth. The proximal basins to the east and west of the modeled Bayou Lafourche channel were also included as subdomains (~90 and 70 mi2 in area, respectively) due to their significant hydrologic connectivity to Bayou Lafourche and the Port channels (17 passes were incorporated into the model). Figure 4 shows how passes were modeled in the immediate Port vicinity. Delft3D employs a technique called domain decomposition to connect the sub-domains into a master model. Figure 4: Map diagram of the hydrologic connections between Bayou Lafourche and the proximal basins in the Port Fourchon area. The connections are identified by double-arrow lines. 9 The resolution of the three channel domains comprising the port area were adjusted to size cell widths comprising the Port area of approximately 13 m (43 ft), which ensured that the main channel cross sections were resolved by at least 20 cells, side channels were resolved by at least 8 cells, and all significant slips were resolved by greater than 1 cell. These resolutions were adequate to simulate the typical effects of secondary currents in river channels based on the previous experience of the modeling team. Cell resolution in the marine area decreased with distance away from Belle Pass (up to cell lengths of 322 m/1056 ft). Cell resolution in the basin sub-domains were typically 3-5 times that in the proximal channel domains. Figure 5: Map of the modeled bathymetry as incorporated into the -50 ft dredge depth scenario. The initial model topography and bathymetry was parameterized using a modified version of the CoNED (Coastal National Elevation Database; lta.cr.usgs.gov/coned_tbdem) topobathy dataset. This dataset provides continuous 3 m2 raster coverage of coastal U.S. areas using a synthesis of sources. The modified version used in this study was created to support Louisiana’s 2017 Coastal Master Plan modeling effort and included localized corrections for Louisiana. Figure 5 shows the model bathymetry for the -50 ft dredge scenario (discussed later in this section) as an example. 10 The model was set up with four primary open boundaries (upstream of Bayou Lafourche, West Basin, East Basin, Lower Channel/Marine) that required boundary condition data for the modeled processes (shown in Figure 3). The upstream boundary of Bayou Lafourche was set as a total discharge inlet and was parameterized using predicted discharge data for the Golden Meadow flood gates provided by the Integrated-Compartment Model (ICM) developed for Louisiana’s 2017 Coastal Master Plan. The downstream marine boundary for the Lower Channel/Marine sub-domain was set as a water-level boundary parameterized using astronomical constituents. The astronomical constituents were derived from historical records of regional tidal records using the Delft Dashboard software (publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/DDB/Delft+Dashboard). This type of water-level boundary may resolve sub-diurnal tidal fluctuations. The open boundaries at the outer margins of the East and West basins were parameterized using time series water-level data derived from CRMS (coastwide reference monitoring system) data (Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) of Louisiana, 2017; Folse et al., 2014). Sediment dynamics were simulated using two representative grain-size fractions, one fraction to represent the dynamics of non-cohesive sediment (sand) and the other fraction to represent the dynamics of cohesive sediment (silt and clay). The 2004 Van Rijn formula (van Rijn, 2007) was used to simulate the transport of the sand grain size fraction. Based on geotechnical measurements of bed sediment in the region, the sand fraction was assumed to have a median grain size diameter of 0.065 mm (GeoEngineers LLC, 2017). The cohesive sediment transport was modeled using the Partheniades-Krone formulations (Partheniades, 1965) ,which required parameterization of an indicative critical shear stress, erosion parameter, and a grain-settling velocity and were set as 0.5 Pa, 0.001 kg/m2/s, and 0.1 mm/s, respectively. These values were derived from previous morphodynamic models of Barataria Basin (e.g., Meselhe et al., 2015A; 2015B) that received robust calibration and validation testing and are representative of bay bottom silts. The relative abundance and spatial distribution of sands, silts, and muds within the soil and sediment layers are not well documented for the study area and were modeled as spatially uniform for simplicity. Delft3D automatically calculates cumulative sedimentation depth (negative values equal net erosion, positive values equal net aggradation) for each model cell through a simulation. To derive sedimentation values for the navigation channel, cumulative sedimentation depth was extracted down the navigation center line and averaged over 1000 ft intervals. To calculate sedimentation volumes over the 1000 ft intervals, the averaged cumulative sedimentation depths were multiplied by the interval length (1000 ft) and assumed channel width (400 ft for the entrance channel, 300 ft for the upper Port channels). To calculate the mean sedimentation rates for the Port side channels, the cumulative sedimentation depths for the grid cells that compose each side channel were averaged. Waves were simulated in the marine domain to resolve their effect on sediment transport and currents. Delft3D allows simultaneous coupling of the hydro-morphodynamic model (D-FLOW-SED-ONLINE) and wave model (D-WAVE) using the ‘online Delft3D-wave’ switch, which was employed. The wave model generated a uniform wave climate at the Lower Channel/Marine boundaries which evolved with respect to the currents generated by the hydrodynamic model and wind field as they moved landward 11 (Figure 3). The boundary wave climate included a 0.25 m significant wave height, 5 s peak period, 160° initial direction, and a directional spreading factor of 10. The wave model used a computation grid with the same approximate extent as the Mid Channel (Port Fourchon) and Lower Channel/Marine sub- domains with a resolution reduced by a factor of 2. The primary model parameters employed by this study that are not discussed above are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Miscellaneous Delft3D model parameters for hydrodynamics, sediment, morphology, and waves; primary parameters are defined in the text. Model Component Parameter Employed Value or Setting Hydrodynamics Roughness (Chezy coefficient) 65 m0.5/s Background horizontal eddy 10 m2/s viscosity/diffusivity Threshold (wetting) depth 0.1 m Advection scheme for cyclic momentum and transport Sediment Initial sediment thickness 10 m uniform Sand dry bed density 1600 kg/m3 Silt dry bed density 500 kg/m3 Morphology Morphological scale factor 1 (MorFac off) Factor of erosion for dry cells 0 (no dry cell erosion) Transport multiplication factor 1 (no multiplication) Waves Stress formulation due to waves Fredsoe Generation mode for physics 3rd generation Depth-induced breaking Alpha: 1; Gamma: 0.73 Bottom friction JONSWAP; coefficient: 0.038 m2/s3 3D Model Turbulence model k-Epsilon Temperature Heat flux model Ocean Timesteps 2D model 0.25 min 3D model 0.20 min SCENARIOS Six primary model scenarios were simulated, “As-Is” (also referred to as ‘pre-construction’), “-30 ft”, “- 35 ft”, “-40 ft”, “-45 ft”, and “–50 ft”. The scenarios are named after the value used to parameterize the initial bed elevation of the entrance channel (> station 130+00). See Figure 6 for a map showing the Port and navigation channel stationing convention used in this report. This figure also shows the downstream extent of dredging for each scenario, which equates to the existing sea bed elevation contour. The “As-Is” scenario used an elevation value of -24 ft for the entrance channel and the upper Port channels (station 0+00 to station 130+00). The other five scenarios (i.e., the alternative post-construction scenarios) assumed an initial bed elevation of -30 ft for the upper Port channels. These elevations approximately 12 correspond with the current (-24 to -27 ft) and planned (-30 ft) maintenance dredge depths investigated in this report. The only difference between these primary scenarios was the initial bed elevations of the entrance and upper Port channels. Figure 6: Map diagram of the channel stationing referenced by this study and represents the typical stationing used on previous Port Fourchon projects. The scenarios are parameterized to simulate a design hydrograph. As opposed to simulation of an observed time period, the design hydrograph was constructed to simulate a simple, well-constrained period of typical flow conditions. The typical flow conditions were computed from a 4-year (2010-2013) time series of observed hydrologic measurements. For this study the typical flow conditions were defined as the values that fall between the 1st and 3rd quartiles (i.e., the middle 50 % of the observed distributions) (Figure 7). This design hydrograph approach was selected because it is hypothesized that the typical flow conditions are responsible for driving channel sedimentation over long time scales (> 1 year). A benefit of this approach is that the results are scalable (providing that sedimentation thicknesses << flow depths), i.e., the predicted sedimentation rates can be multiplied by a factor of 2 to calculate sedimentation for a 13 period 2 times that simulated without invalidating the study assumptions. One of the shortcomings of this approach is that sedimentation due to low-frequency, high-magnitude hydrological events (e.g., floods or hurricanes) are not considered. Figure 7: Summary statistics for the distribution of daily values (2010- 2013) recorded at each site. Each scenario consisted of a 100-day period. During the first 50 days of this period, [1] the inlet discharge of Bayou Lafourche was linearly increased from the 1st quartile to the 3rd quartile value and [2] the water level at the outer boundaries of the East and West basins were linearly increased from the 1st quartile to the 3rd quartile value. During the second 50 days, [1] the inlet discharge was lowered linearly from the 3rd quartile to the 1st quartile value and [2] basin boundary water levels were decreased from the 3rd quartile to the 1st quartile value. The water-level at the Lower Channel/Marine boundary had a non-time varying mean value that fluctuated in response to parameterized astronomic constituents (introducing high- resolution tidal signals). 14 The scenarios employed a time-varying, spatially-uniform design wind field at a 2-hr interval, which was used as an input to the hydrodynamic (D-FLOW) and wave (D-WAVE) models. The design wind field was schematized to increase wind magnitude from 12:00 midnight to 12:00 midday and decrease wind magnitude from 12:00 midday to 12:00 midnight. Wind direction revolved in either a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction each day beginning at midnight; the revolution direction for each day was randomly assigned. The design wind field values were generated to have the same frequency distribution as the measured wind field at the Port Fourchon heliport weather station (KXPY) from 2010 to 2013 (Table 1). Two additional and secondary scenarios were tested for this study. The objective of these scenarios was to quantify the impact of the Belle Pass/ Bayou Lafourche outlet jetty extension on the predicted sedimentation rate in the Port Fourchon entrance channel (see Figure 5). These scenarios consisted of modification of the “-50 ft” scenario. For one scenario, the bathymetry was altered to simulate the extension of the jetty to channel station 275+00 (referred to as scenario “J275”). For another scenario, the bathymetry was altered to simulate the extension of the jetty to channel station 290+00 (referred to as scenario “J290”). The current jetty configuration extends to approximately station 265+00/270+00; contemporary high-resolution aerial imagery was used to define the footprint of the current jetty system. CALIBRATION Model hydrodynamics were calibrated against the observed water-levels measured at the NOAA Port Fourchon tide gauge for the year 2010. Calibration tests included systematic alteration of bed roughness values or downstream boundary water level values to optimize reproduction of the observed time series (Figure 8). The calibration tests resulted in adding a +0.07 m offset to the astronomical constituents employed by the downstream marine boundary; this value likely reflects the difference in mean water elevation between the Grand Isle Tide gauge (from which the astronomical constituents were derived, in part) and the marine boundary of the model. In the absence of additional observational datasets available for calibration, the model performance was also assessed using qualitative methods. Patterns of modeled salinity gradients, which reflect the model’s ability to simulate the flux and mixture of upstream freshwater with downstream ocean water, were assessed relative to observed salinity gradients in Barataria Basin (assessed from USGS fixed instrumentation). While the magnitude of the salinity gradients would not be expected to be the same, patterns of mixing should be similar. 15 Figure 8: Results from calibration testing. The black (‘observed’) values are from NOAA tide gauge at Port Fourchon, the orange predicted values are from the ‘As-Is’ scenario. Model sediment transport processes were calibrated by comparing predicted sedimentation rates for the As-Is scenario against historical dredging records (e.g., Table 3). The primary variables analyzed during calibration tests were the cohesive sediment settling velocity, erosion parameter, and critical shear stress for erosion. Tests indicated that the predicted sedimentation rates were very sensitive to the plausible range of critical shear stress values (e.g., increasing the critical shear stress value from 0.3 Pa to 1.0 Pa reduced total entrance channel sedimentation by 75 %). Previous environmental studies of Port Fourchon shoaling rates (e.g., the 1994 US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Feasibility Engineering Appendix; the 2015 Federal Assumption of Maintenance Feasibility Study) calculated mean values of 0.5 to 1.125 ft/yr for the upper Port channels and 2 to 4 ft/yr for the entrance channel. These rates compare favorably to the mean sedimentation rates predicted by the final 2D model of 0.6 ft/yr for the upper Port Channel and 2.00 ft/yr for the entrance channel (4.70 ft/yr averaged over the channel area immediately around the jetty sedimentation hotspot). 16 Table 3: Dredging data provided by the USACE. CY = cubic yards. Volume/ Mean Dredged Dredged Dredged 1000 ft Dredged Dredge Dredge Location Channel Channel Sediment Channel Depth (below End Date Length Area Volume Length bed elev.) Station ft Y2 CY CY ft 12/12/2002 215+00 to 280+00 6,500 216,667 338,534 52,082 4.7 12/14/2004 200+00 to 330+00 13,000 433,333 779,798 59,984 5.4 5/13/2006 215+00 to 330+00 11,500 383,333 605,005 52,609 4.7 4/25/2007 60+00 to 215+00 15,500 516,667 472,786 30,502 2.7 11/10/2008 200+00 to 288+10 8,810 293,667 435,311 49,411 4.4 6/2/2012 200+00 to 280+00 8,000 266,667 525,986 65,748 5.9 8/18/2014 235+00 to 265+00; 3,195 106,500 150,141 46,992 4.2 215+20 to 217+15 9/12/2015 60+00 to 120+00; 13,500 450,000 587,046 43,485 3.9 235+00 to 310+00 WATER QUALITY MODELING Water Quality Model Set Up To estimate the hydrodynamic fields used to drive the water quality model a modified version of the 2D hydro-morphodynamic model discussed above was employed. The model was modified by adding five vertical layers to its computational grid (i.e., giving it 3D capabilities). Each layer composed of 20 % of the total flow depth at each time step. The model domain was truncated to reduce computation expense (i.e., the East Basin, West Basin, and Upper Channel sub-domains were removed). Removal of the upstream sub-domains created new open boundaries at grid cells that previously connected the existing model domain to the removed sub-domains. These new boundaries were parameterized using total discharge values extracted from the output of the 2D model. The 3D hydrodynamic was set up to simulate the observed year 2010. Simulating 2010 required creating six new scenarios using the As-Is, -30 ft, -35 ft, -40 ft, -45 ft, and -50 ft model bathymetries and observed time series data for the discharge and water-level open boundaries. The time series data was available from the same monitoring instrumentation used to derive the design hydrograph boundary conditions (shown in Figure 2). The 3D hydrodynamic model used observed annual time series data to ensure that seasonal cycles of water temperature, which significantly influence the water quality variables of interest (e.g., dissolved oxygen), were realistically resolved. The D-WAQ water quality model computational grids were aggregated from the 3D hydrodynamic grid. The aggregation of hydrodynamic grids was based on the characteristics and geometries of hydrodynamic grids. Water grids were aggregated separately in deep water zones and shallow water zones. The size of the model segments was determined by confirming that the minimum residence time for an entire simulation period was larger than 10 min for each segment. A total of 404 surface segments were 17 developed for D-WAQ. Each segment has five vertical layers, resulting in 2020 segments per water column (= 404 (water surface) x 5 (water layers)). Interactions at the sediment-water interface were simulated on seven sediment/soil depth layers representing the top 40 cm of the sediment/soil layer. The upper layer was very thin (1-4 mm), and the overall thickness of the layers ranged between 1 to 200 mm. The thin upper sediment layers were designed to consider steep concentration gradients at the interface between water and sediment/soil layers. Therefore, the total number of segments including those in the water column and sediment/soil profile is 4848 (= 2020 + 404 (water surface) x 7 (sediment/soil layers)). To aid parameterization of the D-WAQ model, monthly water quality data (salinity, total suspended sediment (TSS), dissolved oxygen (DO), ammonium (NH4), nitrate+nitrite (NO3), phosphate (PO4) ) measured from 2000 to 2015 were collected from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Four LDEQ stations within the model domain were selected for use in model set up and boundary condition parameterization (see Figure 2 for the locations). Instead of considering a specific year, the collected data were averaged for each month so that the water quality data represents long-term mean behaviors in this system. For salinity and NO3 concentrations, station ST020402, which is located relatively upstream, shows different behavior as compared to other more downstream stations (Figure 9). This observation might be related to localized restrictions of freshwater inputs and to agricultural activity. Relative to that upstream location, station ST021102, which is located offshore, shows lower salinity during summer compared to station ST020402. This observation may be due to inflows of freshwater from the Mississippi River. Despite that observation, the salinity levels in both stations are similar for spring, fall, and winter. Data from stations ST020402 and ST020905 were used for the upstream boundary and lateral boundary conditions, respectively. In the case of salinity and DO concentrations, station ST020402 was determined to be too far from the model upstream boundary, therefore, salinity and DO concentrations at the upstream boundary were defined by station ST020905. For offshore boundary conditions, ST021102 data were used; the station is located immediately downstream of Belle Pass; however, more seaward observed data were not available. Other water quality data not measured by LDEQ were estimated based on previous work (Meselhe, et al., 2015). The vertical gradient of water quality constituents at the boundaries were not considered in the model setup because there was no available information. Initial conditions for water quality constituents were designed based on the observed data and previous work (Meselhe, et al., 2015A; 2015B). The simulation started from the spatially uniform initial conditions for water quality in the water column and in sediment/soil layers, which were derived from historical data and field measurements under different hydrodynamic conditions. It should be noted that to establish dynamic equilibrium conditions for water quality constituents, the simulation was repeated with end-of- the-year conditions used as a “hot-start” for the next iteration. The process was repeated three times until the pattern stabilized and the same seasonal variability was observed from one iteration to the next. 18 Figure 9: Water quality model performance relative to observed values measured at station ST020403 in Bayou Lafourche near Port Fourchon. Data for the five vertical layers are plotted; however, because of the absence of stratification, they are not distinguishable. 19 Water Quality Model Calibration The model was set up with the same water quality model coefficients used in similar studies of analogous environments (e.g., Meselhe, et al., 2015A; 2015B) because of the relative absence of observed data sets for initial conditions, calibration, and validation. The water quality model was compared to the observed monthly mean data (see Figure 9) for salinity, DO, NH4, NO3, PO4, and TSS at ST02403 (Figure 10) and ST012203 (Figure 11). Figure11 shows the comparison results between the model and observed data at ST020403. The model showed no vertical gradient for water quality constituents including salinity in the channel, which indicates that the system is well mixed. In the case of DO concentrations, the model results reproduced well a seasonal pattern with low DO concentrations during summer because of high decomposition rates of detritus during warm summer months. The model overestimated NO3 concentrations throughout year 2010 and the computed TSS results indicated underestimation against the observed data. Figure 12 shows a comparison between model and observed data at ST021102, which is immediately downstream of the jetty (see Figure 9 for map of location). The model output showed a similar performance to ST020403. The simulated salinity indicated some vertical stratification over the year, but salinity vertical gradients were small (less than 3 ppt). The model underestimated DO concentrations during summer compared to the observed data but captured the seasonal pattern well. Figure 10 shows the comparison results between the model and observed data at ST020403. The model showed no vertical gradient for water quality constituents including salinity in the channel, which means that the system is well mixed. In case of DO concentrations, the model results reproduced well a seasonal pattern with low DO concentrations during summer because of high decomposition process rates throughout the year 2010 and the computed TSS results showed indicated underestimation against to the observed data. The model showed no vertical gradient for water quality constituents including salinity in the channel, which means that the system is well mixed. In case of DO, the model results reproduced well a seasonal pattern with low DO during summer because of high decomposition process of detritus. Figure 11 shows a comparison results between model and observed data at ST021102, which is immediately downstream of the jetty (see Figure 2 for map of location). The model output showed very a similar performance as shown at ST020403. The simulated salinity showed indicated some vertical stratification over the year, but salinity vertical gradients were small (less than 3ppt). The model underestimated DO concentrations during summer compared to the observed data but captured the seasonal pattern well. Overall, the change in the concentration of water quality parameters in the channel was primarily determined by the upstream and lateral boundary conditions. Flow within the Port waterways was generally well mixed and quickly advected out of the system (e.g., high flushing rates) during the analyzed scenarios. Modeled output in year 2010 did not indicate that water volume residence times were long enough to promote significant biological/chemical reactions capable of altering the water quality condition relative to the values estimated at the model boundaries. While year 2010 was a typical year in terms of watershed hydrology and stream flow for the study area, it should be noted that it may not be representative of many other types of flow conditions from other years. 20 Considering there was little available field observational data for initial and boundary conditions, the model results indicate a good agreement with observed data and represent the seasonal change well in this system. The calibrated model is acceptable to evaluate the relative impact of dredging on salinity and DO changes. Figure 10: Water quality model performance relative to observed values measured at station ST020403 in Bayou Lafourche near Port Fourchon. Data for the five vertical layers are plotted; however, because of the absence of stratification, they are not distinguishable. 21 Figure 11: Water quality model performance relative to observed values measured at station ST021102. Data for the five vertical layers are plotted; however, because of the absence of stratification, they are not individually distinguishable. 22 Results CHANNEL SEDIMENTATION The predicted sedimentation values for the upper Port channel are shown in Table 4. The predicted sedimentation values for the entrance channel are shown in Table 5 (volumes) and Table 6 (thicknesses). The model predicted that the highest values of sediment occur in the entrance channel around the jetty area, approximately between station 250+00 and 300+00 (Figure 12). The predicted spatially-averaged sedimentation rates for the Port Side Channels are shown in Table 7. In the table, the ‘upper side-channel’ consists of the flotation canal and slips A through D, the ‘middle side- channel’ consists of the E-slip, and the lower-side channel consists of the 4,300 ft western length of Pass Fourchon (these side channels are shown in Figure 1). Table 4: Modeled sedimenation for the upper Port channel for 2 maintenance depths. CY = cubic yards. Location Along As-Is / Pre-construction depth -30 ft Maintenance Depth Channel Starting Station Volume Thickness Volume Thickness CY/yr ft/yr CY/yr ft/yr 0+00 27,213 2.45 42,741 3.85 10+00 6,144 0.55 21,374 1.92 20+00 0 0.00 14,315 1.29 30+00 0 0.00 15,816 1.42 40+00 5,632 0.51 16,926 1.52 50+00 11,429 1.03 17,225 1.55 60+00 5,313 0.48 16,549 1.49 70+00 2,097 0.19 14,399 1.30 80+00 41 0.00 13,669 1.23 90+00 8,632 0.78 16,568 1.49 100+00 10,866 0.98 17,437 1.57 110+00 7,625 0.69 17,062 1.54 120+00 2,374 0.21 14,597 1.31 Total / mean 87,365 0.60 238,678 1.65 23 Table 5: Modeled sedimentation volumes along the entrance channel for the 6 dredging scenarios. Location Along Predicted Sedimentation Volume (CY/ yr per 1000 ft channel length) Channel Feet Starting below As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft Station 130+00 130+00 0 8,891 14,496 17,528 18,834 19,642 20,795 140+00 1000 4,147 16,365 17,671 18,674 19,329 20,223 150+00 2000 8,587 15,183 17,194 18,080 18,662 19,500 160+00 3000 7,804 14,365 17,271 18,312 18,652 19,362 170+00 4000 5,319 14,297 17,730 19,107 19,041 19,649 180+00 5000 7,348 16,301 19,278 20,052 19,999 20,666 190+00 6000 6,477 17,154 20,475 21,176 21,089 21,842 200+00 7000 11,033 20,418 23,021 23,453 23,104 23,546 210+00 8000 11,425 24,457 27,653 28,018 27,443 27,676 220+00 9000 4,363 29,132 36,527 38,628 36,991 37,999 230+00 10000 49,561 59,803 62,682 63,209 62,056 62,804 240+00 11000 82,374 86,286 85,349 81,657 79,449 81,996 250+00 12000 74,015 84,896 80,263 77,710 73,587 75,726 260+00 13000 77,653 94,617 91,036 88,517 84,253 85,954 270+00 14000 100,045 106,411 115,379 118,399 118,455 121,563 280+00 15000 66,118 77,451 91,069 93,297 93,001 94,251 290+00 16000 37,530 42,207 62,684 66,207 66,331 66,844 300+00 17000 29,081 26,899 45,642 48,365 48,615 49,540 310+00 18000 16,152 17,491 33,621 36,218 36,418 37,392 320+00 19000 8,499 10,274 24,929 27,158 27,701 28,706 330+00 20000 5,633 7,432 18,305 20,473 21,057 22,038 340+00 21000 14,368 16,478 16,660 16,978 350+00 22000 11,555 13,022 13,197 13,270 360+00 23000 9,413 10,668 10,864 10,896 370+00 24000 8,338 9,188 9,291 9,381 380+00 25000 7,396 8,035 8,159 8,248 390+00 26000 6,846 7,341 7,442 7,510 400+00 27000 6,821 6,922 6,983 410+00 28000 6,440 6,512 6,558 420+00 29000 6,108 6,158 6,206 430+00 30000 5,837 5,879 5,929 440+00 31000 5,593 5,645 5,691 450+00 32000 5,386 5,442 5,488 460+00 33000 5,216 5,250 5,299 470+00 34000 5,067 5,095 5,140 480+00 35000 4,946 4,980 5,014 490+00 36000 4,856 4,893 24 Table 5 (continued) Location Along Predicted Sedimentation Volume (CY/ yr per 1000 ft channel length) Channel Feet Starting below As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft Station 130+00 500+00 37000 4,756 4,799 510+00 38000 4,694 4,735 520+00 39000 4,623 4,659 530+00 40000 4,584 4,616 540+00 41000 4,545 4,579 550+00 42000 4,526 4,555 560+00 43000 4,510 4,542 570+00 44000 4,524 4,542 580+00 45000 4,526 4,547 590+00 46000 4,571 600+00 47000 4,595 610+00 48000 4,630 620+00 49000 4,668 630+00 50000 4,716 640+00 51000 4,769 650+00 52000 4,826 660+00 53000 4,901 670+00 54000 3,840 Total 622,057 795,934 983,225 1,061,690 1,098,516 1,164,646 25 Table 6: Modeled sedimentation thicknesses along the entrance channel. Location Along Predicted Sedimentation Thickness (ft/ yr averaged per 1000 ft channel Channel length) Feet Starting below As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft Station 130+00 130+00 0 0.60 0.98 1.18 1.27 1.33 1.40 140+00 1000 0.28 1.10 1.19 1.26 1.30 1.37 150+00 2000 0.58 1.02 1.16 1.22 1.26 1.32 160+00 3000 0.53 0.97 1.17 1.24 1.26 1.31 170+00 4000 0.36 0.97 1.20 1.29 1.29 1.33 180+00 5000 0.50 1.10 1.30 1.35 1.35 1.39 190+00 6000 0.44 1.16 1.38 1.43 1.42 1.47 200+00 7000 0.74 1.38 1.55 1.58 1.56 1.59 210+00 8000 0.77 1.65 1.87 1.89 1.85 1.87 220+00 9000 0.29 1.97 2.47 2.61 2.50 2.56 230+00 10000 3.35 4.04 4.23 4.27 4.19 4.24 240+00 11000 5.56 5.82 5.76 5.51 5.36 5.53 250+00 12000 5.00 5.73 5.42 5.25 4.97 5.11 260+00 13000 5.24 6.39 6.14 5.97 5.69 5.80 270+00 14000 6.75 7.18 7.79 7.99 8.00 8.21 280+00 15000 4.46 5.23 6.15 6.30 6.28 6.36 290+00 16000 2.53 2.85 4.23 4.47 4.48 4.51 300+00 17000 1.96 1.82 3.08 3.26 3.28 3.34 310+00 18000 1.09 1.18 2.27 2.44 2.46 2.52 320+00 19000 0.57 0.69 1.68 1.83 1.87 1.94 330+00 20000 0.38 0.50 1.24 1.38 1.42 1.49 340+00 21000 0.97 1.11 1.12 1.15 350+00 22000 0.78 0.88 0.89 0.90 360+00 23000 0.64 0.72 0.73 0.74 370+00 24000 0.56 0.62 0.63 0.63 380+00 25000 0.50 0.54 0.55 0.56 390+00 26000 0.46 0.50 0.50 0.51 400+00 27000 0.46 0.47 0.47 410+00 28000 0.43 0.44 0.44 420+00 29000 0.41 0.42 0.42 430+00 30000 0.39 0.40 0.40 440+00 31000 0.38 0.38 0.38 450+00 32000 0.36 0.37 0.37 460+00 33000 0.35 0.35 0.36 470+00 34000 0.34 0.34 0.35 480+00 35000 0.33 0.34 0.34 490+00 36000 0.33 0.33 26 Table 6 (continued) Location Along Predicted Sedimentation Volume (CY/ yr per 1000 ft channel length) Channel Feet Starting below As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft Station 130+00 500+00 37000 0.32 0.32 510+00 38000 0.32 0.32 520+00 39000 0.31 0.31 530+00 40000 0.31 0.31 540+00 41000 0.31 0.31 550+00 42000 0.31 0.31 560+00 43000 0.30 0.31 570+00 44000 0.31 0.31 580+00 45000 0.31 0.31 590+00 46000 0.31 600+00 47000 0.31 610+00 48000 0.31 620+00 49000 0.32 630+00 50000 0.32 640+00 51000 0.32 650+00 52000 0.33 660+00 53000 0.33 670+00 54000 0.26 Mean (240+00 to 4.70 5.32 5.67 5.68 5.57 5.68 300+00) Table 7: Modeled sedimentation thickness for the Port side-channels. Predicted Spatially-Averaged Sedimentation Thickness (ft/yr) Location As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft Upper Side Channel 0.22 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.41 Middle Side Channel 0.33 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.62 Lower Side Channel 0.94 0.93 0.98 1.01 1.03 1.06 Deep-water loading hole NA 1.02 1.08 1.13 1.18 1.24 27 Figure 12: Maps of the predicted sedimentation near the Port Fourchon jetty complex for 4 scenarios. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Simulation of the 100-day design hydrograph scenarios resulted in the flow and sediment flux illustrated in Figure 13. The plots show predicted values for Bayou Lafourche at Port Fourchon. Mean discharges driven by the upstream boundary conditions (from the East Basin, West Basin, Upper Channel sub- domain boundaries) span 200 to 600 m3/s (7,063 to 21,189 cfs). The tidal water level fluctuations introduced at the Marine sub-domain boundary add high-magnitude, high-frequency discharge fluctuations that exceed 100 % of the mean values and produce significant occurrences of reverse flow. Figure 13. (right plot) shows that sediment flux was highly variable and maximum fluxes can approach 28 two orders of magnitude greater than the median rates: 229 CY/s (as-is), 410 CY/s (-30 ft), and 520 CY/s (-50 ft). Figure 13: Flow and sediment flux predicted for Bayou Lafourche leaving the lower Port Fourchon area. The green line is from the ‘as-is’ channel depth; blue is for the dredged to -30 ft scenario; red is for the -50 ft scenario. The variation in the hydrodynamic environment and water quality due to changes in the maintenance dredging depth are reported for seven distributed locations within the Port waterways (Table 8; Figure 14). These locations are widely distributed throughout the Port area and were selected so that changes reported at these locations could serve as indicators of the hydrodynamic and water quality changes that are predicted to generally occur throughout the Port waterways. Table 8: Properties of the seven stations where hydrodynamic model results are reported. See Figure 14 for the map of locatons. Station Latitude and Station Description ID Longitude (decimal degrees) 300 29.10030 -90.22050 Lower Port channel - near station 190+00 200 29.11650 -90.21140 Mid port channel - neat station 120+00 100 29.14100 -90.22120 Upper port channel - near station 10+00 PS 29.11400 -90.19970 near NOAA Ports Tide Gauge LH 29.10640 -90.20700 Deep-water loading hole J 29.08250 -90.22640 Jetty area - near station 260+00 C59 29.07240 -90.22840 Below jetty - near station 300+00 29 Figure 14: Location of the seven stations where hydrodynamic and water quality model results are reported. Further station information is listed in Table 8. At the time of this report, the deep-water loading hole location was predominately undeveloped sub- aerial/emergent marsh (i.e., construction of the loading hole had not begun). As the numerical model was not developed to simulate physical processes in this type of environment, the model results for the ‘As-Is’ condition at the loading hole station (LH) were not reported. 30 Predicted Change in Hydrodynamics The 2D hydro-morphodynamic model scenarios were used to predict at-a-station water velocity and water-level at the seven monitoring stations identified in Figure 14. Tables 9 and 10 show the median values calculated for these locations during the 100-day design hydrograph. Table 9: Modeled depth-averaged flow velocity at seven Port waterway stations. Temporally-averaged Flow Velocity (ft/s) Location ID As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft 300 0.95 0.86 0.77 0.71 0.65 0.57 200 0.80 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.62 100 1.06 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.82 PS 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 LH NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Jetty 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.50 C59 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.26 Table 10: Modeled water level at seven Port waterway stations. Temporally-averaged Water Level (ft NAVD 88) Location ID As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft 300 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.28 200 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.33 100 0.51 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.41 PS 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.32 LH NA 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.31 Jetty 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 C59 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 31 Predicted Change in Water Quality The 3D water quality model (D-WAQ) scenarios were used to predict at-a-station water salinity and dissolved oxygen at the seven monitoring stations identified in Figure 14. Tables 11 and 12 show the median values calculated for these locations during the year 2010 hydrograph. While the 3D water quality model resolved a depth profile of output values, the values reported in Tables 11 and 12 are depth- averaged. Calibration tests predicted that little vertical stratification was present in the analyzed parameters suggesting that they could be adequately characterized by their depth-averaged values. Table 11: Modeled median of year 2010 salinity at seven Port waterway stations. Temporally-averaged Salinity (ppt) Location ID As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft 300 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 200 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 100 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 PS 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 LH NA 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 J 28.7 29.1 28.9 29.1 29.2 29.3 C59 31.1 31.1 31.0 31.1 31.1 31.2 Table 12: Modeled median of year 2010 dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations at seven Port waterway stations. Temporally-averaged Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Location ID As-Is -30 ft -35 ft -40 ft -45 ft -50 ft 300 5.9 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 200 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 100 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 PS 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 LH NA 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 J 5.7 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 C59 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 32 JETTY MODIFICATION ANALYSIS Table 13 shows the predicted sedimentation for the two scenarios, J275 and J290, that simulated jetty extension. The predicted change in the annual sedimentation volume along the navigation channel (which is calculated from differencing sediment volumes from the jetty extension scenarios and the scenario reflecting the current jetty configuration) is also shown in the table (i.e., in the column entitled “Volume Change”). For the two jetty extension scenarios, sedimentation downstream of station 500+00 was approximate to that predicted from the scenario reflecting the current jetty configuration and not included in the table. Numerical modeling predicts that jetty extension reduces total navigation channel sedimentation from 1,081,558 CY/yr (As-Is jetty configuration) to 1,035,456 CY/yr (-4.3 %) for J275, and 982,492 CY/yr (- 9.2 %) for J290. Figures 15 and 16 illustrate the sedimentation patterns and the change in sedimentation patterns relative to the As-Is jetty configuration, respectively. Generally, jetty extension significantly reduced sedimentation in the immediate jetty area; however, that reduction was partially offset by increased sedimentation further downstream. Results shown in Figure 15 also indicate that the model predicted increasing risk of significant sedimentation along the outer side of the jetty due to extension. This sedimentation was due to the interruption of long-shore sediment transport and is not explicitly accounted for in Table 11, which only reports ‘in-channel’ sedimentation. Long-shore sediment transport processes in the current numerical were not rigorously calibrated or validated due to unavailability of observational data. Figure 15: The predicted pattern of sedimentation around the jetty area after two jetty expansion scenarios, J275 and J290. The scenario simulations use the same model set up as the -50 ft 2D hydro-morphodynamic scenario except for new bathymetry representing new jetty dimensions. 33 Table 13: Modeled sedimentation thicknesses along the entrance channel. Location Along 275+00 Extension Sedimentation/ 290+00 Extension Sedimentation/ Channel J275 J290 Feet Volume Volume Starting Volume Thickness Volume Thickness below Change Change Station 130+00 CY/yr ft/yr CY/yr CY/yr ft/yr CY/yr 130+00 0 20,749 1.40 -46 20,775 1.40 -21 140+00 1000 20,216 1.36 -7 20,202 1.36 -21 150+00 2000 19,433 1.31 -68 19,389 1.31 -111 160+00 3000 19,233 1.30 -130 19,160 1.29 -202 170+00 4000 19,502 1.32 -147 19,308 1.30 -340 180+00 5000 20,560 1.39 -106 20,110 1.36 -556 190+00 6000 21,589 1.46 -253 21,010 1.42 -832 200+00 7000 22,945 1.55 -600 22,179 1.50 -1,366 210+00 8000 26,595 1.80 -1,081 25,164 1.70 -2,512 220+00 9000 36,193 2.44 -1,806 34,074 2.30 -3,926 230+00 10000 58,841 3.97 -3,963 57,015 3.85 -5,789 240+00 11000 78,986 5.33 -3,011 80,350 5.42 -1,647 250+00 12000 69,513 4.69 -6,213 62,678 4.23 -13,048 260+00 13000 69,661 4.70 -16,293 55,726 3.76 -30,229 270+00 14000 85,083 5.74 -36,480 44,007 2.97 -77,556 280+00 15000 96,342 6.50 2,091 46,479 3.14 -47,771 290+00 16000 73,963 4.99 7,119 70,408 4.75 3,564 300+00 17000 54,037 3.65 4,496 70,332 4.75 20,791 310+00 18000 40,659 2.74 3,266 54,953 3.71 17,561 320+00 19000 30,896 2.09 2,189 41,301 2.79 12,594 330+00 20000 23,450 1.58 1,412 31,256 2.11 9,218 340+00 21000 17,982 1.21 1,004 23,883 1.61 6,905 350+00 22000 14,086 0.95 816 18,005 1.22 4,735 360+00 23000 11,524 0.78 628 14,173 0.96 3,277 370+00 24000 9,759 0.66 378 11,677 0.79 2,296 380+00 25000 8,464 0.57 216 9,728 0.66 1,481 390+00 26000 7,645 0.52 135 8,521 0.58 1,011 400+00 27000 7,066 0.48 83 7,692 0.52 710 410+00 28000 6,637 0.45 79 7,102 0.48 544 420+00 29000 6,261 0.42 55 6,660 0.45 454 430+00 30000 5,959 0.40 30 6,307 0.43 378 440+00 31000 5,718 0.39 27 6,000 0.40 308 450+00 32000 5,506 0.37 18 5,746 0.39 258 460+00 33000 5,313 0.36 14 5,528 0.37 229 470+00 34000 5,155 0.35 15 5,340 0.36 200 480+00 35000 5,030 0.34 16 5,200 0.35 186 490+00 36000 4,904 0.33 11 5,054 0.34 161 34 Figure 16: The predicted change in sedimentation along the entrance channel (below station 130+00) binned at 1000 ft intervals for the two jetty expansion scenarios, J275 and J290. Summary of Key Assumptions and Conclusions The small amount of available observational field data for the study area prevented robust calibration and validation of the numerical models. The available observational data, study results from analogous study sites, and professional judgement indicate that the predicted values were realistic estimates considering the assessed physical environment. To account for the lack of robust validation testing, model development generally favored simplified and conservative assumptions. The 2D hydro-morphodynamic model was parameterized with mean-daily water levels that did not resolve high amplitude, tide-generated fluctuations at the East and West basin sub-domain open boundaries. However, the model used astronomical constituent data, that resolved all primary tide- generated water-level fluctuations, to predict water level along the Lower Channel/Marine sub-domain boundaries. When the model boundaries were parameterized to simulate periods of very high or low tides, this model set up would have promoted higher energy gradients in lower Bayou Lafourche than that likely observed. This study predicts that increasing the maintenance dredge depth in the entrance channel (below station 130+00) could increase channel sedimentation from +28 % (the -30 ft scenario) to +87 % (the -50 ft scenario). Increasing the maintenance dredge depth from -24 ft to -30 ft in the upper Port channel was predicted to increase annual sedimentation from 0.6 ft/yr to 1.65 ft/yr, a 173 % increase. However, this predicted change in sedimentation is likely an overestimate because the actual current maintenance dredge depth is typically closer to -27 ft, as 3 ft over-dredge is allowed. Sedimentation was predicted to increase in the Port side-channel by approximately +50 % (-30 ft) to +87 % (-50 ft) in the upper side- channels (i.e., the slips) and remain relatively unchanged in the lower side-channels (i.e., Pass Fourchon). 35 Marginal increases in maintenance dredge depth did not produce a uniform response in predicted sedimentation, in terms of magnitude or spatial distribution. Increasing maintenance dredging depths generally decreased predicted flow velocities (up to -0.4 ft/s for the -50 ft scenario) and water levels (up to -0.1 ft for the -50 ft scenario) in Port waterways. Water quality modeling indicated that increasing maintenance dredge depths within the navigation channel would likely have an insignificant impact on the salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Port waterways. Generally, modeling predicts that the Port waters are currently, and will remain, relatively saline (> 25 ppt). Predicted values of dissolved oxygen concentrations showed significant seasonal fluctuations but were approximately spatially-uniform throughout the Port waterways due to energetic secondary currents. A simple analysis of the impact of jetty extension on the navigation channel sedimentation indicated that extension to station 270+00 may reduce sedimentation by 4.3 % and extension to station 295+00 reduces sedimentation by 9.2 %. This analysis employed the 2D hydro-morphodynamic model developed for channel deepening study. 36 References Barry, J. M. (1998). Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America (1st Touchstone Ed edition.). Simon & Schuster. Batker, D., de la Torre, I., Costanza, R., Day, J. W., Swedeen, P., Boumans, R., & Bagstad, K. (2014). The threats to the value of ecosystem goods and services of the Mississippi Delta. In Perspectives on the restoration of the Mississippi Delta: the once and future earth (pp. 155–173). Springer. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) of Louisiana. (2017). Coastwide Reference Monitoring System - Wetlands Monitoring Data, Retrieved from Coastal Information Management System (CIMS) database. Couvillion, B. R., Barras, J. A., Steyer, G. D., Sleavin, W., Fischer, M., Beck, H., Trahan, N., Griffin, B., & Heckman, D. (2011). Land area change in coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010 (Scientific Investigations Map No. 3164) (p. 12). U.S. Geological Survey. Couvillion, B. R., Fischer, M. R., Beck, H. J., & Sleavin, W. J. (2016). Spatial configuration trends in coastal Louisiana from 1985 to 2010. Wetlands. Day, J. W., Kemp, G. P., Reed, D. J., Cahoon, D. R., Boumans, R. M., Suhayda, J. M., & Gambrell, R. (2011). Vegetation death and rapid loss of surface elevation in two contrasting Mississippi delta salt marshes: The role of sedimentation, autocompaction and sea-level rise. Ecological Engineering, 37(2), 229–240. Deltares. (2014). Delft3D-FLOW User Manual. Deltares. Folse, T. M., West, J. L., Hymel, M. K., Troutman, J. P., Sharp, L. A., Weifenbach, D., McGinnis, T., & Rodrigue, L. B. (2014). A standard operating procedures manual for the coast-wide reference monitoring system - wetlands: Methods for site establishment, data collection, and quality assurance/quality control (p. 228). Baton Rouge, LA: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. GeoEngineers LLC. (2017). Desktop Geotechnical Evaluation and Phase 2 Scoping: Federal Navigation Improvements (A Report for GIS, Inc.) (pp. 1–118). Port Fourchon, Lafourche County, Louisiana. Henry, K. M., & Twilley, R. R. (2013). Soil development in a coastal Louisiana wetland during a climate- induced vegetation shift from salt marsh to mangrove. Journal of Coastal Research, 29(6), 1273– 1283. LDWF. (2005). Louisiana comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (LA CWCS). Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Lesser, G. R., Roelvink, J. A., van Kester, J. A. T. M., & Stelling, G. S. (2004). Development and validation of a three-dimensional morphological model. Coastal Engineering, 51(8–9), 883–915. Meselhe, E. A., Allison, M. A., Yuilll, B., & Khadka, P. (2015a). Barataria Sediment Diversion (Prepared for and funded by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA)). Baton Rouge, LA: The Water Institute of the Gulf. Meselhe, E. A., Sadid, K. M., & Allison, M. A. (2016). Riverside morphological response to pulsed sediment diversions. Geomorphology, 270, 184–202. Meselhe, E., Baustian, M.M., & Allison, M. (Eds.). (2015b). Basin Wide Model Development for the Louisiana Coastal Area Mississippi River Hydrodynamic and Delta Management study. (Vol. 1). Baton Rouge, LA: The Water Institute of the Gulf. Funded by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority under Task Order 27.1. Partheniades, E. (1965). Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 91, Part 1, 105–139. Port Fourchon Operations Center. (2018a, February 25). Port Facts: Greater Lafourche Port Commission. Port Fourchon Operations Center. (2018b, February 25). Port History: Greater Lafourche Port Commission. 37 Roberts, H. H. (1997). Dynamic changes of the Holocene Mississippi River Delta Plain: the delta cycle. Journal of Coastal Research, 13(3), 605–627. Sasser, C. E., Visser, J. M., Mouton, E., Linscombe, J., & Hartley, S. B. (2014). Vegetation types in coastal Louisiana in 2013. 1 sheet, US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3290. Scavia, D., Field, J., Boesch, D., Buddemeier, R., Burkett, V., Cayan, D., Fogarty, M., Harwell, M., Howarth, R., Mason, C., Reed, D., Royer, T., Sallenger, A., & Titus, J. (2002). Climate change impacts on U.S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. Estuaries, 25(2), 149–164. Smits, J. (2013). Delft3D-ECO. The Netherlands: Deltares. Smits, J. G. C., & van Beek, J. K. L. (2013). ECO: a generic eutrophication model including comprehensive sediment-water interaction. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68104. van Rijn, L. C. (2007). Unified view of sediment transport by current and waves. II: Suspended transport. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 133(6), 668–689. Visser, J. M., Duke-Sylvester, S., Broussard, W., & Carter, J. (2012). Vegetation model technical report (Appendix D-4) (Techinal Report) (p. 274). Baton Rouge, LA: CPRA. Yuill, B. T., Khadka, A. K., Pereira, J., Allison, M. A., & Meselhe, E. A. (2016). Morphodynamics of the erosional phase of crevasse-splay evolution and implications for river sediment diversion function. Geomorphology, 259, 12–29. 38 Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX J F. DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN & SEDIMENT SUITABILITY ANALYSIS August 2018 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) was prepared in accordance with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) promulgated by U.S. Code Title 33 Section 1401 (33 USC 1401 et seq) which prohibits the dumping of material into the ocean that would unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. The objective of this plan was to designate dredged material placement areas nearest to the proposed Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project (Project) area while avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts to the environment and to use all Project dredged material beneficially to provide long-term storm surge protection and risk reduction to the Port and surrounding areas; and to counter coastal land loss resulting from continued sea level rise and subsidence. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 16 (16 USC 661- 667e), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Division (NMFS) and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) to provide the position and recommendations of agencies on the proposed Project, which are detailed in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR) appended to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (see Appendix D). This DMMP was prepared for the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) recommended by the Project feasibility study (authorized by Section 203 of the Clean Water Act) and DEIS, and incorporates the recommendations of the Federal and State agencies. The USFWS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted a Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) which determined that there would be positive net benefits to wetland resources, including piping plover critical habitat, in the Project area, with the creation of emergent wetland and barrier headland and island habitats. The Project would result in approximately 1,055 average annual habitat units (AAHUs) and 2,361 acres of saline marsh habitat over the 50 year project life under the intermediate sea level rise rate scenario (3.3 feet by year 2100) (see DEIS Appendix C for WVA information and assumptions). In addition, this project will have unrealized benefits from continued nourishment of barrier shorelines through maintenance dredging over the project life. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS For existing project conditions in the Port Fourchon area, see Chapters 2 (section 2.3) and 3 of the main DEIS report. 2.1 Dredging and Placement History Since 1986, the Corps has utilized the nearshore areas flanking the jetties of the entrance channel to the east and west for shoreline nourishment using dredged sediments of the current authorized J-2 project. In addition to these areas, the West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration Area and the Port’s permitted mitigation areas located north of Flotation Canal have been utilized for the placement of dredged material under the current Federal project. In 2015 and 2017, the Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration Area received sand excavated from offshore two borrow areas (South Pelto Blocks 13 and 14) southwest of Timbalier Island. Historical records of dredged material placement are provided in Table J-1. Table J-1. History of Dredging and Beneficial-Use Placement at Port Fourchon Year Volume (cy) Port Fourchon, LA 1986 653,975 2001 1,830,698 2003 388,534 2005 1,020,330 2006 605,005 2007 111,515 2008 435,311 2009 638,628 2012 353,342 2014 174,636 2015 878,946 Total 7,090,920 Caminada Headland, LA 2015 3,620,000 2017 5,220,000 Total 8,840,000 West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration 2011 4,797,000 Source: ASBPA, APTIM, and USACE, 2018 3.0 SEDIMENT SUITABILITY ANALYSIS MPRSA Section 102(c)(3)(D) requires that management plans include consideration of the quantity of the material to be disposed of at the area, and the presence, nature, and bioavailability of the contaminants in the material. Geotechnical analyses of soil borings obtained from Project channels resulted in the determination that beneficial use dredged material would be suitable for shoreline nourishment and marsh creation, and would not adversely affect habitat quality. Grain- size distributions of the bored sediments are provided in Tables J-2 and J-3. J-3 Table J-2. Grain-Size Distribution of Dredged Sediments Reach Depth (ft) Sand (%) Composite Silt/Clay (%) 33.5 57.9 42.1 Bayou 48.5 89.7 10.3 Lafourche 48.5 90.0 10.0 38.5 83.7 16.3 Belle Pass 31.0 0.1 100.0 Source: GeoEngineers, 2018 Table J-3. Grain-Size Distribution of Dredged Sediments Reach Depth (ft) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 13.0 23.0 43.1 33.9 Bayou 23.0 33.6 61.8 4.6 Lafourche 18.0 9.2 46.2 44.6 23.0 14.4 46.1 39.5 33.0 18.6 61.3 20.1 48.5 5.6 5.6 66.7 31.0 0.1 26.4 73.5 Belle Pass 46.5 21.6 31.5 47.0 41.0 0.2 37.9 61.9 46.0 0.1 15.8 84.1 Source: Geoengineers, 2018 3.1 Contaminant Determinations In respect to the potential for contamination effects resultant of the proposed Project, geotechnical sediment analysis results (provided in (QJLQHHULQJ $SSHQGL[ AQQH[ RI WKH )HDVLELOLW\ 5HSRUW) were compared against LDEQ Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) screening standards for non-industrial soil use in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods. There were no exceedances of metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and chlorinated herbicides; which indicates that there should be no cause for the concern of contamination resultant of Project implementation. The following screening methods were used: 1. RECAP metals – EPA method SW7471A and SW6010B 2. VOCs – EPA method SW8260B 3. Semivolatiles – EPA method SW8270C 4. TPHs – EPA Method SW8015B 5. Pesticides – EPA method 8081B 6. PCBs – EPA method 8082A 7. Chlorinated herbicides – EPA method 8151A J-4 4.0 ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT AREA SELECTION PROCESS Using dredged material volumes estimated for Project construction, annual channel sedimentation rates were calculated by the Water Institute of the Gulf (TWIG) by employing a Delft3D model of the Port developed for the Project (see DEIS Appendix I for sedimentation rate information). The annual sedimentation rates were used to develop the maintenance dredging schedule. Using the construction and maintenance schedules, TWIG conducted a desktop analysis to identify alternative placement areas for the beneficial use of dredged Project sediments and to calculate the capacity of each area to accommodate all Project dredged sediments. 4.1 Mean Sea Level and Water Depth The digital elevation model (DEM) developed by the US Geological Survey for the 2017 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan was used for the placement area selection process. This DEM provides coverage for the entire coastal zone of Louisiana, including the offshore portion of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf), the spatial resolution is 98.4-ft, all elevation data is relative to the North American Vertical Datum 1988 Geoid 12A (NAVD88), and the dataset was compiled with best-available data in 2014 (Couvillion, 2017). A present day mean water surface elevation was assumed to be equal to +0.43-ft (NAVD88). This average water level was calculated from the four closest Coastal Reference Monitoring System (CRMS) stations to Port Fourchon. These CRMS areas all monitor hourly water surface elevation and have long-term mean values representing present conditions calculated for a period from 2013 through 2017. Area CRMS0164-H01 has a mean water surface elevation of 0.54-ft, area CRMS0178-H01 has a mean of 0.59-ft, CRMS0292-H01 has a mean of 0.36-ft, and CRMS0310-H01 has a mean water surface elevation of 0.25-ft (all elevations were relative to NAVD88 Geoid 12A). The overall mean water surface elevation of 0.43-ft was used to both develop a map of current mean water depth by comparison with the most recent topo- bathymetric DEM available. 4.2 Alternative Placement Area Identification The following parameters were considered to determine the optimal placement area for the location of each booster pump: the distance, the volumetric capacity of the placement area, the volume of dredged sediments, and the water depth at the area of placement (which affect both the cost of containment and the compaction of deposited sediments). These variables are influenced by the timing, location, and depth of dredging that occurs. Initially, the placement area selection process was conducted to consider only the closest alternative areas to each dredging location and the number of placement areas that would be needed (given assumed fill/compaction assumptions) to accommodate all dredged sediments from each dredging location. Distance and accommodation volume were the only measurable variables considered in the site selection analysis, and the optimal solution is therefore predicated on the order of dredging operations and agency recommendations. A list of alternative placement areas was compiled. These areas were selected J-5 to have the capacity to absorb all dredged sediments from Project channel deepening, and were optimized so that each area was selected based upon its proximity to the channel reach being dredged as provided in the construction and maintenance schedules. The following process was used to develop the initial list of alternative placement areas: 1. A list of preferred marsh creation placement areas was prepared by the non-Federal interest, which TWIG used to determine placement area capacities (orange polygons in Figure J-1). 2. Additional marsh creation placements areas were identified from potential project locations that were examined and included in the development of the 2017 Master Plan (CPRA, 2017) (blue hatched polygons in Figure J-1). 3. The Caminada Headland Back Barrier Marsh Creation area (BA-171) was added to the list of alternative placement areas, and is currently undergoing project design for the Coastal Figure J-1. Locations of Alternative Placement Areas (orange polygons designate marsh creation areas preferred by the non-Federal interest, blue hatched polygons designate marsh creation areas analyzed in the 2017 Coastal Master Plan, and yellow polygons designate barrier island headland areas). J-6 Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) program. 4. In addition to the marsh creation areas identified above, locations for alternative barrier island headland beach and dune restoration and nourishment were identified (yellow polygons in Figure J-1). The barrier island restoration template used in the 2017 Master Plan (Figure J-2) was simplified and used to determine potential placement volumes on nearby barrier islands. This template is implemented on an existing cross-shore profile, where assumed construction elevations begin at profile distance 18,750 and extend through the back-barrier marsh platform which ends at distance 20,800. Figure J-2. 2017 Coastal Master Plan Barrier Island/Headland Cross-shore Profile Design Template. The distance between dredge pump locations and the centroid of each alternative fill location (identified in Figure J-1) was determined in ArcGIS. For each pump location, the alternative placement areas were listed in order of increasing distance. The closest areas to each dredging location were selected until enough areas were chosen in which the cumulative fill volume at the respective areas exceeded the volume of dredged sediments pumped from the given dredge location. Any given placement area was only allowed to be selected for one dredge location; the further along the assumed dredge schedule, the further the sediment may need to be pumped to find an alternative placement area that had not already been filled in previous dredging schedule steps. 4.3 Integration of Agency Guidance for Placement Area Determinations Upon compilation of the initial list of alternative placement areas, a field visit was conducted with Federal agency employees from the Corps and USFWS to solicit guidance and input for the DMMP. An iterative process for the selection of placement areas followed the site visit which enabled the agencies to provide on-going guidance, and resulted in the optimization of the initial list of alternative areas further minimizing negative environmental impacts to existing marsh habitat (in particular, with respect to the WVA). During this time, it was advised by the agencies J-7 that any beneficial use of dredge material should be placed only in deep open-water habitat (defined as water with a mean depth greater than 3.0 feet) or to be used as beach and dune nourishment along the West Belle Pass and Caminada headlands. This guidance rendered the majority of placement areas included in the initial list as not viable for the DMMP. Therefore, the initial list was revised to include the alternative placement areas closest to each dredge pump location with water deeper than 3.0 feet, and exclude those areas with water less than 3.0 feet. Additionally, the agencies requested the avoidance of dredged material placement on top of existing marsh habitat, which resulted in the removal of initial placement areas which would not be consistent with this request. As stated previously, the fill capacity volume on the headland was calculated from an adjusted version of the barrier island restoration project template developed for the 2017 Coastal Master Plan (Figure J-2); this template included a portion of back-barrier marsh creation which was removed from the barrier island headland placement areas in order to comply with USFWS guidance. As recommended by USFWS in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (DEIS Appendix D), coordination with the constructing agency of any coastal restoration projects near to the Project area should be done during the Project engineering and design phase to further minimize potential impacts to complete, near complete, and funded Federal and State projects. These projects are listed below. 1. West Belle Pass Headland Restoration TE-0023: completed 2. West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration TE-0052: completed 3. Breach Management Plan BA-0170: completed 4. West Fourchon Marsh Creation and Nourishment TE-0134: completed 5. Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration BA-0045: completed 6. Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration Increment 2 BA-0143: completed 7. Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation BA-0171: engineering and design 8. Caminada Headlands Back Barrier Marsh Creation Increment 2 BA-0193: engineering and design 4.4 Integration of Sediment Grain-Size Analysis for Placement Area Determinations An update to the list of alternative placement areas was made to incorporate the findings of the grain-size analyses of Project sediments. The sediments proposed for removal during Project construction had a relatively low quantity of sand; thus, deeming sediments unsuitable for placement on beach and dune habitat of the barrier island headland placement areas. Therefore, the barrier island headland placement areas were removed from the DMMP. Alternatively, the dredged sediments originally designed to for placement on the barrier headland areas were re- allocated to the shoreline nourishment areas. This nearshore nourishment was recommended by USFWS in order to provide sediment nourishment to the eroding shorelines of the West Belle Pass and Caminada Headlands, while not incurring any negative impacts upon the existing beach and J-8 dune habitat that is currently present on these headlands. Hence, the final placement areas would only include two types of beneficial use placement – marsh creation and shoreline nourishment. G. 4.5 Marsh Creation Fill Volume Calculations For each marsh creation placement areas, the existing topo-bathymetric digital elevation model (DEM) was used to calculate the created habitat footprint area. Initial elevation and land cover data were taken from data files generated in 2014 for use in the 2017 Coastal Master Plan (Couvillion, 2017). The fill elevation for the marsh habitat was assumed to be 4.0-ft North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88); this assumption was based on a compaction curve (Figure J-3) used for the nearby Caminada Headland Back-Barrier Marsh Creation Project (BA-171) under design for the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) (CPRA, 2016). The existing elevation value for each 98.4-foot raster pixel in the DEM was compared to an assumed design fill elevation. This vertical fill depth was then multiplied by the pixel area of 0.22-acres to calculate the required fill volume for each raster pixel. The fill volume pixels were then summed for each alternative placement area, resulting in a total fill volume capacity for each placement area. If the dredged sediment volume provided in the dredge plan was less than the total Figure J-3. Marsh Creation Fill and Compaction Curves Developed for CWPPRA BA-171 used for Project Fill Elevation Assumptions (note: the sea level rise assumption used for BA-171 does not reflect the sea level rise scenario assumed for this analysis). Source: CPRA, 2016 J-9 capacity of the corresponding placement area, then the filled area footprint was reduced to account for the limited amount of dredged sediment. For example, if a 100-acre placement area (Area A) could accommodate 100,000 cubic yards of dredged material, but only 80,000 cubic yards of material was dredged from Reach A (which was closest to Area A), then only 80-acres of marsh were assumed to be built at Area A. 4.6 Shoreline Nourishment Placement Areas Determinations The boundaries of the shoreline nourishment areas proposed for enlargement were determined based on the predicted movement of dredged material proposed for placement in these areas. The Sediment Mobility Tool (SMT) provided on the Corps public web domain was used to predict the migration of these sediments, and to determine the maximum depth of the seaward limit for the shoreline nourishment along the west Belle Pass and Caminada headlands. The SMT uses the following methods to characterize the general direction of sediment transport: “Snell’s Law transforms hindcast wave data (from Wave Information Studies [WIS]) to the nearshore site. The depth of closure, which is a specified depth along a beach profile where net sediment transport is very small or existent, is calculated using several commonly used empirical equations which are described by Brutsché et al. (2016). The frequency of sediment mobility is calculated using both linear and non-linear stream-function wave theories using procedures described by McFall et al. (2016). The cross-shore sediment migration is calculated using an empirical relationship described by Larson and Kraus (1992). The wave rose provides the axis of wave dominated transport at the nearshore site” (USACE, 2018). The multivariate results of the SMT are provided in AWWDFKPHQW of this report. The median sediment diameter (d50) input value (0.004 millimeters) is the average of the d50 values that were provided by the geotechnical surveys of the offshore sediments. Using this input value, sediment mobility trends were predicted using varying nearshore depths, from which a final depth of 13 feet was chosen as the maximum seaward limit for nearshore placement. The tool predicted that the sediment masses, primarily composed of silt and clay, would be mobilized onshore. Generally, heavier sediments not mobilized onshore would be available for longshore transport eastward of the Caminada shoreline nourishment areas (SLN_001E and SLN_002E) and westward of the west shoreline nourishment area (SLN_001W). To predict the direction and magnitude of longshore transport along the headlands, the regional longshore transport rates derived from historical records of shoreline erosion were studied. East of Belle Pass, longshore sediment transport is assumed to move from east to west, originating at a nodal point approximately five miles east of Belle Pass near Bayou Moreau. In this context, a nodal point is a shoreline location with zero net longshore transport, and indicates that there is contrasting (opposite) transport directions along its neighboring shorelines. Longshore transport rates are likely highest immediately west of the nodal point. The spatially-averaged longshore sediment transport rate from the nodal point to Belle Pass is likely on the order of 100,000 cubic J-10 yards per year (cy/yr) (Georgiou et al., 2005; CEC, Inc., 2012). East of the nodal point on the Caminada headland, longshore sediment transport travels from west to east. Based on predictions from a 2004 Corps study, longshore transport along the eastern headlands is on the order of 1,000,000 cy/yr. There is another nodal point approximately 1,000 to 2,000 feet west of Belle Pass. East of that point, longshore sediment transport travels east toward Belle Pass at a rate on the order of 10,000 cy/yr. West of that point, longshore sediment transport monotonically increases in rate with distance from Belle Pass, indicating pronounced shoreline erosion, and is on the order of 100,000 cy/yr as it reaches Raccoon Pass (Thomson et al., 2009). To ensure the transport and dispersion of dredged sediments along the littoral zone, sediments would be placed landward to the shore/beach area that experiences active sediment transport. Using the SMT, it was estimated that the seaward limit of the active littoral transport zone is around the 17-foot Gulf contour. Previous regional analyses suggest that waves begin to influence sediment transport at depths less than 5 feet for sand and at depths less than 20 feet for silts (CEC, Inc., 2012). Considering the typical beach profile of the Caminada headlands and a mean sea-level of 0.0 feet NAVD88 (a conservative estimate), the width of longshore sand transport would be on the order of 500 feet and the width of longshore silt transport on the order of 2,500 feet. To the west of Belle Pass, complex geomorphology due the presence of multiple barrier islands interspersed with significant deep passes makes it more difficult to predict the longshore sediment transport width. As a first order estimate, longshore sand transport would likely be transported along a 1,000-foot swath parallel the seaward face of the barrier islands while silt would be transported along a 3,000-foot swath. 5.0 RECOMMENDED DMMP As described in the preceding sections of this report, the development of the recommended DMMP (Figure J-4) was done in tandem with the consultation efforts of the Corps, USFWS, LDWF, and NMFS. The recommended DMMP avoids and minimizes potential impacts to threatened and endangered species, managed fishes, terrestrial and marine resources, and proximal restoration projects to the greatest extent possible. Construction of the TSP would occur over an estimated period of 4 years. Maintenance dredging would begin after new work construction, and assumes 50 years of Project implementation thereafter. Channel reaches would be dredged on cycles necessary to maintain the authorized depths and widths (see section 5.4 of this report). New work and maintenance dredged material would be fully utilized as beneficial use sediments, with dredged material placed in nearshore areas as shoreline nourishment in active feeder berms and in the proposed marsh creation areas. The DMMP requires the authorization of four new marsh creation areas and the extension of the existing shoreline nourishment areas along the west Belle Pass and Caminada headlands. The following dredged material quantities would be allocated to the proposed placement areas: 49,975,734 cubic yards for marsh creation and 36,426,198 cubic yards for shoreline nourishment. J-11 The pipeline corridors were optimized as a function of distance and dredging equipment costs, and designed to maximize avoidance of adverse wetland impact; which resulted in all but one pipeline segment of the corridors (estimated to impact 3.0 acres of wetland habitat) planned to float atop the water surface within existing waterways and the proposed placement areas. Figure J-4. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project – Proposed Marsh Creation and Shoreline Nourishment Areas for the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material In accordance with the Project CAR, during the Project engineering design phase, retention dikes required for the proposed marsh creation area, MC_002, should be designed and constructed to maintain water flows from Bayou Cochon and Bayou Moreau to the Plassiance Sanctuary and the J-12 non-Federal interest’s existing and required mitigation areas for future-without Project Port development. The existing mitigation areas are located north of Flotation Canal and the Maritime Forest Ridge. The adaptive management of these retention dikes would be a multivariate solution of the following parameters: site-specific sediment compaction properties, sea level rise, and subsidence. A retention dike degrading and gapping plan should be developed and implemented in coordination with resource agencies within three years of Project construction. Considering that Project fill elevation assumptions were made based on the fill and compaction curves developed for CWPPRA BA-171, placement area-specific geotechnical analyses should be conducted during engineering design to accurately parameterize compaction properties of the actual dredged sediments from this project. These updated compaction curves would then need to be used with updated bathymetric surveys, sea level rise rates, and subsidence assumptions to develop a final design elevation for the marsh creation projects. For this analysis, it was assumed that the highest fill elevation (4.0 feet) would be used in order to estimate a conservative (or minimum) area of created marsh from the beneficial use of dredged materials. If during the engineering design process, lower sea level rise or compaction rates are used, a larger amount of marsh creation area would be able to be built than calculated in this analysis. Additionally, the higher the assumed fill elevation, the longer the created marsh would remain functional before being overwhelmed by the higher rates of relative sea level rise in the future. Considering the results of the degrading and gapping plan of retention dikes, the dikes should be degraded once the marsh creation areas settle to a target elevation of 1.9 feet. Prior to construction, the non-Federal interest and/or the Corps must contact USFWS to ensure that new species have not been listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act, new critical habitat has not been designated, or that no new information has been gained that could change the determinations of the Project Biological Assessment (see Appendix B of the DEIS) and associated consultations. During Project construction and maintenance, the monitoring of environmental parameters of the placement areas should be conducted. See Appendix C of the DEIS for monitoring plan information. 5.1 Dredging Methods and Equipment Dredging and placement techniques would be similar to those the Corps has implemented previously in the Federal channels. A thirty inch hydraulic cutterhead suction dredging vessel would be used for sediment removal in all Project channels. This dredging method functions with a rotating cutterhead mounted on the end of the suction pipeline to dislodge sediments, and pump dredge slurries from the dredge vessel to the main trunkline pipeline. Thirty inch discharge pipelines powered by booster pumps would transfer the slurries from the trunkline pipeline to the proposed placement areas, thereby utilizing all Project dredged materials as beneficial-use sediments for marsh creation and shoreline nourishment. Other equipment which may be utilized during marsh creation events would be airboats, bucket dredges, marsh buggy excavators, supply J-13 barge, and marsh masters. Best management practices (BMPs), such as the use of silt curtains around the dredging location, employed by the contracted dredge operator may be implemented where appropriate to control and reduce turbidity during dredging and placement operations. 5.2 New Work Construction for Marsh Creation Areas and Pipeline Corridors The quantity of retention dikes estimated for marsh creation areas during Project construction is approximately 75,150 linear feet. The source material of earthen retention dikes constructed for marsh creation areas would be dredged from within the marsh creation areas. All but one segment of the designed pipeline corridors (estimated to impact 3.0 acres of wetland habitat) would be constructed within existing waterways and the proposed placement areas, and would float atop the water surface (see Figure J-4 for the pipeline design layout). Table J-4 details the size and depth statistics of each proposed marsh creation area (MC). The total area of marsh creation areas is approximately 4,717 acres. The total nearshore area of shoreline nourishment areas (SLN) is approximately 1,447 acres, with 982 acres along the east Caminada shoreline and 465 acres along the west Belle Pass shoreline. Table J-4. Size and Depth Statistics of New Marsh Creation Placement Areas Maximum Mean Standard Deviation of Site Name Size Water Depth (feet) Water Depth (feet) Water Depth (feet) MC_001 2,248 acres 8.54 4.44 0.81 MC_002 717 acres 5.20 4.05 0.51 MC_003 217 acres 4.63 3.69 0.75 MC_004 1,535 acres 5.53 4.45 0.56 5.3 Dredged Material Quantities The TSP would generate approximately 23.0 million cubic yards (MCY) of new work material from initial construction and 63.4 MCY of maintenance material. Table J-5. Source and Quantity (cubic yards) of Materials Dredged Material Source New Work Annual Maintenance Bayou Lafourche 861,634 151,313 Belle Pass 16,911,891 916,475 Fourchon Island Slip/Turning Basin 3,675,826 160,588 Flotation Canal 518,735 12,649 Slips A, B, and C 830,059 19,041 Deep Loading Hole 231,687 7,376 Total 23,029,832 1,267,442 Total Project Quantity1 86,401,932 1Total Project quantity includes total new work quantities and annual maintenance assumed for 50 years J-14 5.4 Timing and Duration of Placement Construction is forecasted to last approximately 4 years after Project authorization by the U.S. Congress. The duration of construction includes a 25 percent work day delay (including adverse weather conditions), and accounts for a total of 92 off days per year. Retention dikes are anticipated to be constructed at a rate of 600 linear feet per day. Pipeline relocations would be performed by pipeline owners and operators; permitting is not included in the Project dredging schedule. Tables J-6 and J-7 provide the estimated duration of the discharge of construction and maintenance dredged material. Maintenance dredging is forecasted to begin on the fourth project year, with the duration of maintenance events estimated to last a total of 96 days. The dredging cycles of the Project channels were derived from the predicted sedimentation rate, advanced maintenance depths, and additional depths for navigational safety specific to each channel segment. Channel segments with a higher sedimentation rate require more frequent dredging; and thus, shorter maintenance intervals (or cycles). Bayou Lafourche (sta. 0+00 to 130+00), Belle Pass (sta. 130+00 to 220+00), Fourchon Island Slip/turning basin, and the deep loading hole would be dredged every two years. Flotation Canal; Slips A, B, and C; and Belle Pass (sta. 330+00 to 589+93) would be dredged every five years. Belle Pass (sta. 220+00 to 330+00) would be dredged annually. Months specified for Belle Pass sta. 220+00 to 589+93 dredging events in Table J-6 were restricted to December and January to March based on the environmental sensitivity of threatened or endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); which resulted in the Table J-6. New Work Dredging Duration by Channel Reach Reach Duration1 Year Month(s) Retention dikes 157 days 1 January to June Pipeline Relocations 1,356 days 1-2 January to March of Year 2 Bayou Lafourche 27 days* 3 August to September Sta. 0+00 to 130+00 Flotation Channel 17 days 2 April to May Slips A, B, and C 26 days* 2 April Belle Pass 150 days* 2-3 November to April Sta. 130+00 to 220+00 Belle Pass December of Year 3, January to March of 192 days 3-4 Sta. 220+00 to 330+00 Year 4 Belle Pass 190 days 2-3 January to April, December to February Sta. 330+00 to 589+93 Fourchon Island 116 days 3 April to August Slip/Turning Basin Deep Loading Hole 8 days* 3 April 1All dredging durations assume a production rate of 40,000 cubic yards per day (2,000 cubic yards per hour) with two dredge crews each working 10 hours per day using a single hydraulic cutterhead dredge vessel, and 92 off days per year. *Dredging events which may overlap resultant of the determinations of seasonal environmental sensitivity of protected species under the ESA J-15 overlap of dredging events specified with an asterisk (*) and would require the use of more than one dredge at a given time. Project contingencies (including cost, scheduling and contracts) account for this type of impact to the dredging schedule. Table J-7. Maintenance Dredging Duration by Channel Reach Maintenance Reach Duration1 Interval (years) Retention dikes n/a 21 days Bayou Lafourche - sta. 0+00 to 130+00 2 10 days Flotation Channel 5 2 days Slips A, B, and C 5 3 days Belle Pass - sta. 130+00 to 220+00 2 12 days Belle Pass - sta. 220+00 to 330+00 1 15 days* Belle Pass - sta. 330+00 to 589+93 5 42 days* Fourchon Island Slip/Turning Basin 5 11 days Deep Loading Hole 5 1 day 1Maintenance dredging duration assumptions are the same as those for new work dredging (see Table #) *Dredging events for Belle Pass sta. 220+00 to 589+93 should be restricted to December to mid-April in order to avoid impacts to the following threatened and endangered species: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and west Indian manatee 5.5 New Work Placement The capacities of the proposed marsh creation areas to absorb sediments is provided in Table J-8. These areas would accommodate the total Project sediment quantities (minus shoreline nourishment quantities) for the assumed 50-year period of maintenance. Sediment placement in the shoreline nourishment areas would be within active feeder berms up to a maximum depth of 13 feet, with the distance seaward from the shoreline varying between 4,640 to 4,875 feet. Sediments placed in these areas during maintenance dredging events would allow for the regular replenishment of sediments back into the littoral system, available for cross shore and longshore sediment transport to the headlands. Table J-8. Quantity of New Work Dredged Material by Placement Area Construction Dredged Material Quantity (cubic yards) Year 1 0 0 0 553,373 0 2 0 6,038,721 0 795,421 3,345,858 3 882,995 0 0 0 9,266,844 4 0 0 2,146,620 0 0 Total 882,995 6,038,721 2,146,620 1,348,794 12,612,702 Placement SLN_001W SLN_002E SLN_001E MC_003 MC_001 Area J-16 5.6 Maintenance Material Beneficial Use Placement Maintenance dredged material quantities by reach and placement area are provided in Table J-9. Maintenance dredging would utilize the same placement areas as those constructed for new work material. The quantity of additional retention dikes for marsh creation areas estimated for Project maintenance is approximately 9,800 linear feet. Table J-9. Capacity of New Placement Areas and Maintenance Dredged Material Quantities Placement SLN_001W SLN_002E SLN_001E MC_004 MC_003 MC_002 MC_001 Area Capacity Open Open Open 19,945,653 2,614,613 8,815,022 32,042,844 (cy) Discharge Discharge Discharge Project Dredged Material Quantity (cy) Year 5 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 6 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 193,095 7 0 0 1,616,155 0 158,450 0 1,184,094 8 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 9 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 10 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 11 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 12 1,616,155 0 0 0 158,450 0 193,095 13 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 14 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 15 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 16 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 17 0 1,616,155 0 0 158,450 0 1,184,094 18 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 193,095 19 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 20 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 21 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 22 0 0 1,616,155 0 158,450 0 193,095 23 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 24 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 193,095 25 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 26 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 27 1,616,155 0 0 0 158,450 0 1,184,094 28 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 29 0 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 30 279,908 0 0 0 0 0 193,095 31 0 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 32 0 1,616,155 0 0 158,450 0 193,095 33 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 0 34 0 0 279,908 0 0 193,095 0 35 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 0 36 279,908 0 0 0 0 193,095 0 J-17 37 0 0 1,616,155 0 158,450 1,184,094 0 38 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 0 39 279,908 0 0 0 0 1,184,094 0 40 0 0 279,908 0 0 193,095 0 41 0 279,908 0 0 0 1,184,094 0 42 1,616,155 0 0 0 0 351,545 0 43 0 0 279,908 0 0 1,184,094 0 44 0 279,908 0 0 0 193,095 0 45 279,908 0 0 1,184,094 0 0 0 46 0 0 279,908 193,095 0 0 0 47 0 1,616,155 0 1,342,544 0 0 0 48 279,908 0 0 193,095 0 0 0 49 0 0 279,908 1,184,094 0 0 0 50 0 279,908 0 193,095 0 0 0 51 279,908 0 0 1,184,094 0 0 0 52 0 0 1,616,155 351,545 0 0 0 53 0 279,908 0 1,184,094 0 0 0 54 279,908 0 0 193,095 0 0 0 Total 8,767,177 8,767,177 9,823,516 7,202,845 1,109,150 8,421,584 19,280,646 Material Belle Pass Belle Pass Belle Pass Bayou Slips A, B, C Bayou Bayou Source 270+00 to end 270+00 to end 270+00 to Lafourche Flotation Lafourche Lafourche end Belle Pass Canal Belle Pass Belle Pass 130+00 to 130+00 to 130+00 to 270+00 270+00 270+00 Fourchon Fourchon Fourchon Island Island Island Turning Basin Turning Turning Basin Deep Hole Basin Deep Hole Slips A, B, C Deep Hole Slips A, B, C Flotation Slips A, B, C Flotation Canal Flotation Canal Canal 6.0 Summary of DMMP This DMMP requires the authorization of 4 new marsh creation placement areas and the expansion of the two existing shoreline nourishment areas utilized by the Corps under the current Federal project. The total footprint of new placement areas is approximately 6,164 acres. This plan was developed in coordination with the Corps, USFWS, LDWF, and NMFS to utilize all Project dredged material beneficially; and fully integrates the recommendations of the CAR from the agencies. The projected net environmental benefits of the proposed Project are largely positive, with only 3.0 acres of wetland impact estimated for mitigation. This DMMP should be implemented in tandem with the Monitoring Plan with Adaptive Management included in Appendix C of the DEIS. J-18 References: American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA), APTIM, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2018. National Beach Nourishment Database. Retrieved from https://gim2.aptim.com/ASBPANationwideRenourishment/. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. (CEC, Inc.), 2012. Caminada headland beach and dune restoration (ba-45) Final Design Report LDNR no. 2503-12-22 Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, 116 pages. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA). (2013). Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration: Overview. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. http://coastal.la.gov/project/caminada-headland-beach-and-dune- restoration/ ______. (2016). BA-171 Caminada Headland Back Barrier Marsh Creation Project - Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act PPL 23: 95% Design Report. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. ______. (2017). Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. http://coastal.la.gov/our- plan/2017-coastal-master-plan/ Couvillion, B. (2017). 2017 Coastal Master Plan Modeling: Attachment C3-27: Landscape Data. Version Final. (pp. 1-84). Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Attachment-C3- 27_FINAL_03.10.2017.pdf GeoEngineers. 2017. Desktop Geotechnical Evaluation and Phase 2 Scoping, Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. (Report prepared for GIS Engineering, LLC). ______. 2018. Geotechnical Engineering Services, Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Phase 2 Feasibility Study, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. (Report prepared for GIS Engineering, LLC). Thomson, G., Wycklendt, A., and Rees, M., 2009. West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration Project (TE-52) - 95% Design Report. Boca Raton, Florida: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 176p. (Report prepared for the Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration). USACE. (2018). Sediment Mobility Tool (SMT). Retrieved from http://navigation.usace.army.mil/SEM/SedimentMobility. J-19 White, E. (2018). Technical Memo to GIS Engineering: Port Fourchon Dredge Disposal Plan: Wetland Value Assessment Input Variable Methodology. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: The Water Institute of the Gulf. Yuill, B., Hoonshin, J., Meselhe, E., Baustain, M., Allison, M., and Jerabek, A. 2018. Technical Memo to GIS Engineering: Screening Alternatives of the Port Fourchon Channel Deepening Feasibility Project – Technical Memorandum. The Water Institute of the Gulf. J-20 $77$&+0(17 USACE Sediment Mobility Tool Characteristics of Shoreline Nourishment Placement Areas Sediment Mobility Tool http://navigation.usace.army.mil/SEM/SedimentMobility 8/13/2018 The Sediment Mobility Tool is a scoping level tool for siting nearshore placement areas of dredged material. The tool uses Snell’s Law to transform WIS hindcast wave data to the nearshore site. The depth of closure, which is a specified depth along a beach profile where net sediment transport is very small or nonexistent, is calculated using several commonly used empirical equations which are described by Brutsché et al. (2016). The frequency of sediment mobility is calculated using both linear and nonlinear stream-function wave theories using procedures described by McFall et al. (2016). The cross-shore sediment migration is calculated using an empirical relationship described by Larson and Kraus (1992). The wave rose provides the axis of wave dominated transport at the nearshore site. User Input: Shoreline Angle 60° Placement Site Latitude 29.11° N Placement Site Longitude -90.17° W WIS Station 73129 Years of WIS Data 1980- 2016 d50 0.004 mm Nearshore Placement Depth 13.00 ft Current 3 ft Above the Bed 0.33 ft/s Water Temperature 68.00 °F Water Salinity 35.00 psu ?! Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Wave Characteristics at Nearshore Placement Site: Wave Characteristics (1980- 2016) WIS Station 73129, 60° Shoreline Angle, Nearshore Placement Depth: 13.00 ft Hm0 (ft) 1.85 He (ft) 6.55 H0.1 (ft) 3.39 Standard Deviation σ 1.14 Tp (s) 4.01 Te (s) 5.89 Calculated Depth of Closure: Depth of Closure ( 1980 - 2016 ) WIS Station 73129, 60° Shoreline Angle, Nearshore Placement Depth: 13.00 ft Hallermeier Inner (ft) 12.31 Hallermeier Inner Simplified (ft) 16.26 Hallermeier Outer (ft) 134.27 Birkemeier (ft) 9.24 Birkemeier Simplified(ft) 10.29 Frequency of Sediment Mobility: Histogram of the calculated maximum bed shear stress using linear theory. The critical bed shear stress for the several grain sizes is shown with the respective vertical dashed lines. N is the number of waves from the years 1990 - 2000 in each shear stress bin. Values to the right of the vertical dashed lines mobilize the sediment. The frequency of sediment mobility and the mean mobility index is noted in the legend. Histogram of the maximum near-bottom velocity using nonlinear stream function wave theory. The critical velocity for the respective median grain sizes are noted with the vertical dashed lines. Cross-shore Sediment Migration: Sediment Migration ( 1980- 2016) WIS Station 73129, 60° Shoreline Angle, Nearshore Placement Depth: 13.00 ft d50 Predicted Sediment Migration 0.004(mm) 80% onshore 0.1 (mm) 88% onshore 0.2 (mm) 100% onshore 0.3 (mm) 100% onshore 0.4 (mm) 100% onshore 0.5 (mm) 100% onshore Cross-shore sediment migration direction for various sediment sizes using the Dean Number and an empirical relationship described by Larson and Kraus (1992). Wave Rose at Nearshore Placement Site: References: Brutsché, K. E., J. Rosati III, C. E. Pollock, and B. C. McFall. 2016. Calculating depth of closure using WIS hindcast data. ERDC/CHL CHETN-VI-45. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Larson, M. and Kraus, N. C. 1992. Analysis of cross-shore movement of natural longshore bars and material placed to create longshore bars. Technical Report DRP-92-5. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. McFall, B. C., S. J. Smith, C. E. Pollock, J. Rosati, III, and K. E. Brutsché. 2016. Evaluating sediment mobility for siting nearshore berms. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-108. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX K COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS August 2018 1 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The proposed project’s compliance with the environmental laws, executive orders, and regulations are discussed here. The DEIS has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of all applicable environmental laws and regulations and has been prepared using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 1500–1508) and the USACE’s regulation ER 200-2-2 - Environmental Quality: Policy and Procedures for Implementing NEPA, 33 CFR 230. In implementing the TSP, the Corps would follow provisions of all applicable laws, regulations, and policies related to the proposed actions. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), including all appendices and studies, fulfill all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act for the GLPC. 1. Clean Air Act Lafourche Parish and the vicinity of Port Fourchon is currently designated as in attainment or unclassifiable with National Ambient Air Quality Standards, therefore a General Conformity Determination is not required. Impacts of the TSP on air quality have been evaluated. It is expected that air contaminant emissions from construction and maintenance dredging activities would result in short-term impacts on air quality in the immediate vicinity of the dredging site. Measures to reduce emissions from dredging activities would be included in USACE contracts. 2. Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) apply to the TSP and compliance would be achieved. Section 404 of the CWA regulates dredge-and/or-fill activities in waters of the U.S. In Texas, Section 401 of the CWA (State Water Quality Certification Program) is regulated by the LDEQ. Compliance will be achieved through coordination of this draft report with LDEQ to obtain water quality certification for the project. Coordination includes an evaluation of the project based on the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines as presented in Appendix F. New work and maintenance sediments are suitable for placement in the selected marsh creation sites and to be used for shoreline nourishment locations. The USACE will be coordinating with LDEQ and request a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the LDEQ, and we anticipate no issues that would prevent certification. 3. Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act This Act requires a determination that dredged material placement in the ocean would not reasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, and amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potential of shellfish beds, fisheries, or recreational areas. There is no ODMDS related to this project. There are no approved ODMDS sites in the vicinity of this project. A white paper has been prepared and discussed in this report. 2 4. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Interagency consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] has been undertaken. A draft Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared describing the study area, federally listed threatened and endangered species of potential occurrence in the study area as identified by the NMFS and USFWS, and potential impacts of the TSP on these protected species (EIS- Appendix B). The Draft BA was submitted to NMFS and USFWS for review. USFWS has reviewed the assessment of impacts to species under their jurisdiction and provided conservation recommendations. The agency has determined that the TSP may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the concerned species. To provide better protection for these species, the GLPC (The Non Federal Interest) has agreed to adopt USFWS conservation recommendations (EIS- Appendix D). 5. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (PL 94-265), as amended, establishes procedures for identifying EFH and requires interagency coordination to further the conservation of federally managed fisheries. EFH consists of those habitats necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity of species managed by Regional Fishery Management Councils in a series of Fishery Management Plans. The EFH Assessment (EIS- Appendix G) has been submitted to NMFS to initiate EFH consultation. The Non-Federal Interest anticipates minor and temporary impacts to benthic organisms during dredging and marsh creation, but no significant or long-term effects. 6. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires identification of all historic properties in the project area and development of mitigation measures for those adversely affected in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. It has been determined, in consultation with the Louisiana SHPO, that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed undertaking. Additionally, the USACE would execute a Programmatic Agreement among the USACE, the Louisiana SHPO, and the POB to address the discovery of cultural resources that may occur during the construction and maintenance of the proposed channel improvements. 7. Coastal Zone Management Act Under the Louisiana Coastal Management Program, enacted under the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972, the LDNR reviews Federal activities to determine whether they are consistent with the policies. The Non Federal Interest is in the process of preparing a Consistency Determination that evaluates the TSP for consistency with the LDNR’s program. This document will be submitted to LDNR. 3 8. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides for consultation with the USFWS. The Coordination Act Report (CAR) is being prepared by the USFWS. At this time, USFWS provided recommendations and are included in EIS-Appendix D. The CAR is expected to recognize that the TSP avoids significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources, including federally listed, threatened and endangered species. 9. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972 and amended through 1997. It is intended to conserve and protect marine mammals and establish the Marine Mammal Commission, the International Dolphin Conservation Program, and a Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. The TSP is not expected to impact any marine mammals. 10. Federal Water Project Recreation Act This 1995 Act requires consideration of opportunities for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement in planning water-resource projects. The TSP is not expected to have any long-term effects on outdoor recreation opportunities in the area. 11. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (CBRA) EIS-Appendix D consists of CBRA consultations with USFWS. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) encourages the conservation of hurricane prone and biologically rich coastal barriers. As per this Act, no new expenditures or financial assistance may be made available. However, the appropriate Federal officer, after consultations with the USFWS, may make Federal expenditures and financial assistance available. USFWS assigned the following general exception (16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(2) to the proposed TSP and it states, “The maintenance or construction of improvements of existing Federal navigation channels (including the Intracoastal Waterway) and related structures (such as jetties), including the disposal of dredge materials related to such maintenance or construction. A Federal navigation channel or a related structure is an existing channel or structure, respectively, if it was authorized before the date on which the relevant System unit or portion of the System Unit was included within the CBRS.” In addition, USFWS assigned the following specific exception (16 U.S.C 3505(a)(6)(A), which states that, “Projects for the study, management, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats, including acquisition of fish and wildlife habitats, and related lands, stabilization projects for fish and wildlife habitats, and recreational projects.” Justification for exceptions are stated by USFWS is as follows: 4 “Justification for Exception(s) Briefly explain how the proposed action or project meets the exception(s) under the CBRA identified above. If the exception(s) cited above is under 16 U.S.C 3505(a)(6), the justification should also include an explanation of how the proposed action or project is consistent with the three purposes of the CBRA, which are to minimize: (1) the loss of human life; (2) wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues; and (3) damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with the coastal barriers by restricting Federal expenditures and financial assistance which have the effect of encouraging development.” By implementing the TSP, there no impacts related to the CBRA. 12. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 and the CEQ Memorandum Prime and Unique Farmlands In 1980, the CEQ issued an Environmental Statement Memorandum “Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands” as a supplement to the NEPA procedures. Additionally, the Farmland Protection Policy Act was passed in 1981, requiring consideration of those soils that the U.S. Department of Agricultural defines as best suited for food, forage, fiber, and oilseed production, with the highest yield relative to the lowest expenditure of energy and economic resources. No new lands would be impacted by construction of the TSP, and therefore there is no potential for impacts to prime or unique farmlands. 13. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management The Executive Order (EO) d11988 directs federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of proposed actions on floodplains. Such actions should not be undertaken that directly or indirectly induce growth in the floodplain unless there is no practicable alternative. There is no floodplain impacts anticipated by implementing the TSP. 14. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands This EO directs federal agencies to avoid undertaking or assisting in new construction located in wetlands, unless no practicable alternative is available. The TSP impacts three acres of unavoidable wetlands. This impact is insignificant compared to thousands of wetlands that will be created by the TSP. The three acres of wetland loss has been determined to be unavoidable. However, adequate mitigation will be achieved for the impacts. 15. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice This EO directs federal agencies to determine whether the TSP would have a disproportionately adverse impact on minority or low-income population groups within the project area. An evaluation of potential Environmental Justice (EJ) impacts is being conducted, and the TSP is not expected to affect any low-income or minority populations since the project area does not have minority or low income population groups. 5 16. Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Birds and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (as amended) extends federal protection to migratory bird species. Among other activities, nonregulated “take” of migratory birds is prohibited under this Act in a manner similar to the ESA prohibition of “take” of threatened and endangered species. Additionally, EO 13186 “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” requires Federal activities to assess and consider potential effects of their actions on migratory birds (including, but not limited to, cranes, ducks, geese, shorebirds, hawks, and songbirds). The effect of the TSP on migratory bird species has been assessed, and no impacts are expected to migratory birds or their habitat in the project area. Construction contracts would include instructions to avoid impacts to migratory birds and their nests from construction-related activities. 17. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental and Safety Risks This EO requires federal agencies to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and to ensure that policies, programs, activities, and standards address these risks. This report has evaluated the potential for the TSP to increase these risks to children, and it has been determined that children in the project area would not likely experience any adverse effects from the proposed project. 18. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species This Executive Order was issued to ensure that Federal programs and activities prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Based on analyses conducted during the PORT FOURCHON FEASIBILITY STUDY, implementation of the project would not increase the potential for entry of invasive species into Port Fourchon. 19. Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment As discussed in more detail, above, the GLPC evaluated the potential for adverse impacts to archaeological and historic resources. The project would comply with that agreement. Pursuant to the conditions and restrictions of the revised executed Agreement, the proposed action is in compliance with Executive Order 11593. 20. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. RCRA controls the management and disposal of hazardous waste. Dredged material from Corps civil works projects is excluded from the definition of hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4(g), 33 CFR 336.1 and 33 CFR 336.2. 6 21. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. CERCLA governs the liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous substance disposal sites. As discussed, Hazardous and Toxic Wastes, Assessment section, none of the sediments that would be excavated or dredged during the project would be considered a hazardous substance under CERCLA or addressed under that law. 7