As of Oct. 1, 2025, the Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) has become the Department of Conservation and Energy (C&E). We appreciate your patience as we transition over the coming months. If you cannot find the information needed on this website, please visit our DENR Archive Website or contact us at info@la.gov.
Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program (RRP Program)
Identifying regions within the program will facilitate tracking of cases, settlement accounting, and oversight of assessment and restoration-related activities. The boundaries of the four coastal regions are based on the Coast 2050 Plan regions, and the boundaries of the five inland regions are based on the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) defined watersheds. The role of natural resource trustees is to restore natural resources held in public trust that have been injured by the release of or threat of release of oil, thereby compensating the public for the lost resources and/or services resulting from the incident.
State of Louisiana and federal natural resource trustees have developed a statewide Regional Restoration Planning Program (RRP Program) to assist the natural resource trustees in carrying out their Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) responsibilities for discharges or substantial threats of discharges of oil (referred to as an “incident”). A Regional Restoration Plan (RRP) will be prepared for each of the nine regions in the State of Louisiana.
The goals of this statewide RRP Program are to:
- Expedite and reduce the cost of the NRDA process;
- Provide for consistency and predictability by describing in detail the NRDA process, thereby increasing understanding of the process by the public and industry; and
- Increase restoration of lost trust resources and services.
Attainment of these goals will serve to make the NRDA process as a whole more efficient in Louisiana. Furthermore, implementation of the RRP Program will allow the state to better coordinate restoration being conducted through NRDA with other ongoing restoration efforts in the State of Louisiana.
The development of the RRP Program has been a coordinated effort between state and federal natural resource agencies, local governments, and the public. The RRP Program is jointly administered and used by the trustees to assist in carrying out their natural resource trust mandates under OPA and OSPRA.
View the Administrative Record below for a complete list of documents associated with the Louisiana RRP Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).
1. Administrative Record Structure
Administrative Record Structure Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Administrative Record Structure Region 2 Regional Restoration Plan
2. Statutes and Regulations
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) 33 USC 2701et seq.
Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1991 (OSPRA) as amended, LRS 30:2451 et seq.
Federal NRDA Regulations 15 CFR 990
State NRDA Regulations 43 LAC:XXIX, Chapter 1, Section 101, et seq.
National Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 CFR 300
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 42 USC 4321 et seq.
3. Informal Scoping
Informal Scoping Summary of Regional Restoration Planning. Trustee Workgroup, November 1, 2000, 2 pages
Document ID 1977
Summary of Stakeholder Meetings conducted as part of the Informal Scoping for the Louisiana Proposed Statewide Regional Restoration Planning (RRP) Program for Oil Spills. Ann Berger, Karolien Debusschere, March 21, 2001, 8 pages
Document ID 2028
4. Formal Scoping/Public Review Document
4.1 Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program and Request for Comments on Public Review Document
1. Federal Register Notice of Intent to prepare a PEIS and Request for Comments on the Public Review Document. Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 118, June 19, 2001, 2 pages
Document ID 1978
4.2 Public Review Document of the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program
1. Louisiana’s Proposed Regional Restoration Planning Program - Public Review Document. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, June 20, 2001, 35 pages
Document ID 1976
2. List of Organizations to which the Notice of Intent, Public Review Document, and Solicitation of Projects for the Louisiana Proposed Statewide Regional Restoration Planning (RRP) Program for Oil Spills was mailed. Karolien Debusschere, October 31, 2001, 6 pages
Document ID 2020
4.2.1 Correspondence Relating to Public Review Document
1. Cover Letter with the Public Review Document. Karolien Debusschere to Reviewer, June 19, 2001, 1 page
Document ID 1980
2. NRDA - RRP Restoration Project Information Sheet accompanying Public Review Document. Trustee Workgroup, June 19, 2001, 2 pages
Document ID 1979
4.3 Public Scoping Meetings
1. Presentation given at the July 2001 Public Meetings as Part of the Formal Scoping for the Louisiana Proposed Statewide Regional Restoration Planning (RRP) Program for Oil Spills. Karolien Debusschere, Ann Berger, July 16, 2001, 18 pages
Document ID 2030
2. List of Handouts made available to Attendees at the July 2001 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Proposed Statewide Regional Restoration Planning (RRP) Program for Oil Spills. Karolien Debusschere, October 30, 2001, 1 page
Document ID 2031
3. List of Persons attending the July 2001 Public Meeting for the Louisiana Proposed Statewide Regional Restoration Planning (RRP) Program for Oil Spills. Karolien Debusschere, October 31, 2001, 2 pages
Document ID 2027
4.3.1 Announcements for the Public Scoping Meetings
1. Public Notices of the July 2001 Public Scoping Meetings published in The Times Picayune, New Orleans, LA. Karolien Debusschere, July 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 2001, 1page
Document ID 202
2. Public Notices of the July 2001 Public Scoping Meetings published in The Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA. Karolien Debusschere, July 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 2001, 1page
Document ID 2022
3. State of Louisiana Governor’s Office Press Release providing Public Meeting Times and Request for Public Comments for the LA Proposed Statewide RRP Program for Oil Spills. Karolien Debusschere, July 13, 2001, 2 pages
Document ID 2032
4. Article announcing the July 25, 2001 Public Meeting in Lake Charles, LA. American Press, Lake Charles, LA, Section A, p. 2, July 25, 2001, 1page
Document ID 2024
5. Article announcing the July 17, 2001 Public Meeting in Shreveport, LA. The Times, Shreveport, LA, Section B, p. 1, July 17, 2001, 1 page
Document ID 2025
6. Article announcing the July 24, 2001 Public Meeting in New Orleans, LA. The Times Picayune, New Orleans, LA, July 22, 2001, 1 page
Document ID 2026
4.4 Comments on Public Review Document
1. Summary of Comments/Questions received during the July 2001 Public Meetings as part of the Formal Scoping for the Louisiana Proposed Statewide Regional Restoration Planning (RRP) Program for Oil Spills. Karolien Debusschere, Ann Berger, Jason Forman, August 9, 2001, 6 pages
Document ID 2029
2. Summary of Written Comments/Questions received as part of the Formal Scoping for the Louisiana Proposed Statewide Regional Restoration Planning (RRP) Program for Oil Spills. Karolien Debusschere, Ann Berger, Jason Forman, November 15, 2001, 3 pages
Document ID 2021
5. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the governor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, May 1, 2003, 217pages
Document ID 2140
2. List of Organizations to which the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program (RRP Program) and the Public Meeting Notice was mailed. Trustee Workgroup, July 18, 2003, 7 pages
Document ID 2154
5.1 Notice of Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. Federal Register Notice of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 90, May 9, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2293
5.2 Public Meetings on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. Presentation given at the June 23 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Damage Assessment Center, June 23, 2003, 6 pages
Document ID 2176
2. List of Persons attending the June 2003 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Proposed Statewide Regional Restoration Planning (RRP) Program for Oil Spills. Trustee Workgroup, July 7, 2003, 3 pages
Document ID 2185
5.2.1 Handouts available at the Public Meetings
1. NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program Information Sheet -Restoration of Injured Natural Resources. NOAA-DARP, January 1, 2002, 1 page
Document ID 2184
2. NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program Information Sheet - Natural Resources Damage Assessment. NOAA-DARP, January 1, 2002, 1page
Document ID 2180
3. NOAA Information Sheet - Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. NOAA-DARP, January 1, 2002, 1page
Document ID 2179
4. Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor Brochure - “Protecting Louisiana’s Citizens and Environment from the Effects of Oil Spills." Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Office of the Governor, No date, 8 pages
Document ID 2177
5. Informal Scoping Summary of Regional Restoration Planning. Trustee Workgroup, November 1, 2000, 2 pages
Document ID 2178
5.2.2 Announcements for Public Meetings
1. Federal Register Notice of the June 23 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Register, Vol. 68 No. 110, June 9, 2003, 3 pages
Document ID 2161
2. Louisiana Register Notice of the June 23 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. State Register, Vol. 29, No. 06, Potpourri, Office of the Governor, Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, June 20, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2174
3. Legal Notice of June 23, 2003 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement published in the Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA. on June 9, 2003 and June 18, 2003. Capital City Press, Publisher of the Advocate - Proof of Publication, June 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2169
4. Legal Notice of June 23, 2003 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement published in the Times Picayune, New Orleans, LA. on June 9, 2003 and June 18, 2003. The Times Picayune - Proof of Publication, June 24, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2162
5. Announcement of June 2003 Public Meetings for the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program distributed accompanying the DPEIS. NOAA/NOS, May 1, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2160
6. State of Louisiana Governor’s Office Press Release announcing June 23 Public Meetings “Agencies Seek Input on First State-Wide Program to Promote Regional Restoration of Natural Resources Injured by Oil Spills”. June 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2173
7. U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA Press Release announcing June 23 Public Meetings “Agencies Seek Input on First State-Wide Program to Promote Regional Restoration of Natural Resources Injured by Oil Spills”. June 18, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2175
8. Announcement of June 23, 2003 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Times Picayune, New Orleans, LA, Section A, page 9, June 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2166
9. Announcement of June 23, 2003 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Times Picayune, New Orleans, LA, Section A, page 10, June 20, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2168
10 .Announcement of June 23, 2003 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA., Section A, page 9, June 19, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2170
11. Announcement of June 23, 2003 Public Meetings for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Sunday Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA., Section A, page 11, June 22, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2171
5.3 Public comments received on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. Summary of Comments/Questions received during the Public Meetings on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program (RRP Program)/Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS). Trustee Workgroup, July 7, 2003, 5 pages
Document ID 2187
2. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Letter providing comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. James H. Jenkins Jr. to William Conner, July 2, 2003, 4 pages
Document ID 2159
3. Natural Resource Conservation Service Letter providing comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Donald W. Gohmert to William Conner, July 7, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2155
4. U.S. Department of Interior Letter providing comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Stephen R. Spencer to William Conner, July 7, 2003, 7 pages
Document ID 2157
5. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality letter providing comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. L. Hall Bohlinger to William Conner, July 9, 2003, 7 pages
Document ID 2158
5.4 Consultations
5.4.1 Endangered Species Act Consultations
1. Letter from NOAA/NMFS-DARP to Office of Protected Resources/NMFS requesting ESA Consultation Review of the RRP Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. John Iliff to Eric Hawk, June 19, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2250
2. Letter from NOAA/NOS/OR&R to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting ESA Consultation Review of RRP Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. William Conner to Mr. Watson, September 10, 2003, 7 pages
Document ID 2221
3. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to NOAA/DAC regarding ESA Consultation for RRP Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Russell C. Watson to William Conner, September 12, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2227
4. Letter from NOAA/NMFS to NOAA/NMFS-DARP regarding ESA Consultation for RRP Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Roy E. Crabtree to John Iliff, October 1, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2228
5. Letter from NOAA/RC to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting ESA Consultation for RRP Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. John Rapp to Brigette Firmin, March 2, 2005, 2 pages
Document ID 2335
6. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to NOAA/DARP regarding ESA Consultation for RRP Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Russell C. Watson to John Rapp, April 1, 2005, 2 pages
Document ID 2283
5.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultations
1. Letter from NOAA/NMFS-DARP to EFH/Habitat Conservation Division/NMFS requesting EFH Consultation Review of the RRP Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. John Iliff to Rick Ruebsamen, June 19, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2226
2. Letter from NOAA/NMFS to NOAA/NMFS-DARP regarding EFH Consultation for RRP Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Rick Ruebsamen to John Iliff, July 9, 2003, 3 pages
Document ID 2156
6. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, January 2007, 172 pages
Document ID 2395
6.1 Notice of Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. Federal Register Notice of Availability on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 3, January 5, 2007, 1 page
Document ID 2397
2. Louisiana Register Notice of Availability of a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. State Register, Vol. 33, No. 01, Potpourri, Office of the Governor, Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, January 20, 2007, 1 page
Document ID 2396
6.2 Correspondence Relating to Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. Memorandum for Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Constituents regarding availability of Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Documents. Tony Penn, on behalf of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Department of the Interior, to Constituents, October 27, 2006, 1 page
Document ID 2398
2. Cover Letter with the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Rodney F. Weiher to Reviewer, December 12, 2006, 2 pages
Document ID 2399
3. Memorandum for Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Constituents regarding requested Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Documents. Tony Penn, on behalf of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Department of the Interior, to Constituents, December 27, 2006, 1 page
Document ID 2400
4. Notification Postcard announcing the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Final Regional Restoration Plan – Region 2 for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 26, 2006, 2 pages
Document ID 2410
5. List of Organizations mailed a Notification Postcard announcing the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Final Regional Restoration Plan – Region 2 for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, February 12, 2007, 8 pages
Document ID 2402
6. List of Organizations that responded to a Notification Postcard and chose to receive the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, February 12, 2007, 3 pages
Document ID 2401
6.3 Record of Decision for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program
1. Record of Decision for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, April 30, 2007, 4 pages
Document ID 2415
2. Federal Register Notice of Record of Decision for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 99, May 23, 2007, 2 pages
Document ID 2403
7. General NEPA Compliance Documents
7.1 Invitation to Potential Cooperating Agencies
1. Letter of Invitation to U.S. Department of the Interior to cooperate in the development of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Ann Berger to Stephen R. Spencer, May 18, 2001, 2 pages
Document ID 1983
2. Letter of Invitation to Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor to cooperate in the development of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Ann Berger to Roland J. Guidry, October 29, 2001, 1 page
Document ID 2281
7.1.1 Responses to Invitations to Potential Cooperating Agencies
1. U.S. Geological Survey’s Letter agreeing to cooperate in development of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. James F. Devine to Ann Berger, June 8, 2001, 1 page
Document ID 1982
2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Letter agreeing to cooperate in development of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Sam D. Hamilton to Ann Berger June 8, 15 2001, 1 page
Document ID 1981
3. Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor Letter agreeing to cooperate in development of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Roland J. Guidry to Ann Berger, November 27, 2001, 1 page
Document ID 2282
8. Regional Restoration Plans
8.1 Region 2
8.1.1 Region 2 RRP
8.1.1.1 Draft Regional Restoration Plan
1. The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the governor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, September 2003, 101 pages
Document ID 2239
2. Cover Letter with Draft Region 2 Restoration Plan requesting Public Review and Comment. Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to Reviewer, Karolien Debusschere to Reviewer, September 17, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2238
3. List of Organizations to which the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2, was mailed. Trustee Workgroup, February 22, 2005, 7 pages
Document ID 2290
8.1.1.1.1 Notice and Announcements of availability and public comment period for Draft RRP2
1. Federal Register Notice of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 180, September 17, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2236
2. U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA Press Release announcing availability of Draft Region 2 Plan for Public Comment. September 17, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2237
3. State of Louisiana Governor’s Office Press Release announcing availability of Draft Region 2 Plan for Public Comment. September 17, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2292
4. Legal Notice of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2 published in the Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA. on September 18, 2003. Capital City Press, Publisher of the Advocate - Proof of Publication, September 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2247
5. Legal Notice of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2 published in the Times Picayune, New Orleans, LA. on September 18, 2003. The Times Picayune - Proof of Publication, September 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2248
6. Announcement of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. The Courier, Houma, LA, Section A, page 6, September 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2241
7. Announcement of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. The Daily Comet, Thibodeaux, LA, Section A, page 4, September 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2242
8. Announcement of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, LA, Section A, page 4, September 22, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2243
9. Announcement of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, LA, Section A, page 16, September 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2244
10. Announcement of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. The Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, Section A, page 18, September 21, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2245
11. Announcement of Availability and Request for Comment on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. The Sunday Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, Section B, page 5, September 18, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2246
8.1.1.1.2 Public Comments Received on the Draft Regional Restoration Plan for Region 2
1. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Letter providing comments on Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. James H. Jenkins Jr. to William Conner, October 22, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2286
2. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Letter providing comments on Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. David W. Fruge to William Conner, October 22, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2288
3. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality letter providing comments on Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Larry Wiesepape to William Conner, October 8, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2287
4. Natural Resource Conservation Service Letter Providing Comments on Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. E.J. Giering to William Conner, November 24, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2289
5. U.S. Department of Interior Letter providing comments on Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Stephen R. Spencer to William Conner, October 23, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2284
6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter providing comments on Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Russell W. Watson to William Conner, October 21, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2285
7. Correspondence between NOAA/DAC and Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association requesting additional time to provide comments on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2, and requesting a meeting to discuss the Plan. October 22, 2003, 1 page
Document ID 2291
8. Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association Letter providing comments on Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. R. Michael Lyons to William Conner, November 13, 2003, 4 pages
Document ID 2296
9. Summary of November 3, 2003 Meeting to receive comments on the Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2 (dated September 2003). Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, December 22, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2249
8.1.1.1.3 Consultations
8.1.1.1.3.1 Endangered Species Act Consultation
1. Letter from NOAA/DAC to NOAA/NMFS initiating ESA Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. William Conner to Eric Hawk, September 23, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2334
2. Letter from NOAA/NOS/OR&R to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiating ESA Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. William Conner to Mr. Watson, September 23, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2234
3. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to NOAA/DAC regarding ESA Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Russell C. Watson to William Conner, October 20, 2003, 5 pages
Document ID 2235
4. Letter from NMFS/HCRC to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Initiating Programmatic Biological Assessment Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. John Rapp to Brigette Firmin, August 12, 2005, 2 pages + report (28 pages + appendices)
Document ID 2299
5. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/LA Field Office to NOAA/RC regarding Programmatic Biological Assessment Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2.James F. Boggsto John Rapp, August 22, 2005, 3 pages
Document ID 2294
6. Letter from NMFS/HCRC to NMFS/OPR Initiating Programmatic Biological Assessment Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. John Rapp to Eric Hawk, August 12, 2005, 2 pages + report (28 pages + appendices)
Document ID 2297
7. Letter from NMFS to NOAA/DARP Regarding Programmatic Biological Assessment Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. David Bernhartto John Rapp, October 11, 2005, 1 page
Document ID 2295
8. Letter from NMFS/HCRC to NMFS/HC Initiating Programmatic Biological Assessment Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. John Rapp to Rickey Ruebsamen, August 12, 2005, 2 pages + report (28 pages + appendices)
Document ID 2298
9. Letter from NMFS/HCD to NOAA/RC Regarding Programmatic Biological Assessment Consultation/EFH Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Rickey Ruebsamen to John Rapp, April 6, 2006, 1 page
Document ID 2336
8.1.1.1.3.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
1. Letter from NOAA/NOS/OR&R to NOAA/NMFS/Habitat Conservation Division Initiating EFH Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. William Conner to Rickey Ruebsamen, September 23, 2003, 2 pages
Document ID 2229
2. Letter from NOAA/NMFS/Habitat Conservation Division to NOAA/DAC Regarding EFH Consultation on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Draft Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Rickey N. Ruebsamen, October 14, 2003, 21 pages
Document ID 2232
8.1.1.2 Final Regional Restoration Plan
1. The Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Final Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, January 2007, 24 pages
Document ID 2404
8.1.1.2.1 Notice of Final Regional Restoration Plan
1. Federal Register Notice of Availability on the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Final Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 3, January 5, 2007, 1 page
Document ID 2405
2. Louisiana Register Notice of Availability of a Final Regional Restoration Plan for Region 2 for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. State Register, Vol. 33, No. 01, Potpourri, Office of the Governor, Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, January 20, 2007, 2 pages
Document ID 2406
8.1.1.2.2 Correspondence Relating to Final Regional Restoration Plan
1. Memorandum for Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Constituents regarding availability of Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Documents. Tony Penn, on behalf of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Department of the Interior, to Constituents, October 27, 2006, 1 page
Document ID 2407
2. Cover Letter with the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program, Final Regional Restoration Plan, Region 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to Reader, January 5, 2007, 2 pages
Document ID 2411
3. Memorandum for Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Constituents regarding requested Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program Documents. Tony Penn, on behalf of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office/Office of the Governor; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Department of the Interior, to Constituents, December 27, 2006, 1 page
Document ID 2412
4. Notification Postcard announcing the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Final Regional Restoration Plan – Region 2 for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 26, 2006, 2 pages
Document ID 2413
5. List of Organizations mailed a Notification Postcard announcing the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Final Regional Restoration Plan – Region 2 for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, February 12, 2007, 8 pages
Document ID 2409
6. List of Organizations that responded to a Notification Postcard and chose to receive the Final Regional Restoration Plan - Region 2 for the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, February 12, 2007, 3 pages
Document ID 2408
RRP Program Summary
The Louisiana RRP Program identifies the statewide program structure, the decision-making process, and the criteria that will be used to select the restoration project(s) that may be implemented to restore the natural resources injured by a given incident. Specifically, the program defines, expands, and/or refines the following important components of the existing NRDA process:
The RRP Program defines those trust resources and services in Louisiana that are likely to be or are anticipated to be injured (i.e., at-risk) by incidents as “potentially injured trust resources and services.” Pre-identification of these “potentially injured trust resources and services” will facilitate the development of the RRPs and assist in the coordination of response activities by informing agency personnel who are participating in the incident response (i.e., clean up) of trust resources and services that may be of greatest concern to the trustees. The “potentially injured trust resources and services” are defined under three broad categories: coastal, inland, and statewide.
- Herbaceous Wetlands
Herbaceous wetlands are primarily salt, brackish/intermediate, and fresh marshes located in or near the coastal zone and alluvial basin. The marshes of the Mississippi River delta complex and other similar areas in Louisiana support a mix of freshwater, estuarine, and marine species. These wetlands are vital habitat for various fish, mammals, and resident and migratory birds. As considered here, this category includes marsh plants and the invertebrates, bacteria, algae, and sediments associated with the vegetation that contribute to all marsh habitat functions. - Forested Wetlands
Forested wetlands are wetland areas dominated by woody vegetation. They usually consist of an overstory of large trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and an herbaceous layer. As considered here, this category includes the trees, understory vegetation, soils, closely associated invertebrates, and the services that this habitat provides to other trust resources. - Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds
Unvegetated beaches and shorelines in coastal waters include the perimeters of headlands, barrier islands, estuaries and bays, tidal mudflats, and river deltas. This zone begins at the lowest part of the intertidal zone and extends into the supratidal zone. As considered here, this injury category includes the invertebrates that burrow and/or live in this habitat. It encompasses all ecological functions performed by this habitat, including, among others, primary production by benthic diatoms in the intertidal zone and secondary production by grazers, but does not include human recreational services.
Streambeds include wetlands and all water channels, which are defined by Langbein and Iseri (1960) as natural or artificial open conduits either naturally or artificially that periodically or continuously contain moving water, or that form a connecting link between two bodies of standing water. Streambeds containing flowing water include: seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, intermittently flooded, irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonal-tidal, or temporary-tidal water regimes (Cowardin et al. 1979). As considered here, this injury category includes the substrate (soils/sediments and hard surfaces) and closely associated invertebrates, and includes all ecological functions performed by this habitat (Cowardin et al. 1979). - Water Column Organisms
As considered here, this category consists of both planktonic (including larval fish) and nektonic organisms, such as fish that live in fresh water streams, ponds, swamps, and lakes. It also includes the ecological services these organisms provide to other trust resources.
- Herbacous Wetlands
Inland herbaceous wetlands are environments that experience periodic flooding and are comprised of emergent vegetation having little or no woody tissue. This definition refers specifically to the inland geographic areas where freshwater flow regimes prevail throughout the year and saltwater does not typically penetrate from the coast. These wetlands support a diverse group of fish, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. As considered here, this category includes marsh plants and the invertebrates, bacteria, algae, and sediments associated with the vegetation that contribute to all marsh habitat functions. - Forested Wetlands
Forested wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation that is at least 18.5 feet tall. They occur in freshwater systems and normally possess an overstory of tall/mature trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and an herbaceous layer. Specific examples of this habitat in Louisiana are wetland forest (evergreen, deciduous, and mixed) and swamp. As considered here, this category includes the trees, understory vegetation, soils, closely associated invertebrates, and the services that this habitat provides to other trust resources. - Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds
Unvegetated beaches and shorelines in coastal waters include the perimeters of headlands, barrier islands, estuaries and bays, tidal mudflats, and river deltas. This zone begins at the lowest part of the intertidal zone and extends into the supratidal zone. As considered here, this injury category includes the invertebrates that burrow and/or live in this habitat. It encompasses all ecological functions performed by this habitat, including, among others, primary production by benthic diatoms in the intertidal zone and secondary production by grazers, but does not include human recreational services.
Streambeds include wetlands and all water channels, which are defined by Langbein and Iseri (1960) as natural or artificial open conduits either naturally or artificially that periodically or continuously contain moving water, or that form a connecting link between two bodies of standing water. Streambeds containing flowing water include: seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, intermittently flooded, irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonal-tidal, or temporary-tidal water regimes (Cowardin et al. 1979). As considered here, this injury category includes the substrate (soils/sediments and hard surfaces) and closely associated invertebrates, and includes all ecological functions performed by this habitat (Cowardin et al. 1979). - Upland Vegetation
As defined in the Louisiana GAP analysis program (USGS 2001), this category includes agricultural-cropland-grassland, dense pine thicket, upland shrub/scrub (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed), and upland forest (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed). It encompasses trees, as well as, understory vegetation, soils, and invertebrates in the soil or associated with plants, and the services this habitat provides to other trust resources. - Water Column Organisms
As considered here, this category consists of both planktonic (including larval fish) and nektonic organisms, such as fish that live in fresh water streams, ponds, swamps, and lakes. It also includes the ecological services these organisms provide to other trust resources.
- Birds
Birds located permanently or seasonally in all coastal and inland areas are included in this category (see Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment). This category can also include the ecological services birds provide to other trust resources. - Wildlife
Mammals, reptiles, and amphibians from all habitats in all coastal and inland areas are included in this category (see Chapter 2.0, Affected Environment). This category can also include the ecological services mammals, reptiles, and amphibians provide to other trust resources. - Recreational Resource Services
Human recreational resource services are provided by habitats and/or areas throughout the state and offshore within the EEZ. Indirect activities (e.g., hiking, biking, picnicking, or jogging) and direct activities (e.g., bird and wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, boating, or swimming) are included in this category. This category does not, however, include the resources themselves that are involved in the activity. - Cultural Resource Services
Cultural resource services is a broad term that includes prehistoric, historic, architectural, and traditional cultural services that flow from natural resources that have cultural attributes. Cultural resources in Louisiana include lands, buildings, monuments, travel routes, ship wrecks, burial sites, ceremonial sites, battle grounds, Indian mounds, middens, and other artifacts, generally in excess of 50 years of age, that represent the history and culture of the region as perceived by the public or cultural scientists. While all state and local historic preservation groups may contribute to the list of state cultural resource sites or attributes, the Louisiana State Preservation Office, state Indian tribes, and USDOI are primarily responsible for designating Louisiana’s cultural resource sites and attributes. Biological resources can have cultural significance and values under specific conditions. The loss or injury of a biological resource that has cultural significance and value would constitute not only a natural resource injury, but a loss of cultural resource services as well. Therefore this category includes all cultural resource services that natural resources in the state may provide.
Restoration Types
The RRP Program identifies restoration types that are appropriate for the restoration of injuries for each of the identified “potentially injured trust resources and services” in the RRP Program. These restoration type categories are:
This restoration type consists of actions intended to create a coastal marsh or enhance the provision of marsh services from an existing marsh. There are many different methods that can be used to create a marsh, including depositing dredged material at an elevation suitable for marsh vegetation and then planting marsh vegetation following the dewatering or compaction of material, constructing a crevasse in a river levee allowing a marsh splay to form, and terracing to protect marsh from wave action and facilitate the increase of waterbottom elevation through the deposition of sediment and organic matter. An example of an action designed to enhance marsh service flows would be increasing hydrologic flow into an existing marsh with poor circulation to augment utilization by marine organisms and growth of marsh vegetation.
- Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands
This restoration type consists of actions intended to create a coastal marsh or enhance the provision of marsh services from an existing marsh. There are many different methods that can be used to create a marsh, including depositing dredged material at an elevation suitable for marsh vegetation and then planting marsh vegetation following the dewatering or compaction of material, constructing a crevasse in a river levee allowing a marsh splay to form, and terracing to protect marsh from wave action and facilitate the increase of waterbottom elevation through the deposition of sediment and organic matter. An example of an action designed to enhance marsh service flows would be increasing hydrologic flow into an existing marsh with poor circulation to augment utilization by marine organisms and growth of marsh vegetation. - Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Forested Wetlands
This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of forested wetlands or enhance the provision of services from an existing forested wetland to other trust resources. Planting hardwoods along cheniers and ridges is an example of a project to create forested wetlands. An example of an action designed to enhance forested wetland service flows would be increasing hydrologic flow into an existing forested wetland with poor circulation to augment utilization by marine and estuarine water organisms, such as gapping spoil banks or introducing fresh river water into a swamp. - Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds
This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of beaches/shorelines/streambeds or enhance the provision of services from existing beaches/shorelines/streambeds to other trust resources. Installing a hard structure to trap sediment, thus forming additional area of beach, is an example of coastal beach creation. Enhancement actions could include such methods as removing debris along the beach and/or shoreline that limit the habitat value of the beach.
Construction of an artificial reef, such as increasing hard structure on the seafloor or water column, to allow colonization by encrusting organisms and provide habitat for reef fish is an example of a project of this restoration type. Other actions designed to create artificial reefs or to increase the productivity of an existing reef are also classified in this restoration type. - Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs)
This restoration type consists of actions designed to produce reef habitat or to enhance the productivity of, and services provided by, an existing reef. A project such as the placing of hard substrates in an area suitable for oyster survival in a configuration designed to allow oysters or other reef-forming organisms to settle is an example of reef creation. A water quality improvement project that enhances the productivity of an existing oyster reef is an example of an enhancement action.
Construction of an artificial reef, such as increasing hard structure on the seafloor or water column, to allow colonization by encrusting organisms and provide habitat for reef fish, is an example of a project of this restoration type. Other actions designed to create artificial reefs or to increase the productivity of an existing reef are also classified in this restoration type. - Creation/Enhancement of Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
This restoration type consists of actions designed to create a new bed of SAV or enhance the productivity of an existing bed. Planting seagrasses in a bare area is an example of a project to create SAV. A water quality improvement project that reduces turbidity and enhances the productivity of an existing seagrass bed is an example of an enhancement action. - Creation/Enhancement of Inland Herbaceous Wetlands
This restoration type consists of actions to create herbaceous wetlands or enhance the provision of services from an existing wetland to other trust resources. Planting fresh marsh vegetation in a bare area is an example of a project to create herbaceous wetlands. An example of an action designed to enhance inland herbaceous wetland service flows would be increasing hydrologic flow into an existing herbaceous wetland with poor circulation to augment utilization by freshwater organisms and growth of the vegetation. Adding nutrients to herbaceous wetlands with low productivity is another method of enhancement. - Creation/Enhancement of Inland Forested Wetlands
This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of forested wetlands or enhance the provision of services from an existing forested wetland to other trust resources. Planting bald cypress or overcup oak in a bare area is an example of a project to create forested wetlands. An example of an action designed to enhance forested wetland service flows would be increasing hydrologic flow into an existing forested wetland with poor circulation to augment utilization by freshwater organisms and growth of the woody vegetation. - Creation/Enhancement of Inland Upland Vegetation
This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of upland vegetation or enhance the provision of services from existing upland vegetation to other trust resources. Planting longleaf pine (Pinus taeda) in a bare area is an example of a project to create upland vegetation. Enhancement actions could include such methods as mid-story thinning to stimulate wildlife utilization and growth of the upload vegetation. - Creation/Enhancement of Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds
This restoration type consists of actions designed to provide additional areas of beaches/shorelines/streambeds to enhance the provision of services from existing beaches/shorelines/streambeds to other trust resources. Installing a hard structure to trap sediment and form an additional area of beach is an example of inland beach creation. Enhancement actions could include such methods as removing trash that limits the habitat value of a beach. Enhancement actions for streambeds could include such methods as removing trash that limits the habitat value of a streambed. Regrading or recontouring previously altered streambeds or bendway projects are other alternatives for enhancement.
Prevention of a particular organism or physical force from adversely affecting a habitat constitutes physical protection. Protection of a riparian habitat by fencing off cattle or creating breakwaters to reduce wave energy would be examples of physical habitat protection.
- Physical Protection of Inland Herbaceous Wetlands
This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of herbaceous wetlands. Erecting fences to exclude herbivores or prevent excessive herbivory is one example of physical protection that may be implemented in inland herbaceous wetlands. - Physical Protection of Coastal Forested Wetlands
This type of restoration action includes projects designed to decrease the loss of coastal forested wetlands. The use of tree shelters around the base of trees or exclusion fences around forest tracts to prevent herbivory is an example of physical protection that may be implemented in this habitat. - Physical Protection of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds
This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of a coastal beach or other unvegetated shoreline or streambed. It may involve the placement of artificial structures or the construction of some natural habitat adjacent to an existing shoreline that would reduce erosion of the substrate. - Physical Protection of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands
This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of coastal marsh. Armoring shorelines or erecting fences to exclude herbivores or prevent excessive herbivory is one example of physical protection that may be implemented in coastal herbaceous wetlands. - Physical Protection of Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds
This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of a sandy beach or other unvegetated shoreline. It may involve the placement of artificial structures or the construction of some natural habitat adjacent to an existing shoreline that would reduce erosion of the substrate.
This type of restoration action may also involve projects designed to reduce the loss of inland streambeds. Planting fringe vegetation to reduce sedimentation into a streambed to keep it from filling in is one example of this type of restoration. Fencing off access to the streambed to prevent cattle from entering or enhancing vegetated buffers around streambeds would qualify as protection. - Physical Protection of Inland Upland Vegetation
This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of upland vegetation. Laying weed mats around the base of trees to alleviate excessive weed growth in the area is an example of physical protection that can be implemented in an upland vegetated habitat. Erecting deer exclusion fencing or supporting the control of detrimental species would provide physical protection of the habitat. - Physical Protection of Inland Forested Wetlands
This type of restoration action involves projects designed to decrease the loss of forested wetlands. The use of tree shelters around the base of trees to prevent herbivory and scouring is an example of physical protection that may be implemented in this habitat.
- Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Herbaceous Wetlands
As mentioned above, acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded protection under law, such as the purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered under this restoration type. Acquisition of this type will generally be used in conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or enhancement of the habitat. This restoration type may also include actions that meet the three requirements listed above, such as buying imperiled tracts of herbaceous wetlands or other herbaceous wetlands in jeopardy of being developed or pursuing conservation easements to remove them from consideration for development or other anthropogenic activities. While service flows would not be increased through this alternative, areas that may otherwise stop providing services to the public and environment may remain intact and contribute toward landscape continuity. - Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Forested Wetlands
Again, as mentioned above, acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded protection under law, such as the purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered under this restoration type. Acquisition of this type will generally be used in conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or enhancement of the habitat. This restoration type may include actions such as purchasing tracts or pursuing conservation easements on tracts of coastal forested wetlands in jeopardy of being developed or imperiled for other reasons. While service flows would not be increased through this alternative, areas that would otherwise stop providing services to the public and environment would remain intact and continue to contribute to landscape continuity. - Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds
This restoration type would include actions such as purchasing areas adjacent to coastal beaches and shorelines (coastal beaches are public lands up to the mean high water line), or purchasing privately owned canals/streambeds. Other actions may be taken to legally protect this resource such as pursuing conservation easements, limiting access, or taking other measures deemed appropriate. While service flows would not be increased through this alternative, areas that would otherwise stop providing services to the public and environment would remain intact and contribute toward landscape continuity. - Acquisition/Legal Protection of Coastal Oyster Reefs (and Other Reefs)
This restoration type would include actions such as buying an existing oyster lease to provide ecological services. - Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Herbaceous Wetlands
Again, as mentioned above, acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded protection under law, such as the purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered under this restoration type. Acquisition of this type will generally be used in conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or enhancement of the habitat. This restoration type would include such actions as purchasing tracts of herbaceous wetland habitat that are not otherwise protected and are in imminent peril of loss to development. - Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Forested Wetlands
Again, as mentioned above, acquisition of a habitat or resource already afforded protection under law, such as the purchase of wetlands, would not normally be considered under this restoration type. Acquisition of this type will generally be used in conjunction with other restoration types, such as creation or enhancement of the habitat. This restoration type would include such actions as purchasing tracts of forested wetland habitat that are not otherwise protected and are in imminent peril of loss to development. - Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Beaches/Shorelines/Streambeds
Inland beaches/shorelines/streambeds, as considered in this section, include river, stream, and lake edges. State law, based on the land survey of 1812, states that the public (i.e., state) owns all navigable rivers and streams in the state. This restoration type would include such actions as purchasing stream edges that are not otherwise protected and are in imminent peril of loss to development. - Acquisition/Legal Protection of Inland Upland Vegetation
This restoration type would include such actions as purchasing tracts of upland vegetation habitat that are not otherwise protected and are in imminent peril of loss to development.
- Stocking Coastal Water Column Organisms
This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to directly increase the number of coastal water column organisms. Releasing fish from a hatchery to increase the species’ population is an example of this type of restoration. - Stocking Oysters (and Other Reef Organisms)
This restoration type is defined as the placement of oysters or other reef organisms in an area suitable for their survival. Adult or seed oysters could be used in this type of restoration. The intent of this type of restoration is to provide oyster biomass and oyster services, apart from reef services in general. - Stocking Inland Water Column Organisms
This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to directly increase the number of fresh water column organisms. A project such as releasing fish from a hatchery to increase the population of that fish species is an example of this type of restoration. - Stocking Birds
This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to directly increase the number of birds in general or the number of a particular species or guild. A project such as releasing birds hatched and raised from eggs collected in the wild is an example of this type of restoration. - Stocking Wildlife
This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to directly increase the population of one or more wildlife species. Actions such as raising and releasing the species of wildlife injured are included in this restoration type.
This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to reduce stressors on bird populations. An action such as installing fences to protect nests from predators qualifies as this restoration type.
- Physical Protection of Birds
This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to reduce stressors on bird populations. An action such as installing fences to protect nests from predators qualifies as this restoration type. - Physical Protection of Wildlife
This restoration type is broadly defined as any action designed to physically protect wildlife by decreasing stressors on the wildlife population. Excluding predators from an area to reduce predation is an example of this restoration type.
The restoration of any habitat that provides the public recreational services, direct or indirect such as fishing, hiking, hunting, nature photography, and education, falls under this type. This type of restoration includes actions designed to increase access to, or enhance, recreational opportunities. Stocking a lake with fish or creating an artificial reef are examples of restoration actions that would enhance the experience of recreational fishing. The construction or enhancement of structures such as fishing piers, boat ramps, and wildlife viewing areas could also be considered restoration if it can be shown that the amenity would restore lost recreational services to the public.
Restoration of natural resource services that also have cultural resource service(s) value would be an example of restoration under this type.
The RRP Program describes the specific restoration type(s) in each restoration type category that is appropriate for the restoration of injuries to each of the identified “potentially injured trust resources and services” in the RRP Program. This determination of the range of appropriate restoration types is based on a nexus analysis.1 The trustees have also conducted an environmental consequences analysis by evaluating the impacts of the implementation of restoration techniques on the restoration types. Carrying out both analyses in the FPEIS will result in both technical process and NEPA compliance efficiencies at the case level during the Restoration Planning Phase. The trustees will be able to use relevant analysis and information from the FPEIS and RRPs to produce the incident(s)-specific DARPs and environmental assessments.
The trustees have also developed restoration-type selection criteria to assist in determining which of the various restoration types identified is most appropriate to restore the trust resources and services injured during a given incident. It is anticipated that the criteria will also provide a level of predictability to the public and affected parties regarding restoration project selection. Furthermore, projects in each RRP will be classified by restoration type to facilitate the selection of specific restoration projects based on the type of trust resources and services injured. This approach will streamline the process of evaluating and selecting preferred restoration project(s) to be reviewed by the public.
The RRP Program describes a number of additional case settlement alternatives to assist the trustees and RPs in negotiations to resolve RP liabilities for incidents. These additional settlement alternatives generally represent different ways of resolving liability from an incident under one or the other (or both) of the two options: RP-implemented restoration, RP cash settlement, and trustee-implemented restoration.2 These settlement alternatives also may provide opportunities for implementing restoration projects more quickly and cost-effectively, pooling settlements to implement larger projects than could otherwise be accomplished by using individual settlements, and, potentially, facilitating implementation of more ecologically significant projects.
- RP CO-OP
This settlement alternative provides an opportunity for RPs to partner with others to implement a restoration project identified in an RRP that is larger than their individual liability for a specific incident, thereby sharing their implementation costs (e.g., engineering and design, permitting, mobilization, and demobilization). This alternative may allow the RPs to take advantage of economies of scale in implementing a larger project, thereby lowering their costs of resolving their specific liabilities. Specifically, RPs could potentially partner to implement a larger project in a number of ways, for example: A group of RPs could jointly implement a project by pooling funds based on their specific liability; One RP could implement a project with other RPs contributing the funds based on their specific liabilities; One and/or a group of RPs could implement a project that appropriately resolves the RP's OPA NRDA liability and that is carried out in conjunction with restoration needs for other purposes (e.g., Coast 2050 restoration); or A RP with a partner(s) (e.g., other state or federal restoration programs and conservation organizations) could jointly implement a project that meets the needs of both partners and still appropriately resolves the RP's liability. Additionally, the "RP CO-OP Settlement" alternative provides an opportunity for a single RP to use one appropriately scaled project to address its liability for two or more of its own incidents. - RP/Fund CO-OP
This settlement alternative provides an opportunity to the RP(s) to implement a restoration project identified in an RRP that is larger than the specific liability for a specific incident and, therefore, cost-share the implementation costs (e.g., engineering and design, permitting, mobilization, and demobilization) with either federal OSLTF or state OSCF monies received by the trustees to resolve liability from similar incidents for which there was no viable RP or a viable RP failed to respond to a demand letter after 90 days. This settlement alternative is similar to the "RP CO-OP Settlement" alternative except that instead of the RP partnering with other parties to share the cost of a larger project, the RP costs shares the implementation of the project with the trustees using cash settlements received from the federal OSLTF and/or the state OSCF. A prerequisite for the potential use of this settlement alternative is the prior occurrence of an incident(s) for which the trustees have received partial monies to implement required restoration actions from the federal OSLTF and/or the state OSCF. This alternative may allow the RP to take advantage of economies of scale in implementing a larger project and thereby may lower their costs of resolving their specific liabilities.
In order to improve the consistency, predictability, and accountability of the NRDA decision-making process, the trustees identified and defined project selection and other screening criteria to be used in implementing the Louisiana RRP Program, including:
- Selection of restoration projects to be incorporated into each RRP
1. Strong Nexus to Injuries included in the applicable RRP
2. Technical Feasibility and likelihood of success
3. Consistency with Existing Laws and Regulations
4. Listed as one of the Restoration Types identified in the applicable RRP
5. Located (at least) partially within the boundaries of the applicable RRP Region - Selection of the most appropriate restoration type(s) to restore the injured trust resources and services in a case
1. Strength of Nexus to the Injury
2. Scalability
3. Degree to which restoration type addresses Multiple Injuries
4. Availability of projects for this restoration type in the RRP
5. Other case-specific parameters - Project selection screening of specific restoration actions required for a case
1. Project Cost-Effectiveness (including ability to partner)
2. Proximity to the affected area
3. Scalability
4. Extent of Benefit to Injured Trust Resources and Services
5. Technical Feasibility and Likelihood of Success
6. Avoidance of Future additional Injury resulting from the project
7. Degree to which Project Addresses Multiple Injuries
8. Degree to which Project affects Public Health and Safety
9. Ability to implement the project with Minimal Delay
10. Degree to which the project supports Existing Strategies/Plans
11. Project Urgency
12. Other Factors as appropriate
Regional Restoration Plans (RRPS)
The RRP Program established nine regions for which regional plans will be developed. There are four coastal regions based on the Coast 2050 Plan regions and five inland regions based on LDEQ’s defined watersheds.
For each region, an individual RRP will be produced. Each RRP identifies the trust resources and services that could potentially be affected by an incident and the restoration alternatives that have been identified to date for implementation within that region.
Regional Boundaries for the RRP Program (Figure/Map)
State and federal trustees continue to solicit restoration projects for potential inclusion in the nine RRPs. Restoration projects will be included in the Plans based on RRP Program selection criteria. For instructions on how to submit restoration projects, please download the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Restoration Project Information Sheet.
Summary of Program Benefits
The RRP Program, including the RRPs, is intended to benefit the public, industry, and natural resource trustees by:
- Providing greater opportunities to restore injuries to trust resources and services;
- Expediting restoration of injured trust resources and services from incidents;
- Reducing the cost of restoration planning and implementation;
- Pooling of individual case recoveries to maximize opportunities for implementation of larger, more ecologically significant restoration projects;
- Providing for more consistency and predictability by describing in detail the NRDA process, thereby increasing the understanding of that process by the public and industry;
- Improving coordination between restoration activities under the NRDA mandates and other restoration efforts in the state;
- Enhancing the capability for trustees to restore trust resources and services injured by incidents for which there is no viable RP;
- Maximizing opportunities for partnering among RPs, trustees, and other public and private restoration efforts; and
- Increasing opportunity for public participation in the NRDA process through pre-incident planning.
The trustees will periodically review the implementation of the RRP Program in the context of the benefits described above, in order to identify opportunities for improvement. In addition, the trustees are committed to identifying, developing, and using innovative operational tools and methods that will achieve the intended benefits of the RRP Program.
Opportunities for public involvement will continue to be provided throughout the development of the remaining RRPs and implementation of the RRP Program
Partnering Agencies
1 According to the NRDA regulations at 15 CFR 990 et seq., trustees must consider compensatory restoration actions that provide services of the same type and quantity, and of comparable value as those lost. In the nexus analysis, restoration types are evaluated to determine how well the restoration would address the injuries to potentially injured trust resources and services affected by the incident.
2 If the responsible party(s) provides the trustees with the money to implement a specific restoration project (which was selected by the trustees with input from the Responsible Party(s) and the public by applying the Louisiana Regional Restoration Planning Program project selection screening criteria ), the settlement calculation would include the trustees’ assessment costs plus the sum of all costs to conduct the project planning and design, permitting, implementation, monitoring, operation and maintenance, oversight and administration, and contingencies for a specific project that compensates for the direct and interim losses of trust resources and services. If the Responsible Party(s) liability is less than the full amount of the project, the Responsible Party(s) can pay the trustees based on the percentage of the selected restoration project (e.g., Responsible Party/Fund CO-OP settlement alternative).