Final Environmental Assessment Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration Ba-173

Home , Bayou

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

BAYOU GRANDE CHENIERE MARSH AND RIDGE RESTORATION BA-173

PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE

LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA

June 2017

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

BAYOU GRANDE CHENIERE MARSH AND RIDGE RESTORATION BA-173

PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA

June 2017

Preparer: Angela Trahan Fish and Wildlife Biologist

Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Office 646 Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400 Lafayette, Louisiana 70506

Phone: (337) 291-3100 Fax: (337) 291-3139

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1 SECTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 SECTION 1.2 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3 SECTION 1.3 PROBLEM ...... 4 SECTION 1.4 REQUIRED DECISIONS ...... 4 SECTION 1.5 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION ...... 5 SECTION 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 6 SECTION 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION...... 6 SECTION 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 6 SECTION 2.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 10 SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 10 SECTION 3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 10 A. Hydrology ...... 10 B. Water Quality ...... 11 SECTION 3.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 12 A. Vegetation ...... 12 B. Fisheries ...... 12 C. Essential Fish Habitat ...... 12 D. Wildlife ...... 13 E. Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 14 F. Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...... 15 SECTION 3.3 CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ...... 15 SECTION 3.4 ECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 15 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 16 SECTION 4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION...... 17 A. Physical Environment ...... 17 Hydrology ...... 17 Water Quality ...... 17 B. Biological Environment ...... 17 Vegetation ...... 17 Fisheries ...... 17 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 17 Wildlife ...... 18 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 18 C. Cultural and Recreational Resources ...... 18 D. Economic Resources ...... 18 SECTION 4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 19 A. Physical Environment ...... 19 Hydrology ...... 19 Water Quality ...... 19 B. Biological Environment ...... 19 Vegetation ...... 19 Fisheries ...... 20 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 20 Wildlife ...... 21 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 22 C. Cultural and Recreational Resources ...... 23 D. Economic Resources ...... 23 SECTION 5.0 RATIONALE FOR SELECTING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 24 SECTION 6.0 COMPATIBILITY WITH CWPPRA AND COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES ...... 27 SECTION 7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ...... 27 SECTION 8.0 PREPARER ...... 28 SECTION 9.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 28

Appendix A – Detailed Illustrations of Project Features…………………………….…………..A Appendix B – Agency Comments Received ………………….…………………….…………...B

FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location within the Barataria Basin………….…………………….…………. 2 Figure 2. Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration Project Features….……….….3 Figure 3. Region 2 Mapping Unit Boundaries…………………….……………….….………… 5 Figure 4. Marsh Elevation Settlement Curves………………...………………………………… 7 Figure 5. Typical Earthen Ridge Section………………………………………………………… 8 Figure 6. Typical Earthen Terrace Section………………………………………………………. 9 Figure 7. Historic Aerial Imagery (1945) of the Bayou Grande Cheniere Ridge………………25

TABLES

Table 1. Evaluation of Water Quality …………………………………………………. .11 Table 2. EFH Requirements for Managed Species that Occur in the Project Area…….. 13 Table 3. Marsh Creation Projects Constructed/Authorized under CWPPRA…….…...... 25 Table 4. Ridge Restoration Projects Constructed/Authorized under CWPPRA...... 26

BAYOU GRANDE CHENIERE MARSH AND RIDGE RESTORATION CWPPRA Project BA-173 Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

SECTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION

Louisiana accounts for 90 percent (%) of the coastal marsh loss in the lower 48 states (Dahl 2000). The most recent assessment of coastal land loss in Louisiana indicates an annual loss rate of approximately 16.6 square miles per year from 1985 to 2010 (Couvillion et al. 2011). Previous assessments indicated loss rates from approximately 25 square miles per year (Dunbar et al. 1992) to 35 square miles per year (Barras et al. 1994), and statewide coastal wetland loss is projected to be over 10 square miles per year from 2000 to 2050 (Barras et al. 2003). Causes of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands loss include sea level rise, subsidence, sediment deprivation, canalization, saltwater intrusion, and altered hydrology (Turner and Cahoon 1987, Turner 1990). The wetland loss resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone is estimated to be 198 square miles (Barras et al. 2008).

Concern over Louisiana’s coastal wetland loss prompted President George Bush to sign into law the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in 1990. CWPPRA provides over $80 million per year for planning, design and construction of coastal restoration projects in Louisiana. Each year, a list of projects is selected for implementation and funds are approved for engineering and design. That annual list is referred to as the Priority Project List (PPL), and the Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration Project was funded as part of the 23rd PPL.

In 1998, the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force (Task Force) and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority (WCRA) developed the Coast 2050 Plan which serves as the official restoration plan for coastal Louisiana (Task Force and WCRA 1998a). The Coast 2050 Plan divided the Louisiana coastal zone into four regions encompassing nine hydrologic basins, and restoration strategies were developed for each region. Each basin was also divided into mapping units for which additional strategies were developed. The Coast 2050 Plan would be implemented using a number of different funding sources including the CWPPRA, the Water Resources Development Act, and the State’s Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Fund. The current State Master Plan, developed to build upon and enhance the Coast 2050 Plan, was approved by the Louisiana Legislature on June 2, 2017, and includes the project area as a restoration feature. Further, restoring brackish marshes in the Barataria Basin of the Mississippi River Delta is a conservation strategy identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed (2013). The Service understands that conserving habitat and maintaining functioning landscapes not only benefits fish and wildlife, it also benefits our society in the form of ecosystem services that support healthy and resilient communities and economies. The need for fresh water, storm protection, flood attenuation, climate change adaptation and mitigation, environmental

education, fishing, hunting and other outdoor recreation, as well as other natural services are shared across communities and are essential for long term resiliency

The Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration Project is located within Region 2, which encompasses the Barataria Basin, Breton Sound Basin, and Mississippi River Delta Basin. The project area is located in the eastern Barataria Basin, which is bounded by the Mississippi River on the east and Bayou Lafourche on the west (Figure 1). Wetlands in the upper part of the basin include swamp around Lake Des Allemands, fresh marsh around Lake Salvador, and isolated stands of bottomland hardwoods along relict distributary ridges such as Bayou Barataria. Intermediate marsh is encountered south of Lake Salvador, and extends southward to the northern shoreline of Little Lake where brackish marsh becomes the dominant marsh type. Toward the northern edge of Barataria Bay, those marshes grade into saline marsh. A chain of barrier islands and barrier headlands separates the Barataria Basin from the Gulf of Mexico.

The project area is located south of Lake Hermitage in the eastern Barataria Basin. The Jefferson Lake Canal forms the northern boundary while Bayou Grande Cheniere forms the western boundary (Figure 2).

SECTION 1.2 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the proposed project is to create emergent wetlands by hydraulically dredging sediments from the Mississippi River, and depositing that material in shallow open-water areas. In addition, Mississippi River sediments will be used to restore portions of Bayou Grande Cheniere, and terraces will be constructed to reduce wave fetch within a large open water area to the east of the marsh creation. The project area has experienced tremendous loss of emergent wetlands. Land-water data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates a 1984-to-2011 loss rate of -1.65 % per year (Service 2016). The causes of marsh loss appear to be primarily from subsidence and erosion from wind-generated waves. The need to address coastal Louisiana’s severe wetland loss has been identified in numerous restoration plans, programs, and State and Federal laws; implementation of the proposed project would help to fulfill that need.

Figure 2. Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration Project Features.

The primary objectives of the Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration Project are to: 1) restore 302 acres of marsh habitat adjacent to the eastern shoreline of Bayou Grande Cheniere, 2) construct the marsh platform to an elevation that supports healthy marsh, 3) reestablish 10,625 linear feet the historic Bayou Grande Cheniere ridge to an elevation that supports healthy woody vegetation, 4) establish the ridge with diverse native woody species, and 5) construct 12,000 linear feet of terraces to an elevation that will support healthy marsh.

SECTION 1.3 PROBLEM

Historically, wetlands in the Barataria Basin were nourished by the fresh water, sediments, and nutrients delivered via overbank flooding of the Mississippi River and through its many distributary channels such as Bayou Lafourche, Bayou Barataria, and Bayou Grande Cheniere. As the flow of fresh water and sediments from the Mississippi River was restricted by flood protection levees and the closure of Bayou Lafourche, the basin began to gradually deteriorate from saltwater intrusion, subsidence, wave action, and sediment deprivation. From 1956 to 1990, the basin lost over 220,000 acres of marsh (Reed 1995) and from 1978 to 1990 it experienced the highest rate of wetland loss along the entire Louisiana coast (Barras et al. 2003).

The Coast 2050 Region 2 Plan divides the Barataria Basin into 21 mapping units or sub-basins. The project area is located within the West Pointe a la Hache mapping unit (Figure 3), which contains approximately 19,000 acres of marsh and open water habitats (Task Force and WCRA 1998b). Within the West Pointe a la Hache mapping unit, over 5,000 acres of wetlands were lost from 1932 to 1990. The primary causes of that loss were altered hydrology from canal dredging and subsidence. The rate of subsidence within this unit is high and ranges from 2.1 to 3.5 feet per century (Task Force and WCRA 1998b).

The project area has experienced tremendous loss of emergent wetlands since 1956. Land-water data from the USGS indicates that over 1,100 acres of land were lost within a 3,095-acre extended project area from 1984-2011. The annual loss rate during that time period was over - 1.2 % per year. The causes of marsh loss appear to be primarily from subsidence, altered hydrology, and shoreline erosion from wind-generated waves. Implementing this proposed project would create and protect important wetland habitat in that mapping unit and the mid- Barataria Basin. By offsetting the loss of emergent marsh and creating new marsh, fish and wildlife habitat quality and detrital production would increase.

SECTION 1.4 REQUIRED DECISIONS

The decision to implement the Preferred Alternative will be made only after a thorough public review and full consideration of all comments. Opportunities for public comment occurred at public meetings conducted during the project development and selection stages of the CWPPRA planning process. Opportunity for public comment was provided through review of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) which was sent to the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and other interested parties. The Service has determined that additional environmental documentation (e.g., Environmental Impact Statement) is not warranted based on comments

received.

SECTION 1.5 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

Planning, engineering and design of this project was coordinated with all Task Force agencies, Plaquemines Parish, and other natural resource agencies. This project was nominated and selected as part of the 23rd PPL of CWPPRA. Projects on the 23rd PPL were nominated and developed at a series of public meetings held in February of 2013. Meeting participants included the Task Force agencies, members of the CWPPRA Academic Advisory Group, landowners, environmental groups, Parish officials, and members of the general public. Of the 49 project proposals and demonstration project proposals, 18 projects and 3 demonstration projects were nominated by CWPPRA agencies and qualifying Parish representatives via electronic vote on February 19, 2013. Ten candidate projects were selected from the list of nominees at the Technical Committee meeting held on April 16, 2013. These 23rd PPL candidate projects were evaluated to determine the long-term net wetlands benefits based on a 20-year project life. Benefits were measured in both net acres and net Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs). The candidate projects were also evaluated to determine conceptual project designs and cost

estimates. Economic analyses were conducted to determine the total fully funded cost estimate for feasibility planning, construction, and 20 years of operations and maintenance. Cost effectiveness was calculated for each project using the fully funded cost estimate and net wetland benefits over the 20 year project life. Details concerning the plan formulation process for the 23rd PPL and the CWPPRA Standard Operating Procedures Manual is available at http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/program/CWPPRASOPVersion24FINAL.pdf>. An engineering and design review meeting was held on May 3, 2016, and a final design review meeting was held on September 20, 2016. All Task Force agencies are invited to attend design review meetings. Support for the project has been expressed by all entities involved.

SECTION 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

SECTION 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION

Under this alternative, no action would be taken to restore the Bayou Grande Cheniere ridge or create marsh within the project area. Subsidence and interior marsh loss would continue to occur resulting in a decline in fish and wildlife productivity.

SECTION 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Project design information included within this section is taken from the Final (95%) Design Report prepared by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA 2016). Figure 2 displays the project features and detailed drawings of all project features are found in Appendix A.

The Preferred Alternative consists of hydraulically dredging bottom sediments in the Mississippi River and pumping that material into open-water and fragmented marsh areas in the project area to create approximately 302 acres of marsh in two marsh creation cells. Containment dikes will be constructed around the fill sites to contain the dredged material slurry. Hydraulically-dredged river sediments will be used to restore 10,625 linear feet of the Bayou Grande Cheniere Ridge. In addition, 12,000 linear feet of earthen terraces will be constructed from in situ borrow material resulting in the creation of approximately 10 acres of wetlands.

Marsh Creation

Two marsh creation sites, a 118-acre northern cell and a 184-acre southern cell, will be filled with hydraulically dredged material from the Mississippi River. To determine target elevations for the fill sites, marsh elevation surveys were performed. Surveys revealed that the average existing marsh elevation is +0.6 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88, Geoid 12A). The mean high water (MHW) elevation for the project area was calculated at +0.65 feet and mean low water (MLW) at +0.30 feet. Therefore, existing healthy marshes within the project area predominantly fall within the upper limits of the mean tidal range. Often, a goal of marsh restoration projects is for the marsh platform to settle to an elevation within the intertidal zone so

that the created marsh functions similarly to natural marsh. However, the Service and CPRA project team agreed that the most important design criteria was for the created marsh to be constructed close to the existing healthy marsh elevation and selected the 80th percentile of healthy marsh elevations (i.e., +0.75 feet) at target year (TY) 20 as the target design elevation. To achieve a sustainable marsh elevation throughout the project life, the marsh platform will be pumped to a higher elevation during construction and allowed to settle to the desired target elevation over time. Brackish marsh, like that in the BA-173 project area, is most productive when inundated between 10% and 65% of the time (Visser 2003). These targeted elevations for the marsh platform result in the marsh being within the most productive inundation frequencies for a majority of the project life.

Eustis Engineering Services, L.L.C. was tasked to perform consolidation settlement calculations so as to meet a constructed marsh elevation of +0.75 feet at TY 20. The marsh fill consolidation curve indicates that a target fill elevation of +3.0 feet would ultimately settle to an approximate elevation of just under +0.75 feet NAVD88 (Geoid 12A) at TY20. A half foot tolerance will be accepted in the positive direction. Therefore, the contractor could potentially fill the marsh creation cell to +3.5 feet. This fill elevation will provide a viable marsh for the majority of the 20 year project life as it remains within a healthy inundation level (Figure 4).

Containment dikes will be built to +4.0 feet with a 5-foot crown width and 1(V):4(H) side slopes. A side slope of 1V:5H is recommended for the eastern portion of the north cell containment dike in order to maintain adequate stability due to the variation in subsoil conditions and deeper bottom elevations. Containment dikes will be constructed with a bucket dredge using in situ material from within each fill site and the borrow area will be filled with hydraulically dredged material. It is anticipated that the containment dikes will subside and breach naturally to allow tidal connectivity and prevent ponding. Should gaps not form naturally, containment dikes will be mechanically constructed no later than 3 years post construction.

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50 Target Fill Height 3.5 ft + 2.00 subsidence 1% (SLR only) 1.50

1.00 10% (SLR only) 0.50

0.00 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038

Figure 4. Marsh Elevation Settlement Curves

Ridge Restoration An earthen ridge will be constructed with hydraulically dredged material from the Mississippi River. Eustis Engineering Services, L.L.C. (2015) performed settlement and slope stability analyses for the design of the ridge that will contain the western edge of the marsh creation cells. A target elevation of 4.5 feet at TY5 was chosen based on 80th percentile of existing ridge elevation surveys. Based on this elevation, Eustis determined that a construction elevation of +7.0 feet, a side slope of 1V:8H, and a 25-foot crown width will be required in order to maintain adequate stability (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Typical Earthen Ridge Section

The ridge alignment was based on the existing Bayou Grande Chenier Ridge. In order to avoid negatively impacting the existing marsh and vegetation, the BA-173 ridge will be constructed on the eastern side of existing marsh fringe. The total fill volume necessary to construct the earthen ridge is 230,906 cubic yards (CY) based on the above design parameters and a cut to fill ratio of 1.5.

Terraces Each terrace segment will be approximately 450 feet long and built to an elevation of +3.0 feet, with a 0.5 foot construction tolerance, with a 25-foot crown width and 1(V):4(H) side slopes (Figure 6). The terraces will be constructed with a bucket dredge using in situ material from within the terrace field.

It is anticipated that several lifts will be required to obtain the desired elevation of +3.0 feet. The terrace slopes will be planted with three rows (17,000 plugs) of smooth cordgrass, on 2.5-ft centers. The perimeter of the terrace crowns will be planted with one row (4,000 four-inch containers) of seashore paspalum on 5-ft centers.

Borrow Site The identified borrow area will be the same Point Celeste Borrow Area that was used to construct the Lake Hermitage Marsh Creation (BA-42) project. Point Celeste is located between

Mississippi River miles (RM) 49.5 and 52. This stretch of the river is located near the marsh fill site and the depths are shallow enough to be reached using a large hydraulic dredge. This borrow site contains sufficient sediment for the marsh fill sites and ridge construction. The BA-42 post- construction surveys show that over six million cubic yards remain in the borrow area as of June 2015. In addition, the borrow area is expected to infill, meaning even more volume will be available by the time the BA-173 project could go to construction. The maximum depth of cut in the borrow area was permitted for the BA-42 project at -90.8 feet NAVD 88 (Geoid 12A). The maximum expected volume to be dredged from the river to create the BA-173 project was estimated to be 4,415,115 CY under the Phase 0 preliminary design which included a larger marsh creation footprint.

Figure 6: Typical Earthen Terrace Section

During development of the BA-42 project it was determined that the proposed borrow site meets the following restrictions required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE):

• All excavations must be at least 750 feet from any protection levee centerline; • Borrow sites must be outside the USACE maintained navigation channel; • Excavation in the river must not be made less than 4,000 feet upstream of a bridge crossing; • The side slopes of the borrow site must be no steeper than 1(V):5(H); and • The excavation must proceed from landside to riverside limits to minimize the possibility of overburden failure of the bank.

Additionally, areas near or adjacent to concrete revetment mats will be avoided. The western boundary of the borrow site is delineated by a 750 foot offset from the centerline of the Mississippi River levee. In this stretch of river, the navigation channel is located near the eastern bank, delineating the eastern boundary of the borrow site. Although the magnetometer surveys

for the BA-42 project indicated the borrow site is free of known pipelines, the contractor will be required to perform a magnetometer survey prior to excavation.

Dredge pipeline crossing The dredge slurry discharge pipeline will cross the Mississippi River levee near the West Pointe a la Hache Siphons on Plaquemines Parish property. A suitable levee crossing shall be built as per USACE’s requirements. A casing will be installed underneath Highway 23 in accordance with all Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development specifications if not already provided as a result of the recently constructed BA-42 project. From Highway 23, the pipeline will be placed on Plaquemines Parish property until it reaches the Jefferson Lake Canal. It will then run parallel with the Jefferson Lake Canal to the project area.

Access Dredging The equipment access route from Barataria Pass to Jefferson Lake Canal was surveyed as part of the engineering design process. Bathymetric surveys revealed portions of the route may have insufficient depths for equipment with greater than four to five feet of draft. Equipment access dredging may be needed to transport the necessary equipment to the project area. Pre- construction surveys will determine where access dredging is required and will be determined by the contractor depending on equipment and required draft. Any dredging done along this access route will be pre-approved by the engineer. At this stage of the design process the areas that have less than six feet of draft have been outlined as potentially requiring dredging. Approximately 13,000 feet of the access route have insufficient depth, which could result in an estimated 73,185 CY of dredged material which will be placed as temporary spoil and backfilled upon the completion of the project. The entire access route will be permitted for dredging.

SECTION 2.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Early design phases included a larger marsh creation footprint (40 additional acres) and did not include terraces. After further evaluations the eastern side of the northern marsh creation cell was brought westward to avoid deeper bottom elevations and more organic-peat based sub-soils. Terraces were incorporated into the design as a low cost option to providing estuarine marsh benefits. The terraces were located within a large open water area to reduce wave fetch and provide additional benefits to surrounding marsh. There may be indirect benefits associated with sediment accumulation within the terrace field due to its location adjacent to the Jefferson Lake Canal.

SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

SECTION 3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

A. Hydrology The project area is located within an inter-distributary basin between the Mississippi River and Bayou Grande Cheniere. Grand Bayou, another distributary of the Mississippi River, is also found within this basin and is an important tidal connection to the south. Tidal exchange also occurs through Bayou Hermitage located on the western side of Lake Hermitage north of the project area and through oil and gas canals which dissect the Bayou Grande Cheniere ridge. Of those canals, Jefferson Lake Canal is located along the northern boundary of the project area, and

was created between 1948 and 1962 to provide access between Grand Bayou to the west and LA Highway 23 by oil field and sulfur mine operators to transport materials and equipment by water. That canal is still used for access but also facilitates freshwater inputs distributed by the West Pointe a la Hache siphons (maximum flow of 2,000 cubic feet per second), small forced drainage pump stations, and rainfall.

B. Water Quality

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) manages water quality under two broad areas of surface water and groundwater. Surface water management seeks to protect the quality of all waters of the state, including rivers, streams, bayous, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, estuaries, and many other types of surface water. LDEQ publishes a biennial Integrated Report (IR) of the status of Louisiana waters. The IR is made up of what was once called the Clean Water Act (CWA) 305(b) Water Quality Inventory Report and the 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies (LDEQ 2016).

The Louisiana Water Quality Standards define eight designated uses for surface waters: primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, drinking water supply, shellfish propagation, agriculture, outstanding natural resource, and limited aquatic and wildlife use. Each water body is evaluated as fully supporting, partially supporting, or not supporting of each of its designated use(s). Water quality assessments for the project area associated sub-segment (# LA020907) and for the Wilkinson Canal and Wilkinson Bayou subsegment, west of the project area, are presented in Table 1. Both waterbody sub-segments are listed as fully supporting their designated uses.

Table 1. Evaluation of water quality (LDEQ 2016). Primary Secondary Fish and Water Body Water Body Name and Contact Contact Wildlife Subsegment Code Description Recreation Recreation Propagation Wilkinson Canal and Fully Fully Fully LA020904 Wilkinson Bayou Supporting Supporting Supporting Bay Sansbois, Lake Judge Fully Fully Fully LA020907 Perez, and Bay De La Supporting Supporting Supporting Cheniere (Estuarine)

Hazardous Waste Sites (CERCLIS) No identified hazardous waste sites reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the National Priorities List are located within 20 miles of the proposed borrow area per EPA’s National Priorities List website as of August 23, 2016.

A Risk Evaluation and Corrective Action Plan (RECAP) was completed by GEC, Inc. (Lindquist 2009) on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District regarding the Jefferson Lake Canal boat dock in Plaquemines Parish, LA. That 2009 assessment determined that the source of release (i.e., Diesel AST) has been removed and CDCs are not present in

concentrations harmful to human health or the environment. There is no current or potential ecological impact.

SECTION 3.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

A. Vegetation The 1949 Vegetative Type Map by O’Neil classified the project area as brackish three-cornered grass marsh. Coastal Vegetative Type Maps (Chabreck and Linscombe 1968, 1978, and 1988) in 1968, 1978, and 1988 classified the area as brackish marsh. The 2001 Coastal Marsh Vegetative Type Map (Linscombe 2001) classified the project area as saline marsh. Plant communities observed during field investigations indicate that the project area supports a low-salinity brackish marsh dominated by marshhay cordgrass. Other common species include eastern baccharis, Olney’s bulrush, and deerpea.

Based on recent habitat classification data and field observations, the project area appears to lie in a transition zone. Lower salinity brackish conditions likely prevail during high rainfall years and prolonged operation of the West Pointe a la Hache siphons. Brackish to saline conditions are likely to prevail during low rainfall years and periods of inconsistent siphon operation. During siphon operation, salinities often remain below 2 parts per thousand (ppt) and the average annual salinity from 1992-2002 for two monitoring stations within the project area was 5 ppt (Boshart 2003).

B. Fisheries The project area supports a diverse assemblage of estuarine-dependent fishes and shellfishes, and species presence is largely dictated by salinity levels and season. During low-salinity periods, species such as Gulf menhaden, blue crab, white shrimp, and striped mullet are present in the project area. During high-salinity periods, more salt-tolerant species such as spotted seatrout, black drum, red drum, Atlantic croaker, sheepshead, southern flounder, and brown shrimp may move into the project area. Wetlands throughout the project area also support small resident fishes and shellfish such as least killifish, sheepshead minnow, sailfin molly, grass shrimp and others. Those species are typically found along marsh edges or among submerged aquatic vegetation, and provide forage for a variety of fish and wildlife.

The proposed borrow site lies within the Mississippi River which provides habitat for an incredible diversity of freshwater fisheries many of which are commercially and recreationally important. Common species include gizzard shad, common carp, channel catfish, blue catfish, freshwater drum, smallmouth buffalo, white bass, and river shiner.

C. Essential Fish Habitat The project is located within an area identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson- Stevens Act; P.L. 104-297) set forth a new mandate for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The Essential Fish Habitats

(EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act support one of the nation’s overall marine resource management goals of maintaining sustainable fisheries. Essential to achieving this goal is the maintenance of suitable marine fishery habitat quality and quantity. Detailed information on Federally-managed fisheries and their EFH is provided in the 1999 generic amendment of the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for the Gulf of Mexico prepared by the Gulf of Mexico FMC (GMFMC). The generic FMP subsequently was updated and revised in 2005 and became effective in January 2006 (70 FR 76216). NMFS administers EFH regulations.

Estuarine emergent wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), estuarine water column, and mud substrates within the project area have been identified as EFH for both postlarval and juvenile stages of, brown shrimp, white shrimp, and red drum. Coastal wetlands also provide nursery and foraging habitat that supports economically important marine fishery species such as spotted seatrout, sand seatrout, southern flounder, Atlantic croaker, spot, gulf menhaden, striped mullet, white mullet , killifish, kingfish, pompano, anchovies, and blue crab. Some of these species serve as prey for other fish species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act by the GMFMC (e.g., mackerels, snappers, and groupers) and highly migratory species managed by NMFS (e.g., billfishes and sharks). Table 2 provides a more detailed description of EFH within the project area.

Table 2. EFH Requirements for Managed Species that Occur in the Project Area. Species Life Stage Essential Fish Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Brown shrimp postlarval/juvenile marsh edge, SAV, tidal creeks, Found throughout the project area inner marsh subadult marsh, mud bottoms, marsh edge Found throughout the project area White shrimp postlarval/juvenile marsh edge, SAV, marsh ponds, Found throughout the project area subadult inner marsh, oyster reefs (excluding oyster reefs) Red drum postlarval/juvenile SAV, estuarine mud bottoms, Found throughout the project area marsh/water interface Subadult Marsh, mud bottoms, oyster reefs Mud bottoms are found within open-water areas Adult Gulf of Mexico & estuarine mud Estuarine mud bottoms are found bottoms, oyster reefs within open-water areas Grey snapper Adult Soft bottom, emergent marsh Found throughout the project area

Lane snapper postlarval/juvenile SAV, soft bottom, sand/shell Found in portions of the project bottom area

D. Wildlife The project area provides important habitat for several species of wildlife, including waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Shallow open water areas provides wintering habitat for migratory puddle ducks including gadwall, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, American widgeon, and northern shoveler. The larger and deep open water areas that have formed due to marsh loss are utilized by diving ducks such as lesser scaup and ring-necked ducks. The resident mottled duck, which nests in fresh to brackish marshes, is found throughout the year.

Common wading bird species which utilize the project area include the great blue heron, green heron, tricolored heron, great egret, snowy egret, yellow-crowned night-heron, black-crowned night-heron, and white ibis. Mudflats and shallow-water areas provide habitat for numerous species of shorebirds and seabirds. Shorebirds include the American avocet, willet, black- necked stilt, dowitchers, and various species of sandpipers. Seabirds include the white pelican, herring gull, laughing gull, and several species of terns.

Migratory and resident non-game birds, such as the boat-tailed grackle, red-winged blackbird, seaside sparrow, northern harrier, osprey, belted kingfisher, and marsh wrens, also utilize the project area. Important gamebirds found in the area include the clapper rail, sora rail, Virginia rail, American coot, common moorhen, and common snipe in addition to resident and migratory waterfowl.

Mammals found within the project area include nutria, muskrat, mink, river otter, and raccoon, all of which are commercially important furbearers. Reptiles and amphibians are fairly common in the low-salinity brackish and intermediate marshes found within the project area. Reptiles include the American alligator, western cottonmouth, water snakes, speckled kingsnake, rat snake, and eastern mud turtle. Amphibians expected to occur in the area include the bullfrog, southern leopard frog, and Gulf coast toad. Moreover, marsh habitats along Bayou Grande Cheniere potentially provide refuge for State and Federally-designated at-risk species such as the diamondback terrapin, black rail, reddish egret, brown pelican and the Louisiana eyed silkmoth.

E. Threatened and Endangered Species

The pallid sturgeon is an endangered fish found in Louisiana, in both the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers (with known concentrations in the vicinity of the Old River Control Structure Complex); it is possibly found in the Red River as well. The pallid sturgeon may be found within the proposed borrow site for this project which is located within the Mississippi River. The pallid sturgeon is adapted to large, free-flowing, turbid rivers with a diverse assemblage of physical characteristics that are in a constant state of change. Detailed habitat requirements of this fish are not known, but it is believed to spawn in Louisiana. Habitat loss through river channelization and dams has adversely affected this species throughout its range. Entrainment issues associated with dredging operations in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers and through diversion structures off the Mississippi River are two potential effects that should be addressed in future planning studies and/or in analyzing current project effects.

The endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) may infrequently be observed in the Mississippi River and coastal areas of southwestern Louisiana. Manatees are known to regularly occur in Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas and their associated coastal waters and streams. They can be found less regularly in other Louisiana coastal areas, most likely while the average water temperature is warm. Based on data maintained by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP), over 80 % of reported manatee sightings (1999-2011) in Louisiana have occurred from the months of June through December. Cold weather and outbreaks of red tide may adversely affect these animals. However, human activity is the primary cause for declines in species number due to collisions with boats and barges, entrapment in flood control structures, poaching, habitat loss, and pollution.

F. Migratory Bird Treaty Act

As noted above, the project area is utilized by a number of migratory birds during migration, breeding and non-breeding season, and year around. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 40 Stat. 755, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) implements the protection of all native migratory game and non-game birds. The MBTA prohibits the “take” of any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. “Take,” as defined in the MBTA, includes any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing, or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof by any means or in any manner. The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act ("Nongame Act"; 94 Stat. 1322; 16 U.S.C. 2901-2911 et seq.) directs the Service to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (Service 2008) is the most recent effort to carry out this requirement. The overall goal of that report is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities.

The project area is located within the Gulf Coastal Prairie Bird Conservation Region (BCR). Some of the bird species identified as priorities for conservation action within that BCR include the least bittern, reddish egret, short-billed dowitcher, least tern, gull-billed tern, black skimmer, and seaside sparrow.

Colonial Nesting Wading Birds The proposed project would be located in an area where colonial nesting waterbirds may be present. Colonies may be present that are not currently listed in the database maintained by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). That database is updated primarily by monitoring the colony sites that were previously surveyed during the 1980s. Until a new, comprehensive coast-wide survey is conducted to determine the location of newly-established nesting colonies, we will inspect the proposed work site for the presence of undocumented nesting colonies during the nesting season.

SECTION 3.3 CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Various cultural resources occur throughout the Louisiana coastal zone, including both prehistoric and historic sites. The Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism maintains catalogues of cultural resource sites, but many areas remain unsurveyed and the significance or eligibility of some sites for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places has not been determined. Recreational use of the project area is oriented primarily toward hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive uses such as wildlife observation. Access to the project area is by boat only, as no roads or highways are present.

SECTION 3.4 ECONOMIC RESOURCES

Project-area wetlands provide essential nursery habitat for commercially and recreationally important fishes and shellfishes such as Gulf menhaden, red drum, spotted seatrout, southern flounder, brown shrimp, white shrimp, blue crab and others. NMFS statistics indicate that in years past coastal Louisiana has contributed approximately 20 % of the nation’s total commercial fisheries harvest (Task Force and WCRA 1998a). In 2001, commercial fishery landings in coastal Louisiana exceeded 1 billion pounds with a dockside value of $343 million (U.S. Department of Commerce 2001). Additionally, Louisiana’s shrimp and oyster harvests comprised approximately 35 to 40 % of the national total for those species (Task Force 1993). In 2006, commercial fisheries had a $2.4 billion economic impact on the Louisiana economy (Southwick and Associates, Inc. 2008).

Louisiana’s coastal wetlands also produce more wild furs and alligator skins than any other State in the nation. Nutria, muskrat, and raccoon constitute 94 % of the value of the Louisiana fur industry, valued at approximately $1.3 million annually (Louisiana Fur and Alligator Advisory Council 1997). The wild alligator harvest is also an important economic resource in coastal Louisiana. The wild harvest from 1972 to 1997 produced one million skins with an estimated value of $128.6 million. The annual harvest averaged 26,742 skins from 1992 to 1997, and the value of skins and meat was worth over $9.3 million (Louisiana Fur and Alligator Advisory Council 1997) during that period. According to a study conducted for LDWF, alligator harvests contributed $109 million to Louisiana’s total economy in 2006 (Southwick and Associates, Inc. 2008).

Recreational fishing in Louisiana’s coastal marshes has an estimated annual economic impact of $1.7 billion (Southwick and Associates, Inc. 2008). Coastal marshes also provide substantial economic value associated with waterfowl hunting, with an approximate $154 million economic benefit associated with migratory waterfowl hunting in 2006 (Southwick and Associates, Inc. 2008).

Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and maritime forests also support passive recreational opportunities such as wildlife observation (e.g. bird watching). According to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, bird watching was a $41 billion industry nationwide, generating $6 billion in total tax revenue by the States and $7 billion in Federal tax revenue (Service 2013). In 2006, LDWF estimated that approximately $312 million was spent in the State on wildlife observation (including bird watching), photography, and feeding (Southwick and Associates, Inc. 2008).

Overall, it is estimated that Louisiana’s fisheries, wildlife and boating resources contributed more than $4.6 billion in retail sales, over 76,000 jobs, $1.75 billion in salaries and wages, and over $446 million in state and local tax revenues to the state’s economy (Southwick and Associates, Inc. 2008). These activities are not only of great value to industry and local businesses, but to every resident and community in Louisiana.

SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SECTION 4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION

A. Physical Environment

Hydrology Under the No Action Alternative, the hydrology of the project area would likely be altered by the ongoing processes of shoreline erosion, shoreline breaching, marsh deterioration and subsidence. As marsh loss and subsidence continues, tidal connectivity will increase as more tidal channels form across the Bayou Grande Cheniere ridge bringing in higher saline waters. This could lead to large expanses of open water west and south of the project area.

Water Quality Under the No Action Alternative, water quality in the project area will likely remain the same.

B. Biological Environment

Vegetation Under the No Action Alternative, vegetation in the project area would likely remain the same as it is today with vegetation typical of a low-salinity brackish marsh. Marshhay cordgrass would likely remain as the dominant plant species.

Marsh loss from shoreline erosion and subsidence would continue. The Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) prepared for the CWPPRA Environmental Work Group projected that marsh loss would continue at a rate of -1.65 % per year, resulting in the loss of 23 acres of marsh in 20 years (Service 2016).

Fisheries Although marsh loss would continue under the No Action Alternative, the project area would continue to support a diverse assemblage of estuarine-dependent fishery species. However, the loss of intertidal, emergent wetlands to shallow, unvegetated open water would result in decreased fishery productivity. As a marsh complex exceeds 70 % unvegetated open water, shrimp and blue crab populations may decline (Minello and Rozas 2002).

The proposed borrow site within the Mississippi River would continue to support a diverse assemblage of freshwater fish species.

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

Under the No Action Alternative, estuarine marsh are the primary type of EFH impacted by continued wetland loss and deterioration. According to the WVA being reviewed by the CWPPRA Environmental Work Group, 21 acres of emergent marsh would be converted to another type of EFH, shallow open water (i.e., mud bottom), over the project life. Although an increase in some types of EFH (i.e., mud bottom and estuarine water column) would occur, adverse impacts would occur to more productive types of EFH (i.e., estuarine emergent wetlands). The loss of estuarine emergent wetlands would result in negative impacts to post-

larval/juvenile and sub-adult brown shrimp, post-larval/juvenile and sub-adult white shrimp, post-larval/juvenile and sub-adult red drum, and adult grey snapper. The conversion of marsh to estuarine water column and mud bottom could benefit sub-adult brown shrimp, postlarval/juvenile and sub-adult red drum, adult grey snapper, and post-larval/juvenile lane snapper.

Coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation, another important type of EFH is estimated to only consistently occur along the marsh edges. Water depths and wave energy limit cover in the large open water areas. SAV coverage is estimated to be approximately 11% of the project area and that estimate is projected to be maintained over the project life (Service 2016) even as marsh loss continues.

Wildlife Under the No Action Alternative, the project area would continue to provide limited resources for a multitude of species including migratory waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in the near term. However, as time goes on the continued loss of emergent wetlands would negatively impact those species which utilize the project area. Intertidal marsh and shallow, isolated ponds and associated submerged aquatic vegetation are utilized by those species for foraging, resting, or nesting habitat. Conversion of that habitat type to unvegetated, open-water areas would diminish habitat value for all wildlife species.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The endangered West Indian manatee may infrequently occur within the waters near the project area. Current use of associated waterbodies and canals by manatee is likely to continue under the No Action Alternative.

The endangered pallid sturgeon is found in both the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers and may be found within the proposed borrow site for this project. Use of that area by the pallid sturgeon would likely continue under the No Action Alternative.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Under the No Action Alternative, the project area would continue to provide habitat for some migratory birds including birds of conservation concern. The intertidal marsh and shallow, isolated ponds and associated submerged aquatic vegetation are utilized by a number of species for foraging, resting, or nesting habitat. Conversion of that habitat type to unvegetated, open- water areas would diminish habitat value for all migratory bird species including puddle ducks, wading birds, and some gulls and terns; while increasing habitat for other species like diving ducks that require larger ponds and deeper open water areas to forage.

C. Cultural and Recreational Resources No archeological sites are located within the project area; therefore, no impacts are expected under the No Action Alternative. Recreational opportunities within the project area, such as hunting and fishing, may decrease somewhat with the ongoing loss of marsh and diminished capacity of the area to support fish and wildlife populations.

D. Economic Resources

Commercial and recreational activities within the project area are important components of the local economy. Waterfowl hunting, recreational fishing, and commercial shrimping and crabbing contribute greatly toward the economies of the surrounding communities. The continued loss of emergent wetlands would decrease the project area’s ability to support those activities.

SECTION 4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

A. Physical Environment

Hydrology Under the Preferred Alternative, hydrologic conditions within the immediate project area would be impacted by the creation of the marsh, ridge and terrace features. Tidal exchange will continue to occur through the Jefferson Lake Canal and the pipeline canal that intersects the marsh creation cells, as well as tidal influence through Grand Bayou.

Portions of the large, open-water areas through which water exchange now occurs would be filled with dredged material and terraces. However, tidal connectivity between the project area and associated waters would be maintained. In addition, the marsh platform is anticipated to consolidate and settle to the existing marsh elevation over the project life. As the marsh platform subsides, more tidal connections and other open-water areas would form throughout the project area. As a result of restoring the chenier and marsh platform and creating terraces, the area will be protected from increased tidal forces associated with deterioration of the marsh and historic chenier.

Water Quality Under the Preferred Alternative, dredging activities in the Mississippi River, the placement of dredged material in the project area, and the construction of containment dikes and terraces would increase turbidity as bottom sediments are disturbed. However, the increased turbidity would only occur during periods of active dredging and is expected to dissipate rapidly upon completion of construction. In addition, turbidities may increase after rainfall events as water runs off the unvegetated marsh platform, especially immediately after dredged material deposition.

B. Biological Environment

Vegetation Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 302 acres of marsh would be created/nourished within the marsh creation cells and an additional 10 acres of emergent habitat would result from construction of the earthen terraces. Very little emergent vegetation would be present immediately after construction as most of the project area would be unvegetated dredged material. Those areas of marsh which are nourished would likely revegetate more rapidly than the large, open-water areas which are filled. Marsh vegetation nourished with 6 to 12 inches of material has been shown to respond favorably and revegetate quickly (Mendelssohn and Kuhn 1999). Large, open-water areas which are filled with dredged material would likely revegetate

slowly, and complete revegetation of the marsh platform may take 3 to 5 years. Operation of the West Pointe a la Hache siphons, which will provide fresh water and nutrients to the project area, would enhance conditions for vegetative colonization. Vegetative communities would likely be very similar to those currently found within the project area and marshhay cordgrass would likely remain as the dominant species.

Under the Preferred Alternative, marsh loss would continue in the project area, but at a reduced rate. The WVA prepared by the CWPPRA Environmental Work Group projected that land loss would continue in the project area at a rate of -0.83 % per year, compared to -1.65 % per year under the No Action Alternative (Service 2016). Within the project area, 208 acres of marsh would remain at the end of the 20-year project life compared to 57 acres under the No Action Alternative, and a substantial acreage of marsh would remain within the project area for many years beyond the project life.

The WVA indicates that the coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation is also projected to increase from 11 % of the open-water areas to 20 % within the marsh creation area, and from 11 % to 30 % in the terrace field (Service 2016). The smaller, shallower ponds which would form within the marsh platform would be more conducive for the establishment of submerged aquatic vegetation. Those smaller waterbodies would be less susceptible to increases in turbidity from wind-generated waves. In addition, reduced tidal connectivity would enhance the growth of submerged aquatics. The terraces would also provide the same benefits by reducing wind- generated waves and reducing turbidity benefiting a 154-acre area.

Fisheries Under the Preferred Alternative, the project area would continue to support a diverse assemblage of fishes and shellfishes. The creation and nourishment of intertidal marsh would ensure that the project area continues to provide important nursery functions well beyond the 20-year project life. Several studies indicate that vegetated habitats (i.e., emergent marsh and submerged aquatic vegetation beds) generally support higher densities of fish and crustaceans than unvegetated habitat (Castellanos and Rozas 2001, Rozas and Minello 2001, Minello and Rozas 2002). Population declines of shrimp and blue crabs may become evident when a marsh complex exceeds 70 % unvegetated open water (Minello and Rozas 2002). Compared to the No Action Alternative, an additional 300+ acres of marsh would result from project implementation (Service 2016). Much of that habitat would exist within the intertidal zone and would provide foraging and nursery habitat for a number of estuarine species.

Dredging activities in the Mississippi River would increase turbidity as bottom sediments are disturbed. The increased turbidity and disturbance from dredging activities could result in some fishery species being displaced. It is likely that those species would simply relocate to an area of more suitable habitat. However, the increased turbidity would only occur during periods of active dredging and is expected to dissipate rapidly once dredging activities cease.

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

Estuarine emergent wetland is the primary type of EFH that would increase significantly under the Preferred Alternative; such habitat would be created in open-water areas and deteriorated

marsh. According to the WVA, 208 additional acres of emergent marsh would exist at the end of the project life under the Preferred Alternative, compared to the No Action Alternative. Coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation is also expected to increase. Increases in those habitat types would benefit postlarval/juvenile and subadult brown shrimp, postlarval/juvenile and subadult white shrimp, postlarval/juvenile and sub-adult red drum, adult grey snapper, and post-larvel/juvenile lane snapper.

The creation of estuarine emergent wetlands would result in the loss of mud bottom and estuarine water column as emergent marsh would replace those habitat types. Loss of mud bottom EFH could result in negative impacts to sub-adult brown shrimp, post-larval/juvenile and sub-adult red drum, adult grey snapper, and post-larval/juvenile lane sapper. Although adverse impacts would occur to some types of EFH, more productive types of EFH (i.e., estuarine emergent wetlands) would be created under the Preferred Alternative. In addition, open-water habitat would form within the marsh platform as ponds and other waterbodies develop as a result of natural marsh loss processes. Open-water habitats within the marsh creation area are expected to contain 20 % coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation compared to only 11 % coverage under the No Action Alternative, while open-water habitats within the 154-acre terrace field are projected to increase to 30 % under the future with project conditions.

It should be noted, that although a marsh plant community will develop along these created platforms, a temporal loss of EFH habitat will occur as the created marsh platform will be infrequently flooded during the initial years of consolidation and settlement. The brackish marsh community likely to develop on the marsh platform is most productive when flooded 10% to 65% of the time (Visser 2003). The marsh creation platform is not expected to reach the 10% inundation elevation until Year 5 (Figure 4). Further, the 10 acres of terraces were designed to achieve an elevation that is within the 10% inundation level at TY20, or 1.75 feet. As subsidence and sea level rise continue, the marsh platform will become flooded more frequently throughout the project life (Figure 4), and it is anticipated that the marsh platform will remain within the most productive zone through the project life.

In addition, the re-creation of 30 acres of historical ridge habitat would result in a reduction in EFH and the marine fishery support functions currently provided by the project area. Construction of the ridge feature would impact estuarine emergent wetlands affecting post-larval and sub-adult brown and white shrimp, post-larval and sub-adult red drum, and adult grey snapper. However, estuarine emergent wetlands would be created under the Preferred Alternative offsetting those impacts through the life of the project and beyond. Implementation of the marsh restoration and terrace features will provide 116.75 average annual habitat units of benefit resulting in a net positive benefit to all managed species that occur in the project area. The Service has determined that EFH will not adversely be affected.

Wildlife The Preferred Alternative would result in improved habitat conditions for several species of wildlife including migratory and resident waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and furbearers by restoring marsh in areas that have deteriorated and converted to large open water. Migratory waterfowl utilizing the project area would benefit from a greater food supply resulting from the increased abundance and diversity of emergent and submerged species. Forested chenier habitat

would provide stopover and nesting habitat for a diversity of migratory songbirds. Restored marsh habitat will provide breeding habitat for the seaside sparrow.

Intertidal marsh and marsh edge would also provide increased foraging opportunities for shorebirds and wading birds. Small fishes and crustaceans are often found in greater densities along vegetated marsh edge (Castellanos and Rozas 2001, Rozas and Minello 2001), and many of those species are important prey items for wading birds such as the great blue heron, little blue heron, great egret, black-crowned night-heron, and snowy egret. Mudflats and shallow water habitat created by the deposition of dredged material would provide increased foraging opportunities for shorebirds such as least sandpipers, killdeer, and the American avocet. Those species feed on tiny invertebrates and crustaceans found on mudflats which are exposed at low tide and in shallow-water areas of the appropriate depth.

Furbearers (such as the nutria and muskrat) which feed on vegetation would benefit from the increased marsh acreage in the project area. Representative furbearers such as the mink, river otter, and raccoon have a diverse diet and feed on many different species of fishes and crustaceans. Those species often feed along vegetated shorelines which provide cover for many of their prey species.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The Preferred Alternative would have minimal impacts on the West Indian manatee which may occasionally occur in the estuarine waters of the project area. Any impacts associated with displacement of West Indian manatee during project construction would be minimal because of the immense amount of similar habitat in the project vicinity. Displaced West Indian manatee would likely move to other areas with more suitable habitat. Moreover, the Preferred Alternative would also have minimal impacts on the pallid sturgeon which may occasionally occur in the Mississippi River near the proposed borrow area. The occurrence of pallid sturgeon below New Orleans is rare. Despite considerable effort to determine presence south of New Orleans, pallid sturgeon have not been collected. Any impacts associated with displacement of the pallid sturgeon during project construction would be minimal because of the immense amount of similar habitat in the project vicinity. Displaced sturgeon would likely move to other areas with more suitable habitat.

To ensure no adverse effects, construction guidelines including manatee and pallid sturgeon protection measures will be placed within the project plans and specifications. The Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted an Intra-Service Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation of the Preferred Alternative’s impacts on the West Indian manatee and the pallid sturgeon. That consultation, signed July 7, 2016, concurred with the determination of “not likely to adversely affect” the species noted above.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Under the Preferred Alternative, the project area would continue to provide habitat for a multitude of species including migratory waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and songbirds. Migratory waterfowl utilizing the project area would benefit from a greater food supply resulting from the increased abundance and diversity of emergent and submerged species. Habitat for the

resident mottled duck would also improve considerably as the marsh platform and terraces would provide more desirable nesting habitat. Forested chenier habitat would provide stopover and nesting habitat for a diversity of migratory songbirds. Forested habitats within 100 kilometers (62 miles) inland of the Gulf coastline are considered important stopover habitat for neo-tropical migrants as these habitats are the first stop to refuel after the long journey across the Gulf of Mexico (Gauthreaux 1975, in Barrow et al 2005). The natural processes of coastal erosion, subsidence, and habitat switching have been exacerbated by widespread human alterations of sediment delivery and other processes, resulting in marked degradation of the Louisiana coastal area. The continued loss and degradation of coastal forests pose a risk to migrating birds. Restoring the coastal forested cheniere would improve important stopover habitat for neo- tropical migrant songbirds such as woodthrush, painted bunting, Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, orchard oriole, summer tanager, worm-eating warbler, Kentucky warbler, and Louisiana waterthrush.

Construction activities could impact birds during nesting seasons. Typically project construction schedules occur over a year and avoiding nesting seasons is impracticable. The project will include an abatement plan in the plans and specifications to abate potential impacts to migratory birds. Abatement measures such as use of active patrols during nesting season, use of deterrents such as human presence during construction, and potential use of hazing techniques (boomers) if determined to be necessary during construction. If abatement is unsuccessful appropriate buffer zones around nesting birds will be implemented.

C. Cultural and Recreational Resources

A review by the Louisiana Office of Cultural Development, Division of Archeology indicated that no archaeological sites are located within the project area. The Louisiana Office of Cultural Development has indicated, by correspondence dated July 1, 2015, that they have no objections to project implementation. Earth Search, Inc. (ESI) completed a Phase I cultural resources survey for the portion of the proposed project along Bayou Grande Cheniere. The findings of that report are that the proposed project will have no effect on historic resources (Earth Search, Inc. 2016).

Recreational opportunities within the project area, such as hunting, fishing, and bird watching, may increase with the increased formation of emergent marsh and other fish and wildlife habitats. An increase in wetland and chenier habitat and value would likely result in increased fish and wildlife usage of the project area.

D. Economic Resources By increasing emergent wetlands and forested chenier habitat, and subsequently fish and wildlife resources, the Preferred Alternative would help to maintain that portion of the local economy dependent on recreational and commercial fish and wildlife resources found within the project area. Project-area waterfowl hunting, recreational fishing, and wildlife observation are important components of the local economy, and creation of emergent marsh and other fish and wildlife habitats could increase the ability of the project area to support those activities and the fish and

wildlife resources that are the focus of those activities. The increased acreage of emergent wetlands and ridge habitat would also act as a storm buffer for flood protection levees north and east of the project area.

SECTION 5.0 RATIONALE FOR SELECTING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Marsh loss in the project area has resulted in a decline in fish and wildlife habitat. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion of wetlands have been exacerbated by widespread human alterations of sediment delivery and other processes, resulting in marked degradation of the Louisiana coastal area. Without intervention to retard or reverse the loss of marshes, ridges and barrier islands Louisiana’s healthy and highly productive coastal ecosystem would not be maintained.

Marsh loss is likely to continue in the project area at current rates and may increase as more breaches occur along the Bayou Grande Cheniere ridge. Marsh elevations in some areas of deteriorated marsh are not conducive to the continued existence of the dominant plant species, marshhay cordgrass, which prefers higher elevations. Ponding and prolonged inundation, due to subsidence, have resulted in the deterioration of marsh and the formation of shallow, open-water habitat.

Further, ridge elevations have subsided in most areas to elevations that no longer support woody vegetation. Areas that historically supported ridge habitat have subsided to elevations that support emergent marsh vegetation. Continued subsidence would result in the future deterioration of the remaining stands of healthy, unfragmented marsh and ridge habitat, and further exacerbate storm surge effect within the project area and areas further inland. Average marsh elevation surveys were conducted at five sites that were believed to have visibly healthy marsh. Elevations across these five locations averaged to an approximate elevation of 0.60 feet NAVD 88 (geoid 12A). The project team has chosen the 80 th percentile marsh elevations of +0.75 feet as the target design elevation marsh at target year (TY) twenty. At this elevation the marsh platform would support emergent vegetation throughout the 20-year project life. A target elevation of 4.5 feet at TY5 was chosen for the ridge based on elevation surveys of existing ridges and manmade canal bank lines that support woody vegetation. The ridge alignment was based on the existing Bayou Grande Chenier Ridge (Figure 7). In order to minimize impacts to existing marsh vegetation, the project ridge footprint will be constructed on the eastern side of existing marsh fringe close to the marsh creation platform.

Dedicated dredging to create marsh in shallow, open-water areas has been successfully used as a restoration technique across coastal Louisiana. Since CWPPRA was authorized in 1990, several marsh creation projects have been constructed and many more are authorized for engineering and design, or construction, by the Task Force (Table 3) (Lindquist and Martin 2007). Also, several barrier island projects have been constructed which utilize hydraulic dredging to create dune and marsh habitats. In addition, many other marsh creation projects have been constructed by the State of Louisiana through its Coastal Restoration Program as mitigation for wetland impacts under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by the Corps of Engineers under other authorities such as Sections 204 and 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act.

Figure 7. Historic Aerial Imagery (1945) of the Bayou Grande Cheniere Ridge.

Table 3. Marsh Creation Projects Constructed/Authorized under CWPPRA. Acres Benefited Project Name Bayou Labranche Wetland Creation 203 West Belle Pass Headland Restoration 474 Lake Chapeau Sediment Input and 509 Hydrologic Restoration, Point Au Fer Island Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation 993 Barataria Waterway Wetland Restoration 9 Little Lake Shoreline Protection/Dedicated 713 Dredging near Round Lake Goose Point/Point Platte Marsh Creation 436 West Lake Boudreaux Shoreline Protection 277 and Marsh Creation

Dedicated Dredging on the Barataria Basin 242 Landbridge North Lake Mechant Landbridge 604 Restoration Bayou Dupont Sediment Delivery System 400

Scientific studies in coastal Louisiana also provide support for the use of dedicated dredging to restore coastal wetlands. Most research conducted on dedicated dredging projects in coastal Louisiana has occurred in saline marsh habitats. Although the project area supports a brackish marsh community, the response should be somewhat similar to that observed in saline marsh. Marshes created at the correct elevation take only a few years to develop vegetative communities similar to those in natural marshes (Edwards and Proffitt 2003). Percent vegetative cover also equals that found in natural marshes, but only after several years of growth (Proffitt and Young 1999). However, soil characteristics between created and natural marshes are often very different, with created marshes being lower in organic matter and higher in bulk density (Edwards and Proffitt 2003).

Thin-layer sediment deposition to the marsh surface (i.e., marsh nourishment) has also been investigated as a restoration technique in coastal Louisiana. Mendelssohn and Kuhn (1999) studied the impacts of sediment addition to a deteriorating saline marsh dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass. Sediment addition ranging from trace amounts to nearly 24 inches above natural marsh elevations produced increases in plant cover and plant height. Sediment addition reduced flooding, allowed for better soil aeration, and lowered concentrations of phytotoxins which provided better conditions for plant growth. Ford et al. (1999) investigated the effects of thin- layer deposition of dredged material via spray dredging in a deteriorated saline marsh. One year following the addition of approximately 9 inches of sediment, % cover of saltmarsh cordgrass increased three-fold over pre-project conditions with no lasting negative impacts on the native marsh plant community.

Although few CWPPRA projects have incorporated ridges as restoration features (Table 4), ridges are an integral part of Louisiana’s coastal framework. Historically, natural costal features such as ridges helped shape the estuary by providing critical habitat while protecting marshes from saltwater intrusion and by providing an important line of defense against storm surge. Ridges provide important avian habitat to winter residents, neo-tropical migrants, and permanent residents. Restoring and maintaining ridges and marshes provide opportunity for development of ecotourism and recreation, while helping protect the inland habitat, infrastructure, and communities.

Table 4. Ridge Restoration Projects Constructed/Authorized under CWPPRA. Project # Name Constructed BA-48 Bayou Dupont Marsh and Ridge Creation 2015

BA-68 Grand Liard Marsh and Ridge Restoration 2015

The marsh and ridge restoration features are supported by the Task Force, which approved funding for engineering and design at their January 16, 2014, meeting. The Preferred Alternative would create emergent marsh and ridge habitat in the project area, increase its habitat value for fish and wildlife resources, and result in a net gain of 208 acres of marsh and approximately 30 acres of chenier ridge habitat at the end of the project life compared to the No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative also supports the restoration strategies recommended for this region in the Coast 2050 Plan, is identified in the 2012 and 2017 State Master Plans, and is identified in the Plaquemine Parish Strategic Implementation Plan (2008). It is not anticipated that land rights issues would preclude construction of project features.

SECTION 6.0 COMPATIBILITY WITH CWPPRA AND COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

The Preferred Alternative would help to achieve CWPPRA objectives for protection and restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. The cumulative impact of all CWPPRA projects approved to date would result in the protection/creation/restoration of over 119,000 acres of coastal wetlands. Cumulative impacts of the CWPPRA Program are addressed in the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan Main Report and Environmental Impact Statement (Task Force 1993).

Community objectives would likely be enhanced by the proposed project. Common socioeconomic goals include the conservation of sustainable fishing, shrimping, crabbing, and hunting opportunities in the region. The general public also supports wetland restoration and preservation for fish and wildlife habitat, and for recreational, aesthetic, and other non- consumptive uses. In addition, the public is now much more aware of the surge reduction benefits provided by wetlands since the passage of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

SECTION 7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

This Environmental Assessment was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). It is consistent with the NEPA-compliance procedures contained in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (550 FW 1-3), and employs a systematic, interdisciplinary approach. The proposed action alternative involves disposal of fill material into waters or wetlands; therefore, an evaluation under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, is required, as well as State of Louisiana water quality certification under Section 401. An application for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit will be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well as Water Quality Certification from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources has been asked for a determination as to whether or not the project is consistent with the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program.

Under the MSFCMA, the Service is initiating consultation with the NMFS upon submission of this Environmental Assessment, and has evaluated project-related impacts to EFH within the project area. The Preferred Alternative would result in adverse impacts to some categories (i.e.,

mud bottom and estuarine water column) of EFH and some temporal reduction in benefits; however, more productive categories of EFH, such as estuarine emergent wetlands, would be created through the life of the project. Therefore, the Service finds that the Preferred Alternative would not result in net adverse impacts to habitats designated as EFH under the MSFCMA. By letter dated November 7, 2017, NMFS provided additional comments and has indicated their support for the project (Appendix B).

By letter dated July 1, 2015, the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism indicated that they have no objection to implementation of the Preferred Alternative. No archaeological sites have been identified within the project area.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice for Minority Populations), the Service has determined that the Preferred Alternative would not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. The proposed action has been internally reviewed by the Service for compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. In addition, the proposed action has been reviewed for compliance with the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974; Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management); Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); and Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds).

SECTION 8.0 PREPARER

This Environmental Assessment was prepared by Angela Trahan, Fish and Wildlife Biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office, Lafayette, Louisiana.

SECTION 9.0 LITERATURE CITED

Barras, J.A., P.E. Bourgeois, and L.R. Handley. 1994. Land loss in coastal Louisiana 1956-90. National Biological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center Open Report 94-01. 4 pp.

Barras, J., Beville, S., Britsch, D., Hartley, S., Hawes, S., Johnston, J., Kemp, P., Kinler, Q., Martucci, A., Porthouse, J., Reed, D., Roy, K., Sapkota, S., and J. Suhayda. 2003. Historical and projected coastal Louisiana land changes: 1978-2050: USGS Open File Report 03-334, 39 pp.

Barrow, W. C., L.A. Johnson Randall, M. S. Woodrey, J. Cox, E. Ruelas I., C. M. Riley, R. B. Hamilton, and C. Eberly. 2005. Coastal Forests of the Gulf of Mexico: A Description and Some Thoughts on Their Conservation. USDA Forest Service General Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. pp 450-464.

Boshart, W. 2003. BA-04 West Pointe a la Hache Siphon Construction Summary Data and Graphics. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division, Baton Rouge, LA. 56 pp.

Castellanos, D.L. and L. P. Rozas. 2001. Nekton use of submerged aquatic vegetation, marsh, and shallow unvegetated bottom in the Atchafalaya River delta, a Louisiana tidal freshwater ecosystem. Estuaries. Vol. 24, No. 2, p. 184-197.

Chabreck, R. and G. Linscombe. 1968. Vegetative type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, New Orleans.

Chabreck, R. and G. Linscombe. 1978. Vegetative type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, New Orleans.

Chabreck, R. and G. Linscombe. 1988. Vegetative type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge.

Couvillion, B.R.; Barras, J.A.; Steyer, G.D.; Sleavin, William; Fischer, Michelle; Beck, Holly; Trahan, Nadine; Griffin, Brad; and Heckman, David, 2011, Land area change in coastal Louisiana from 1932 to 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3164, scale 1:265,000, 12 p. pamphlet.

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 82 pp.

Dunbar, J.B., L.D. Britsch and E.B. Kemp, III. 1992. Land loss rates, report 3, Louisiana coastal plain. Technical Report GL-90-2. Vicksburg, MS.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Waterways Experiment Station.

Earth Search, Inc. 2016. Negative Findings Report for the Phase Cultural Resources Survey of the Bayou Grande Cheniere Project Area (BA-173), Plaquemines Parish, LA. New Orleans, LA. March 2016. 22 pp.

Edwards, K. R. and C. E. Proffitt. 2003. Comparison of wetland structural characteristics between created and natural salt marshes in southwest Louisiana, USA. Wetlands, Vol. 23, No. 2 pp. 344-356.

Eustis Engineering Services. 2015. Draft Geotechnical Exploration, State of Louisiana, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration (BA-173), Plaquemines Parish, LA. Eustis Project # 22641, Metairie, LA. November 24, 2015.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at ]

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2013. Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis - Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Report 2011-1. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, Arlington, VA. December 2013.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2013. Vision for a Healthy Gulf of Mexico Watershed. . June 2013. 24 pp.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2016. Draft Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration: project information sheet for wetland value assessment. 23 pp.

Ford, M. A., D. R. Cahoon and J. C. Lynch. 1999. Restoring marsh elevation in a rapidly subsiding salt marsh by thin-layer deposition of dredged material. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 189-205.

Gauthreaux, S. A. 1975. Coastal hiatus of spring trans-gulf bird migration. In: W. G. McIntire, M. J. Hershman, R. D. Adams, K. D. Midboe, and B. B. Barrett, editors. A rationale for determining Louisiana’s coastal zone. Report No. 1, Coastal Zone Management Series. Baton Rouge, LA: Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University; 85-91.

Lindquist, D.C. and S. R. Martin. 2007. Coastal restoration annual project reviews: December 2007. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. 123 pp.

Lindquist, D.C. 2008. Ecological Review: Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration . Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration. Baton Rouge, LA. 16 pp.

Lindquist, J. 2009. Risk Evaluation and Corrective Action Plan (RECAP): Jefferson Lake Canal, 25076 Highway 23, West Pointe a la Hache, Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish. GEC, Baton Rouge, LA. November 23, 2009. LEQ Agency Interest No. 121820.

Linscombe, G. 2001. Vegetative type map of the Louisiana coastal marshes. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force (Task Force). 1993. Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration plan, main report and environmental impact statement.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority (Task Force and WCRA). 1998a. Coast 2050: toward a sustainable coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, LA. 161 pp.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority (Task Force and WCRA). 1998b. Coast 2050: toward a sustainable coastal Louisiana. Appendix D. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton Rouge, La. 170 pp.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2016. Louisiana water quality inventory: integrated report. Baton Rouge, LA. 102 pp plus appendices.

Louisiana Fur and Alligator Advisory Council. 1997. 1996-97 annual report, Fur and Alligator Advisory Council. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 23 pp. plus appendices.

Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration (CPRA). 2016. Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration Project (BA-42): Final (95%) Design Report. Baton Rouge, LA. August 2016. 37 pp. plus appendices.

Mendelssohn, I. A. and N. L. Kuhn. 1999. The effects of sediment addition on salt mash vegetation and soil physico-chemistry. Pages 55-61 in L. P. Rozas, J. A. Nyman, C. E. Proffitt, N. N. Rabalais, D. J. Reed, and R. E. Turner (eds.), Recent Research in Coastal Louisiana: Natural System Function and Response to Human Influence. Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Baton Rouge, LA.

Minello, T. J. and L. P. Rozas. 2002. Nekton in gulf coast wetlands: fine-scale distributions, landscape patterns, and restoration implications. Ecological Applications, 12(2), pp. 441- 455.

O’Neil, T. 1949. Map of the southern part of Louisiana showing vegetation types of the Louisiana marshes.

Plaquemines Parish. 2008. Plaquemine Parish Strategic Implementation Plan. Prepared for Parish President and Parish Council. Belle Chasse, LA 70037. August 14.

Proffitt, C. E. and J. Young. 1999. Salt marsh plant colonization, growth, and dominance on large mudflats created using dredged sediments. Pages 218-228 in L. P. Rozas, J. A. Nyman, C. E. Proffitt, N. N. Rabalais, D. J. Reed, and R. E. Turner (eds.), Recent Research in Coastal Louisiana: Natural System Function and Response to Human Influence. Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Baton Rouge, LA.

Reed, D. J., Ed. 1995. Status and Historical Trends of Hydrologic Modification, Reduction in Sediment Availability, and Habitat Loss/Modification in the Barataria and Terrebonne Estuarine System. BTNEP Publ. No. 20, Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program, Thibodaux, Louisiana, 338 pp. plus Appendices.

Rozas, L. P. and T. J. Minello. 2001. Marsh terracing as a wetland restoration tool for creating fishery habitat. Wetlands. Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 327-341.

Southwick and Associates, Inc. 2008. The Economic Benefits of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Boating Resources in the State of Louisiana – 2006. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. May 10, 2008. 51 p.

Turner, R.E., and D.R. Cahoon, eds. 1987. Causes of wetland loss in the coastal central Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical Narrative. Final report submitted to Mineral Management Service, New Orleans, Louisiana. Contract No. 14-12-0001-30252. OCS Study/MMS 87-0120. 400 pp.

Turner, R.E. 1990. Landscape development and coastal wetland losses in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Amer. Zool. 30:89-105.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Fisheries of the United States, 2001. Washington, D.C.

Visser, J.M., G.D. Steyer, G.P. Shaffer, S.S. Hoppner, M.W. Hester, E. Reyes, P. Keddy, I.A. Mendelssohn, C.E. Sasser, and C. Swarzenski. 2003. LCA/CLEAR Habitat Switching Module, Chapter 9.

APPENDIX A

Detailed Illustrations of Project Features

APPENDIX B

Agency Comments Received

November 7, 2016 F/SER46/RH:jk 225/389-0508

Ms. Angela Trahan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 646 Cajundome Blvd, Suite 400 Lafayette, Louisiana 70506

Dear Ms. Trahan:

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Bayou Grande Cheniere Marsh and Ridge Restoration (BA-173) project. This draft EA was transmitted for our review by your email dated October 18, 2016. The BA-173 project was funded for engineering and design under the auspices of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act. The project entails the creation of 302 acres of marsh, 12,000 linear feet of terraces and 10,625 linear feet of ridge along Bayou Grande Cheniere.

The NMFS has reviewed the draft EA and recommends the list of federally managed species be expanded to include gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) and lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris). Specifically, NMFS recommends the following information included in the generic amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the Gulf of Mexico be added to Table 2 of the final EA.

Species Life Stage Essential Fish Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Gray snapper Adults Soft bottom, emergent Found throughout the marsh project area Lane snapper Postlarval/juvenile SAV, soft bottom, Found in portions of the sand/shell project area

In addition, NMFS recommends the above species be included in the discussion of Environmental Consequences on pages 17 and 20-21 of the final EA.

The draft EA indicates the elevation of healthy marsh in the project area was estimated to be 0.75 ft NAVD88 and that a target fill elevation of +3.0 ft NAVD88 would settle to just under that number at target year 20. Further, the draft EA indicates a half foot tolerance in excess of 3.0 ft NAVD88 would be allowed. As such, it could be more than 20 years before the marsh creation area subsides to elevations equivalent to intertidal marsh. In support of this assessment that initial elevations will be high, Figure 4 of the draft EA suggests elevations of the created marsh would be supratidal for at least five years after construction.

In addition, project implementation would create a higher elevation ridge along more than 10,000 ft of Bayou Grand Cheniere. While NMFS does not object to the target elevations selected for either the marsh or the ridge features, it should be recognized these areas would not

provide the same functional benefits to marine fishery species as provided by intertidal marsh. The NMFS recommends the Essential Fish Habitat discussion provided in Section 4.2 be revised to indicate that project implementation would result in a temporal reduction in essential fish habitat and the marine fishery support functions provided by the project area until surface elevations reached intertidal levels. That temporal loss could be justified by the extension into the future of the expected survival of marsh in the project area. The discussion in Section 4.2 should include such justification.

While the NMFS recommends the revisions described above be incorporated into the final EA, we are supportive of project implementation. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft EA.

Sincerely,

Virginia M. Fay Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division c: FWS, Lafayette, Clark EPA, Dallas, McCormick NRCS, Alexandria, Paul LA DNR Consistency, Morgan F/SER46, Swafford F/SER4, Rolfes, Dale Files