Appendix G5a – Public Comments - Coastal Protection and ...

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 53First NameDebbiLast NameHurstAddress106 Chinkapin Ct.slidell, Louisiana 70460United StatesMap ItEmailcaramelricecakes_333@yahoo.comCommentsLouisiana Coastal Restoration is necessary.The creation of a carbon exchange program to finance coastal restoration is unacceptable. There is currently no validscientific data to support man made climate change via CO2 production OR reduction.Stakeholder groups must not be allowed to create a fraudulent industry in PARTNERSHIP WITH STATEGOVERNMENT that will raise costs of all consumable goods for every Louisiana citizen.Financing for Louisiana coastal restoration must come from honest, reliable, and transparent sources.....• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanCharlie Atherton [charlieatherton@suddenlink.net]Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:55 AMTo:Cc:Master PlanBill Rase [brase@portlc.com] ; Ginger Adams [gingeradam1@gmail.com] ; Alan Basden [basden@basdenagencies.com] ; Alan Courmier[acourmier@moranshipping.com] ; Brian D McLarnon [brian.d.mclarnon@ConocoPhillips.com] ; Charles N Harper [charpe1@citgo.com] ;Dan Morrish [dmorrish@lakecharlespilots.com] ; Dave Trent [dtrent@lakecharlespilots.com] ; Dwayne Chatoney[dwayne@harbordocking.com] ; Jeff Brightwell [jeffrey.brightwell@sug.com] ; Joe Devall [joedevall@devalltowing.com] ; Kevin Savoie[ksavoie@agcenter.lsu.edu] ; Lynn E Hohensee [lhohensee@netcommander.com] ; Marc Hopkins [marc.hopkins@bg-group.com] ; MarkPippin [mark.pippin@iss-shipping.com] ; Rick Bastian [Ricky.Bastian@Crowley.com] ; Sheron Faulk [sfaulk@shiptoshoreco.com] ; Stephen CPorter [Stephen.Porter@crowley.com] ; Steve Trahan [STrahan@SempraGlobal.com] ; Thomas P Fanning [tfannin@citgo.com] ; Tim Guinn[tjguinn@portaggregates.com] ; Willie Tempton [willie.a.temptonjr@conocophillips.com] ; Aaron Andrus [aaron.andrus@sbulk.com] ; AlirioZambrano [azambra@citgo.com] ; Anthony Waller [anthony.r.waller@uscg.mil] ; Brett Palmer [bpalmer@lakecharlespilots.com] ; Charles JMorrison [cmorrison@lakecharlespilots.com] ; Christopher Ellison [christopher.c.ellison@uscg.mil] ; Clark Peterson[lkc@moranshipping.com] ; Cliff Kerr [clkerr2@comcast.net] ; Clint Smith [Clinton.P.Smith@uscg.mil] ; Compher, Robert LCDR[Robert.C.Compher@uscg.mil] ; Craig D Messer [cmesser@iscgrp.com] ; Cumulus Broadcasting [newsdesk@kykz.com] ; D Gremillion[dgremillion@cppj.net] ; Dan Moesser [Dan.B.Moesser@conocophillips.com] ; Dav Godsey [dgodsey@dunhamprice.com] ; David Conner[dconner@allianceswla.org] ; David Wagoner [dwagoner@portlc.com] ; Dennis Odum [dennis.odum@sug.com] ; Don Darbonne[dodarbonne@dynamicind.com] ; Donna Dedeaux [donna.dedeaux@dhs.gov] ; Dwight Savoie [dsavoie@martinMLP.com] ; Ernie Broussard[cppd_ebroussard@camtel.net] ; Frank Meyer [upgas@aol.com] ; Fred G Eason [for2nat@bellsouth.net] ; George Mowbray[gmowbray@lakecharlespilots.com] ; George Swift [gswift@allianceswla.org] ; Graylin Gant [Ggant@nwgulfFedpilot.com] ; Greg Wicke[gwicke@csbbanking.net] ; Howard Romero [envirohr@swbell.net] ; Jackie Rice [jackie.l.grayless@uscg.mil] ; James Kaucher[jkaucher@cheniere.com] ; James R Ducote [james.ducote@hotmail.com] ; Jason Barnett [barjason@gmail.com] ; Jeff Williams[jwill35@entergy.com] ; Jill Landry [jill_landry@vitter.senate.gov] ; Jim Stark [jstark@gicaonline.com] ; John Alford[applewoodcap@aol.com] ; John Ara [John.ara@crowley.com] ; Justin E Farrell [jfarrell@lsu.edu] ; Kabir Ahmad [kahmad@ifgweb.com] ;Kelly J Clark [kellyjclark@msn.com] ; Ken Roderick [kroderi@citgo.com] ; Kenny Devall [kdevall@devalltowing.com] ; Kurt M Hallier[kurt.m.hallier@conocophillips.com] ; Larry DeRoussel [lderoussel@laia.com] ; Leon McClain Jr [leon.mcclain@uscg.mil] ; Lisa Guidry[lisa.guidry@grace.com] ; Louis Buatt; LTC Nathan C. Joseph [nathan.c.joseph@usace.army.mil] ; Luis C Gonzales[luis.c.gonzales@usace.army.mil] ; Lydia Aboagye [laboagy@entergy.com] ; Mario A Espinosa [mario.espinosa@cdicorp.com] ; MarkMcMurray [administration@cppj.net] ; Michael M Measells [michael.m.measells@uscg.mil] ; Nelson, Mark William (Govt Affairs)[wmnelson@sempra.com] ; Niels Aalund [naalund@wgma.org] ; Niels B. Lyngso [nlyngso@wgma.org] ; Patrick Fink[Patrick.Fink@noaa.gov] ; Paula Gay [pgay@rainforrent.com] ; Phyllis Ortego; Port Coordination Team [tamops@gearbulk.com] ; RandyOakley [roakley@SempraGlobal.com] ; Richard Ortego [rortego@leevac.com] ; Robert Ward [rward@dynamicind.com] ; Rusty Vincent[jrv@centurygrp.com] ; S Robinson [srobinson@ckor.com] ; Scott Ervin [Scott.Ervin@bg-group.com] ; Scott Hancock[scott.hancock@sug.com] ; Steve Newman [snewman@citgo.com] ; Steven M Couch [steve.couch@sug.com] ; Suzanne Chisholm[suzanne.chisholm@alliedbarton.com] ; Terri G Angelini [angelini@ppg.com] ; Tim Osborn [tim.osborn@noaa.gov] ; Tina Horn[cppjury@camtel.net] ; Tony Colletta [tony.colletta@clmequipment.com] ; Tony Moré [julio.a.more@uscg.mil] ; Tracy Falk[Tracy.A.Falk@mvn02.usace.army.mil] ; Ward A Howard [wardhoward@mixpro.net] ; Wendell Wilkerson [wendellwilks@yahoo.com] ;Winston Ebarb [webarb@citgo.com] ; Yojna Singh Calix [Yojna.Singh@usace.army.mil] ; chayden@portlc.comQuestion to Master Plan,What will be the total dollars available for the total Master Plan project?We know not all projects will make the final list (some added, some deleted), but as the list currently stands, notincluding the 112 non‐structural projects, how many dollars are proposed to be spent in each parish by name orgroups of names?Usually the bottom line question is “how much money will be spent in each parish, what is the criteria used todetermine if a project is built, and how do citizens stop a project they don’t agree with?”Please send me the link that explains how the funding for each project and parish will be determined.Thank you for your help, Charlie Athertonhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/2012‐master‐plan/projects/candidate‐projects/

Re: Public Commenthttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 22/16/2012Re: Public CommentHelen & Ken [8246buras@att.net]Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:56 PMTo:Cc:Master PlanPJ Hahn [pjhahn@plaqueminesparish.com]I think that ALL of the citizens of lower Plaquemines parish south of Empire, La. have a right to knowthat they are being written off by the plan. River diversions are not the answer for that area, diversionsmay eventually fill in the lowest areas and then cease to build land above sea level. The mainnavigation canals used by the numerous user groups will have to be dredged as they fill in. Pipeliningdredged sediment from the river bottom is the ONLY FEASIBLE way to save that part of the coast. It ishard for me to understand why y’all don’t understand that. Look at the area south of Ostrica that hashad no levee for many years. The bays and canals are impassible and the oyster kill in that area is intrillions of dollars.If you put a diversion on the west side of the river near Empire the area has to be segregated withlevees and two highway bridges will have to be built. How much river sediment can be pipelined usingthe money it will cost to build a diversion. This should be a simple calculation for your group.I could go on and on but one voice is not enough for the thousands of people whose lives will bedevastated if large river diversions come to fruition.Sorry we disagree but I know enough to stand on my experience in the coastal ecosystem of this area.Y’all have to put the people in the equation.KenFrom: Master PlanSent: Monday, January 16, 2012 3:12 PMTo: 'Helen & Ken' ; Master PlanSubject: RE: Public CommentHi Ken,I am sorry that you feel we haven’t been informative to the public. It has been one of our major principlesand I hope you can at least see that we are doing more than has ever been done before. We have not onlyconducted 10 community meetings around the coast before the plan was completed, but have also beenpresenting to various citizens groups on a weekly basis. We have presented and discussed the plan in nearly120 meetings during the development. We also incorporated information from over 800 communitysurveys. We understand that many of Louisiana’s coastal constituents may not have access to the internet,so we will be sending hard copies of the plan to local libraries when they are printed early next week. Wealso have advertised our upcoming public meetings in newspapers and have asked community leaders andlocal libraries to put flyers out. I have attached a copy of the flyer and would encourage you to pass along tothose you think we have not reached yet.Look forward to seeing you at the public meetings next week,NatalieFrom: Helen & Ken [mailto:8246buras@att.net]Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:41 PMTo: Master Plan

Re: Public Commenthttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 2 of 22/16/2012Subject: Public CommentSir,The weakest part of the plan is that an inadequate attempt was made to better inform the localcitizens. Most people in lower Plaquemines Parish are not web savvy. They are not in favor of riverdiversions which will destroy several user groups and which were designed by university tekkies.Garret, lets cut a large river diversion near your house or Denesse Reeds home.Ken Ragas

HARD COPY OF MASTER PLANhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012HARD COPY OF MASTER PLANFrank Beninate [tealman@bellsouth.net]Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:59 PMTo:Master PlanMelanie 26 Jan 121. Thank you for the quick reply, along with the links for commenting on the master plan.2. Could you please send me one (1) or two (2) hard copies of the Louisiana Coastal MasterPlan? I was getting cross-eyed trying to read it on a laptop. The first copy is for me and thesecond would be for any of my board members wanting to work with a paper copy. Pleasefind my address below, in my signature block.3. Who is the best person to contact regarding additional meetings/open houses like the three(3) held this week? It may be on the links in your Email, but I didn't try them yet, as Iwanted to get the request for hard copies to you ASAP (say A Sap vs A S A P, and you'llmake my day), so I can do my 'homework' before commenting.4.Thank you for your hard work.FrankFrank J. Beninate IIIPresident, Wetland Services, INC1806 Mercedes BlvdNew Orleans, LA 70114tealman@bellsouth.net(504) 362-2255 (Primary)(504) 812-2255 (Mobile)

TE-71 Projecthttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012TE-71 ProjectKirk.Cooley@kiewit.com [Kirk.Cooley@kiewit.com]Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:28 PMTo:Master PlanI am wondering if the TE‐32a project is combined with the TE‐71 project? I was also looking for a cost breakoutof the TE‐71 project, do you have one?Kirk CooleyKiewit Infrastructure South Co.13119 Old Denton RoadFort Worth, TX 76177Office: (956) 544-2588Cell: (817) 807-1202Fax: (956) 544-2504Email: kirk.cooley@kiewit.com

FW: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 62/16/2012FW: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanCharlie Atherton [charlieatherton@suddenlink.net]Sent:To:Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:19 PMLTC Nathan C. Joseph [nathan.c.joseph@usace.army.mil] ; Luis C Gonzales [luis.c.gonzales@usace.army.mil] ; Lydia Aboagye [laboagy@entergy.com] ; Mario A Espinosa [mario.espinosa@cdicorp.com] ; MarkMcMurray [administration@cppj.net] ; Michael M Measells [michael.m.measells@uscg.mil] ; Nelson, Mark William (Govt Affairs) [wmnelson@sempra.com] ; Niels Aalund [naalund@wgma.org] ; Niels B. Lyngso[nlyngso@wgma.org] ; Patrick Fink [Patrick.Fink@noaa.gov] ; Paula Gay [pgay@rainforrent.com] ; Phyllis Ortego; Port Coordination Team [tamops@gearbulk.com] ; Randy Oakley [roakley@SempraGlobal.com]; Richard Ortego [rortego@leevac.com] ; Robert Ward [rward@dynamicind.com] ; Rusty Vincent [jrv@centurygrp.com] ; S Robinson [srobinson@ckor.com] ; Scott Ervin [Scott.Ervin@bg-group.com] ; ScottHancock [scott.hancock@sug.com] ; Steve Newman [snewman@citgo.com] ; Suzanne Chisholm [suzanne.chisholm@alliedbarton.com] ; Terri G Angelini [angelini@ppg.com] ; Tim Osborn[tim.osborn@noaa.gov] ; Tina Horn [cppjury@camtel.net] ; Tony Colletta [tony.colletta@clmequipment.com] ; Tony Moré [julio.a.more@uscg.mil] ; Tracy Falk [Tracy.A.Falk@mvn02.usace.army.mil] ; Ward AHoward [wardhoward@mixpro.net] ; Wendell Wilkerson [wendellwilks@yahoo.com] ; Winston Ebarb [webarb@citgo.com] ; Yojna Singh Calix [Yojna.Singh@usace.army.mil] ; chayden@portlc.com; Carole Diehl[carole.diehl@yahoo.com] ; Master PlanAttachments: image003.png (1 MB ) ; image004.jpg (128 KB )We ask that large rock breakwaters be installed along the entire Cameron Coast.This is the obvious first and immediate project to build.Installing rock breakwaters will meet and fulfill all of the Master Plan ObjectivesCameron Parish coast is the barrier island for hurricane protection and the economyof all of Southwest Louisiana, and in the case of the ship channel, much of the nation.We believe if the Cameron Coast is lost it will never be restored, the Gulf willbe at the intracoastal canal, and the ship channel will be silted in and unusable.Charlie Atherton 337‐661‐6039Wearing awayBRAD PUCKETT / AMERICAN PRESS A1Coastal erosion is apparent along the Gulf of Mexico. Sand was pumped to help with coastal

FW: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 2 of 62/16/2012erosion, along with breakers set up offshore. U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., toured thestate’s coast Tuesday. For more pictures, see Page B1. Aug 24, 2005From: Tim Osborn [mailto:tim.osborn@noaa.gov]Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:52 AMTo: Master Plan; 'KSavoie@agcenter.lsu.edu'Cc: 'charlieatherton@suddenlink.net'; 'brase@portlc.com'; 'gingeradam1@gmail.com'; 'basden@basdenagencies.com'; 'acourmier@moranshipping.com';'Brian.D.McLarnon@conocophillips.com'; 'charpe1@citgo.com'; 'dmorrish@lakecharlespilots.com'; 'dtrent@lakecharlespilots.com'; 'dwayne@harbordocking.com'; 'jeffrey.brightwell@sug.com';'joedevall@devalltowing.com'; 'lhohensee@netcommander.com'; 'marc.hopkins@bg-group.com'; 'mark.pippin@iss-shipping.com'; 'Ricky.Bastian@crowley.com'; 'sfaulk@shiptoshoreco.com';'Stephen.Porter@crowley.com'; 'STrahan@sempraglobal.com'; 'tfannin@citgo.com'; 'tjguinn@portaggregates.com'; 'willie.a.temptonjr@conocophillips.com'; 'aaron.andrus@sbulk.com';'azambra@citgo.com'; 'anthony.r.waller@uscg.mil'; 'bpalmer@lakecharlespilots.com'; 'cmorrison@lakecharlespilots.com'; 'Christopher.C.Ellison@uscg.mil'; 'lkc@moranshipping.com';'clkerr2@comcast.net'; 'Clinton.P.Smith@uscg.mil'; 'Robert.C.Compher@uscg.mil'; 'cmesser@iscgrp.com'; 'Todd.Mogged@noaa.gov'; 'jonathan.brazzell@noaa.gov'; 'gschram3@jlawton.cc';'jrv@centurygrp.com'Subject: Re: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanJonathan can provide the inundation model runs for various water level events for this area. We can also create a specific analysis that is similar to the ones we did atthe request of the Town of Grand Isle and for Port Fourchon and South Lafourche Parish relating to Fourchon and LA-1. Trends analysis.The analysis of sea level trends for the U.S. from NOAA is attached as a link as well as a set of graphs that are likely to be seen for coastal Louisiana.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Tech_rpt_53.pdf

FW: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 3 of 62/16/2012

FW: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 4 of 62/16/2012On 2/7/2012 9:15 AM, Master Plan wrote:Hi Tim and Kevin,I will refer you to Appendix C of the Master Plan report which describes the scenarios used in the analysis. You can download the appendices athttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/2012-master-plan/draft-2012-master-plan/ and scroll down to the bottom.We used separate rates of eustatic sea level rise and subsidence. The eustatic sea level rise was constant across the coast. The rates used were 0.27 meters over 50 years for themoderate scenario and 0.45 meters over 50 years for the less optimistic scenario. The calculations used and rationale are included in the appendix.Subsidence was varied spatially across the coast based on input from an expert panel. The range was set as 0 to 35 mm/year. The moderate scenario uses the lower 20 th percentileof the plausible range for each region and the less optimistic scenario uses the 50 th percentile (mid-point values) of the plausible range. The Calcasieu/Mermentau and Teche regionhas a range of values from 1-15 mm/yr. Areas higher in the Chenier Plain (Lake Charles, Delcambre, Erath and Abbeville) have a range of 1-6 mm/yr. Again, additionalinformation on the experts involved, ranges and maps are included in the appendix.Please let me know if you have any additional questions,Natalie Snider450 Laurel Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70801(225) 342-8786 (office)natalie.snider@la.govPlease visit www.coastalmasterplan.la.gov for more information on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan.From: Tim Osborn [mailto:tim.osborn@noaa.gov]Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:54 AMTo: KSavoie@agcenter.lsu.edu; Master Plan; charlieatherton@suddenlink.netCc: brase@portlc.com; gingeradam1@gmail.com; basden@basdenagencies.com; acourmier@moranshipping.com; Brian.D.McLarnon@conocophillips.com; charpe1@citgo.com;dmorrish@lakecharlespilots.com; dtrent@lakecharlespilots.com; dwayne@harbordocking.com; jeffrey.brightwell@sug.com; joedevall@devalltowing.com; lhohensee@netcommander.com;marc.hopkins@bg-group.com; mark.pippin@iss-shipping.com; Ricky.Bastian@crowley.com; sfaulk@shiptoshoreco.com; Stephen.Porter@crowley.com; STrahan@sempraglobal.com;tfannin@citgo.com; tjguinn@portaggregates.com; willie.a.temptonjr@conocophillips.com; aaron.andrus@sbulk.com; azambra@citgo.com; anthony.r.waller@uscg.mil;bpalmer@lakecharlespilots.com; cmorrison@lakecharlespilots.com; Christopher.C.Ellison@uscg.mil; lkc@moranshipping.com; clkerr2@comcast.net; Clinton.P.Smith@uscg.mil;Robert.C.Compher@uscg.mil; cmesser@iscgrp.com; Todd.Mogged@noaa.gov; jonathan.brazzell@noaa.gov; gschram3@jlawton.cc; jrv@centurygrp.comSubject: Re: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanWith rates projected now and subsidence values of the area, it is possible and likely to see 15‐20%of Cameron Parish at or below sea level in elevation in the next 50 to 75 years. Add to thisthat we saw 30 hurricanes or tropical storms impact the coast in the 50 years which can serve as a guide of what could be seen in the next 50 years.Jonathan Brazzell has the updated storm surge model runs that can show the large amount of coastal land area vulnerable to flooding from even a relatively small storm event.For Southeast coastal Louisiana, the National Hurricane Center created a set of storm surge model runs for a Category '0' storm event to show the extensive amount of flooding from evena non hurricane event. This may be a good consideration to do the same for Western Louisiana given the amount of vulnerabilty to coastal flooding now and the increase in the future.From: Savoie, Kevin A. [mailto:KSavoie@agcenter.lsu.edu]Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:24 AMTo: Master Plan ; 'Charlie Atherton' Cc: 'Bill Rase' ; 'Ginger Adams' ; 'Alan Basden ' ; 'Alan Courmier' ; 'BrianD McLarnon' ; 'Charles N Harper ' ; 'Dan Morrish' ; 'Dave Trent'; 'Dwayne Chatoney' ; 'Jeff Brightwell ' ; 'Joe Devall ' ; 'Lynn EHohensee' ; 'Marc Hopkins' ; 'Mark Pippin ' ; 'Rick Bastian '; 'Sheron Faulk' ; 'Stephen C Porter ' ; 'Steve Trahan' ; 'ThomasP Fanning ' ; 'Tim Guinn ' ; 'Willie Tempton ' ; 'Aaron Andrus' ;'Alirio Zambrano' ; 'Anthony Waller ' ; 'Brett Palmer' ; 'Charles J Morrison '; 'Christopher Ellison' ; 'Clark Peterson ' ; 'Cliff Kerr ' ; 'Clint Smith '; 'Compher, Robert LCDR' ; 'Craig D Messer ' ; 'Cumulus Broadcasting ' ; 'DGremillion' ; 'Dan Moesser ' ; 'Dav Godsey ' ; 'David Conner' ;'David Wagoner' ; 'Dennis Odum' ; 'Don Darbonne ' ; 'Donna Dedeaux' ;'Dwight Savoie' ; 'Ernie Broussard ' ; 'Frank Meyer' ; 'Fred G Eason ' ; 'GeorgeMowbray ' ; 'George Swift ' ; 'Graylin Gant ' ; 'Greg Wicke' ;'Howard Romero ' ; 'Jackie Rice ' ; 'James Kaucher ' ; 'James R Ducote' ; 'JasonBarnett ' ; 'Jeff Williams ' ; 'Jill Landry ' ; 'Jim Stark ' ; 'John Alford '; 'John Ara ' ; 'Justin E Farrell ' ; 'Kabir Ahmad' ; 'Kelly J Clark ' ;'Ken Roderick' ; 'Kenny Devall ' ; 'Kurt M Hallier' ; 'Larry DeRoussel' ; 'LeonMcClain Jr ' ; 'Lisa Guidry' ; Louis Buatt ; 'LTC Nathan C. Joseph' ; 'Luis CGonzales' ; 'Lydia Aboagye ' ; 'Mario A Espinosa ' ; 'Mark McMurray ' ;'Michael M Measells ' ; 'Nelson, Mark William (Govt Affairs)' ; 'Niels Aalund ' ; 'Niels B. Lyngso '; 'Patrick Fink' ; 'Paula Gay ' ; Phyllis Ortego ; 'Port Coordination Team'; 'Randy Oakley ' ; 'Richard Ortego' ; 'Robert Ward ' ; 'Rusty Vincent '; 'S Robinson' ; 'Scott Ervin' ; 'Scott Hancock ' ; 'Steve Newman '; 'Steven M Couch ' ; 'Suzanne Chisholm' ; 'Terri G Angelini' ; 'Tim Osborn '; 'Tina Horn ' ; 'Tony Colletta ' ; 'Tony Moré ' ; 'Tracy Falk'; 'Ward A Howard ' ; 'Wendell Wilkerson' ; 'Winston Ebarb ' ; 'YojnaSingh Calix' ; chayden@portlc.com Subject: RE: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanThe 50 yr. projection for the chenier plain region looks grim. However, I believe these projections to be accurate, possibly even on the conservative side. I saw a lot of uncertaintymentioned in the plan concerning relative sea level rise. If the rate is constant, based on the last 50 yrs. we will continue to lose land no matter what we do. If this is true, it needs to begiven some credence in the plan so that coastal residents and decision makers can make wise decisions based on the best available science.Another huge problem facing coastal Louisiana is that insurance companies are very aware of these relative sea level predictions and land loss, which drives up their risks and subsequentlyinsurance premiums. My question is: What is the rate of relative sea level rise used for the 50 yr. projection for Cameron Parish? What is the source of this data?Kevin A. SavoieKevin A. SavoieArea Agent - SW RegionNatural Resources - Fisheries

FW: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 5 of 62/16/2012(337)475-8812FAX (337)475-8815cell (337)263-28807101 Gulf Hwy.Lake Charles, La. 70607ksavoie@agcenter.lsu.eduFrom: Master Plan [mailto:MasterPlan@LA.GOV]Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:41 AMTo: 'Charlie Atherton'; Master PlanCc: 'Bill Rase'; 'Ginger Adams'; 'Alan Basden '; 'Alan Courmier'; 'Brian D McLarnon'; 'Charles N Harper '; 'Dan Morrish'; 'Dave Trent'; 'Dwayne Chatoney'; 'Jeff Brightwell '; 'Joe Devall ';Savoie, Kevin A.; 'Lynn E Hohensee'; 'Marc Hopkins'; 'Mark Pippin '; 'Rick Bastian '; 'Sheron Faulk'; 'Stephen C Porter '; 'Steve Trahan'; 'Thomas P Fanning '; 'Tim Guinn '; 'Willie Tempton ';'Aaron Andrus'; 'Alirio Zambrano'; 'Anthony Waller '; 'Brett Palmer'; 'Charles J Morrison '; 'Christopher Ellison'; 'Clark Peterson '; 'Cliff Kerr '; 'Clint Smith '; 'Compher, Robert LCDR'; 'Craig DMesser '; 'Cumulus Broadcasting '; 'D Gremillion'; 'Dan Moesser '; 'Dav Godsey '; 'David Conner'; 'David Wagoner'; 'Dennis Odum'; 'Don Darbonne '; 'Donna Dedeaux'; 'Dwight Savoie'; 'ErnieBroussard '; 'Frank Meyer'; 'Fred G Eason '; 'George Mowbray '; 'George Swift '; 'Graylin Gant '; 'Greg Wicke'; 'Howard Romero '; 'Jackie Rice '; 'James Kaucher '; 'James R Ducote'; 'JasonBarnett '; 'Jeff Williams '; 'Jill Landry '; 'Jim Stark '; 'John Alford '; 'John Ara '; 'Justin E Farrell '; 'Kabir Ahmad'; 'Kelly J Clark '; 'Ken Roderick'; 'Kenny Devall '; 'Kurt M Hallier'; 'LarryDeRoussel'; 'Leon McClain Jr '; 'Lisa Guidry'; Louis Buatt; 'LTC Nathan C. Joseph'; 'Luis C Gonzales'; 'Lydia Aboagye '; 'Mario A Espinosa '; 'Mark McMurray '; 'Michael M Measells '; 'Nelson,Mark William (Govt Affairs)'; 'Niels Aalund '; 'Niels B. Lyngso '; 'Patrick Fink'; 'Paula Gay '; Phyllis Ortego; 'Port Coordination Team'; 'Randy Oakley '; 'Richard Ortego'; 'Robert Ward '; 'RustyVincent '; 'S Robinson'; 'Scott Ervin'; 'Scott Hancock '; 'Steve Newman '; 'Steven M Couch '; 'Suzanne Chisholm'; 'Terri G Angelini'; 'Tim Osborn '; 'Tina Horn '; 'Tony Colletta '; 'Tony Moré ';'Tracy Falk'; 'Ward A Howard '; 'Wendell Wilkerson'; 'Winston Ebarb '; 'Yojna Singh Calix'; chayden@portlc.comSubject: RE: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanDear Mr. Atherton:Thank you for your interest in the 2012 Coastal Master Plan. The plan is based on a $50 billion budget. It's important to note that we do not have our total budget in handtoday. The $50 billion is the amount that we have a reasonable chance of receiving over the coming decades. Projects will be implemented in phases, as appropriate funding isreceived.You are correct that not all of the 381 candidate projects shown on our website are part of the 2012 Coastal Master Plan. The list of projects that were selected are shown inChapter 5 of the master plan. Together, these projects would use our $50 billion budget to protect and restore coastal Louisiana.You had requested a breakdown of master plan spending by parish. Because some projects cross parish lines, it is difficult to provide an exact breakdown of that kind.The table below shows master plan spending by planning unit. Appendix A of the master plan also includes project fact sheets that provide details about individual projects,including cost, location, and general description. You can download the project fact sheets by going to: http://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/2012‐masterplan/draft‐2012‐master‐plan/.Scroll down the page and click on Appendix A-2, Project Fact Sheets. The file is large and will take time to download.Planning Unit Parish Master Plan FundingProvidedPlanning Unit 1OrleansSt. BernardPlaqueminesTangipahoaSt. TammanyJeffersonLivingstonAscensionSt. JamesSt. John the BaptistSt. Charles$14.2 billionPlanning Unit 2St. JamesSt. John the BaptistSt. CharlesJeffersonPlaqueminesLafourcheAssumption$10.2 billionPlanning Unit 3aAssumptionLafourcheSt. MaryTerrebonne$8.9 billionPlanning Unit 3bIberiaVermilionSt. MaryTerrebonne$7.5 billionPlanning Unit 4VermilionCameronCalcasieuJefferson DavisAcadiaLafayette$10.9 billionWe used our models and Planning Tool to arrive at this distribution, which reflects the reality that we have needs and solutions coast-wide. The 2012 Coastal Master Planattempts to address these coast-wide needs as fairly as possible.If there is a specific project that you would like to discuss in more detail, please let us know. We will be happy to answer your questions.SincerelyKarim BelhadjaliMaster Plan Delivery TeamFrom: Charlie Atherton [mailto:charlieatherton@suddenlink.net]Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:56 AMTo: Master PlanCc: 'Bill Rase'; 'Ginger Adams'; 'Alan Basden '; 'Alan Courmier'; 'Brian D McLarnon'; 'Charles N Harper '; 'Dan Morrish'; 'Dave Trent'; 'Dwayne Chatoney'; 'Jeff Brightwell '; 'Joe Devall '; 'KevinSavoie '; 'Lynn E Hohensee'; 'Marc Hopkins'; 'Mark Pippin '; 'Rick Bastian '; 'Sheron Faulk'; 'Stephen C Porter '; 'Steve Trahan'; 'Thomas P Fanning '; 'Tim Guinn '; 'Willie Tempton '; 'AaronAndrus'; 'Alirio Zambrano'; 'Anthony Waller '; 'Brett Palmer'; 'Charles J Morrison '; 'Christopher Ellison'; 'Clark Peterson '; 'Cliff Kerr '; 'Clint Smith '; 'Compher, Robert LCDR'; 'Craig D Messer ';'Cumulus Broadcasting '; 'D Gremillion'; 'Dan Moesser '; 'Dav Godsey '; 'David Conner'; 'David Wagoner'; 'Dennis Odum'; 'Don Darbonne '; 'Donna Dedeaux'; 'Dwight Savoie'; 'Ernie Broussard'; 'Frank Meyer'; 'Fred G Eason '; 'George Mowbray '; 'George Swift '; 'Graylin Gant '; 'Greg Wicke'; 'Howard Romero '; 'Jackie Rice '; 'James Kaucher '; 'James R Ducote'; 'Jason Barnett '; 'JeffWilliams '; 'Jill Landry '; 'Jim Stark '; 'John Alford '; 'John Ara '; 'Justin E Farrell '; 'Kabir Ahmad'; 'Kelly J Clark '; 'Ken Roderick'; 'Kenny Devall '; 'Kurt M Hallier'; 'Larry DeRoussel'; 'LeonMcClain Jr '; 'Lisa Guidry'; Louis Buatt; 'LTC Nathan C. Joseph'; 'Luis C Gonzales'; 'Lydia Aboagye '; 'Mario A Espinosa '; 'Mark McMurray '; 'Michael M Measells '; 'Nelson, Mark William (GovtAffairs)'; 'Niels Aalund '; 'Niels B. Lyngso '; 'Patrick Fink'; 'Paula Gay '; Phyllis Ortego; 'Port Coordination Team'; 'Randy Oakley '; 'Richard Ortego'; 'Robert Ward '; 'Rusty Vincent '; 'SRobinson'; 'Scott Ervin'; 'Scott Hancock '; 'Steve Newman '; 'Steven M Couch '; 'Suzanne Chisholm'; 'Terri G Angelini'; 'Tim Osborn '; 'Tina Horn '; 'Tony Colletta '; 'Tony Moré '; 'Tracy Falk';'Ward A Howard '; 'Wendell Wilkerson'; 'Winston Ebarb '; 'Yojna Singh Calix'; chayden@portlc.com

FW: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 6 of 62/16/2012Subject: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanQuestion to Master Plan,What will be the total dollars available for the total Master Plan project?We know not all projects will make the final list (some added, some deleted), but as the list currently stands, not including the 112 non‐structural projects, how manydollars are proposed to be spent in each parish by name or groups of names?Usually the bottom line question is “how much money will be spent in each parish, what is the criteria used to determine if a project is built, and how do citizens stop aproject they don’t agree with?”Please send me the link that explains how the funding for each project and parish will be determined.Thank you for your help, Charlie Athertonhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/2012‐master‐plan/projects/candidate‐projects/

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the State of Louisiana’s 2012-2017 Comprehensive MasterPlan for a Sustainable Coast (the “Master Plan”). The following comments are submitted on behalf ofCanal Barge Company, Inc.BackgroundCanal Barge Company, Inc. (“CBC”) is one of the largest privately owned inland marine transportationcompanies in the United States, employing 32 towing vessels and over 850 barges in the InlandWaterways and the Gulf of Mexico. Our area of operations stretches from Brownsville, TX to Pittsburgh,PA, and CBC employes over 580 personnel across 20 states.CBC is a family-owned business headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Our executive team is activein both national and regional efforts to develop a systematic approach to water management; bothPresident/CEO Merritt Lane and Vice President – Risk Management Spencer Murphy were members ofthe Master Plan’s Framework Development Team (“FDT”) and Spencer Murphy also participated in theNavigation Focus Group. Our presence in New Orleans means we understand the need for coastalrestoration and flood protection in order to protect our Gulf Coast communities; our presence across ournation’s waterways means we understand the importance of navigation to our regional and nationaleconomy. We support efforts for coastal restoration and flood protection that can co-exist with and evenbolster our nation’s vital marine highways, and as further described below, CBC sees the Master Plan asan important step forward in those efforts.Marine HighwaysThe Master Plan has the potential to impact two of our nation’s most important commercial waterways:the Mississippi River and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (“GIWW”). According to the State ofLouisiana, over 450 million tons of waterborne commerce (20% of the nation’s total) travels throughLouisiana each year on these waterways. The Mississippi River is one of the key economic engines ofour nation and provides the most efficient means for American farmers and manufacturers to get theirgoods to market. For example, over 60% of our country’s grain exports move through Louisiana on theMississippi River.Less well known than the Mississippi, but equally important, the GIWW is the nation’s third busiestwaterway – only the Mississippi River and Ohio River carry more goods each year than the GIWW. TheGIWW is a 1300 mile system of channels and tributaries that runs from Brownsville, TX to St. Mark’s,FL and connects the Gulf Coast to the Mississippi River. It provides a vital link between the Gulf Coast’spetrochemical refineries and the rest of our nation, and directly and indirectly supports tens of thousandsof jobs.What makes navigation particularly relevant to the State is that the maritime industry provides one out ofevery 8 jobs in Louisiana (as found in a study by Dr. Tim Ryan of University of New Orleans), andfurther, water transport is by far the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly mode oftransportation. A 2009 study by the Texas Transportation Institute found that relative to truck or rail,barge transportation:

1) Produces fewer CO2 emissions,2) Results in fewer spills of hazardous materials,3) Operates with greater fuel efficiency, and4) Results in fewer injuries and fatalities.With those facts in mind, the State should take care that implementing the Master Plan does not drivecommerce away from our navigable waterways. Rather, a responsible and environmentally sound policyshould encourage the use of our commercial waterways over the coming decades to protect both ourState’s economic interests, and the livelihoods of thousands of its citizens.The Master Plan Properly Recognizes the Important Role of Navigation.Through its participation in the FDT, CBC has gained valuable insight into the process that created theMaster Plan, and we are pleased to note that one of the Master Plan’s five basic Objectives is “to promotea viable working coast to support regionally and nationally important businesses and industries.”Further, the State created a Navigation Focus Group to ensure that navigation stakeholders had theopportunity to provide direct feedback into the drafting of the Master Plan. CBC also supports the State’sdecision to use impacts to navigation as one of the “Decision Criteria” used to evaluate projects for theMaster Plan. The State is to be commended for its efforts to reach out to navigation stakeholders, and weencourage the State to maintain a dialogue with industry as the Master Plan’s projects are implemented inthe coming years.Improvements to the Master Plan and Next Steps.As the State finalizes the Master Plan, we submit that one area in which the Master Plan can be improvedis to reduce the number of new structures built on federally authorized waterways. This is so not simplybecause it would reduce the overall impact to navigation, but also because there are likely much morecost-efficient and/or easier methods to achieve the same beneficial effects to restoration or floodprotection. We ask that the State consider the following factors and then re-examine the decision to buildnew gates or structures across the GIWW in areas such as Lafitte:a) Operational Safety: Any structures built in a waterway increase the likelihood of vesselcasualties, which obviously would bring a negative impact to the restoration/protection benefitsof the structure. The State should view the GIWW and Mississippi River in the same way itviews Interstate 10. Building a structure across a major commercial/industrial transportationartery invites a level of risk that is not present for other restoration or protection features. It is notin anyone’s interest to see a vessel casualty involving a critical flood control structure, or forvessels to become stranded along the banks during an unplanned floodgate closure.b) Construction Delay: The construction and maintenance of nation's marine infrastructure onfederal waterways is the exclusive domain of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, thereare over 20 lock and dam projects (either new construction or major rehab) on the Corps' projectbacklog, almost all of which are well over budget and off-schedule. To give just one example,

Conclusionthe Corps recently announced that Olmsted Lock and Dam project (authorized in 1988 with anexpected 7 year construction period) is expected to cost $1.3 Billion more than originallyestimated, and take 25 years longer to complete than originally planned. This additional costoverrun will likely consume every dollar of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (the mechanism forfunding major lock projects). Given the above, it is extremely unlikely that a new lock could beauthorized, funded, and constructed on the GIWW in the foreseeable future until the currentbacklog of projects is addressed.c) Unplanned Costs: One aspect of the Master Plan that needs further study is the cost tooperate and maintain new structures. Even assuming the timely construction of new locks orgates, if they are viewed as 'flood protection' projects and not 'navigation' projects, the Corps willnot retain the O+M responsibility for the structures. This situation exists today for the WestClosure Complex and the IHNC Floodgate near New Orleans. Efforts are underway to ensure thatthe Corps retains O+M responsibility for these structures given their navigation function andlocation on a key federal waterway, but because of the authorization language for these projects,it is possible that critical resources (both funds and personnel) will be diverted from thelocal/regional levee authorities to operate these structures on a 24/7/365 basis. Adding morelocks or gates on the GIWW under the auspices of the State's Master Plan will undoubtedly leadto similar problems.To summarize items (b) and (c), if the Master Plan calls for additional “locks,” those locks areunlikely to ever be built. If the Master Plan calls for additional “floodgates,” the State may beforced to dedicate major resources to fill the Corps’ traditional O+M role to ensure safeoperations and to prevent disruptions to America’s third busiest waterway. The State's funds andpersonnel would be much better utilized elsewhere than on trying to operate and maintain locksor gates across the GIWW.Like many members of the Louisiana maritime industry, Canal Barge Company understands theimportance of restoring our coast and protecting our citizens from storm flooding. If coastal erosioncontinues unabated, we may very well lose the very waterways upon which our business operates, and ifour communities are not protected, we may lose our workforce, and our own homes. We thank the Statefor the opportunity to comment on the Master Plan, and hope that our comments will provide useful,‘real-world’ feedback that will help improve the final version of the Master Plan.Best regards,Spencer MurphyVice President – Risk ManagementCanal Barge Company, Inc.

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.NANCY COLEMAN [nancyhall@suddenlink.net]Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 7:27 PMTo:Master PlanFrom: NANCY COLEMAN Subject: Creole, Cameron Parish areaMessage Body:It seems that the area between the Calcasieu Ship Channel and the Mermentau River will be allowed to washaway. There is nothing in the plan to protect or restore the area now and, of course, not it the future plan because20 years from now it won't exist. The gulf beach will be at the Intracoastal Canal.--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

Untitled Messagehttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/22/2012Jimmy Dobbs [dobbsiii@yahoo.com]Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:01 PMTo:Master PlanPlease take care of the breech in the Freshwater Bayou.Thank you,Jimmy Dobbs III

Projects Under Evaluation 2012 List Clarificationhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Projects Under Evaluation 2012 List ClarificationEric.Guitreau@kiewit.com [Eric.Guitreau@kiewit.com]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:49 AMTo:Master PlanTo whom it may concern,Where can I find out what the Region category on the Projects Under Evaluation list for the 2012 Coastal MasterPlan refers to?Region codes contain the following:PU 1PU ½PU 2PU 2/3aPU 3aPU 3bPU 3a/3bPU 4PU 3b/4I was also wondering where I could get projected dates of the projects on this list and possible dollar values.Thank you,Eric Guitreau(225)978‐2387Eric.Guitreau@kiewit.com

Comments on Draft 2012 Louisiana Coastal Master PlanBrian Marks, PhDUniversity of ArizonaBureau of Applied Research in Anthropology (BARA)Native, resident, voter, and taxpayer in Terrebonne Parish1107 Miles StreetHouma, LA 70360

(1) Comments on project choice and budgeting in the Terrebonne basinMy comments on the CPRA’s 2012 Master Plan cover a number of topics and are based uponmy reading of the entire plan and all of its appendices, as well as attendance at a number ofpublic meetings and workshops on the plan. My statements on the plan are informed by myspending the majority of my life residing in southern Terrebonne parish as well as a decade ofprofessional work on the socio-economics of coastal communities facing major livelihood andlandscape crises in the Mississippi Delta of South Louisiana and the Mekong Delta of Vietnam.Firstly, let me speak as a Terrebonne parish resident and reiterate the advocacy of a number ofTerrebonne’s non-governmental organizations and public officials for more marsh creation,hydrologic restoration, sediment diversion, or other projects that build land and establishmultiple lines of defense in Southern Terrebonne, Eastern Terrebonne, and South Lafourche. Irefer here specifically to any or all of the following prospective projects listed in the MasterPlan’s Appendix A, pages A-21 and -22:03a.MC.03 Terrebonne Bay Rim Marsh Creation,03a.MC.05 Golden Meadow-Lake Mechant Marsh Creation,03.MC.06 Montegut Area Marsh Creation,03a.MC.08 HNC-Lake Mechant Marsh Creation,03a.MC.09 North Terrebonne Bay Marsh Creation,03a.MC.10 Dulac-Cocodrie Marsh CreationFunding sources for any or all of these projects could be drawn from unincluding the currentlyincluded Point au Fer and GIWW marsh restoration projects, removing the erroneouslycategorized‘hydrologic restoration’ HNC lock feature (considering how the parish governmentis currently constructing a barge structure that will perform the lock’s most important function,keeping storm surge from running north into Houma), and/or removing the GIWW shorelinerestoration project. These sums would make approximately $2.3 billion in the first half of theplanning period available for land building projects in South and Southeast Terrebonne withouttaking money from other planning areas or waiting decades. I also note how, despite theprotestations of CPRA planners that sediments are not available for marsh creation in SoutheastTerrebonne, Appendix B of the Plan shows that significant non-renewable offshore sedimentsand substantial renewable sediments in the HNC’s outfall exist near Terrebonne, not to mentionthe Atchafalaya with enormous quantities of renewable sediment available just to the west of theparish.(2) Environmental and budgetary scenario assumptionsTurning to areas of less immediate concern in the public debate over the plan, I have a number ofpoints to raise on the plan and its assumptions. I should begin here by saying the CPRA has donecommendable work in integrating a wide variety of data sources and modeling a maze of coastalphenomena within defensible, plausible environmental and planning scenarios utilizing peerreviewedscience and the Planning Tool which allows for the project prioritization and goalsettingwork this plan achieves. My critiques are focused not on the ecological, engineering, and

geological aspects of the plan or its technical integration of those variables, rather I address hereprimarily the socio-economic and socio-cultural aspects of the plan and the ultimately politicalassumptions and decisions the CPRA has chosen in its construction of the plan.I agree with the plan’s acknowledgment of the lack of social science incorporated into it, and callon the CPRA to expand its engagement with Cultural Heritage and Socio-Economics throughTechnical Advisory Commitees on these topics with more and new members as well as aCultural Heritage Communities Focus Group. At present, both the academic and lay personsinvolved officially in the Master Plan process are highly imbalanced towards ecological scienceand engineering and the representatives of politically powerful industries in the state at theexpense of social science, the humanities, and residents of coastal communities, especially thosewho represent racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority groups that embody much of the region’sliving cultural heritage.The planners have repeatedly made use of what has become known as the “Red Map” – the chartshowing 1,756 sq. miles of land loss over the next 50 years under the so-called ‘less optimistic’scenario. My observation on the use of this map in public meetings is that the CPRA is using itssea of red to quiet criticism of the plan – saying, while pointing to the map, that ‘we are allvulnerable’ and we must attain concensus, presumably for the 2012 plan, to prevent this dreadscenario. Yet, I must say that the CPRA is selectively over-stating the land loss scenario when itis useful for berating skeptical coastal Louisiana audiences, while it chooses to under-estimatethe scientific evidence that shows we may be heading for an even more discouraging futurewhile simultaneously drawing upon a greatly underestimated land change future, the ‘moderate’environmental scenario, in making its argument to federal funders that the State of Louisiana canachieve no net loss of wetlands and greatly reduce storm vulnerability at what has become the‘cheap’ price of $50 billion. I appreciate the political logic of this strategic choice of scenarios toconvince different stakeholders to get on board, while I note its disingenuousness.While it is true the plan documents different land loss and storm damage numbers for both themoderate and less optimistic scenarios (pages 16-17, 24-25), several important underlyingassumptions either unaddressed or only marginally acknowledged in the plan’s voluminousappendices make these scenarios questionable. As you explain on page 76 of the plan, under themoderate environmental scenario only 771 sq. mi. will be lost in the ‘Future Without Action’variant; a considerably less scary map results from this variant which does not impress upondown the bayou residents the same degree of ‘we’re all in this together’ the crimson tide of landloss in the 1,756 sq. mi. map does.Much more concerning, however, is the low-balling of future land change processes in the plan’senvironmental scenarios; the plan’s moderate scenario only expects 0.27 meters of sea level rise /50 years, while even the plan must admit (in rather fine print back in Appendix C, page 7) that itshigher bound, 0.45m / 50 yrs., is about 50% less than the NRC’s high estimate of 0.65m andabout half of the contemporary peer-reviewed estimate of 0.78m / 50 yrs. This number, as youwell know, means the difference whether any feasible amount of spending is going to achieve netno wetland loss by 2062; if actual future sea level rise approaches these high estimates, thenwe’re screwed in South Terrebonne whatever amount of money is thrown at the problem, andthat reality is not reflected in the plan; instead, a scary but not insurmountable future scenario is

put forward to make the problem seem serious but fixable at a fiscally attainable cost, then themost rosy picture is emphasized to argue what can occur if Louisiana gets the $50 billion fromWashington after everyone here gets behind the State, even if that scenario is unlikely. I considerthat untruthful to both the people of Louisiana and the taxpayers of the United States. Thesubsidence numbers (Appendix C, pages 16-17) are somewhat more honest, in my opinion, ajustified down-shifting of them to adjust for historically exceptional subsidence rates in the 20 thCentury related to oil and gas extraction and land drainage. Still, the planners are using the 20 thpercentile (low) as their ‘moderate’ subsidence scenario and the 50 th percentile as their extreme;akin to Lake Wobegon, in Louisiana apparently all of our environmental scenarios are aboveaverage.The flip-side of the plan’s selective raising and lowering of its environmental assumptions to fitcertain audiences and arguments is its expectation of a currently non-existent $50 billion infunding. The plan does model what could be done with $20 billion (pages 86 and B-27), what ismost likely to be available if projected funding levels come into being, but the public never, evenin the darkest corners of its appendices, get to see what those maps look like and who gets whatprojects where under the most likely economic scenario for the next 50 years, despite the factthat the planners clearly have run those simulations – that’s how the estimates on page 27 ofAppendix B got made, presumably. The CPRA should show the Louisiana public and the U.S.public just how bad things are going to get by 2062 if we don’t get more money, instead ofputting forward an unrealistic ‘no action’ scenario that won’t possibly occur as the scary futureto be avoided. I would much like to see where our spending priorities with the plan’s criteria inplace when we run the budget down to $20 billion – how much for restoration vs. protection?What happens to non-structural and structural protection’s ability to reduce flood damage whenso many restoration features get yanked? Can the 3% voluntary acquisition cap be maintainedwhen so many more people will be that much more vulnerable, and if it can’t, how will peopleget bought out when the plan show how much more expensive it is to acquire property than toelevate or floodproof (Appendix A, pages 68-71)? The CPRA’s planning tool can answer thesequestions, and maybe it already has, but the public hasn’t been allowed to see these facts. Weneed to know what our real options are – Moderate and Less Optimistic environmental scenariosunder $20 billion and $50 billion funding scenarios – four potential futures in all.(3) The Cultural Heritage criterionI also have a few substantive issues about the social, cultural, and economic aspects of the plan’sadditional criteria. On page 89, the planners acknowledge the plan lacks socioeconomic analysis:This is abundantly right, and it’s commendable the plan is honest about its limitations and theneed for improvement. Figure 3.8 that appears on that page demonstrates the planners’ lack ofknowledge about economic issues in coastal Louisiana: The historic falling number ofcommercial fishermen has almost nothing to do with the land loss crisis; the real reasons for thisdecline are (1) the recovery of the oilfield after the late 1980s which drew displaced oilfieldworkers back to their old jobs after they turned to fishing to get through the downturn; (2) thegill-net and red fish bans of the early 1990s; (3) the disastrous economic conditions facing theshrimp and crab industries due to rising volumes of cheap imports and escalating fuel prices inthe 2000s; and (4) the destruction of great numbers of vessels and infrastructure in hurricanes in

2005 and 2008. This figure should be removed as it has no bearing on the socioeconomics ofland loss and coastal Louisianians’ livelihoods.The plan’s Cultural Heritage Decision Criterion assumes people must be near to naturalresources they depend on to retain this heritage; a rudimentary study of coastal Louisiana’shistory and its contemporary conditions shows this to be false. As the narrative of Appendix J onthis topic demonstrates, coastal Louisianians have time and time again shifted their places ofresidence, their spatial relationship to the resources they harvest from the land and water and theresources they base their livelihoods on; tremendous changes have occurred in all these aspectsover time and yet our cultural heritage has survived, modified itself, and thrived, with greatefforts to be sure. What commercial fishermen are concerned about, and your Fisheries FocusGroup meeting minutes reflect this, is the effect of the plan on the availability of coastalresources, not so much the precise location of them or their proximity to their homes. Manycommercial fishermen move across the coast following the harvesting seasons; people havemoved inland to get away from storm hazards while keeping boats further down or increasingtheir transit times: The problem is making sure that whole categories of resources aren’t wipedout or their productivity severely impaired by the changes in salinity, water quality, or landscapethat this plan and ongoing land loss will bring about in the next 50 years. So, in short, treatingone’s proximity to particular natural resources as a proxy for the survival of cultural heritage inSouth Louisiana is not tenable given the historical and social scientific evidence. And theresources these coastal communities are said to rely upon in the plan are laughable. On page J-17, we are told that the community of Houma depends on agriculture; even when mygrandparents moved here in the 1940s this was largely false, and nowadays it’s literally almost ashistorically anachronistic to say Houma is an agriculturally-dependent community as it would beto say New Orleans’ economy depends on paddlewheel riverboats, cotton gins and trading slavesin the public markets. It’s obvious to anyone who’s ever been to Houma in the past 40 years thistown is dependent on oil and gas; that’s the industry (for better and worse) that the town’scultural heritage, which is undoubtedly alive, if not exactly well, depends on. This contradiction–a traditional, ethnic minority culture being preserved, in a somewhat mutated form, throughparticipation in a globalized, rapacious, extractive industry, is well-documented in thesociological literature, but is nowhere reflected in the plan. I could provide other examples formost of the other communities but will spare you here.What is more seriously wrong with the Cultural Heritage Criterion is its playing fast and loosewith the numbers on flood risks and community identification, bunching up heterogeneouscommunities with greatly differing flood risks and then averaging them out so as to arrive atgreater levels of protection than actually exist in the more vulnerable places. This is one of thesimplest ways to lie with statistics: Averaging Mitt Romney and a dozen penniless pauperstogether would make them, on the whole, quite wealthy; but while that might mean they shouldpay more than 15% in taxes, it would not mean you’d arrived at an accurate representation of theper capita wealth prevailing in that population. Much the same can be said for how the 50 coastalcommunities / population centers listed in the plan (see page J-16) get grouped into 15community regions that mix highly vulnerable and less vulnerable places together and, notsurprisingly, raise the overall average of protection on paper while obfuscating the actualsituation that people face now or will face in the future. Your RR calculations are averagedamong communities; it’s unclear if your RI calculations are (Appendix B, 7-2 to 7-4) and it’s

unclear what it means to ‘geometrically’ combine the aggregated RR-RI index for each place(especially since you just said you’d already averaged out the RR score ?! ) into an overallCommunity Region score. And because the neither plan’s main document nor its Appendix J oncultural heritage provides any data on those specific population centers’ projected storm damagesor natural resource accessibility – what are their RR and RI scores - readers cannot calculate forthemselves what these actual places, not the statistical fictions that stand in for them, will face.Further, the risk statistic aggregates storm vulnerability and resource accessibility into onesynthetic number, and is based on a non-linear formula that drags all results over 50% to a 0.10value, making the community region figures confusing and impossible to say just exactly what isgoing on in any particular place in any particular aspect. Combined with easily attainedconnection between coastal communities and adjacent natural resources and its aforementionedquestionable link to cultural heritage preservation, the cultural heritage metric is to me quiteuseless and not worthy of inclusion in this generally commendable effort at projecting futurechange in coastal Louisiana. What you need to do at minimum is publish the disaggregatedfigures for each population center about flood damages and resource accessibility separately,under the moderate and less optimistic environmental scenarios and with $20 and $50 billion tospend. That would tell people what their actual chances are under the actual levels of uncertaintyin the real places they live. That would be honest.And while you’re at it, there’s a couple silly, objectionable errors you’ve made regarding ethnicgroups and communities in coastal Louisiana. (Not to mention that you don’t ever address howthe plan affects ethnic and racial groups differentially, but that’s for another conversation.) Youought to write the name of the United Houma Nation correctly; you only say ‘Houma Nation’ inthe plan. You ought not to add insult to injury by not just failing to document how vulnerableDulac, Point au Chien (you botched its name in two ways – No ‘s’ on Chene(s) despite the priorplural ‘aux’ and among American Indians, the bayou is more commonly called ‘Point au Chien’),and Isle de Jean Charles will continue to be under this plan, but you spelled their tribal namewrong, even though you put a picture of their Principal Chief on the front cover of your report.And the Cajuns of Lafourche, where the largest single historical migration of Acadians arrived in1785, might be surprised to know they don’t exist, and only ‘White Creoles’ live in SouthLafourche. (Be sure to tell 100.3 FM in Larose to change its slogan to ‘The Ragin’ WhiteCreole!’) And the exclusion of African Americans from South Terrebonne (i.e. Bobtown inDulac and Smithridge in Chauvin) and Chalmette and the exclusion of the Vietnamesecommunity from Houma (Village East) is wrong. This brief list is not exhaustive of thesignificant ethnic communities missing from your list, but you get the idea.And one final thing on cultural heritage: You disappeared Dularge/Theriot entirely, even though,as a Dularge native, I have the Kafka-esque honor of being from it despite its non-existence (inyour plan).Back to the main body of the plan report, I concur and appreciate the planning team’s choice ofthe ‘Maximize Land Less Optimistic’ option (page 98) as the reference for restoration projectselection. As with other technical aspects of this report, I found the plan’s logic about diversions,channel realignments, and major barrier and realignment projects sound and well-founded (pages103-107).

However, I am disappointed that the protection of cultural heritage and equity amongsocioeconomic groups, at least as they have been operationalized in the plan, did little to nothingto shift the restoration and protection projects to do more for communities in South Terrebonne,Lafourche, and Plaquemines where unique ethnic communities that literally exist nowhere elseon earth are exceptionally vulnerable and receive precious little additional protection. Thereport’s claim:“The draft plan supports the ability of coastal residents to use important naturalresources for their livelihoods, such as fisheries, and live in their traditionalcommunities without the risk of catastrophic flooding. This decision criterionevaluated the availability of fish, shrimp, and oysters as well as opportunities foragriculture, including rice, sugarcane, and cattle farming. By increasing thesupport for cultural heritage, the draft plan will reduce impacts to traditionalcommunities compared to what they would experience under Future Withoutaction.” (Page 136)is disingenuous and misleading, claiming as a success what is a foregone conclusion due tofaulty assumptions and statistical tricks that hide the actual bleak situation facing many coastalcommunities whose unique cultural heritage is dying from land loss and the attendant breakdownin the social fabric and infrastructure.(4) The Distribution of Socio-Economic Risk CriterionI’ve got about the same beef with your criterion of distributing risk reduction proportionatelyamong socio-economic groups. While the ostensible goal is what the title says – “Distribution ofRisk Across All Socio-Economic Groups,’ and I was shocked to see the State actually print thosewords in an official document, your operationalization of this criterion does not measure howrisk is distributed among people and places with different income levels. Here’s how you did it:“This decision criterion took into account reduction of flooding risk in areas ofthe coast with low-income citizens. The intent of this criterion was to make surethat the draft plan did not increase flooding risks for low income citizens, andinstead, distributed risk reduction across income levels. Our analysis showed thatcoast wide expected annual damages from flooding for low income areas wouldbe reduced by approximately $95 million with the draft plan in place. Theanalysis further showed that we were not disproportionately increasing flood riskfor low income communities coast wide as a result of our proposed risk reductionmeasures.” (Page 136)First, you changed the intent to making sure you didn’t increase flooding risks for the poor –that’s different than distributing risk among the rich and the poor, presumably equitably.Showing that you didn’t make the poorest people even worse off isn’t much of anaccomplishment, frankly, but you seem like you’ve only barely accomplished even that. Toreduce their flood risk by just $95 million a year, when you’re estimating billions and billions indamage reduction coast-wide, is actually proving that you aren’t distributing risks fairly across

all socio-economic groups. Your result shows that the vast majority of risk reduction is going tothe non-poor, which, to be fair, is somewhat plausible given that the wealthy own a lot moreproperty than the poor. But what you ought to do to address this issue objectively is measure thechange in flood damages as a percentage of the Future Without Action scenario – i.e. this CensusBlock’s flood damage fell by 10%, that one’s by 20% - and group all the coastal zone’s CensusBlocks into quintiles of per-capita income. Then, produce a map showing the blocks and theirflood damage change under the plan and a chart documenting the damage change percentages foreach quintile income group averaged out, state-wide, and in particular communities andcommunity regions. If the quintiles have around the same magnitude of change, then you’veachieved a good distribution of risks among socio-economic groups, and if you find a bigdifference between, say, the bottom quintile with a low rate of change and the higher quintileswith a higher decline in their projected losses, then you’ve failed to achieve this distributed risk.Your claim “we were not disproportionately increasing flood risk for low income communitiescoast wide as a result of our proposed risk reduction measures” has not been proved by the datayou’ve presented so far, and it suggests the opposite to be true. The burden of proof remains onthe CPRA to demonstrate they’re not disproportionately reducing the flood damage risks to themore wealthy.I noticed on page 137 how ‘navigation interests will be participants in the planning, engineeringand design phases’ of projects affecting them. I have a question: Why can’t communities ofcultural heritage and low-income communities be participants in the projects that affect them,instead of what you offer on page 153: “Working with affected communities and stakeholders todesign projects that consider ways to minimize unavoidable impacts while still meeting project,and master plan objectives.” It’s a big difference between participating in all the ground-levelphases of projects that affect you and having the government ‘consider’ you when they impose‘unavoidable’ impacts on you ‘while still meeting project, and master plan objectives.”Sincerely,Brian Marks

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 32/24/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 90First NameSpencerLast NameMurphyAddress835 Union StNew Orleans, LA 70112United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Canal Barge Company, Inc.Emailsmurphy@canalbarge.comCommentsThank you for the opportunity to comment on the State of Louisiana’s 2012-2017 Comprehensive Master Plan for aSustainable Coast (the “Master Plan”). The following comments are submitted on behalf of Canal Barge Company,Inc.BackgroundCanal Barge Company, Inc. (“CBC”) is one of the largest privately owned inland marine transportation companies inthe United States, employing 32 towing vessels and over 850 barges in the Inland Waterways and the Gulf of Mexico.Our area of operations stretches from Brownsville, TX to Pittsburgh, PA, and CBC employes over 580 personnelacross 20 states.CBC is a family-owned business headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Our executive team is active in bothnational and regional efforts to develop a systematic approach to water management; both President/CEO MerrittLane and Vice President – Risk Management Spencer Murphy were members of the Master Plan’s FrameworkDevelopment Team (“FDT”) and Spencer Murphy also participated in the Navigation Focus Group. Our presence inNew Orleans means we understand the need for coastal restoration and flood protection in order to protect our GulfCoast communities; our presence across our nation’s waterways means we understand the importance of navigationto our regional and national economy. We support efforts for coastal restoration and flood protection that can co-existwith and even bolster our nation’s vital marine highways, and as further described below, CBC sees the Master Planas an important step forward in those efforts.Marine Highways

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 32/24/2012The Master Plan has the potential to impact two of our nation’s most important commercial waterways: theMississippi River and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (“GIWW”). According to the State of Louisiana, over 450 milliontons of waterborne commerce (20% of the nation’s total) travels through Louisiana each year on these waterways.The Mississippi River is one of the key economic engines of our nation and provides the most efficient means forAmerican farmers and manufacturers to get their goods to market. For example, over 60% of our country’s grainexports move through Louisiana on the Mississippi River.Less well known than the Mississippi, but equally important, the GIWW is the nation’s third busiest waterway – onlythe Mississippi River and Ohio River carry more goods each year than the GIWW. The GIWW is a 1300 mile systemof channels and tributaries that runs from Brownsville, TX to St. Mark’s, FL and connects the Gulf Coast to theMississippi River. It provides a vital link between the Gulf Coast’s petrochemical refineries and the rest of our nation,and directly and indirectly supports tens of thousands of jobs.What makes navigation particularly relevant to the State is that the maritime industry provides one out of every 8 jobsin Louisiana (as found in a study by Dr. Tim Ryan of University of New Orleans), and further, water transport is by farthe most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transportation. A 2009 study by the Texas TransportationInstitute found that relative to truck or rail, barge transportation:1) Produces fewer CO2 emissions,2) Results in fewer spills of hazardous materials,3) Operates with greater fuel efficiency, and4) Results in fewer injuries and fatalities.With those facts in mind, the State should take care that implementing the Master Plan does not drive commerceaway from our navigable waterways. Rather, a responsible and environmentally sound policy should encourage theuse of our commercial waterways over the coming decades to protect both our State’s economic interests, and thelivelihoods of thousands of its citizens.The Master Plan Properly Recognizes the Important Role of Navigation.Through its participation in the FDT, CBC has gained valuable insight into the process that created the Master Plan,and we are pleased to note that one of the Master Plan’s five basic Objectives is “to promote a viable working coastto support regionally and nationally important businesses and industries.” Further, the State created a NavigationFocus Group to ensure that navigation stakeholders had the opportunity to provide direct feedback into the drafting ofthe Master Plan. CBC also supports the State’s decision to use impacts to navigation as one of the “Decision Criteria”used to evaluate projects for the Master Plan. The State is to be commended for its efforts to reach out to navigationstakeholders, and we encourage the State to maintain a dialogue with industry as the Master Plan’s projects areimplemented in the coming years.Improvements to the Master Plan and Next Steps.As the State finalizes the Master Plan, we submit that one area in which the Master Plan can be improved is toreduce the number of new structures built on federally authorized waterways. This is so not simply because it wouldreduce the overall impact to navigation, but also because there are likely much more cost-efficient and/or easiermethods to achieve the same beneficial effects to restoration or flood protection. We ask that the State consider thefollowing factors and then re-examine the decision to build new gates or structures across the GIWW in areas suchas Lafitte:

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 3 of 32/24/2012a) Operational Safety: Any structures built in a waterway increase the likelihood of vessel casualties, which obviouslywould bring a negative impact to the restoration/protection benefits of the structure. The State should view the GIWWand Mississippi River in the same way it views Interstate 10. Building a structure across a major commercial/industrialtransportation artery invites a level of risk that is not present for other restoration or protection features. It is not inanyone’s interest to see a vessel casualty involving a critical flood control structure, or for vessels to becomestranded along the banks during an unplanned floodgate closure.b) Construction Delay: The construction and maintenance of nation's marine infrastructure on federal waterways isthe exclusive domain of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, there are over 20 lock and dam projects (eithernew construction or major rehab) on the Corps' project backlog, almost all of which are well over budget and offschedule.To give just one example, the Corps recently announced that Olmsted Lock and Dam project (authorized in1988 with an expected 7 year construction period) is expected to cost $1.3 Billion more than originally estimated, andtake 25 years longer to complete than originally planned. This additional cost overrun will likely consume every dollarof the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (the mechanism for funding major lock projects). Given the above, it is extremelyunlikely that a new lock could be authorized, funded, and constructed on the GIWW in the foreseeable future until thecurrent backlog of projects is addressed.c) Unplanned Costs: One aspect of the Master Plan that needs further study is the cost to operate and maintain newstructures. Even assuming the timely construction of new locks or gates, if they are viewed as 'flood protection'projects and not 'navigation' projects, the Corps will not retain the O+M responsibility for the structures. This situationexists today for the West Closure Complex and the IHNC Floodgate near New Orleans. Efforts are underway toensure that the Corps retains O+M responsibility for these structures given their navigation function and location on akey federal waterway, but because of the authorization language for these projects, it is possible that criticalresources (both funds and personnel) will be diverted from the local/regional levee authorities to operate thesestructures on a 24/7/365 basis. Adding more locks or gates on the GIWW under the auspices of the State's MasterPlan will undoubtedly lead to similar problems.To summarize items (b) and (c), if the Master Plan calls for additional “locks,” those locks are unlikely to ever be built.If the Master Plan calls for additional “floodgates,” the State may be forced to dedicate major resources to fill theCorps’ traditional O+M role to ensure safe operations and to prevent disruptions to America’s third busiest waterway.The State's funds and personnel would be much better utilized elsewhere than on trying to operate and maintainlocks or gates across the GIWW.ConclusionLike many members of the Louisiana maritime industry, Canal Barge Company understands the importance ofrestoring our coast and protecting our citizens from storm flooding. If coastal erosion continues unabated, we mayvery well lose the very waterways upon which our business operates, and if our communities are not protected, wemay lose our workforce, and our own homes. We thank the State for the opportunity to comment on the Master Plan,and hope that our comments will provide useful, ‘real-world’ feedback that will help improve the final version of theMaster Plan.Regards,Spencer MurphyVice President - Canal Barge Company, Inc.Canal Barge Company, Inc.

2/25/2012 Print Preview : Public Comment Form :…Public Comment Form : Entry # 117First NameClaytonLast NameKernAddress117 Ledet DrThibodaux, LA 70301United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Nicholls State UniversityEmailcskern@gmail.comCommentsWhile I think the current effort is to be applauded and believe that the master plan is better than nothing at all, I find ithard to understand the naivety of those who think this will be able to slow or eventually stop land loss. The problemswe are facing are because we as humans thought that we could control, stop, or divert the natural environment, andeverything would be fine. Do we really think that a bunch of money, hard work, and planning will take the role of naturalforces, and even if it did, that we in our incredibly limited resources and short scope, know what is best for southernLouisiana.While allowing natural forces to dictate the flow of the river, and allowing the natural flood plain system to once againoccur, may take a complete reversal in the way we view our relationship with the natural world. It would be the bestidea in the long run, both monetarily and with humanitarian interests in mind.Many communities throughout the world have adapted to living in raised homes, and even some entire cities arepractically above the water, but this will require some fundamental changes in our lifestyles and in building our livesaround the natural world rather than through it. Only through this will we truly save southern Louisiana.…louisiana.gov/…/print-entry.php?fid=… 1/1

Jan 22, 2012Coastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityThe draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan is the most viable plan to date for restoring our coast and forprotecting our wildlife and communities. I commend the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityfor proposing a bold, science-based plan that will harness the land-building power of the MississippiRiver and create sensible hurricane protections. I urge the state to reject any proposed alterations tothis plan that are not based on sound science.For Louisiana, the status quo will simply mean more land loss across the entire coast, while this plan willultimately result in Louisiana's coastline having a net gain of wetlands. Continued inaction is not anoption--I urge the state to support this draft of the Coastal Master Plan and to start the process ofrestoring the coast.I have been hearing for the last thirty years that something needs to be done to save the coast. Therehave been numerous agencies involved in studies, LSU has devoted a great deal of time to this topic, andeveryone who has an interest in the area has an opinion. If the talk and the studies and the specialinterests continue to talk and plan and protect their own turf, there will be nothing left to salvage. I livein Winn Parish and do not want ocean front property. Lets get the coast back.Sincerely,Sarah Byrd299 Tisdale RdTullos, LA 71479-6100

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority: Please Consider this Requesthttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/22/2012Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority: Please Consider thisRequestAndre Leblanc [aleblanc@prideoilandgas.net]Sent:Friday, February 17, 2012 4:12 PMTo:Master PlanAttachments: 1998 Aerial Photo[1].jpg (607 KB ) ; 2003 Aerial Photo[1].jpg (623 KB ) ; 2005 Aerial Photo[1].jpg (647 KB ) ; 2009Aerial Photo[1].jpg (729 KB )Dear Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority:I am writing you today to request that you include bank line stabilization and shoreline protection along a largeportion of Freshwater Bayou (FWB) in the State of Louisiana Master Plan in order to protect the fragile soils ofthe Mermentau Basin and Rainey Marshes. If have frequented FWB for the past 17 years for recreationalpurposes. This region of our state is home to some of the best hunting and fishing Louisiana has to offerhowever if something is not done to fix the condition of the levees along the banks of FWB, I along withthousands of other will not be able to make such a statement. The levees along the banks of FWB are erodingand deteriorating at a rapid rate which I believe is allowing saltwater intrusion and harmful tidal movement intothe marshes causing the marsh to disappear.Please see the attached aerial photos over the last 14 years of an area of marsh along FWB, note the changingratio of marsh to water over the years. This change is a direct result of deterioration of the quality of levees ofthe last 10 years. After viewing these pictures if you do not believe in your heart something needs to be done tofix this problem you are doing an injustice to the wildlife, the marsh, our coast, and this great State of Louisiana.Louisiana is called Sportsman's Paradise for a reason, it is up to you to keep this nickname going. Please considermy request to include bank line stabilization and shoreline protection along a large portion of Freshwater Bayouin the State of Louisiana Master Plan.Feel free to contact me via email or phone to discuss this issue in more detail.Please do the right this and consider my request.Sincerely,Andre C. LeBlanc(337) 654‐8598

Question concerning land restorationhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Question concerning land restorationAndrew Mancuso [mancuso.andrew@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:15 AMTo:Master PlanWho will own the land that is restored under this plan?Andrew Mancuso

Master Plan projects with CWPPRAhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Master Plan projects with CWPPRAPatin, Cecily [CPatin@ene.com]Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:59 PMTo:Master PlanHello.I would like to know which projects in the 2012 Master Plan are CWPPRA projects. I have the Master Plan IDnumbers, but would also like to know the CWPPRA ID numbers for those that are CWPPRA projects so that I maylearn more about them from their fact sheets.Thank you,Cecily Patin

sediment diversion planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/25/2012sediment diversion planColleen Nolting [colleen@cmaaccess.com]Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:21 AMTo:Master Planhow about very simply pumping misssissippi river water over the highwayby pipeline in south plaquemines, the heavy sediment in the river waterwill build land in no time. ALSO , what about those ships that you canrent, that pump sediment from the bottom of the gulf to build up barrierislands. didnt they do this in dubai to build all those resorts?

Bank Stabilization Freshwater Bayou/ICWWhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/22/2012Bank Stabilization Freshwater Bayou/ICWWDigby Billeaud [digbo@suncoastland.com]Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 6:18 AMTo:Master PlanLadies and Gentlemen:Over the past few years I have noticed significant deterioration of marsh vegetation in the Pecan Island area dueto salt water incursion from Freshwater Bayou and bank erosion on the ICWW west of the Jaws. As a resourceuser, landowner and taxpayer, I am urging you to include bank stabilization and shoreline protection for theseareas in the State Master Plan.Digby Billeaud

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/25/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 105First NameLoveraLast NameShaulaAddress1000 Howard Ave, Suite 221New Orleans, LA 70113United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Catholic Charites Archidiocese of New OrleansEmailslvoera@ccano.orgCommentsSince the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans (CCANO) has been providinga variety of services to thousands of individuals and families in the affected fishing population of Southeast Louisiana.While we believe that restoring Louisiana’s coast is vitally important to the future of our state, we also believe inmaintaining and strengthening the fishing communities that reside in areas where coastal restoration projects willtake place. The following represents CCANO’s comments in response to Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plandeveloped by the Coastal Protections and Restoration Authority (CPRA):1. Jobs for Local Residents: For generations, the economic vitality of the Gulf Coast has centered on fishing. Jobs infishing and spin-off industries were lost due to storms, oil, flooding, and loss of coastline. It is stated that “coastalrestoration could create up to 10,300 jobs for residents, with average annual wages of $56,000.” Residents who havebeen economically harmed by disasters or the implementation of the Master Plan must be given first priority to obtainsuch jobs. Workforce training to help them develop needed skills should also be made available.2. Diversity of CPRA Officials: According to the 2010 US Census, over 1/3 of the individuals residing in areas wherecoastal restoration projects will occur are made up of minorities. We believe that it is essential that such minorities bean integral part in the development of the Master Plan.3. Fresh Water Diversions: It is well known that water from the Mississippi River carries various pollutants that resultin dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Fresh water diversions would in turn create dead zones wherever such projectsoccur. Furthermore, it became clear that the fresh water diversions used to push out oil near the coast resulted in thedecimation of oyster reefs. Any future change in watershed management should include measures on how to confineand clean existing pollutants in the water and sediment, and then take in to account the proximity of diversions tooyster reefs. Fishers harmed by the implementation of coastal restoration projects should be given priority in

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/25/2012obtaining economic opportunities to counteract negative impacts.4. Social and Cultural Impacts: Individuals and families within the range of proposed coastal restoration projects arecomprised of multi-generational communities whose entire way of life is centered on the strong social bonds thathave been established over decades. If residential relocation occurs, CPRA must acknowledge the negative socialimpact it will have on communities and include measures to mitigate such impacts. Residents in communities thatmay be relocated have a right to be told of the plans at the earliest possible point in time, so that they havemeaningful input in the relocation plans.5. Support for Social Services: The implementation of the Master Plan will inevitably generate the displacement ofmany coastal communities’ residents. Residents who are negatively impacted should be provided with social servicesto help them become stabilized. These types of services should be offered as comprehensive case managementservices. Funding should be allocated to help support these clients. Non-profits such as Catholic CharitiesArchdiocese of New Orleans that have experience in this type of service delivery should be considered and funded toassist these residents.6. Considerations for Limited English Proficient Populations: A significant number of coastal residents who will beaffected by the Master Plan are Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Consideration to the provision of adequatelanguage access should be considered during the implementation of the Plan. The Master Plan as well as its positiveand negative implications should be explained to LEP communities in a language that they understand. Their needsand the impact on these communities require further analysis. These communities should be consulted, informed,and represented. LEP communities will be among the most vulnerable and negatively affected. They should beprovided ample opportunity to voice their concerns and to access job opportunities that will be created by theimplementation of the Plan.

Jan 22, 2012Coastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityThe draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan is the most viable plan to date for restoring our coast and forprotecting our wildlife and communities. I commend the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityfor proposing a bold, science-based plan that will harness the land-building power of the MississippiRiver and create sensible hurricane protections. I urge the state to reject any proposed alterations tothis plan that are not based on sound science.For Louisiana, the status quo will simply mean more land loss across the entire coast, while this plan willultimately result in Louisiana's coastline having a net gain of wetlands. Continued inaction is not anoption--I urge the state to support this draft of the Coastal Master Plan and to start the process ofrestoring the coast.Our family land is mostly submerged during high tide. Low tide is not much better. The land, where ourfamily camp was on, is gone now.Please do the right thing to restore the marsh and halt any riders that would weaken your draft. Thankyou for what you have done so far.Sincerely,Jan Serignea1812 Todd DrSaint Bernard, LA 70085-5763

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P.O. Box 207, Barataria, LA 70036 504-689-8849 Office 504-689-7687 Fax bayoukeeper@cox.netFebruary 24, 2012Coastal Protection And Restoration Authority450 Laurel Street, Suite 1200Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027Submitted Via: Online Public Comment Form located on the CPRA 2012 CoastalMaster Plan website,Re: Public Comment on CPRA Draft 2012 Coastal Master PlanLouisiana Bayoukeeper, Inc, and the Association of Family Fishermen would like tothank the Louisiana Coastal Protection And Restoration Authority (CPRA) for theopportunity to submit comments, as it relates to the Draft 2012 Coastal MasterPlan.Louisiana Bayoukeeper, Inc is a non-profit citizens organization made up ofrecreational and commercial fishermen, charter captains, tourism businesses andother concerned citizens dedicated to protecting the health and sustainability ofLouisiana’s bayou’s and coastal communities. The Association of Family Fishermenis a non-profit fishing organization representing fishing families across coastalLouisiana. Both organizations are based in the Barataria Basin and the citizens werepresent are economically and culturally dependent on healthy, sustainable naturalresources.We recognize the hard work and dedication that went into pulling together the Draft2012 Coastal Master Plan. The quantity and quality of proposed project sends aclear message to the nation that coastal protection and restoration is of criticalimportance to the citizens of Louisiana and their elected officials. While we supportmany of the projects listed, we have serious concerns about the process used inevaluating and selecting which projects should move forward and when.Good, solid science is grounded, not only in well planned scientific research butincludes knowledge gained from years of first hand field experience. Local,traditional knowledge of wildlife, fisheries, tidal, temperature and salinities, whichhas been handed down generation to generation is invaluable in evaluating thepotential positive or negative impacts of proposed projects on the naturalresources, families and our natural resource based economies.The coastal communities, whose economy and culture are tied directly to thenatural resources, were the most heavily impacted by the BP Oil Spill and will bethe most heavily impacted (positively or negatively) by the coastal restoration

projects selected and implemented in the 2012 Coastal Master Plan. Yet, fishinginterests had to fight to get even one seat on the 2012 Master Plan FrameworkDevelopment Team (FDT). They were granted this seat just a few weeks before theDraft 2012 Master Plan was released. To date, there is not one coastal communityrepresentative (people who live and work there) and no representative from anyState Recognized Native American Tribe, no representation from Asian/Americancommunities and no representation of low income, multi-cultural fishing families.There are, however; 3 National Environmental Non-Governmental Agencies (ENGO)and 2 Louisiana ENGO’s who claim to represent the interests of Louisiana's coastalcommunities, three oil and gas representatives, 3 representatives of thetransportation industry and representation from all relative state and federalagencies. Without a seat at the table, it is difficult, if not impossible, fordisadvantaged citizens to have their voice heard.Although they were requested numerous times, prior to the release of the Draft2012 Coastal Master Plan, hard copies of clear, easy to understand, detailed projectdescriptions, summaries and maps for each of the projects were never provided tocitizen representatives or the public. Many coastal residents do not have thefinancial were with all or educational skills to access electronic information. Gaininga clear understanding of a project and its potential impacts on them and theircommunities from a paragraph made up of a couple of sentences and trying to findthat project on a large map can be overwhelming, making it extremely difficult tomake educated comments at a public meeting. This may lead people to support aproject that they would not otherwise support or oppose one they may havesupported.Not one of the Public Hearings for the Draft 2012 Master Plan or, the NaturalResource Damage Assessment Early Restoration Projects have been held in thelower coast communities that have been and will be most impacted. Those coastalcommunity citizens, from across the state, with the financial ability, to travel milesinland, to urban areas and attended the Public Hearings expressed similarcomments. "No one is listening to us"; "we are being left out of the plan"; “ourtribal communities are washing away and we need to be included in the leveesystem”; “we oppose large diversion project because we know they will flood ourcommunities and cause severe damage to the wildlife and fisheries resources andour local economy"; "we support dredge/fill and dedicated pipeline marsh creationprojects"; "we support small scale/salinity controlled diversions for the purpose ofnourishing and sustaining existing and new marsh"; "we support rebuilding barrierislands"; "we support rebuilding oyster reefs with native Louisiana (non-modified)Oysters".Providing clear, easy to understand, detailed project descriptions,summaries and maps (similar to the CWPRA project summaries) at publicmeetings held in lower coast communities and providing the abovereferenced coastal community representatives, with a real voice at thedecision making table, would ensure a better understanding and flow ofinformation in both directions, good, solid scientific project evaluationsand a higher probability of project support and positive project outcomes.The technical information used in the model developed to choose projects is notavailable to the public making it difficult to evaluate how projects were rated andvalued. This technical information should be released to the public forcomment prior to Final 2012 Coastal Master Plan approval.Projects:

We oppose all large (greater then 10,000 CFS) freshwater/sedimentdiversion projects listed in the Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan.Louisiana’s coastal wetlands are essential fish habitat for most marine species inthe Gulf of Mexico. 90% of all marine species in the Gulf of Mexico spends someportion of its life cycle in the estuarine habitat of coastal Louisiana. Februarythrough July are critical months for reproduction and growth of many recreationallyand commercially important species and some that are listed as endangered orthreatened. These species need the combination of fresh, brackish and salinewaters and marsh, which exists in the Louisiana estuary, to remain healthy andsustainable. Large freshwater and/or sediment diversions will disrupt the life cyclesof marine species threatening fisheries sustainability and the socio-economicviability of resource dependant coastal communities.Excess nutrients, in the Mississippi River water, create a large area known as the“Dead Zone” to occur each year off of the coast of Louisiana. When diverted intothe estuary this same water, not only alters salinities and water temperaturescritical to marine species survival, but also creates low oxygen problems inestuarine waters. In addition, the nutrient heavy waters cause significant increasesin the growth of invasive plant species, such as Water Hyacinths and Giant Salvinia,which in turn impedes navigation, clogs up intakes on boat motors, and blocks upponds that are essential habitat for migratory water fowl.Large freshwater/sediment diversions will contribute to significant flooding incoastal communities situated outside existing levee protection causing devastatingfinancial personal and business losses to individuals and government.We support marsh creation projects utilizing dredging and/or dedicatedpipeline projects, small (10,000 CFS or less) freshwater/sedimentdiversions for the purpose of salinity control, nourishing existing and newmarsh and maintaining essential fish habitat, the rebuilding of barrierislands (that do cause harm to historic, natural oyster reef), oyster reefrestoration utilizing native (non-modified oysters), and non-structuralstorm protection measures, in the short term, in addition to; leveeprotection for coastal community infrastructure.We agree with and support additional comments submitted to the CPRA asthey relate to the Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan by the Louisiana ShrimpAssociation, the Louisiana Oyster Task Force and the Barataria-TerrebonneNational Estuary Program.We appreciate the opportunity to express our support and concerns and lookforward to working with you in the future to ensure sustainable coastal protectionand restoration.Sincerely,Tracy Kuhns, Executive DirectorLouisiana Bayoukeeper, IncP.O. Box 207 P.O. Box 336Barataria, LA 70036 Barataria, LA 70036Michael Roberts, PresidentAssociation of Family Fishermen504-689-8849 504-689-7880Bayoukeeper@cox.netrkfisheries@cox.net

info.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012info.Mark Ryan [markr@ez8a.com]Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 12:12 PMTo:Master PlanI just finished reading through the draft Master Plan and am trying to figure out if there is going to be a MATOCfor the project and any details of that as well as if there will be a preference given to LA companies or otherpreferences such as MBE, Indian, veteran etc.Thanks for any help…Mark

Re: NEW PROJECTShttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Re: NEW PROJECTSHelen & Ken [8246buras@att.net]Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:58 AMTo:Master PlanThanks, CWPPRA is still active in selecting projects. PPL 21 projects are now being voted upon. Will PPL21 projects be included in the Master Plan? Do you know if CWPPRA will continue to function from thispoint on?KenFrom: Master PlanSent: Monday, November 14, 2011 7:17 PMTo: 'Helen & Ken' ; Master PlanSubject: RE: NEW PROJECTSKenThank you for your email. At this point in the process we have completed modeling of the projects consideredfor inclusion in the 2012 Master Plan, and will not be considering new projects. Please note that we haveborrowed heavily from past plans as a source of our projects for consideration, including the Plaquemines ParishPlan.SincerelyKarim BelhadjaliMaster Plan Delivery TeamFrom: Helen & Ken [mailto:8246buras@att.net]Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 9:15 PMTo: Master PlanSubject: NEW PROJECTSWill any new projects be considered or are we locked into only those previously approved projects?Can the parish representatives offer new projects for inclusion in the Master Plan?Ken Ragas

Karim BelhadjaliCoastal ResourcesScientist Manager,Planning DivisionOCPRP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA, 70801Phone: (225)342-4123Karim.Belhadjali@La.GovWilliam K. RhinehartAdministrator,Planning DivisionOCPR450 Laurel St, Suite 1200Baton Rouge, LA, 70801Phone: (225)342-2179kirk.rhinehart@la.govNatalie SniderCoastal ResourcesScientist Senior,Planning DivisionCPRA450 Laurel St, Suite 1200Baton Rouge, LA, 70801Phone: (225) 342-8786nataliesnider@la.govRE: Gulf Restoration Network Comments on the Draft 2012 Master PlanWe are writing on behalf of the Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), a diverse coalition ofindividual citizens and local, regional, and national organizations committed to uniting andempowering people to protect and restore the resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Thank you forthe efforts of the engagement team and for this opportunity to comment on the process.We welcome The Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority’s (CPRA’s)commitment to a science-based plan for restoring the coast of Louisiana. Loss of our coastalwetlands is an issue of national scale and national priority, for which the state has taken aleadership role through the establishment of the CPRA and the State Master Plan (SMP) process.The State Master Plan is a critical step toward integrating protection and restoration projects,predicting outcomes for our coast from the existing science, and evaluating different funding andpolicy scenarios.We are excited that the state is ramping up piecemeal projects into larger scale restoration thattruly and realistically addresses the crisis, and is pursuing a strategy that reconnects the engine ofour land, the Mississippi River, with our productive estuaries. The kind of scientific leadershipdemonstrated in the research around the Myrtle Grove project is to be applauded.The Master Plan could be improved in many ways to better tackle the environmental and socialchallenges of the coastal crisis.

THE STATE MASTER PLAN SHOULD OUTLINE THE ROLE FOR THE OIL ANDGAS INDUSTRY IN COASTAL RESTORATIONThe oil and gas industry owes a large debt to the land of Louisiana. This debt is measured inhundreds of thousands of acres of interior marshland 1 , and loss of those marshes for decades.Every year that debt is unpaid, and those former marsh areas remain in disrepair, billions ofdollars in ecosystem services are lost. 2 As the industry has moved out of the marshes and intodeep water, the coastal crisis has decelerated. 3,4The SMP prioritizes projects that protect oil and gas assets. 5 Among the “Strategic Assets” 6considered, about half (minimum 88 of 179) are oil and gas facilities. The SMP is generous tothis industry. The oil and gas industry has the capability to adapt solely on its own resources. 7But the SMP will require much more of many communities and industries that are without thoseresources, that were unjustly injured by this industry’s damages, and that were unjustly impactedby the ongoing threats of the coastal crisis.The oil and gas industry has had a hand in the majority (389.3 – 621.6 square miles) of wetlandsloss of the state from 1932-1990, through different mechanisms. The extraction of oil and gashas sunk the interior coastal marshes 8,9,10 increasing the volume of tidal water eroding ourexterior marshes and barrier islands.1 249,152-397,818 acres, or 389.3 – 621.6 square miles of the Delta plain, 1932-1990. Penland et al, 2000.Process Classification of Land Loss in the Mississippi Delta Plan. USGS open file report 00-418.2 Batker, David, et al. Gaining Ground. Wetlands, Hurricanes and the Economy: The Value of Restoring theMississippi River Delta Earth Economics.3 Morton, R.A., G. Tiling, and N.F. Ferina. 2003. Causes of hot-spot wetland loss in the Mississippi delta plain.Environmental Geosciences 10:71-84 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 SurveyScientific Investigations Map 3164, scale 1:265,000, 12 p. pamphlet.5 SMP, p. 1006 CPRA, Strategic Assets list. Received Feb 2012.7 As an example: Higher oil Prices Boost Conoco’s Profit by 66% WSJ.com 26 jan 20128 Morton, R.A., G. Tiling, and N.F. Ferina. 2003. Causes of hot-spot wetland loss in the Mississippi delta plain.Environmental Geosciences 10:71-89 Robert A. Morton, Julie C. Bernier, John A. Barras, and Nicholas F. Ferina. USGS Open File Report 2005-1216Rapid Subsidence and Historical Wetland Loss in the Mississippi Delta Plain: Likely Causes and Future Implicationssee also USGS ofr 2009-1158 and ofr 2011-116910 Reed and Yuill, 2009. Understanding Subsidence in Coastal Louisiana2

Third Delta Phase II Reconnaissance Study, 2006, prepared for LA DNR. Adapted from Penland et al, 2000.Oil and Gas damage to marshes are marked in red. Areas affected by oil and gas as well as other factors arein baby blue. Oil and Gas access channels are in orange.For the sake of the public trust, the SMP should outline potential roles for the oil and gasindustry to play. For example, the oil and gas industry could fund marsh restoration projectsselected for the $100 billion scenario 11 within the footprint of historical oil and gas impact 12 .Commonly, these wetlands are owned by oil and gas or affiliated land speculation companies.Despite Coastal Use law, 13 the industry’s canals remain, decades after the oil bust, as ongoing,highly visible damage to the landscape. Many spoil banks still cover high-value edge marsh 14and interrupt natural hydrology. 15,16 As the SMP attempts to restore fresh water and sedimentsources from the river, as well as regular drainage regimes to our embattled marshes, thesecanals are an unnecessary hindrance to coastal restoration and the working coast.11 SMP p. 5212 SMP pp A2-3 to A2-9: 002.MC.05,.06,.10; 03a.MC.02,.05,.06,.07;.1013 LAC Title 43 I.1 Chapter 7B §705.N Areas dredged for linear facilities [Ch7A: including “pipelines, roads, canals,channels, and powerlines”] shall be backfilled or otherwise restored to the pre-existing conditions upon cessation ofuse for navigation purposes to the maximum extent practicable.14 Peterson and Turner 1994 The value of salt marsh edge vs interior as a habitat for fish and decapod crustaceansin a Louisiana tidal marsh Estuaries and Coasts Volume 17, Number 1, 235-262, DOI: 10.2307/135257315 Swenson and Turner, 1987. Spoil banks: Effects on coastal marsh water level regime. Estuarine, Coastal ShelfScience 24:599-609.16 Bahr et al. 1983 Ecological characterization of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region : a narrative withmanagement recommendations. U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, D .C .FWS/OBS-82/69 . 189 pp3

The industry continues to argue for access for new extraction from rights that often have notbeen exercised in decades, with unseen “new drilling technology.” During those decades, wellaccesstechnologies have already emerged 17 that eliminate the need for harmful canals and redredgingto access mineral claims 18 . The SMP will work with landowner input 19 and not restrictaccess to mineral rights 20 , but this simple restoration will not necessarily conflict with access towells.It strains the credibility of Louisiana’s use of the word “Restoration” that the simple“backfilling” restoration technique is not applied to legacy plugged and abandoned wells,especially on lands where the State owns or leases surface rights. The SMP should evaluatethe impact of restoration of these legacy canals; at least on public lands. This marshrestoration is cheap 21 because it does not require pumping and dredging of sediment; 22 it isproven to improve the soil layer quickly, 23 and it restores a more natural hydrology to manyacres of marsh on the coast. This technique, if applied coastwide, could improve hydrology forhundreds of square miles of marshes.Example of a rationale 24 for selective backfilling of inactive oil and gas canals north of East Cote BlancheBay. Backfilling would assist hydrologically impacted marshes by re-establishing a more natural drainagepattern over a large area. Canals in black have a need to remain open. Canals in yellow are prioritized forhydrological restoration of the area in question. Canals in green are second priority. Canals in pink mayremain deep for the sake of diverting fresh water from the Intercoastal Canal.17 Two New Orleans-area companies team up to design eco-friendly, oil exploration hovercrafts Source:18 Walter B. Sikora, Ph.D., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana"Assessing the Feasibility of Using Air Cushion Vehicles (Hovercraft) for Oil and Gas Exploration and Drilling inLouisiana's Coastal Wetlands"19 SMP p 42, 15420 SMP p 15421 $7 million for 442 acres. PPL 22, R2-BA-10 Backfilling Canals in Jean Lafitte National Historical Park & Reserve22 Baustian et al., 2009 Restoration of dredged canals in wetlands: a comparison of methods Wetlands EcolManage (2009) 17:445–453 DOI 10.1007/s11273-008-9122-623 Baustian and Turner 2006. Restoration Success of Backfilling Canals in Coastal Louisiana Marshes. RestorationEcology Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 636–64424 Eustis et al, 2012 submitted for presentation at State of the Coast 20124

CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS INCREASING SEA LEVEL RISE, BUT ALSOINCREASING INSTABILITIES, FOR RAINFALL, THE RIVER, AND FINANCESWe support the revision of sea level rise estimates 25 to reflect updated scientific information.The LACES technical report and the SMP should encourage planning for an upper bound to sealevel rise at 2 meters by 2100, in order to be better prepared for a “worst-case” predictedscenario.However, changing the climate does not only mean increasing the rate of sea level rise. Thechanged climate will mean increased mean temperatures across the state, as well as increasedfrequency of intense rain events and prolonged periods of drought. 26While an individual flood seems unpredictable, the new climate system contains an increasedlikelihood of large rain events due to the increased capacity for water in the hydrological cyclebecause of increased air temperatures. 27 The Mississippi Flood of 2011 was so large because ofrecord rains in the Ohio valley, 28 even as Texas and western parts of Louisiana faced and stillface an unprecedented period of intense drought.The State Master Plan should recognize the possibility that oil and gas reserves represent afinancial “bubble” 29 that will be revealed over the next fifty years. There is currently more fossilcarbon under the earth than can be safely released into the air by 2050. To avoid climatecatastrophe, the current carbon budget for the climate system should be set at 565 GtCO 2 to2050. 30 Known global reserves of oil and gas are approximately 615 GtCO2 and 363 GtCO 2,respectively; thus they exceed this budget. 31 Reserves that exceed this budget are at risk of beingdevalued. The SMP should consider this information when considering funding based uponoil revenues.25 DRAFT Recommendations for anticipating Sea-Level Rise Impacts on Louisiana Coastal Resources during ProjectPlanning and Design: Technical Report LACES Division 24 Jan 201226 Twiley, Robert, 2007 Gulf Coast Wetland Sustainability in a Changing Climate. Excerpted from the full report,Regional Impacts of Climate Change: Four Case Studies in the United States.27 Trenberth, K. E. 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Climate Research, 47, 123-138,doi:10.3354/cr00953.28 Dr. Jeff Masters, 2011 Tornadoes, floods, and fires continue to pound U.S. Meterological weblog. RetrievedMay 201129 Mark Campanale & Jeremy Legget. Unburnable Carbon – Are the world’s financial markets carrying a carbonbubble? accessed at carbontracker.org Feb 201230 Id.31 Id.5

WATER USE WILL AFFECT WATER QUANTITY AND DETERMINE LAND-BUILDING POTENTIALAs has long been envisioned, the SMP prioritizes use of the river to rebuild Louisiana, byreplacing large river flows 32 back into the estuarine bays. The SMP should recognize themanagement challenges that threaten water quantity flowing through the lower MississippiRiver. As the State develops more knowledge about the land-building possibilities of the River,it is apparent that large, pulsing masses of water are necessary to sustain the land-building forcesthat mobilize heavier sand particles.The water available for regular uses will already be strained as the climate changes. The newwater demands of hydraulic fracturing in Texas and Louisiana are enormous –2-4 million gallonsper well—for thousands of wells that exist and the tens of thousands planned. Climate changemeans that Louisiana faces an increased potential for a severe, regional lack of surface waternecessary for “hydro-fracking.”Further, the threat of saltwater intrusion, especially in coastal Western Louisiana, should beaddressed in the frame of water conservation and hydrologic restoration. Water conservation hasthe ability to allow aquifers to recharge, freshen water ways, and push out the salt water. TheSMP should prioritize programs that conserve water.The SMP should recommend that consumptive water uses not threaten our fresh watersupply or the character of the Mississippi River, which is necessary for land building,sustaining created marsh, regular human use, commercial fisheries, and endangeredspecies.ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE IS COASTAL RESTORATION ANDPROTECTIONThe GRN does not believe that there is a need for alternative arrangements to NEPA inorder to implement the Master Plan in a timely manner. As the SMP itself states, alternativearrangements are based upon emergencies and it is "[d]ifficult to demonstrate emergency forprojects to be implemented over time.” 33Moreover, because the NEPA process has a long history of improving projects, is an effectivemechanism for ensuring that best available science is considered in project design.32 Multiple re-introductions, each up to 250,000 cubic feet per second.33 SMP G3-36

Although we understand concerns with the “standard Corps timelines for NEPA compliance,”the SMP effort itself should speed the development of any EA, EIS, or PEIS necessary toimplement projects. Given the background of Coast 2050, background studies like the ThirdDelta study, 34 and the continued refinement of the SMP ecosystem services modeling efforts, it isreasonable to expect that NEPA will not hamper implementation of the SMP.A robust regulatory system, such as the Clean Water Act’s 404 enforcement, ensures coastalrestoration. The SMP should explicitly state that strong regulations protect wetlands,promote technological innovation, 35 and ensure ecological value by avoiding, minimizing,and mitigating damages. Intact marshes are difficult to impossible to re-build. Intact marshesare not just the “icing on the cake” of dredged sediment, but the “wheels on the vehicle” thatdrive accretion against sea level rise, 36 wave-attenuation, carbon sequestration, and nutrientuptake.The goal of mitigation is to keep ecosystem services from declining. This is also the goal ofcoastal restoration. A “lines of defense” strategy hinges on wetlands as a key protectionfeature. The current goal of the regulatory agencies is no net loss of wetlands. The SMP has agoal of a significant net gain of wetlands. Weakening of the mitigation rules 37 would runcounter to this goal, undermining attempts to rebuild marshes and wetland forests to their formerlevel of ecological function. Mitigation for wetlands impacted by protection features are not anadded burden, but an opportunity to incorporate wetland restoration projects into the design ofprotection projects, according to the lines of defense strategy and as prioritized by the “SurgeWave Attenuation Habitat Suitability Index.” 38Efforts to mitigate wetland losses are challenging, and are far too often unsuccessful. 39 Thegeneral failure of mitigation to replace ecosystem services 40 is argument for a more stringentmitigation policy, such as requiring mitigation at a ratio of greater than 1:1, probably greater than2:1.34 Third Delta Phase II Reconnaissance Study. Accessed Dec 201135 North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Ret. Jan 201236 DRAFT Recommendations for anticipating Sea-Level Rise Impacts on Louisiana Coastal Resources during ProjectPlanning and Design: Technical Report LACES Division 24 Jan 201237 EPA/USACE “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule” (33 CFR 322.4[c])38 SMP Appendix D-2339 Spieles, D. J. 2005. Vegetation Development in Created, Restored, and Enhanced Mitigation Wetland Banks ofthe United States. Wetlands. 25:51-63.40 Moreno-Mateos D , Power ME , Comín FA , Yockteng R , 2012 Structural and Functional Loss in Restored WetlandEcosystems. PLoS Biol 10(1): e1001247. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.10012477

Recently, the New Orleans Corps District adopted the Modified Charleston Method 41 (MCM) asthe preferred method to determine mitigation requirements. We favor the MCM method overthe less standardized and less protective Wetland Valuation Assessment (WVA).The general lack of information on mitigation has made it difficult for independent scientists totrack the success or failure of mitigation to compensate for ecosystem services in the LouisianaDelta 42 . Thus mitigation in the coastal zone has not been independently reviewed. While theCorps is not required to be in compliance with this Master Plan, the Department of NaturalResources is. Therefore we request that the State, under this Plan, periodically publish thesuccess rate of all mitigation projects that are under the authority of the State (e.g. CoastalUse Permits), or, the success of all the restoration projects that substitute as mitigationthrough the in-lieu fee program.Because of the rate of failure of mitigation, and the likelihood that forward levee alignmentsproposed in the SMP will destroy wetlands behind them, the GRN is strongly opposed to anyattempt to set a separate, more lenient mitigation standard for civil works projects. The SMPcannot be a restoration plan if it sacrifices mitigation rules and does away with regulationscurrently insufficient to sustain wetland values and acreages.THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD OUTLINE CARE FOR THE LANDS BUILTGiven the long history of industrial abuse of wetlands, the SMP should recommend use of nondestructiveaccess technologies for the oil and gas industry, such as barges that avoiddestructive canal maintenance by riding over the top of the marsh layer. 43 Local development ofthese access technologies is yet another way that the SMP can promote a restoration economywhile allowing natural processes to restore ecological function.The Nature-based Tourism Habitat Sustainability Index 44 prioritizes projects that containbeaches. However, building parking lots, roadways, and otherwise promoting or allowingvehicle access to dunes will destroy the dune. Allowing vehicles to drive on restored beachesand dunes will impair the dune’s protective function for coastal communities, as well as itssuitability as habitat for nature-based tourism and for endangered species.Fourchon Beach, in particular, is an incredibly vulnerable landform with an extremely higherosion rate. 45,46 This erosion has been aggravated by industrial uses—not only Port Fourchon,41 Modifed Charleston Method. Accessed Dec 201142 Spieles, D. J. 2005. Vegetation Development in Created, Restored, and Enhanced Mitigation Wetland Banks ofthe United States. Wetlands. 25:51-63.43 Two New Orleans-area companies team up to design eco-friendly, oil exploration hovercrafts Source:44 Nature-based Tourism Appendix, SMP D-2145 SMP Appx D-3 p. 108

ut most recently vehicular access by BP cleanup vehicles. If vehicular access is allowed ontorestored beaches, which are vulnerable to vehicles, part of CPRA’s claim to BP responsedamages is undermined; and ultimately less funding for coastal restoration may be available.The SMP should recommend limiting vehicular access to marsh creation, barrier island,and dune restoration sites.The SMP should respect the longstanding practices of landowners that have cared for theecological function of their lands. 47 The SMP should advise non-destructive use of thewetlands and islands we have, as well as prescribe limitations of use of the lands the SMPwill build.THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE STATE TO ANALYZE THEENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE MASTER PLANThe Louisiana Constitution requires the State, as public trustee, to analyze the environmentalimpacts of proposed projects. Article IX, Section 1 of Louisiana’s Constitution states that:The natural resources of the state, including air and water, and the healthful, scenic,historic, and esthetic quality of the environment shall be protected, conserved, andreplenished insofar as possible and consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of thepeople. The legislature shall enact laws to implement this policy 48 .Louisiana courts explained this constitutional requirement in the Supreme Court’s decision inSave Ourselves, Inc. v. Louisiana Envt'l Control Comm'n 49 , and in the First Circuit’s decision inIn re Rubicon, Inc. 50 , In Save Ourselves, the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined LDEQ’s publictrustee responsibilities under the Louisiana Constitution. The Supreme Court found that ArticleIX, Section 1 is a “rule of reasonableness which requires an agency or official, before grantingapproval of [the] proposed action affecting the environment, to determine that adverseenvironmental impacts have been minimized or avoided as much as possible consistently withthe public welfare.” 51 The court expounded that the examination “requires a balancing process46 Miner M.D., Kulp M.A., Flocks J., Twichell D., Penland S., Weathers D., Martinez L., Motti J., DeWitt N., ReynoldsB.J., Baldwin W., Danforth B., Worley C., Bergeron E., Ferina N., McCarty P., Brown, M., Torres J., (2009) LouisianaBarrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring program (BICM), vol 3. Bathymetry and historical seafloor change 1869–2007. Part 1. South‐central Louisiana and northern Chandeleur Islands, bathymetry methods and uncertaintyanalysis. Univ. New Orleans Pontchartrain Inst. Environ Sci. Tech Rep.47 SMP p 42, 15448 Article IX, Section 149 452 So. 2d 1152 (La. 1984)50 95-0108 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/14/96), 570 So. 2d 475, 48151 Save Ourselves at 452 So. 2d 11579

in which environmental costs and benefits must be given full and careful consideration, alongwith economic, social and other factors.” 52The court in Rubicon further elucidated public trustee responsibilities by setting out a series ofspecific inquiries that the public trustee must address in order to satisfy the Constitutionalmandate. Specifically, trustees must address:Whether: 1) the potential and real adverse environmental effects of the proposed projecthave been avoided to the maximum extent possible; 2) a cost/benefit analysis of theenvironmental impact costs balanced against the social and economic benefits of theproject demonstrate that the latter outweighs the former; and 3) there are alternativeprojects which would offer more protection to the environment than the proposed projectwithout unduly curtailing non-environmental benefits to the extent applicable 53 .The State must therefore meet certain basic substantive and informational requirements beforeproceeding with large projects which will impact the environment. These include accuratelyassessing the real and potential environmental harms of the project, examining alternatives to theproposed action, and performing a cost/benefit analysis. The State is therefore obligated toensure compliance, but with state water laws and Louisiana’s constitutional and statutoryframework governing environmental decision-making.While the SMP has attempted to address questions 1 and 3, the second question has not beenthoroughly been investigated. The SMP needs to investigate the cost/benefit analysis of theenvironmental impact costs balanced against the social and economic benefits of theproject.THE MASTER PLAN NEEDS TO BALANCE PROTECTION AND RESTORATIONWe are happy to see non-structural projects get half of the protection funding in this plan. 54Although some communities will move out, others can adapt by moving up and flood-proofing.This is a crucial step toward living with the water that surrounds and sustains us.The SMP currently favors a 50 / 50 split between funding levees and wetlands. 55 The key lessonof the multiple lines of defense paradigm is that wetlands have always been Louisiana's floodprotection, and levees have a more limited, short term role to play. Hurricane and tidalprotection levees have not performed to their design against large storms. So we are glad to see52 Id.53 Id. at 483.54 SMP p. 3055 Id.10

the SMP acknowledges the high probabilities 56 that “100-year” levee protection will fail toprotect homeowners. This information is critical to homeowners and coastal residents as theyare making their own plans.We are glad that the SMP CLARA modeling effort attempts to predict the rate of levee failure bylevee position and evidence from soil borings. The SMP should attempt, in future modelingefforts, to model the wave attenuation service of wetland acreage directly. We understand thatthis value declines rapidly as deeper surge comes into the estuary. But because wetlands were thehistorical flood protection of southeastern Louisiana, and the wave attenuation service is acornerstone of the “lines of defense” paradigm, the SMP should make this wave attenuationvalue explicit in the CLARA model.The construction of levees in open water and / or across interdistributary basins is anunreasonable expense for little benefit. Ring levees, constructed inside the protection of exteriorwetlands, would provide more protection for similar cost, allow more wetland restoration, andthus ultimately sustain the levees themselves. Ring levees built near natural ridges allows thelevee to be built where local borrow material, as well as underlying material, is of sufficientquality. The USACE will not be able to incorporate locally-built levees if they are not built tomet the updated standards released after Katrina. The SMP should explicitly state that thelevee projects must meet the Post-Katrina soil standards.Contrary to some claims, levees around wetlands do not protect wetlands. 57 Hurricanes andother storms are often sediment redistribution sources 58 —so disconnecting wetlands from tidalstorms is akin to disconnecting them from the river. Connecting restored wetlands to tidal inputimproves their ecological function. 59A “Lake Pontchartrain Barrier” 60 levee or structure across the flow through the Rigolets wouldhave too large an ecosystem impact. Even a “sill” across the deep and swiftly flowing Rigoletswould hamper the regular migration of estuarine species in and out of Lake Pontchartrain. Astructure across one of the larger tidal passes in the Delta region would deviate from the “lines ofdefense” paradigm. We are glad to see that this project was not prioritized for the $50 billion or$100 billion selection.56 SMP p. 6757 Cahoon and Groat, ed. 1990. A Study of Marsh Management Practice in Coastal Louisiana.http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3658.pdf58 Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change: potentialimpacts on inland freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States. Pew Center on Global ClimateChange, Arlington, VA59 Moreno-Mateos D , Power ME , Comín FA , Yockteng R , 2012 Structural and Functional Loss in Restored WetlandEcosystems. PLoS Biol 10(1): e1001247. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.100124760 SMP p A-2811

Similarly, a Donaldsonville to the Gulf 61 alignment that severs the tidal connection of the UpperBarataria Basin to the lower basin conflicts not only with tidal flows, but freshwater andsediment input from planned river restoration projects. We are glad to see that this project wasnot prioritized for the $50 billion or $100 billion selection.The Morganza to the Gulf levee must not be built so far out into the estuary, in the middle ofopen water. A more conservative alignment for Morganza to the Gulf 62 would provide theHouma area real protection. The current outward alignment will not function as desired, and willrequire more expensive maintenance. The residents of Terrebonne and Lafourche deserve abetter levee, and the residents of the state and the nation deserve to have coastal dollars moniesspent wisely. The SMP should evaluate an alignment for Morganza to the Gulf that does notdeviate from the lines of defense strategy.THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD RECOMMEND THE RE-EVALUATION OF THEAUTHORIZATION OF UNDER-USED SHIPPING CHANNELSWe urge the SMP to recommend a re-evaluation of the authorization of all shippingchannels. Shipping channels have had a large negative impact upon our coastal wetlands. 63,64The West Pearl River and Bayou Segnette Waterway are a State Scenic River running through aNational Wildlife Refuge and Wildlife Management Area, and a waterway through NationalPark land, respectively. These non-Federal waterways in particular deserve close re-evaluation.THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD BE EXPLICIT ON THE LIMITS OF HABITATSUITABILITY ANALYSESWe are glad to see that wetlands exterior to protection features will be prioritized by the SMP 65 .In future revisions, the SMP should include the wave-dampening properties of wetlands andislands introduced into the CLARA modeling effort.Many creatures could be selected as representatives of “other wildlife.” We suggest additionalHSI’s for Tarpon, a historic sport fish, resident to Louisiana and the Gulf coast,that is importantfrom a cultural, fisheries, and ecosystem perspective. Gulf Menhaden have previously beenincluded in this type of HSI analysis for coastal Louisiana—they should be considered for61 Id.62 SMP A2-77-79, described in MLODS planning unit 3a63 Navigation Channel Policy Discussion: Funding for Federal Navigation Channel Maintenance in Louisiana, A Casefor Reform. Avalyn Taylor & Kirk Rhinehart (June 15, 2011)64 Penland et al, 2000. Process Classification of Land Loss in the Mississippi Delta Plan. USGS open file report 00-418.65 SMP Appendix D-2312

inclusion for their large role in both fisheries and the ecosystem as a whole. The SMP shouldinclude Habitat Suitability Analyses for important finfishes of the Louisiana coast.Many of the appendices could benefit from a broader review; we applaud their inclusion in theSMP and encourage the CPRA to work with agencies relevant to the individual HSIs, as well asthe LSU AgCenter and SeaGrant, to promote citizen science and education efforts to monitorspecies relevant to the SMP. The SMP should recommend agency and independent reviewof Habitat Suitability Analyses and recommend citizen science programs where data islacking.THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD OUTLINE THE PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTINGNEW RESTORATION TECHNOLOGIESThe state of Louisiana has a need to innovate restoration technologies if it wants to export thesetechnologies and expertise as an economic development strategy. The SMP should outline thedecision-making process for incorporating new technologies into its project evaluation.If CPRA wants to be seen as an innovator, it must phase out the practice of rock armoring in aregion that has no natural rocks. Nationwide and on the Gulf Coast, 66 “living shorelines” 67,68 arebeing promoted as alternative breakwaters and erosion control that provide ecosystem servicesthat rock armoring lacks. The project descriptions in the SMP for “shoreline protection” and“bank stabilization” explicitly include rocks as part of their design. 69 Although it is useful tocost projects according to rock designs, because rocks are more expensive, the SMP should allowfor improvements in breakwater design and technology that are underway, that have beenevaluated, 70 and will certainly become more recognized in fifty years.We have local scientists, and innovative engineers and companies that have designed, built, andtested oyster-based breakwaters. 71 CPRA cannot afford to fall behind this trend. The SMPshould recommend that oyster breakwaters or “living shoreline” technology and practicesbe substituted for rock armoring wherever practicable.The SMP should evaluate the benefit to ecosystem services of implementing concrete and oysterbasedbreakwaters on a larger scale, for the vast majority of breakwater projects where a rock66 Swann, 2008. The Use of Living Shorelines to Mitigate the Effects of Storm Events on Dauphin Island, Alabama,USA. American Fisheries Society Symposium 64:000–000, 200867 Currin, C.A., Chappell, W.S, and Deaton, A., 2010, Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: Theliving shoreline approach in North Carolina, in Shipman, H., Dethier, M.N., Gelfenbaum, G., Fresh, K.L., andDinicola, R.S., eds., 2010, Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring—Proceedings of a State of theScience Workshop, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5254, p. 91-102.68 North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Ret. Jan 201269 SMP A-270 CWPPRA Terrebonne bay demo, TE-4571 CWPPRA Terrebonne bay demo, TE-4513

project has been proposed. Currently, the SMP prioritizes over 23 rock projects to 2 oysterbarriers—a ratio that should be reversed.Oyster production and harvest modeling also rely on services produced by these innovativebreakwaters, and that breakwaters should count toward variable V1 (percent hard-bottom)in the HSI modeling for oyster if it has been shown to grow seed from spat in CWPPRA 72 orother Demonstration projects across the Gulf Coast.The SMP modeling is currently unable to capture effects of vegetative planting projects upon thepersistence of land or ecosystem services. For example, the Coastwide Planting Project 73 doesnot include any features that can be evaluated by models.And yet, many of the ecosystem services listed as project selection criteria are partially or whollydependent upon ecosystem values embedded in plant growth and in soil and root development.Plantings are often funded to only 50% of their potential. Although soils and plants are often anafterthought, there is no marsh restoration without marsh grasses and soils. The SMP shouldprioritize marsh creation practices that create marsh soils. The SMP should echo lessonslearned from previous CWPPRA Coastal restoration projects 74 —that marsh projectsshould include sufficient planting funds.If a technological innovation has great theoretical potential, and passes an initial evaluation, suchas the Ecological Review of the CWPPRA process; then the SMP should evaluate the ecosystemservices potential compared to the default projects, and should support the scaling up of thesetechnologies if the evaluation is favorable. The SMP should outline the process forimplementing projects with greater ecosystem value as they are created and tested.THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD ADDRESS THE GULF HYPOXIC ZONEThe SMP should be more explicit as to what state agencies can do to reduce the large, annualhypoxic zone on the near shelf, commonly known as the “Dead Zone.” The Dead Zone is notjust a hazard to our fisheries industry, but to the estuarine ecosystem services that produce thosefisheries.First, Louisiana can ramp up point source reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.Through the Environmental Leadership Program administered by LDEQ, industries along theMississippi River have reduced their nitrogen inputs into the Mississippi. These technologiesshould be considered best common practices for the industry. These reductions should be72 CWPPRA project TE-4573 CWPPRA Project LA-39, SMP A2-2.74 Ecological Review of TE-44, North Lake Mechant LandBridge Restoration14

incorporated into all petrochemical facility discharge permits as a way to reduce Dead Zonecausingpollution. This could, in a minor way, reduce the loading and more importantly showthe rest of the watershed that Louisiana is serious about making reductions. Louisiana must leadby example.Second, Louisiana must list its nearshore Gulf waters on its 2012 “Impaired Waters List”(303d List). Louisiana is impacted by the annual Dead Zone, and yet the Louisiana Departmentof Environmental Quality’s recently released list removed Louisiana Gulf waters, despite the lowdissolved oxygen that this area regularly experiences. On one hand, the state is conceding thataddressing the Dead Zone is an important piece of comprehensive coastal restoration, and on theother it is denying the Dead Zone impacts the state. In order for the Impaired Waters List to beconsistent with the 2012 SMP and the original 2007 Master Plan, these waters should not be delisted.Finally, diverting river water into wetlands, although it has potential, is not a provensolution to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution; in fact some scientists have suggested thatdiverting Mississippi River waters high in nutrients could be detrimental to wetlands. The SMPeffort must consider the problem from its source, including upriver agriculture, animal feedingoperations, and point sources. It is difficult to manage wetlands for multiple parameters (e.g.nutrient removal, storm protection, habitat, carbon sequestration, water quality), which is whyLouisiana should demand reductions from upstream, which would remove one of theseparameters, and increase restoration potential.The SMP states that the state is exploring nutrient trading programs 75 . We request thatthe conservation community be included as early as possible in the development of theseprograms. While we encourage the state to look at non-traditional ways to reduce pollution,there are many pitfalls in trading programs that must be thoroughly explored and publicly vetted.CURRENT RESTORATION PROJECTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE MASTERPLANTo avoid confusion, we encourage the state to include current restoration projects, 76 as well asfederal projects, such as the MRGO restoration plan, as potential projects in the SMP. Projectswere often marked “FWOA” in appendices or referred to in the document. Current projectsshould be included in the projects map or perhaps a separate map, for clarity.75 SMP p. 15276 for example, pp. 28-32; 44-46 Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection in Coastal Louisiana:Draft Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Plan Ret. Jan 201215

THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICECoastal communities that are in retreat 77 often have not received the benefits of the industriesthat have placed us into crisis. The economies that will remain in Louisiana after the oil and gasindustry's bubble has burst must be sustained.It is a basic injustice that fishing communities and native communities are to be sacrificed for thesake of the shipping and oil industries. The SMP prioritizes projects that protect oil and gasassets. 78 Among the “Strategic Assets” 79 considered, about half (minimum 88 of 179) are oil andgas facilities. Thus the SMP unfairly weighs one industry over the others. The SMP is currentlysilent about the tumult that use the River will incur upon Louisiana’s Fisheries. Although longtermbenefits to fishes that are harvested will arrive, fisheries that operate on business plans of3-5 years will need clear lines of communication and support to weather the changes that aRestored River will bring.Our coastal heritage is more than nostalgia. Our coastal communities are repositories ofcontextual coastal knowledge that can improve coastal projects. Coastal communities havetraditional knowledgebases that can be integrated with more formal scientific efforts, 80 toallow the state to rapidly determine whether our efforts at restoration are succeeding. The SMPshould work more closely with parish planning committees to ensure that local knowledgeof an area is included in project planning, and that local communities are updated on theprogress of projects.To ensure that our coastal heritage is not lost, the SMP should suggest policy mechanisms bywhich coastal restoration activities can build an employment base for coastal communities.Coastal restoration projects provide well-paying jobs; 81,82 these jobs should be preferentiallygiven to residents of coastal communities unjustly impacted by the coastal crisis. The SMPshould outline how the state will work with private contractos to ensure local hiring andhow the state will coordinate with educational institutions to train and re-train our coastalworkforce.77 Laska, Shirley, George Woodell, Ronald Hagelman, Robert Gramling, Monica Teets Farris, with the assistance ofWindell Curole, Becky Boudreaux, Traber Davis and William Kappel. 2005. “At Risk: The Human, Community andInfrastructure Resources of Coastal Louisiana.” Journal of Coastal Research (44): 90-111.78 SMP, p. 10079 CPRA, Strategic Assets list. Received Feb 2012.80 Bethel and others, 2011. Blending geospatial technology and traditional ecological knowledge to enhancerestoration decision-support processes in coastal Louisiana. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 555–571.81 Lowe, Stokes, and Gereffi. 2011 Restoring the Gulf Coast: New Markets for Established Firms.82 Pendleton and Baldera, 2010. Measuring and Monitoring the Economic Effects of Habitat Restoration: ASummary of a NOAA Blue Ribbon Panel16

The SMP should work toward coordinated relocation of entire communities from areas that mustbe sacrificed because of the crisis and its solutions. The land use planning suggested by thestate and encouraged by the CPEX program should be required of coastal parishes andmunicipalities for the receipt of funds.The SMP lacks a “Community” focus group, separate from the parishes, for thosecommunities at greatest risk from the coastal crisis. Proactive, ongoing communication withthe people who will be evacuating, organized according to how groups actually prepare,evacuate, and rebuild, will serve the implementation, communication, and evaluation of projects.THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD EVALUATE CENTRAL WETLANDS PROJECTSThere are many local projects up for consideration. However, we encourage the SMP toevaluate the NGO-envisioned MRGO restoration projects in the Central Wetlands. Theseprojects have significant cultural and tourism value, given their proximity to a large populationcenter. Thousands of people from around the world, including members of Congress andinternational religious leaders, have visited the platform overlooking the Central Wetlands. Theeducational value of this area is important to the State’s efforts to develop broad support at anational level for restoration. Moreover, the State has already made a commitment to the BayouBienvenue Triangle through the CIAP-funded cypress restoration project.17

SUMMARYThe Master Plan should outline the role for the oil and gas industry in coastal restoration.For the sake of the public trust, the SMP should outline potential roles for the oil and gasindustry to play. For example, the oil and gas industry could fund marsh restorationprojects selected for the $100 billion scenario within the footprint of historical oil and gasimpact.The SMP should evaluate the impact of restoration of these legacy canals, or at the leastthe marsh restoration under their spoil banks; at least on public lands.Climate change means increasing sea level rise, but also increasing instabilities, for rainfall,the river, and finances.The LACES technical report and the SMP should encourage planning for an upper boundto global sea level rise at 2 meters by 2100.The SMP should consider the oil and gas “bubble” when considering financing.Water use will affect water quantity and determine land-building potential.The SMP should recommend that consumptive water uses not threaten the character ofthe Mississippi River.Environmental compliance ensures coastal restoration and protection.There is no need for alternative arrangements to NEPA.The SMP should periodically publish the success rate of State mitigation projects.The Master Plan should outline care for the lands built.The SMP should recommend use of non-destructive access technologies for the oil andgas industry.The SMP should recommend limiting vehicular access to marsh creation, barrier island,and dune restoration sites.The Louisiana constitution requires the state to balance the impacts of the Master Plan.The SMP needs to analyze the environmental impact costs balanced against the socialand economic benefits of the project.18

The Master Plan needs to balance protection and restoration.The SMP should make wave attenuation values explicit in the CLARA model.The SMP should state that levee projects must meet Post-Katrina soil standards.The SMP should evaluate an Morganza to the Gulf levee that does not encloseinterdistributary basins.The Master Plan should recommend the re-evaluation of under-used shipping channels.The Master Plan should be clear about the limits of habitat suitability analyses.The SMP should recommend agency and independent review of Habitat SuitabilityAnalyses and recommend citizen science programs where data is lacking.The Master Plan should outline the process for implementing new restoration technologies.The SMP should outline the decision-making process for incorporating new technologiesinto its project evaluation.The SMP should recommend that oyster breakwaters or “living shoreline” technologyand practices be substituted for rock armoring wherever practicable.The Master Plan should address the Gulf Hypoxic Zone.The SMP should recommend reduction of point source pollution.The SMP should recommend that nearshore Gulf waters not be de-listed.The SMP should solicit ENGO input on nutrient or water quality trading programs early.The Master Plan should consider Environmental Justice.The SMP should consider planning for impacts to fisheries.The SMP should work closely with parish planning committees and update localcommunities on progress.The SMP should suggest policy mechanisms by which coastal restoration activities canbuild an employment base for coastal communities.The SMP should outline how the state will coordinate with educational institutions totrain and re-train our coastal workforce.The SMP should include a Community Focus Group.The Master Plan should include current projects more clearly.The Master Plan should evaluate NGO version of the Central Wetlands projects.19

For a healthy Gulf,Scott Eustis, M.S., Coastal Wetland Specialist, Gulf Restoration NetworkCc: Chuck Perrodin, CPRA20

Fresh water diversion projectshttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Fresh water diversion projectsDennis Menesses [dennis.menesses@gmail.com]Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 7:08 AMTo:Master PlanDo people know much damage these structure are causing. If you like for me to show you I would be glad to doso. The diversions are softIng the marsh and when ever you get a hurricane it just washes the marsh away. I liveand fish around the caernarvon project i can see how much damage it has done. I introduced some kind of vinethat grows over the natural marsh and smothers it . When this vine dies in the fall the only thing left is bare mud.Without marsh grass the soil washes away. I would like to know if any thing is being done to solve this problem orif the people doing these projects even know.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/24/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 88First NameKentLast NameBollfrassAddress105 Victory stThibodaux, LA 70301United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Nicholls State UniversityEmailkbollfrass@its.nicholls.eduCommentsMy name is Kent Bollfrass and I am a graduate student in the marine and environmental biology department atNicholls State University. It is my belief that protecting from hurricane induced flooding is very important to sustainingthe culture, economy, and ecosystems of coastal Louisiana and is an important priority. Also, the priority of buildingland to sustain the culture, economy, and ecosystems is extremely important. However, a priority that I believe hasbeen overlooked in the decision drivers of the 2012 master plan is how projects influence the annual flood pulse ofthe Mississippi River. I believe that any project that confines the river channel and does not allow the inundation ofthe natural flood plain is bad for coastal Louisiana. I would like to see the funds allocated towards adapting ourlivelihoods to seasonal inundation rather than to confining the water to a few large channels and a few diversions.This would lead to net gains of land building across the entire coastal flood plain that will promote a healthy culture,economy, and ecosystems.• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

PPL22 PROJECT NOMINEE FACT SHEETJanuary 26, 2012Project NameBaldcypress – Water Tupelo Forested Wetland and Floating Marsh Ecosystem Creation in the Triangle Area of the Central Wetlands UnitCoast 2050 StrategyCoastwide Strategy: Vegetative PlantingRegion 1 Regional Ecosystem Strategy: Restore Swamps, Restore/Sustain Marshes, Dedicated delivery of sediment for marsh building.Project LocationRegion 1, Lake Pontchartrain Basin, St. Bernard Parish, Central Wetlands Mapping Unit.ProblemFirst, construction of the Mississippi River Levee cut off the Central Wetlands from freshwater, sediment, and nutrient input from the Mississippi River.Subsidence is relatively high. Construction of the MRGO beginning in 1958, resulted in many acres of wetlands being filled, greatly increased salinity,and impoundment of the Central Wetlands. By 1978, the baldcypress – water tupelo swamps were dead, and remaining marsh had become brackish. Inthe Triangle Area, this previously impounded area largely subsided into open water.Proposed Project FeaturesWe will create forty 1 – 11 acre "islands" with nearby sediment. Only clean sediment from nearby sources will be used. Absolutely no biosolids/sewagesludge will be used. These islands will be planted with baldcypress and water tupelo grown on-site. Then, floating marsh will be established around theislands. Giant bullwhip (Schoenoplectus californicus) will be interspersed within this. All wastewater used at the site will be compliant with federalregulations and prohibitions.GoalsImplement a unique suite of restoration approaches in a former coastal cypress-tupelo swamp near the Mississippi River in the Mississippi RiverDeltaic PlainConvert approximately 500 acres of shallow open water habitat to 40 islands of varying size and convert these to baldcypress – water tupeloswamps with centers of live oak. This is the strongest-standing habitat type in hurricanes and this methodology could be implemented in manyareas of coastal Louisiana to increase hurricane protection, a key component of the Draft 2012 Master Plan.Use an innovative method of creating 123 acres of floating marsh to improve habitat value and biodiversity.Monitor the environmental benefits of this unique suite of restoration approachesPreliminary Project Benefits 115 ac of cypress-tupelo + live oak 123 ac floating marsh Additional, unquantified giant bullwhip marsh

Preliminary Construction CostsThe estimated preliminary construction cost including 25% contingency is $12,300,931 million.Preparer(s) of Fact Sheet:Gary Shaffer, Southeastern Louisiana University, gary.shaffer@selu.eduKen Teague, EPA Region 6, (214) 665-6687, teague.kenneth@epa.govJohn Ettinger, EPA Region 6, (504) 862-1119, ettinger.john@epa.gov

Typical IslandAverage Island = 3 AcresChenier and Ridge Species TreesFloating MarshBaldcypress - Tupelo Swamp Species Trees2 ft.Baldcypress - Tupelo Swamp Species TreesFloating MarshTypical Water Level3 ft.Existing Clay Bottom0 2.5’ 5’Scale 1”= 5’General Mature Landscape(not to scale)

Jan 22, 2012Coastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityDear Planners:The draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan is the most viable plan to date for restoring our coast and forprotecting our wildlife and communities. I commend the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityfor proposing a bold, science-based plan that will harness the land-building power of the MississippiRiver and create sensible hurricane protections. I urge the state to reject any proposed alterations tothis plan that are not based on sound science.For Louisiana, the status quo will simply mean more land loss across the entire coast, while this plan willultimately result in Louisiana's coastline having a net gain of wetlands. Continued inaction is not anoption--I urge the state to support this draft of the Coastal Master Plan and to start the process ofrestoring the coast.An incidental benefit to Louisiana would be the potential increase in Eco-tourism in the region. Ecotourismis increasing in popularity and Louisiana should be one of the country's top Eco-tourdestinations, particularly for bird watchers. It is only logical that a healthier habitat would make formore Eco-tour dollars.Anita MerriganSincerely,Anita Merrigan70420 Riverside DrCovington, LA 70433-9000

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/26/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 126First NameMiltonLast NameEstabrooksAddress7125 4th StreetBell City, Louisiana 70630United StatesMap ItEmailmudgod529@yahoo.comCommentsLike all citizens of Louisiana I share a great concern for the erosion of our Coast. I have traveled across our coastline for 39 years. I see the changes that Katrina and Rita have given our coast line. I saw firsthand the devastationfrom the Deepwater Horizon. Shame on BP! We must continue actions to restore our coast. As I read the plan I havenoted ties to the U.N. Agenda 21 Sustainable Development goals. My concern is that outside Federal andInternational organizations formulated and drove this plan to Consensus. I would like to see a plan with deep valueplaced on the private property rights of Louisiana Coastal Residence. I would also think Louisiana Citizens deserve tohear from Scientist outside of those paid by government grants. Two sides exist to the ecosystem conversation. Thisplan hears from one side only. Primary destruction and Louisiana Coastal Erosion can be traced to the last greatflood plans and the Corp. of Engineers. Louisiana must not rush to accept any plan supported by the E.P.A. D.O.I. orthe Executive Branch in Washington. Louisiana Citizens deserve a vote not a pushed Consensus.When will those Citizens that will lose their private property be told?What monies will be given to Citizens to meet elevation requirements?Why are Corporation granted lower elevation requirement than Private Citizens?Why were Private Citizens not seated on each panel?With two sides to eco science and environmental impact. When will Louisiana Representatives and Citizens hearfrom the opposing side?

Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Coastal Master PlanClare Burch [ClareBurch@earthlink.net]Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:29 AMTo:Master PlanDear Sir / Madam:Can you advise how I can obtain a hard copy of the Coastal Master Plan either in draft or if available final withthe appendecies.Thank you in advance.Sincerely,George Burchgburch@alliedsvcgroup.com

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 64First NameJustinLast NameSanchoAddress40463 Ethel St.Prairieville, Louisiana 70769United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Nicholls State UniversityEmailbayoudiver1988@yahoo.comCommentsMy name is Justin Sancho, and I am a graduating student in the Marine and Environmental Biology Master ofScience program at Nicholls State University. My concern with the 2012 draft Coastal Master Plan for Louisiana isthat major metropolitan areas such as New Orleans, Metairie, Kenner, and Lake Charles will receive “500 yearstructural protection”, while many other important areas, although typically less populated, such as Abbeville, Algiers,Arabi, Avondale, Baldwin, Barataria, Bayou Vista, Chalmette, Charenton, Franklin, Houma, Jean Lafitte, Jeanerette,Lafitte, Laplace, Meraux, Morgan City, Moss Bluff, Patterson, Poydras, Reserve, Sulphur, Violet, Waggaman, andWestlake will receive only “100 year structural protection augmented by nonstructural Measures.” Many of theseareas, though smaller, are still vital to Louisiana’s culture and economy. Many of the areas listed are closer to thecoast than major metropolitan areas, and thus, more likely to be negatively impacted by a natural disaster. If any ofthe aforementioned coastal areas are severely negatively impacted by future storm surges, then the problem ofcoastal land loss will only continue to move inland, toward major metropolitan areas, causing more costly damage inthe long term. I am only asking that more consideration be given to these areas, so that Louisiana can have a moresustainable coast and future.

CPRA Master Plan 2012 ~ Comments by Carolyn Woosley, CFP®Feb.24, 2012 628 Cleveland St. LC LA 70601I am not writing as co-Chair of the Chenier Plain Committee of the Chamber SWLA, although myideas and perspectives have some sway within the Committee and in the Region. While I serve onthe Committee, I will attempt to argue my points in the best sense of the word, and will advocatevigorously that all suggestions, concepts that I advocate be subjected to scientific scrutiny.I, along with the Committee, like the dynamic, innovative quality of this review of the 2007 MasterPlan. We appreciate its systemic, adaptive management approach, its longterm view and theuncertainties it juggles. It honors SW’s significant assets, human and natural. We furtherapplaud the Plan’s urging all political bodies to critique policy, including building, zoning,drainage, land use. We applaud the intended review of conflicting federal policy and the Plan’saddressing of hypoxia in the northern Gulf.We realize many of Region’s 4’s projects are “conceptual” -- they require scientific andengineering critique -- and that the Plan, although not deferring to the SWLA Coastal FeasibilityStudy, is closely aligned with it. We applaud the State’s strong commitment to continue that Study.But, the future & systemic quality/reach/thoroughness of the Study concern us because of break infederal funding ($400,000 funds were re-allocated for FY2012. We urge the CPRA to continue itscommitment to fund the SWLA Study, particularly as the Mississippi River Hydrodynamic andDelta Management Study is being fully funded.Realizing financial constraints, the Chenier Plain Committee seeks doables. We suggest thefollowing:I. Non-StructuralFor Calcasieu Parish, bump the Non-Structural implementation from Phase 2 to Phase 1. Weraise homes already, within our cities. I urge you to closely review extensive flooding duringRita, and moreso during Ike, which displaced homeowners. We would be poorly advised towait two decades for these funds. We need the funds now so as to incentivize more threatenedurban areas to elevate. Property & Casualty insurance already drive discussion. We cannotwait while more Rita’s and Ike’s terrorize the region. I question if significant funding willmaterialize within the next decade to take more serious measures of “protection”. Therefore, Ibelieve the community needs to give water a place to go (under and alongside their homes) andbuild so as to live with surging, as well as flooding, storm waters.I defer to Cameron Parish’s request that their Phase 2 non-structural funds be reallocated in theways which they advocate. I will not be more specific than that, as we have not discusseddetails.II. ProtectionConcerning protection of the Lake Area – Lake Charles/Prien Lake -- we believe that 500-yearprotectionis validated for Lake Charles/Prien Lake and 100-year protection for Sulphur andWestlake. We appreciate this. The latter two cities are so inextricably tied to Lake Charles andhave such a clustering of industry (and experienced significant flooding up the tributaries of theCalcasieu during Rita and Ike), we suggest that they too may need 500-year protection.Pg.Personal beliefs: We will not keep water out. Give water a place to go and flow.Lessen surge heights. Lessen salt water intrusion. Build accordingly.1

CPRA Master Plan 2012 ~ Comments by Carolyn Woosley, CFP®Feb.24, 2012 628 Cleveland St. LC LA 70601I have serious reservations about a levee system along our very developed Lake Area shorelines,and I want to try to explain how I dare suggest such a potentially “risky” concept. Also, Irealize that levees are only conceptual at this point. Levees uncoupled from hydrologic surgestructures may only intensify storm surge.The perspective which we advocate is that Cameron Parish is Calcasieu Parish’s “front yard”,its “barrier island”. Its continued integrity is, therefore, crucial. I urge a science-based reviewof a multi-facetted, non-levee strategy working both from the interior and the coast that works tomake the Chenier Plain sustainable. My overall approach is to work to make Cameron Parishresilient to storms from all “angles”, that is, from the north, the south, the east, the west andwithin. Below is a suggested approach. It is not meant to be inclusive or final.1. From the south – Shoreline rocks such as are advocated by the Cameron Parish PoliceJury, Hwy 82 stabilization, Rockefeller Refuge shoreline strengthening. Please note:Some of these are CPRA projects that are under way. However, not to mention themat least as footnotes when presenting the Master Plan 2012 is to imply that theseprojects are not underway; furthermore, how do they relate to the Master Plan orsupplement it? Do not miss opportunities to communicate to the pubic. You all mayunderstand the relationships, but the public does not. The public will, in the end,shape our region’s direction, and few in the public take the time to read the Plan.Please be clear in explaining CPRA projects en toto, and not just Master Plan projects.Finally, review jetty structure in light of needed westward flows of mud-laden waters.Please consult Dr. Gagliano on innovative ideas on this issue. Concerning salt waterintrusion via the Calcasieu Ship Channel, if indeed, as early studies by McNeeseprofessor Dr. Ning Zhang indicate, waters flow from south to north into the CalcasieuShip Channel, then addressing salt water intrusion could play the dual role ofimpeding the flow of mud into the Channel, thus possibly lessening the need fordredging and its significant costs.2. From the north – Stabilize the banks of the GIWW, and in particular the northernlakes borders as they abut, and threaten to merge with, the GIWW. Place a salinitycontrol structure at Gum Cove Ridge (in your plans already). Continue withBUDMAT projects for interior marshlands, such as have been done on Marcantelproperties.3. From the west -- Engage in discussions on fresh water and the Sabine River and SRAwater sales implications and policy, short-, medium- and long-term. Fresh Waterfrom the Sabine River is, as you know, one element in keeping the Chenier Plain tothe west charged with fresh water.4. From the east -- Fresh water replenishment in Cameron Creole watershed (a CPRAproject under construction); firming of the banks of Grand Lake and White Lake, aswell as GIWW banks (already stated in item #2 above).5. From within the Chenier Plain – Place a series of surge structures along the CalcasieuShip Channel which, perhaps, could be swung into place only when a hurricane isanticipated. Why? Ike impacted this Region at a point far inland of the mouth of theChannel (please verify). Storm surge structures should be placed each 5-10 milesPg.Personal beliefs: We will not keep water out. Give water a place to go and flow.Lessen surge heights. Lessen salt water intrusion. Build accordingly.2

CPRA Master Plan 2012 ~ Comments by Carolyn Woosley, CFP®Feb.24, 2012 628 Cleveland St. LC LA 70601inland. The goal: to lessen, not necessarily stop, storm surge, and displace it acrosswide acreage of Cameron Parish and lower Calcasieu (This must be paired with thebuilding “up” of homes and businesses so as to endure the consequent surge height.)Place a salinity control structure at the mouth of the Ship Channel and stabilize theShip Channel banks particularly where they abut the boundaries of Calcasieu Lake.Work to make Calcasieu Lake more fresh. The Channel and the Lake are becomingone and the same. I anticipate ocean-quality salt water on a daily basis in that Lake inthe near future, not only in drought years. Note: This particular item will receivevigorous pushback from recreational fishermen and guides, and the argument needs tobe articulated with all assumptions dropped and a frank explanation given of theexceptional longterm consequences of heavily salty water bodies that lie inland.This argument in this paper, and also as advocated by Cameron Parish, for ‘protection’ appearsto differ fundamentally from yours. Yours appears to be: to protect populated areas from stormsurge. Cameron Parish has low population, and they want their Parish made resilient for“bounceback” after the storm surges end and their 100% evacuated populace return to rebuild.That appears to be Cameron’s definition of “protection”. Please verify. They want to rebuild.Please revisit all definitions carefully and thoroughly.The reasons I do not endorse a ring levee system outright are varied: You may not be aware ofthe exceptionally high-end homes line which the banks of Prien Lake and also the Shell BeachDrive portion of Lake Charles. I am suggesting that displacement of these very high-end homeswill be politically unpalatable. The pushback will be exceptional and by quite highly placedpersons, politically, on both the state and national stages. Otherwise, the lifestyle of the region,as is true of the rest of South Louisiana, is water-based with high-end wharves, etc. etc ..Levees would cut the communities off from the water. Thirdly, levees will not work. And thisis where I need scientific validation. Having survived Rita and the higher waters of Ike, wehave realized that the water floods first surge opportunistically up pathways of least resistance,i.e., the urban tributaries (bayous and coulees) of the region’s lakes and river. In a number ofplaces the lakes possibly flood quite less than land (highly populated and built) the tributaries.Severe flooding has already occurred miles inland. For example, close to McNeese State U’scampus because of the reach of Contraband Bayou. Therefore, you need to pair hydrologicstructures with these levees at the mouth of each tributary. Even so, we experienced thesurging waters shoving around and past the locks which currently sit at the mouths of Pithonand Watkins Coulees and far inland. Water bubbles out of the storm sewers at a nice clip. Thewater will enter the cities, at least that is the experience of Lake Charles residents in particular.Please study these surges. Note that the surge at the Port of LC was the same height as thesurge at the Channel’s mouth, an event documented by the now-defunct LSU Hurricane Center.This is not normal. It is not nature. It is the conveyance of a surge by a manmade navigationchannel. Please apply MRGO lessons, scientifice, engineering and legal, to the Calcasieu ShipChannel. A doable nearterm option, which you have suggested, is to urge regional Zoning,planning, et al., boards to advocate and/or require building “up” so as to give water a place to go.Please note my basic premises: Keeping water out of our cities is a flawed goal. The moneyswill not be there in time to build walled communities, water finds a way to invade urban areas,politically powerful forces will oppose levees, and making Cameron and the Ship Channel andPg.Personal beliefs: We will not keep water out. Give water a place to go and flow.Lessen surge heights. Lessen salt water intrusion. Build accordingly.3

CPRA Master Plan 2012 ~ Comments by Carolyn Woosley, CFP®Feb.24, 2012 628 Cleveland St. LC LA 70601GIWW resilient and retrofitted to surge and salt water intrusion are more doable and desired bythe region.I applaud salinity control structures in Phase 1, especially at the mouth of the Calcasieu ShipChannel. Please keep that issue forefront.On BUDMAT projects, assist our Port in opening doors & making strategic allianceswherever needed.Rice farmers’ need for fresh water is growing keen, particularly in times of drought. Whenfresh water flows in abundance through nearby leveed waterways – Atchafalaya &Mississippi, the ironies of the situation become patently obvious. Furthermore, salt waterintrusion has lessened amounts of fresh water to the south (the current locus), and new, out ofthe box sources of fresh water must be reviewed. This lessening of rice crops is a leadingindicator of the future. Please watch it closely. Please also watch the integrity of the ChicotAquifer, re: salt water intrusion fears.Hold every Stakeholder to the same objective, standard of review. We have a navigationdependenteconomy. We like that. We want this key niche of our economy made stronger.Therefore, give thorough consideration to its role in land sustainability. Its particularinfrastructure needs to be retrofitted to the land’s needs. We need to create a win-win dialogue.Also, NOTE: The Calcasieu Ship Channel terminates in a small lake complex with urbantributaries. Residents on these tributaries flooded during Ike & Rita. One lawsuit which a LakeCharles neighborhood advocated and against responsible governmental bodies, in particular theCalcasieu Parish Police Jury, is allegedly underway and the outlook for the plaintiffs appears tobe good. I believe the issue was maintenance of Pithon Coulee (and perhaps Watkins Coulee)locks during Hurricane Rita. Please inquire about this lawsuit.We question giving Cameron Parish only 50-year protection. It is our front yard for protection.It is home to a special culture that, if we recall, was displaced once before, 250 years ago, in theGran Derangement. We advocate that you view Cameron Parish’s role in being home to keynational assets: oil & gas pipelines, aquaculture, SPR’s, Henry’s Hub, growing LNG industry,land protecting the I-10 corridor, GIWW. Therefore, we advocate that you sharpen your focuson Cameron Parish’s health, its ability to be resilient in general.Concerning the integrity of the Chenier Plain ridges:1. Give equal weight to the deforested Chenier Ridges as you do the cypress forests ofSELA;2. Address commercial sand-mining degradation of the Ridges. Financial incentivizationwill possibly be needed. Other parts of the USA have used financial incentives. Oneexample might be payments made to tobacco farmers.Concerning the need for concerted, continued scientific critique of the Chenier Plain, I amquite concerned that so few of the State’s research professors and research universities appearto have specialists on the Chenier Plain. Furthermore, what indepth work is being done may,Pg.Personal beliefs: We will not keep water out. Give water a place to go and flow.Lessen surge heights. Lessen salt water intrusion. Build accordingly.4

CPRA Master Plan 2012 ~ Comments by Carolyn Woosley, CFP®Feb.24, 2012 628 Cleveland St. LC LA 70601or may not, be focused on the eastern reaches of the Chenier Plain. This is an area that Irespect and cherish. Nonetheless, a keen focus on more western parts of the Plain, as they liein Louisiana, appears to be needed at the research level. I advocate that more of the State’sresources that are restricted to coastal issue research be further restricted to Chenier Plainresearch. I advocate that McNeese State University’s LERC Program be fully utilized andarmed financially so as to initiate research; that ULL’s departments be enhanced to initiateneeded research and that LSU and UNO initiate, or at least expand, research into issues of theChenier Plain. This lack of use of the taxpayers’ dollars for over a quarter of a century intothis part of the coast of Louisiana is unconscionable, and requires redress. Please further thesecomments on to responsible parties, and please give me needed feedback should myperspective need correction.Thank you very much for your hard work. I am impressed with this product of yours, andlook forward to further work with you.~Carolyn WoosleyPg.Personal beliefs: We will not keep water out. Give water a place to go and flow.Lessen surge heights. Lessen salt water intrusion. Build accordingly.5

22 February 2012Comments on Louisiana’s 2012 draft Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastSubmitted by Heather Warner‐Finley, member of the Framework Development TeamThe recently released draft of the Louisiana Master Plan 2012 represents a remarkable effort by thestate of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA). The state has developed a toolthat allows coastal planners to evaluate the effectiveness of suites of projects meant to halt land lossand provide levels of flood risk reduction in coastal Louisiana. The state has used existing information indeveloping model components. The value of using good models in planning is that it allows state andnational coastal stakeholders to develop different scenarios that represent various approaches tocoastal restoration and evaluate the various outputs side by side. I believe this will allow a moreobjective and effective approach to selecting and implementing coastal projects, and I encourage thestate CPRA to continue model development to support the next five‐year Master Plan in 2017.Adaptive ManagementIn order to provide the best data for use in the various models used in the “planning tool”, a strongprogram for monitoring and assessment must be in place. The 2012 draft Master Plan includes a brief,broad, and conceptual discussion of adaptive management, but I believe the groundwork for adaptivemanagement must be in place from the onset of its implementation. This plan must include projectspecificmonitoring in the initial cost of the projects, and must include requirements for those data to beused to evaluate: 1. the individual project’s performance; 2. its relative value given the broaderconditions that drive coastal land loss; and 3. its performance as part of a category of restorationprojects. This will enable future iterations of the models and the Master Plan to use those data todetermine the most beneficial suite of projects. Projects currently included in the Master Plan areevaluated according to their stated benefits. For those types of projects with little or no history ofimplementation, benefits are based on theoretical results. This is acceptable only in the very early stagesof coastal restoration implementation; it is not acceptable as more projects are constructed and theireffectiveness or deficiencies demonstrated. The draft plan would be improved by inclusion of a specific,goal oriented discussion of monitoring and assessment under the heading of adaptive management.Continue to evaluate projectsIn the lengthy list of projects included in the draft Master Plan for 2012, there are projects included thatshould receive additional scrutiny in my opinion. Many of these projects have no real analog in existingcoastal projects, and further evaluation should be conducted before these projects are moved to theimplementation phase. I specifically include in this category, 03b.OR.02 and 03b.OR.03. These twoprojects are proposed to reduce storm surge in the Abbeville and Intercoastal City vicinity. The value ofsimilar projects to channel Atchafalaya sediments and water to the Gulf was evaluated in a study for theLouisiana Department of Natural Resources by Waldemar S. Nelson and Company, and released inFebruary 2007. The study modeled a series of placements for a “reef” from Point Chevreuil to MarshIsland and points east. The study found that placement of a reef at mean high water elevationextending from Point Chevreuil to Marsh Island so as to completely block flows from the Atchafalaya toEast and West Cote Blanche Bays and Vermilion Bay would reduce storm surge by 5%, approximately 1.5feet. I urge the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority to reconsider the inclusion of thesefeatures in the draft Master Plan and to consider whether other means are available to reduce stormsurge in the central coast west of the Atchafalaya Delta. Undoubtedly, there are other features in the

draft Master Plan that should have this kind of additional scrutiny, and again I urge the CPRA to ensurethat all projects are thoroughly reviewed before final inclusion in a comprehensive plan.Address the need for hydrologic connections between coastal wetlands and estuariesIn discussions of the causes and effects of coastal loss, it’s important to correctly pinpoint the causes.Certainly alteration of the Mississippi River system dynamics has fundamentally changed Louisianalandscapes; alteration of drainage due to oil and gas development also changed Louisiana landscapes.Fundamental changes in hydrology of the coastal areas caused by the dredging of the Gulf IntercoastalWaterway and other ship channels has also contributed in a very large way to loss of coastal wetlands.Changes in basin water management have altered the way in which water and nutrients arrive inestuaries. This plan provides some measures of hydrologic restoration in several basins, and that is avery good omen for the future. Louisiana’s coastal natural resources depend upon the link betweencoastal and estuarine ecosystems. Louisiana must ensure that those critical hydrologic links aremaintained as projects for both coastal risk reduction and restoration move forward.Continue to engage stakeholdersThe state has brought together a diverse group of stakeholders to support this planning process. Theirvoices will help state managers understand and respond to their needs and concerns in this andsubsequent plans. There are many arguments for supporting Louisiana’s coastal sustainabilityprograms, but certainly local acceptance is a key factor determining their success. Continuing to engageand include various coastal entities, including commercial and charter fisheries, will improve localacceptance.In conclusion, I believe that this plan is a serious, comprehensive, and realistic attempt to address landloss and property risk issues in Louisiana’s coastal areas. I commend the CPRA, its management teamand contractors for the work completed in the draft 2012 Comprehensive Master Plan for a SustainableCoast. I offer my comments in the hope that they will further the effort.Sincerely,J. Heather Warner Finley

Louisiana Environmental Action NetworkLouisiana's Comprehensive Master Plan for aSustainable Coast, January 2012Public HearingLake Charles Civic CenterJanuary 25, 2012Comments by Wilma SubraOn behalf of Louisiana Environmental Action NetworkLouisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) works with communities along the entirecoastal areas of Louisiana.In the Comprehensive Master Plan, Figure 1 presents predicted land changes along theLouisiana coast over the next 50 years. The figure presents land loss and land gain based on sealevel rise, subsidence, and other factors. The majority of the coastal areas are depicted as landloss.The Master Plan failed to consider and failed to address the hazardous and toxic waste sites-in the areas of land loss-in the areas of construction projectsWaste sites in construction areas can add a hugh financial cost to the projects.The Master Plan also failed to encourage or mandate the prevention of waste sites from beingsited in areas predicted to be lost (land loss) or areas proned to flooding.Oyster Restoration ProjectsAreas where oyster restoration projects are proposed, must be evaluated for potential negativeimpacts on the specific areas as a result of current and proposed fresh water diversions andcontinued impacts of the BP oil spill.Restoration efforts designated to restore oyster propagation areas should not be targeted forareas that are or could be negatively impacted by current or proposed fresh water diversionprojects.Climate ChangeThe Master Plan lacks consideration of the impacts of climate change. Figure 2 presentspredictions of future flooding from a 100 year flood event. If climate change impacts wouldhave been included in the Master Plan, the flood predictions would have extended inland furtherwww.leanweb.org P.O. Box 66323, Baton Rouge, LA 70896 (225) 928-1315

Louisiana Environmental Action Networkto the north. The communities in these areas have a right to know if they are located in the floodpredicted areas.Construction of LeveesThe specific alignment of the levees, when the time comes, must include extensiveinvolvement of the local communities. The communities are the ones who know the situationson the ground in their communities the best.The construction of the levees need to take into consideration the potential impacts on thewetlands outside the levee system. Measures must be implemented to sustain the wetlands in theareas where the levees are constructed.Even though there are proposed gates in the levee system planned to allow drainage throughthe levee system, there will be negative drainage impacts as a result of construction andplacement of the levees. The negative drainage impacts will result in changes to drainagepatterns and flooding on the upland side of the levee systems.Southwest LouisianaSouthwestern Louisiana coastal areas have sustained negative coastal flooding as a result ofhurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike and tropical depression Lee as well as other tidal events.In addition, areas of St. Mary, Assumption, St. Martin and Terrebonne parishes haveexperienced coastal flooding as a result of Mississippi River flood waters being diverted into theAtchafalaya River in 2008 and 2011.The Hurricane Protection projects proposed in the Master Plan must also consider the impactsto the Hurricane proned areas as a result of Mississippi and Atchafalaya river flooding.www.leanweb.org P.O. Box 66323, Baton Rouge, LA 70896 (225) 928-1315

16241 East Main Street, Suite B10 • Cut Off, LA 70345Telephone 985.632.4666 • Fax 985.632.8653www .lafourcheg ov. orgOffice of Coastal Zone ManagementCoastal Zone Management Advisory CommitteeFebmary 23,2012Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of LouisianaAttn: Mr. William RhinehartP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804Re: 2012 Comprehensive Master PlanMr. Rhinehart:Thank you and your team for the hard work and dedication that went into this document. The plan was basedwas based on the science of coastal restoration and not solely on politics. Also, thank you for the time youand the Master Plan Delivery Team (MPDT) has spent meeting with the general public and public officials.We believe that local residents who can offer the best advice on how best to save it. South Louisiana arequickly disappearing and the map reflected in this plan if no actions are taken, represents that quite well.The Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Committee is deeply concerned with the draft projects thatare proposed in the plan and with the modeling effort that determined these projects. While we understandthe science based approach that was utilized in determining the project within the Master Plan, we do noagree with the types, sizes and locations of the project that were selected for inclusion. The projects proposedin the Master Plan do not offer the maximum benefit possible for the dollars proposed to be spent. It is ourfirm belief that funding this effort will be a tremendous challenge and we should be very careful to designprojects with multiple benefits and weigh them appropriately. The following is our recommendation of whatwe would like to see altered or removed within the final plan document.The wetlands are at the epicenter of land loss in Coastal Louisiana. The draft plan states that "if we don'taggressively address this crisis, the problem intensifies." We have serious concern that the suite of projectsidentified for the Barataria-Terrebonne Basins does little to help this strategy succeed. Lafourche is also ageographically unique parish because we are at a greater distance away from any large sediment source, suchas the Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi River and Atchafalaya River. We believe this to be the main reason thatthe projects that yield the maximum benefit rank so poorly. The guiding principle that projects must utilizeexterior borrow sources simply puts Lafourche Parish's future on "Life Support"!Charlotte A. Randolph Parish President John Arnold District 5Jerry Jones District l Lindel Toups District 6Michael Delatte District 2 Phillip Gouaux District 7Aaron Caillouet District 3 Jerry Lafont District 8Joseph "Joe" Fertitta District 4 Daniel Lorraine District 9

LAF OURCHEPAR I SH~wru. •u·~----------------------F_e_br_u_a~ __ 2_3,_2_0_12 _______________________ P_a_ge_2 __ of_4 __Lafourche Parish's Proposed Revisions to the Draft Plan:Barataria Basin Marsh CreationAn obvious omission from this draft plan is any type of marsh creation on the eastern side of BayouLafourche. Due to our proximity of our parish from either river system, this area is the most sediment starvedarea of our parish and needs an immediate level of attention. We must find some ways to protect thestructures and the people that live and work behind this marsh. While we understand the hesitation of thestate to fund a project of this cost, the removal of the stipulation that only exterior borrow material can beused, would dramatically reduce- costs so that the project becomes cost effective.Once the land in this area is built in the eastern portion of the parish, fresh water should be introduced intothe basin. We are currently working with engineers and other NGO's that will allow us to help sustain thisarea after construction. These projects would be developed to introduce fresh water in such a way that itsustains the ecosystem that has been created without altering it in a devastating matter. It is with theseconsiderations in mind that we recommend that the Lower Barataria Marsh Creation - Compartment C(002.MC.04c) Project be included in the final plan.Leeville Area & Belle Pass -Golden Meadow Marsh CreationThe draft plan states that the LA Hwy 1 "is a key connection from Port Fourchon, which supplies 18% of thenation's oil. The loss of the surrounding landscape has threatened the viability of this highway, which hasexperienced repeated closures at high tide events and storm induced flooding lasting days. A recent studydone by DHS documents that a 90 day closure of LA Hwy 1 would result in a $7.8B loss in GDP of thiscountry. However, the draft plan does nothing, in the way of marsh creation or armoring, to protect the unelevatedportion of the road way. Sea level rise and subsidence have caused the remaining un-elevatedportion of LA Hwy 1 to be at the mercy of a rapidly degrading system. Studies have concluded that ifnothing is done to protect his roadway we could experience frequent shut downs just due to high tides in thearea. This would not only affect the operations at Port Fourchon but would also have a major impact to theresidents and tourists of Grand Isle, since LA Hwy 1 is the only route to or from the barrier island.We therefore recommend that the Leeville Area Marsh Creation Compartment A (002.MC.12a) and theBelle Pass- Golden Meadow Marsh Creation Compartment B (03a.MC.07b) be included in the final plan.Belle Pass to Caminada PassThe Carninada Headland has been a project that Lafourche Parish has advocated in favor and we are inagreement that it is included in the plan. We are, however, disappointed in the way this project is presentedwith the draft plan. Our first issue is that the project, as listed in the draft plan, does not take into account theCarninada Headlands Restoration Project that is set to begin this summer. While we can agree with the needto protect Port Fourchon and need to restore this fragile ecosystem, we feel this project goes above andbeyond what is need for this area and does not reflect a fair realization of what is needed in the parish. Wewould recommend that this project be scaled back and constructed in the same manner as the current project.This would allow funds to be saved for inclusion in other projects that would rank highly if local borrowwould be obtained.

LAFOURCHEPARISH~w~ ·~- ~.----------------------F_e_br_u_a~ __ 2_3,_2_0_12 _______________________ P_a_ge_3 __ of_4 __Trade-Off ProposalsWe understand that the master plan is based on a fifty billion dollar estimated funding stream from differingsources and we understand that our requests for project to be altered or added come at the cost of otherprojects within the plan. Below are our suggestions for the projects that we would like to see included as alower priority in the fmal plan as well as others we wish to see moved to a higher priority in their place.Projects to be placed in a Lower TierProject NameProject IDBelle Pass to Carninada 002.BH.05PassNorth Caminada Marsh 002.MC.08CreationBarataria Bay Rim 002.MC.07JustificationTotal Project Cost EstimateWould be in favor of a much $291,900,000.00smaller projectNot the area of most need in $1,949,181,000.00LafourcheWould be in favor if more $223,706,000.00marsh creation was behindthe rimExisting Projects to be Included in the Final PlanProject NameLower Barataria -Compartment CLeeville Area ­Compartment ABelle Pass - GoldenMeadow - CompartmentBProject/D002.MC.04c003.MC.12a03a.MC.07bJustificationProtection of Eastern LAHwy 1(Un-ElevationPortion) and SLLD SystemProtection of LA Hwy 1Protection of Western LAHwy 1 (On-ElevatedPortion) and SLLD SystemTotal Project Cost Estimate$3,579,036,000.00$2,619,972,000.00$2,442,298,000.00Project AlterationsWhile the plan contains projects that stand alone due to their individual merit, there are some projects that wewould like to see altered before adopting them into the final plan:1. Large Scale Barataria- 002.MC.05 - We would propose to not fill both "The Pen" and the floodedarea of Delta Farms because-these areas have become top fishing destinations as well as providemultiple water fowl benefits. Rather than creating marsh in deep lakes we would suggest directingattention to shallow broken marshareas of greater need such asa. Lower Barataria - Compartment C - 002.MC.04cb. Belle Pass - Golden Meadow- Compartment B - 03a.MC.07b2. Donaldsonville to the Gulf- 002.HP.06- We would propose that this project be altered to include adifferent alignment that would lend itself more closely with a comprehensive flood protectionapproach. To remove this project from the plan without the feasibility study being complete is in ouropinion premature. We feel that an alignment of the Donaldsonville to the Gulf Project could beconstrued in such a way that it would protect not only Lafourche but portions of St. Charles andJefferson Parish. The borrow area that would be created by this levee would allow for water to be

LAFOURCHEPA~ SH~~.~u.ww----------------------F_e_br_u_a~_._2_3,_2_0_ 1 2 _______________________ P_a_ge_4 __ of_4 __conveyed from the Mississippi River and connect to the Gulf Intercoastal Water Way (GIWW) inLarose and provide a direct link to the sediment starved Barataria-Terrebonne Basin via GrandBayou Blue and Delta Bayou Perot.Projects with Full Support of Lafourche Parish GovernmentWe have also identified other projects that we wish to support and feel that the following projects should beincluded in some category in the final plan.o Donalsonville to the Gulf (02.HP. 06)o Mississippi River Delta management Study (MR 16 (FWOA Study)o Upper Barataria Basin Hydrologic Improvements at Hwy 90 (N/A)o Dedicate Dredging/Beneficial use to create marsh on Land Bridge (002.MC.04/002.MC.05)o Des Allemandes Fresh Water Diversion (002.DI.17)o Bayou Lafourche Siphon and Pump Project (03a.DI.Ol/03a.DI.08)o Carninada -Chenier Ridge Restoration (%a45 FWOA/002.BH.05)One Hundred Billion Dollar PlanWhile everyone understands that this proposal sets forth a funding ceiling of $50 billion we feel that theceiling is arbitrary and could potentially be damaging to several highly beneficial projects, not only inLafourche Parish but across the Louisiana coastline. This ceiling also places a cap on how many projectscould be placed into this draft plan. This alone could limit local parishes and other agencies with looking todevelop concepts for other funding sources such as CWPPRA, ClAP or NAWCC. We would propose that athird category be added so that the entire project considered in the $100 billion dollar plan could be included.This would allow the parishes and other agencies to be considered "consistent" with the Master Plan andallow us to pursue other avenues of funding. The state has shown, by its voting at the PPL 22 CoastwideVoting Meeting, that this plan will dictate support for coastal projects. If a project is not in this plan then thestate will rank it lower than the projects that are included in the plan. This sets into motion a trend that couldlead to a very successful program such as CWPPRA being held hostage by one document.ConclusionIt is our extreme hope that these comments will be strongly considered during the Master Plan reviewprocess. Lafourche Parish is at the epicenter of land loss in Coastal Louisiana and is home to both nationallysignificant infrastructure and a vital corridor to the Gulf. In order to yield the greatest benefits, projectsproposed must properly weigh these multiple benefits in order to be most effective and help protect ourpeople and our way of life in the greatest way possible. If you have any questions about any of the projectsthat we have mentioned in our comments, or would like to meet, please feel free to contact me at (985) 258-7180. You can also feel free to contact our Coastal Zone Management Administrator Archie Chaisson todiscuss these issues further.Sincerely,~ f'c\. ~c_Q 0 o~Ted M. FalgoutCZM Advisory Committee Chairman

Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master PlanMAYNIEJ@aol.com [MAYNIEJ@aol.com]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:33 PMTo:Master PlanDoes the Levee restoration program have the available funding? And if so how much isavailable and what are the sources of funds

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 57First NameJanaLast NameSmithAddress18 Rue CalaisKenner, LA 70065United StatesMap ItEmailariadnele@gmail.comCommentsI can only pray that someone in authority is a moral enough person that they will not allow opportunists to attach LandUse Restrictions and Carbon Sequestration and Carbon Credits into this proposal. Carbon Credits should not evenexist in this country. Like we really need another form of Wall Street??The radical policies of carbon cap and trade, water quality credits, and severe land use restrictions that emanate fromthe discredited science of man made climate change have no place in our Coastal Restoration Master Plan .Louisiana must lay the foundation for prosperity and not strangle our economy and our future with irrationalrestrictions on our energy, natural resources, and industries.Shame on anyone who passes this if those items are still attached within this document.• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Public Commenthttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Public CommentHelen & Ken [8246buras@att.net]Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:40 PMTo:Master PlanSir,The weakest part of the plan is that an inadequate attempt was made to better inform the localcitizens. Most people in lower Plaquemines Parish are not web savvy. They are not in favor of riverdiversions which will destroy several user groups and which were designed by university tekkies.Garret, lets cut a large river diversion near your house or Denesse Reeds home.Ken Ragas

Melanie SaucierFrom:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Payton DiFalco Friday, February 17, 2012 8:25 AMMaster Planjbnoland_star@msn.com; gfell@pharmacyjobs.comRE: State Master Plan for Freshwater BayouCoastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804CPRA,I am writing today to express my concern regarding the State Master Plan for Freshwater Bayou. While I amhappy that the committee that controls the funds voted to fund the closing of the gap, there is an important nextstep that must be made.We need to reestablish the spoil bank behind the rocks for a distance of approximately ten (10) miles!It is imperative that the impending State Master Plan include bank line stabilization and shorelineprotection along Freshwater Bayou in order to protect the fragile soils of the Mermentau Basin andRainey Marshes.Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please make these changes to the State Master Plan!Gregg Fell225-928-2212gfell@pharmacyjobs.com1

February 24, 2012Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityc/o Karim BelhadjaliP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027Re: Comments on Draft 2012 Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastDear Mr. Belhadjali,The Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is submitting for consideration thefollowing comments on the Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan. LEAN is a non-profit organizationthat has worked for over 20 years to ensure a safe and sustainable environment for Louisiana’speople.In our comments on the 2007 Master Plan, we stated that we appreciated that “at present, such aplan must be more conceptual in nature to allow for the refinement of the science, engineering,and management processes.”[i] At the same time we noted that the 2007 Plan articulated a set ofobjectives, policies, and principles that laid the foundation for further progress. A number ofthose elements were carried over into the 2012 Draft revision. A key difference is that the 2012Plan puts forward a specific list of recommended projects that can be assessed, rather than a listof potential projects and actions.General CommentsLEAN’s comments in 2007 focused on a number of issues we felt were of key importance for theMaster Plan. The treatment of several of those issues in the 2012 Draft warrant comment as well.Climate Change: The 2007 version of the Master Plan contained a section on climate change.[ii]The main section of the 2012 Plan fails to mention climate change, though it does mention sealevelrise (cf. p. 17). Appendix C, “Environmental Scenarios”, features a discussion of sea-levelrise estimates and the science involved, and does recognize sea-level rise as a key driver incoastal planning efforts (p. C-7). The Appendix C discussion cites the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) and state that the science behind its estimates for 21 st century climatechange is extensive (p. C-8). The IPCC 2007 report and several subsequent papers of criticalimportance (Vermeer 2009) for the sea-level rise issue are also discussed (p. C-10, C-15).1 of 6

Missing from this discussion, however, is any mention of why sea-levels are rising. Thedocument subsequently released by the Louisiana Applied Coastal Engineering and Sciences(LACES) section of the CPRA[iii] does explain that sea-level rise occurs as a result of thermalexpansion and freshwater influx, but does not discuss the warming process that is currentlyimpacting those processes. Estimates for sea-level rise (as well as temperature) are both tied toprojections of greenhouse gas emissions.[iv] This point was made in a context specific toLouisiana in a letter sent by 30 coastal scientists to Governor Jindal in January 2010.[v]The IPCC 2007 Report states that “Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rateswould cause further warming and induce many change in the global climate system during the21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20 th century.”[vi]The 2009 paper by Vermeer referenced in Appendix C and the LACES document utilizesemissions scenarios from the IPCC and concluded that their study’s results “suggest thatemissions reductions early in this century will be much more effective in limiting sea-level risethan reductions later on.”[vii]The reluctance to discuss the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and sea-level risereflects Louisiana’s de facto policy, which has attempted to de-couple the two issues. The state’sposition has been far from passive, however, with Governor Jindal and a number of members ofthe Congressional delegation actively opposing national climate legislation and policy. LEANand a number of other environmental organizations wrote to Governor Jindal about this matter inFebruary 2010, after he had publicly opposed the U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas EndangermentFinding. We pointed out that the state’s strongly worded letter made no mention of Louisiana’scoastal crisis, despite the fact that the EPA document did discuss coastal impacts of climatechange.[viii]The mixed message that this sends about the importance that the state attaches to its coastalproblems, and the potential impact of this policy on national support for restoration andprotection, are issues that Louisiana residents should be fully aware of. As the America’sWetland Foundation has shown, it is not impossible to consider and discuss the issues of energyand climate change together in the context of Louisiana’s coast.[ix] Louisiana’s position also hasconsequences for strategies discussed in the 2012 Master Plan, where carbon sequestration incoastal projects is touted as a potential revenue source. The lack of a U.S. climate policy (due tolack of national legislation) has left the American carbon market at a standstill, and impacted theglobal market as well.Levees: The feasibility and sustainability of proposed large coastal levee systems was an issue ofconcern in 2007. A number of leading coastal scientists had written to Governor Blanco toexpress their serious concerns about the strategy of building large new continuous levee systems,stating that it “carries high economic, structural and environmental risk, and threatens thesustainability of the very ecosystem we are all trying to save.”[x] LEAN stated then that2 of 6

protection of population centers in the coastal zone was an immediate priority, but that the largelevee proposals did not seem the most timely means of providing this protection, compared withother strategies such as ring levees. The 2012 Plan makes some substantial changes in thisregard, such as the apparent elimination of the proposed Donaldsonville to the Gulf levee project,although it is not clear why the Lafitte Ring Levee project is then assigned to the SecondImplementation Period.Concerns about the feasibility and sustainability of the Morganza to the Gulf Project remain,particularly in terms of the chosen alignment. The map of the Central Coast on p. 119 showssubstantial segments of this project apparently being built across open water. This seems at oddswith the description of major levee placement on p. 27, i.e., to protect “large, densely populated,at risk communities” (in this case, Houma.) It is also unclear whether the Risk AssessmentModel described on p. 75 was applied to this alignment of Morganza to the Gulf, due to thepredictable effects of hurricane storm surge, and resulting costs for repair and maintenance.With the estimated cost of the project now approaching $4 billion (p. 121), and a reauthorizationstudy already required by the Corps of Engineers because the project exceeded its earlierestimated cost by over 20%,[xi] these questions should be fully addressed in the 2012 Plan.Coastal Communities and Residents: LEAN has long made the human dimension of coastalsustainability one of our priorities. We have initiated relief efforts for coastal communities andresidents after hurricanes, and are currently working to help address and alleviate the ongoinghealth effects of the BP Oil Disaster. An unknown but substantial number of individuals alongLouisiana’s coast are suffering serious health problems from either chronic or acute exposure tothe oil, dispersants, or other chemicals involved in the BP incident and response actions. LEANhas worked to document health effects on residents of coastal Louisiana, and has postedtestimony from a number of affected individuals on our website, along with results of samplingcarried out by partner organizations.[xii]This is only the latest of a series of impacts that coastal communities have suffered over theseveral years, beginning with Hurricane Katrina. Despite their traditional resilience, coastalcommunities are under considerable stress from this series of disasters, coupled with othereconomic pressures. The proposal for Transition Assistance (p. 153) in the Plan is a positivestep, and will find a coastal population already in need of help. Many of these communities feelthat they are routinely left out of the decision process, so utilizing the expertise of Louisiana’sacademic community at institutions like the University of New Orleans will strengthen assistanceefforts considerably.Coastal Resource Issues: The Plan states that the ecosystem sustainability it provides willsupport robust commercial and recreational fisheries coastwide (p. 29). A long-standing threat tothe health of Louisiana’s coastal fisheries is the growth of a large annual hypoxic zone offshore.The “Dead Zone” problem has been discussed in both the 2007 and 2012 Master Plans. Bothacknowledge that the problem arises outside of Louisiana, and cannot be solved by the statealone. The sediment diversions proposed in the 2012 Plan (p. 152) as part of the state’s strategyfor addressing the hypoxia problem also poses some questions. They will reduce the nutrients3 of 6

flowing down the mainstem of the river to the Gulf simply by rechanneling them into coastalbasins. But the impacts there must be carefully modeled and monitored, and diversions cannotreverse the hypoxia trend without significant nutrient reductions upstream.Recognition of the importance of agriculture in the coastal zone is another important resourceconcern. The Chicot Aquifer in southwest Louisiana has been a key freshwater source foragricultural and other uses, and faces significant challenges to its sustainability.[xiii] The recentcontroversy over a proposed water sale from Toledo Bend which could have impacted southwestLouisiana is another reminder that water issues are becoming a pressing issue for the state aswell as the coast, and that decisions upstream will affect coastal systems.An issue not mentioned in the Plan is the problem of the large number of toxic sites across thestate's coastal zone. These include oilfield waste pits and other industrial sites. While some sitessuch as Grand Bois have gotten a good deal of public attention, most have not. Many of thesesites are subject to inundation from storm surge, and we are unaware of whether assessmentshave been done subsequent to hurricanes. These sites pose another risk due to sea-level rise, ifthey are permanently inundated in the future. We urge the state to carry out an inventory of suchsites, develop a program to clean them up if current programs are not adequate, and include thatin the Master Plan's mitigation provisions.The issue of Louisiana's Coastal Forests has received attention in both the 2007 and 2012 Plans.These critical natural systems face ongoing challenges to their sustainability. The state CoastalForest Initiative, an easement program, is helping the situation, but it is not clear that theprogram has reached a scale commensurate with the problem. There are coastal forests aroundcommunities like Morgan City that are vital for storm surge buffering, in addition to the otherecosystem services they provide. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources has ampleauthority under current law (outside of the Coastal Forest Initiative) to set aside areas of coastalhabitat such as swamps and marshes for a prevailing public interest. We are concerned as wellthat the report on Coastal Wetland Forests by the Science Working Group appointed by GovernorBlanco is missing from the list of reference documents on page 59.The emphasis on the use of Natural Processes is another positive feature of the 2012 Plan.LEAN noted in its comments on the “Early Restoration” projects proposed as part of the NaturalResources Damage Assessment (NRDA) for the first installment of BP payments that a collateralbenefit of oyster reefs is their ability to act as “speed bumps” for storm surge. A number ofscientific papers have been published on the potential of oyster reefs for coastal protection aswell as restoration, the state has also promoted this strategy in a number of coastal projects, andseveral non-profit organizations and science groups are working on projects to restore oysterreefs in strategic locations.[xiv] We broached the idea as well that oyster growers could receiverestoration payments for reefs grown for this purpose that could supplement their income as theyrecover from damages caused by the spill and the opening of diversions in 2010.4 of 6

Conclusion: A major strength of the 2012 Plan is recognition of the role of science in thedecision-making process. If this component is implemented in a transparent way, outstandingissues and questions can be resolved as Louisiana’s restoration/protection process movesforward.Sincerely,Marylee Orr, Executive DirectorLouisiana Environmental Action Network/LEANLower Mississippi Riverkeeper/LMRKNotes:[i] LEAN, Comments from April 2, 2007; Appendix C: Environmental Organizations and Natural Resource AgencyComments http://www.lacpra.org/assets/docs/Appendix%20C%20-%20Part%201%20-%20chunk%208a.pdf.[ii] Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast (2007), Chapter 2, “Assumptions, Tradeoffs,and Challenges: Climate Change,” p. 25 “http://coastal.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&nid=24&pnid=0&pid=28&fmid=0&catid=0&elid=0Ihttp://www.lacpra.org/assets/docs/Comprehensive%20Master%20Plan%20%28Main%20Report%29%20-%20chapter%202.Pl a n for aSustainable Coast[iii] LACES, Recommendations for Anticipating Sea-Level Rise Impacts on Louisiana Coastal Resources DuringProject Planning and Design, Summary Technical Report, p. 2; http://coastal.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=240.[iv] Appendix C does mention the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios in the discussion on MississippiRiver Discharge (p. C-36).[v] Letter to Governor Jindal, January 15, 2010; http://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/images/db_SLRletter.pdf.[vi] IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html[vii] Vermeer, Rahmstorf, “Global sea level linked to global temperature,” 2009, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf.[viii] LEAN, et al, Letter to Governor Jindal, February 2, 2010; http://leanweb.org/our-work/air/letter-to-governorjindal-concerning-the-epa-endangerment-finding.[ix] America’s Energy Coast, “Climate, Energy, and the Coast,” http://www.americasenergycoast.org/page.php?page_ID=9[x] Letter to Governor Blanco and Lieutenant General Strock, “Re: Morganza to Gulf of Mexico HurricaneProtection Plan, March 13, 2007; posted online at http://saveourwetlands.org/let-morganza.html5 of 6

[xi] Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico Risk Reduction Project,” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Team New Orleans,http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectsList/home.asp?projectID=117[xii] http://www.leanweb.org/our-work/community/public-health.[xiii] Vermillion Today, July 28, 2011; http://vermiliontoday.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Officials+worried+about+future+of+Chicot+Aquifer%20&id=15177125[xiv] B. Piazza, et al, “Using Created Oyster Reefs as a Sustainable Coastal Restoration Tool,” Renewable NaturalResources, Louisiana State University, http://www.louisianaoysters.org/pdf/Piazza.pdf; Times Picayune,“bioengineered oyster reefs top $60 million in coastal projects announced by Gov. Bobby Jindal,” July 21, 2011;http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/07/bioengineered_oyster_reefs_to.html; Nature Conservancy,“Louisiana: Restoring Oyster Reefs for People and Nature,” http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/louisiana/oyster-reef-restoration-in-louisiana.xml6 of 6

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/23/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 85First NameGayLast NameGomezAddressDept. of Social SciencesMcNeese State UniversityLake Charles, LA 70609United StatesMap ItEmailggomez@mcneese.eduCommentsSouthwest La. Coast: Please consider including ALL chenier ridge restoration and marsh creation projects in Phase 1of plan implementation, AND adding beach nourishment and protection projects along Gulf of Mexico shoreline inPhase 1 of plan implementation. Beach nourishment/Gulf shoreline protection proved effective in saving road,chenier ridge, and marshes during Hurricane Rita in 2005. Chenier ridges are vital to slowing storm surge andprovide habitat diversity for wildlife as well as human dwelling places, so necessary for maintainance of vitaleconomic activities, including oil and gas operations and oil-gas service-related activities. For summary of ChenierPlain's importance and statement of support for its coastal restoration by Mr. Garret Graves, see WATER MARKS(La. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration News) issue no. 38, September 2008 (www. lacoast.gov).Southeast and Central La. Coast: Mississippi River sediment is vital to restoring these sections of the coast, andpipeline sediment delivery/beneficial use of dredged material is the fastest and most effective way to reclaimmarshland and nourish/ elevate deteriorating marshes. See L.S.U. coastal scientist Dr. Irv Mendelssohn's work onthis topic. Also, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges tons of sediment from the Mississippi River's mouth tomaintain navigation; instead of compacting this valuable land on hopper dredges and dumping it far offshore, why notwork to develop beneficial use of this material to restore Louisiana's wetlands?

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/26/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 132First NameMarkLast NameSchexnayderAddress207 Grenadine StreetMetairie, LA 70005United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Louisiana Society of NaturalistsEmailmarkschexnayder@gmail.comCommentsOverall I think the Plan itself is realistic, and is a well thoughtout balance between protection, mitigation andrestoration. Sometimes I think we should use the word preservation as opposed to restoration, becasue frankly, wewill be lucky if we can even preserve some of what we have left.Freshwater-Introductions placement/locations in the plan seem inadequate to sustain the cypress/tupelo swamps ofthe upper basin and provide salinity reductions and more efficient nutrient conversion throughout the system.Thereshould be a project into upper Lake Des Allemands as well as one into Maurepas/Pontchartrain. See attachment, Iwill email it separately also). It shows how the existing Federal lands of the Bonnet Carre and modifying the structureitself could be used for a combined freshwater diversion and sediment transport corridor.The connection from Bonnet Carre to Hwy. 51 would have several medium channels as well as many small"telescopic, bifurcating flow channels" as per previous investigations by Brantley, Bahr and Kemp. The old highway51 would require additional underflow bridges, and clean-out of existing water passages. Once the project is built,water flows and constrictions would become evident and these flow patterns could be used see where additional flowchannels are needed. The key would be to get at good flows going all the way into the Hwy 51 canal and bringsignificant amounts of water directly into Maurepas, such that the entire Lake Maurepas would be freshened duringoperation. These waters would positively influence all theway into Lake Borgne, lessening the need to have too big ofa project directly onto the oyster growing areas in the Sounds.A permanent sediment dredging operation could occur within the Bonnet Carre flow channel for to maintain depth aswell as supply material for strategic placement into areas such as "the prairie", adjacent to the LaPlace subdivisionsthat abut the Fritchie wetlands and could benefit from a protective ridge (barring construction of the $950MMproposed LaPlace levee in the Master Plan), and other areas for general sediment nourishment where needed.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/26/2012For clarity, I am submitting this myself, as a civilian, and not as an employee of LDWF. Thanks, Mark SchexnayderAttachmentsMaurepas_Pontchartrain-Diversion_Schexnayder-2012.jpg

Melanie SaucierFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Gene W Lafitte Friday, February 17, 2012 11:56 AMMaster PlanFreshwater Bayou, Vermilion Parish, La.Gentlemen/Mesdames,I understand that the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority is in the process of developing a Master Plan dealing,among other things, with much needed protection of the marshes in the Mermentau Basin from damage from saltwaterintrusion. I am a member of a hunting club in lower Vermilion Parish, and for several years have regularly traveledFreshwater Bayou to reach the marshes in which we hunt. As you know, large vessels constantly navigate FreshwaterBayou as a means of ingress and egress with the Gulf of Mexico, and I cannot help noting significant changes to thebayou shoreline from that traffic and breaches in the banks and apparent damage to the adjoining marsh soils over theyears.I am writing to join others in expressing concern over the situation and to urge as strongly as I can that the State MasterPlan include measures to stabilize the bank line of Freshwater Bayou, and thusly to protect its shoreline. Thanks somuch for your consideration of my comments.Yours very truly,Gene LafitteMandeville, LA.1

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.Frank J. Beninate III [tealman@bellsouth.net]Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:23 PMTo:Master PlanFrom: Frank J. Beninate III Subject: FUTURE MASTER PLAN MEETINGSMessage Body:Sir 2 Feb 121. Unfortunately, I was unable to attendthe Master Plan open house/public comment meetings held at the end of January.2. I did notice that all meetings were held in coastal communities. I realize that we, south Louisiana residents, aremost impacted by the ongoing problem of coastal land loss. However, we need the whole state to realize that allof citizens are affected by this problem. Typically, the legislature tends to split north and south on restorationfunding bills.3. We need all of our citizens and legislators to 'buy into' spending billions of dollars to save our fragile coast.4. I respectfully request that another round of meetings, be held all across the state. The citizens of Monroe,Vidalia, etc. need to know what saving the coast means to them, and they need to become motivated enough toask their representatives to strongly support the concept.5. The state now, and the nation soon thereafter! After all, we are promoting south Louisiana as 'America's Coast'.One of the articles I read in the New Orleans Times-Picayune suggested the Master Plan details what can bedone with $50 Billion. Think what can be done with $75 or $100 billion. The more we convince Louisiana and therest of the country that we have a national problem along our coasts, the more likely we are to get initial, andadditional funding. I remember one of my father's WWII 8Th Air Force mottos during the tough days before D-Day: 'The difficult we do today. The impossible tomorrow'. It seems to fit our fight and plight in south Louisiana.6.Thank you for your hard work and dedication.Sincerely YoursFrankFrank J. Beninate IIIPresident, Wetland Services INC--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

informtion requesthttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012informtion requestSusan Terrebonne [skct@viscom.net]Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 8:59 PMTo:Master PlanHello,1. I would like to put on the mailing list.2. I would like to know what are the inputs being used to calculate which communities will be saved and whichones will be abandoned. [The very specific inputs, formula being used, the exact team/people responsiblefor the decision, their ties to the community and their physical location.] This is not a request for items thatwill be outcomes/placed in the plan that I would need to wait until it is released, but rather the method anddetermining factors being considered with their ratio of importance being used to create those outcomes.3. I would also like to know what are the tentative plans for the families who live in areas that are to beabandoned, specifically, monetary compensation.I would prefer those as a hard copy. I thank you in advance.Sincerely,Susan Terrebonne179 W 214th StGalliano, LA 70354.

Fw: Lower Plaquemines Parish, La Marsh Platform.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 22/16/2012Fw: Lower Plaquemines Parish, La Marsh Platform.Helen & Ken [8246buras@att.net]Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:01 AMTo:Natalie SniderIs a meeting to go over the master plan projects being planned?KenFrom: Helen & KenSent: Friday, October 21, 2011 10:32 AMTo: debbie.larson-salvatore@usace.army.mil ; jatesvich@yahoo.com ; PJ Hahn ;billynungesser@plaqueminesparish.com ; Terri Sercovich ; Buddy Pausina ; troy.loetzerich@jacobs.com ;cajun@aol.com ; savastano@bellsouth.net ; oyster1940@att.net ; john.troutman@la.gov ;district7@plaqueminesparish.com ; district8@plaqueminesparish.com ; encaladetrucking@yahoo.com ;geauxlauga@gmail.comSubject: Lower Plaquemines Parish, La Marsh Platform.Greetings,I am a 68 year native of Buras, La. I am a first hand witness to the demise of our wetlands inPlaquemines Parish, La. I come from a third generation of oyster growers in the area of Empire andBuras, La. I have lived through and witnessed the “coastal erosion” process for some 50 years. I knowwhat is was and what the present condition is. I got involved in coastal restoration after the passage ofthe Breaux Act about 20 years ago. I attended many meetings. etc.. and experienced much frustrationas I watched the restoration process flounder awash in politics, mistakes and inaptitude.It has taken 20 years to reach a point when the restoration of the barrier island chain from Sandy Pointto Grand Isle is approximately 50% complete.During those 20 years the inner marsh platform in the area between the Gulf of Mexico and thehurricane protection levee (back levee ) has totally vanished. The tidal exchange pattern has beendecreased from hours to minutes. The water bottoms which were a pattern of shallow lagoons, smallbays and deeper canals and bayous are presently settling into a flat bottom in one large bay. Theecosystem which was thriving with many specie nurseries which supported oyster, shrimp, finfish,crabs, etc. is broken.Louisiana's 2012 Master Plan includes many Mississippi River diversions designed for long termecosystem reconstruction. I love diversions but they are not the correct tool to use in this case. Riverdiversions will cause the ecosystem to change from a saltwater/brackish system to a fresh waterenvironment which is not conducive to the survival of the present fisheries in the area.I support using Mississippi River sediment dredging/pipelining and dedicated dredging to reestablishthe system of bayous and ridges which were naturally formed by river tributaries many years ago.Grand Bayou, Bayou Fontenelle/Bayou Long (now the Empire to Gulf Deep Water Channel), DryCypress Bayou, Bayou Grand De Liard and Spanish Pass were all fed by the river at one time. Rebuildingthese ridges will partially reestablish the historical tidal pattern. The next step is to rebuild areas ofsunken marsh using the river sand pipeline method. After a significant quantity of the marsh platformis built then small diversions and siphons can be used to maintain the salinity level at the properhabitat requirements.This method will restore the inner marsh platform in a period of years instead of decades.The majority of people of St. Bernard, Plaquemines and parts of Jefferson parishes do not want fresh

Fw: Lower Plaquemines Parish, La Marsh Platform.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 2 of 22/16/2012water diversions which will cause the fishery ecosystem to be changed to fresh water. This is notacceptable. The unused river sediment which is now spilling into the Gulf of Mexico can be used toquickly restore the inner marsh habitat and provide protection from storm surge. Large river diversionson the east bank of Plaquemines Parish open pathways for hurricane surge from Breton Sound to enterthe river and threaten over topping the west bank river levee. This happened for hurricanes Betsy,Camille and Katrina. The choice not to maintain the east bank levee from Bohemia to Baptiste ColletteBayou was the major factor which caused the west bank levee over topping during these storms.In order to make the correct decisions on coastal restoration all of the citizens have to be made awareof the proposed methods to accomplish this. It is the responsibility of the state to develop a means ofinforming the public. A few scattered meetings in inadequate locations do not satisfy the needs of thepeople whose lives will be directly impacted by these projects.Ken Ragas 504‐342‐2909

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/25/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 100First NameAndrewLast NameTweelAddress1209 Energy, Coast and Environment BuildingLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70803United StatesMap ItEmailatweel1@lsu.eduComments1209 Energy, Coast and Environment BuildingLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70803February 24, 2012William K. RhinehartLouisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration450 Laurel Street, Suite 1200Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801Dear Mr. Rhinehart:Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast correctly states that the dredging of canals for oiland gas exploration and pipelines “…took a toll on the landscape, weakening marshes…” (p. 20). Analyses of thisrelationship have determined that these canals and associated spoil banks have directly caused 10% of wetland loss(1) and between 9 and 72 % of indirect wetland loss (2, 3). At the lowest estimate, its contribution to land loss stillexceeds any other anthropogenic impact that has been quantified for coastal Louisiana wetlands.However, the Master Plan does not include any plan or discussion of the benefits of backfilling canals, or adding gapsto existing oil and gas spoil banks (gapping) to restore the hydrology of adjacent marshes. Of the 381 projectsconsidered for inclusion, none of them include actions to restore impacts from canal dredging or spoil placement.Public data identify over 21,000 oil and gas wells in the Louisiana Coastal zone that lie within the wetland landscape(i.e. excluding bays and ponds, 4). Of these wells, over 15,000 of them are listed as “dry and plugged” or “shut in, nofuture utility.” Although many canals provide access to more than one well, there are many canals that are no longer

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/25/2012needed that would be good candidates for hydrologic restoration. Spoil banks of active canals could also be gappedto relieve hydrologic stress on the coastal landscape while still providing access to support the oil and gas industry.Canals in Jean Lafitte National Park have been restored with good success, and at a per-acre cost ($12,000/acre, 5)well below most other projects listed in Appendix A. Benefits include direct wetland creation, hydrologic restoration ofsurrounding wetlands, increased habitat for fish and invertebrates, reduced saltwater intrusion, and surge reductionvia reduced fragmentation- all of which help meet the objectives of the Master Plan.Louisiana’s coastal wetlands have 165,000 acres of canals and spoil banks (6). This is a significant area that must beconsidered in coastal planning. Therefore, I urge the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority to include canalbackfilling and spoil bank gapping projects in the Master Plan. If the Authority excludes these projects, the projectselection appendices should show specifically why in terms of cost-per-area and benefits.Sincerely,Andrew TweelReferences1. Craig, N. J., R. E. Turner, and J. W. Day. 1979. Land loss in coastal Louisiana (USA). Environmental Management3: 133-144.2. Day, J. W., L. D. Britsch, S. R. Hawes, G. P. Shaffer, D. J. Reed, and D. Cahoon. 2000. Pattern and process ofland loss in the Mississippi Delta: a spatial and temporal analysis of wetland habitat change. Estuaries and Coasts23: 425-438.3. Turner, R. E. 1997. Wetland loss in the northern Gulf of Mexico: multiple working hypotheses. Estuaries andCoasts 20: 1-13.4. LDNR. 2007. SONRIS (Strategic Online Natural Resources System). Baton Rouge, LA. http://sonris.com5. Barataria Preserve 2010. Jean Lafitte Canal Backfilling Barataria Unit Prioritization Fact Sheet. LA Roadmap.6. Baumann, R. H., and R. E. Turner. 1990. Direct impacts of outer continental shelf activities on wetland loss in thecentral Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Geology 15: 189-198.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/22/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 69First NameFranLast NameCampbellAddress203 Plauche CourtHarahan, La 70123United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)East Jefferson Levee DistrictEmailcampbell@ejld.comCommentsCompartmentalization was in the initial Master Plan. What happened to that concept? It is low hanging fruit. It is lessexpensive than many other initiatives. If there is devastation from flooding, it might be minimized with polders dividingup the floodplain.

MACMORGANZA ACTION COALITIONFebruary 22, 2012Mr. William RhinehartOffice of Coastal Protection and RestorationPO Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804Re: Louisiana’s Draft 2012 Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastDear Mr. Rhinehart:The Morganza Action Coalition (MAC) is pleased to submit our comments for yourconsideration in response to the request for comments regarding the Draft 2012 ComprehensiveMaster Plan for a Sustainable Coast (“Master Plan”). MAC appreciates the opportunity tosubmit comments and the significant effort undertaken by the OCPR to prepare the Master Planas we remain committed to continuing to work with the State of Louisiana to ensure the longterm survival of our coastal communities.MAC is grateful that the Morganza to the Gulf hurricane protection system is included in theMaster Plan and, while initially discouraged and confused by the absence of restoration projectsin Eastern Terrebonne, MAC is encouraged by recent representations that marsh restorationprojects necessary to sustain the levee system and stop the hungry advance of the Gulf into theeastern Terrebonne/western Lafourche coastline were not intentionally omitted, and will beincorporated into, the next draft of the Master Plan. We would also like to point out that theproject maps in the plan do not depict the current alignment being included in the Morganza tothe Gulf Post Authorization Change report. This alignment includes the extension of theMorganza levee system from western Houma to Gibson.Terrebonne Parish is home to approximately 112,000 residents and, along with Lafourche Parish,it is the epicenter for businesses serving our Nation’s oil and gas industry. The Houma-Terrebonne region is one of the fastest growing metropolitan regions in the State with one of theregion’s lowest unemployment rates. Unfortunately, the region also suffers from the highestcoastal land loss rates in the world which poses a significant risk to the future of our localcommunities. Without a long term comprehensive approach to coastal restoration and hurricaneprotection, Terrebonne and Lafourche Parish will lose this economic vitality as well as a richcultural heritage that runs deep within the fabric of our communities. Without a long termcomprehensive approach to coastal restoration, the hundreds of miles of pipelines conveying oiland gas to the rest of the North American Continent will become the greatest liability that thisP.O. BOX 2601HOUMA, LOUISIANA 70361MORGANZA ACTION COALITION IS A 501(C)(4) CORPORATION. DONATIONS ARE NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

Mr. William RhinehartFebruary 23, 2012Page 2state has ever experienced because they will rise in the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico andbecome an explosive minefield.While the State has included Morganza to the Gulf (MTG) hurricane protection project as asignificant project in the Master Plan at $4 billion, we are concerned that the Plan does notinclude more extensive coastal restoration projects, such as marsh creation, around the footprintof Morganza in order to provide supplemental protection to the levee system. By implementingmarsh creation projects in front of the levees, it will reduce the amount of armoring needed forthe levee system, reduce the tidal impacts to the levees and ultimately reduce the overall cost tobuild and maintain the levee system. The levees alone will likely not survive the forces of theGulf of Mexico unless we armor them with additional restoration features.MAC fully supports the comments previously submitted by Terrebonne Parish President MichelClaudet in his letter dated January 24, 2012, in which the Parish identifies a plan that balanceshurricane protection and coastal restoration. It is critical that the State seriously consider theParish’s plan as it develops the final Master Plan. Specifically, MAC supports marsh creationprojects on the eastern portion of the levee system reaches H, I, J, K and L of the MTG projectand the numerous projects that are being implemented through the Parish’s Coastal ZoneManagement programs. MAC recommends that the plan be universally inclusive of all coastalrestoration programs sponsored by state, federal and privately sponsored agencies for which theParish qualifies and becomes eligible.In addition, it should be recognized that Terrebonne Parish is at a serious disadvantange whenevaluating restoration projects since the distance from major sediment resources, such as theMississippi River, the Atchafalaya River and Ship Shoal is significant. As such, is critical thatthe Master Plan evaluate marsh creation projects that use sediment materials inside the systemand not restrict the suite of projects to those that use materials outside the system. The costdifferences between projects using the materials inside the system versus materials outside thesystem are substantial. Based on marsh creation projects previously constructed by publicagencies, including CWPPRA projects, it is estimated that it costs $50K/acre to use sedimentsinside the system versus a range of $100K-$400K/acre for using sediments outside the system.Therefore, the Master Plan analysis of restoration projects using materials outside the systemresults in a much higher cost, thereby eliminating much needed and practical restoration projects.Recognizing that there are limitations in the scientific modeling applied to the Master Plan, it isimperative that projects be modeled concurrently to determine synergistic benefits of marshcreation and levee protection. In addition, the Master Plan’s restoration analysis is based onscience and modeling; however, this analysis does not take into account the location of homes,businesses, critical infrastructure and communities. According to page 49 of the Master Plan, thedecision driver used to assess projects’ performance was based on “how well our projects buildor maintain land.” Furthermore, the Master Plan “used a project’s ability to build or maintainland, along with cost, to evaluate the project’s effectiveness.” This guiding principal foranalyzing restoration projects is severely flawed as it does not take into account the beneficialeffects of wetland restoration projects in protecting the people and the communities. Building

Mr. William RhinehartFebruary 23, 2012Page 3wetlands for the sake of building wetlands should not be the guiding principal of the MasterPlan. It is our opinion that wetland restoration that protects critical infrastructure, such as levees,existing oil and gas pipelines and facilities, and communities, should be given greater weight inthe analysis.Once again, MAC appreciates the effort of OCPR and the opportunity to submit comments. Werespectfully request that you take these comments into serious consideration as you work tofinalize the 2012 Master Plan. Please contact me at (985) 580-2265 if you have any questions orwould like to discuss in more detail.MAC looks forward to working with you to develop a comprehensive restoration and protectionsystem that protects our coast, our people, and our communities.Sincerely,Sharon BergeronPresidentMorganza Action Coalitioncc:Garret Graves, Director for Coastal Activities, Office of the GovernorLA Senator Bret Allain IILA Senator Norby ChabertLA Senator Gary SmithLA Representative Gordon DoveLA Representative Jerry “Truck” GisclairLA Representative Joe HarrisonLA Representative Dee RichardLA Representative Lenar WhitneyMichel Claudet, Terrebonne Parish PresidentCharlotte Randolph, Lafourche Parish President

Executive CommitteeVic BlanchardPresidentPlaquemine, LouisianaGordon L. WoganVice PresidentBaton Rouge, LouisianaDenis MurrellSecretary-TreasurerBayou Goula, LouisianaTimothy J. AllenHouma, LouisianaN. Buckner Barkley, Jr.Marrero, LouisianaAllan B. EnsmingerDeRidder, LouisianaRobert J. KinlerNew Orleans, LouisianaDavid M. RichardLake Charles, LouisianaRudy C. SparksPatterson, LouisianaGeorge A. StrainNew Orleans, Louisiana8982 Darby AvenueBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70806Telephone: (225) 927-5619Fax No.: (225) 928-7339Email: bayouboo@aol.comFebruary 23, 2012Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityc/o Karim BelhadjaliP. O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027Re: LLA Comments on 2012 Master PlanPaul D. FreyExecutive DirectorAsst. Secy./Asst. TreasurerM. Taylor Darden, General CounselKevin Hayes, Legislative CounselVia Email & Regular MailJames H. TrewinPlano, TexasDirectorsMerleen BurdinLafayette, LouisianaDavid CagnolattiBaton Rouge, LouisianaJ. Warren DoyleNew Orleans, LouisianaJimmy Ewing, Jr.Bayou Goula, LouisianaMarietta GreeneMetairie, LouisianaJim HooperLuling, LouisianaWilliam L. Johnson, Jr.Houston, TexasDurwood KellerBaton Rouge, LouisianaKenneth KnottHouston, TXGregory C. LierHarvey, LouisianaRandall J. MoertleLockport, LouisianaClaude V. Perrier, IIIHouston, TexasPhil PrechtHouma, LouisianaWilliam B. RudolfMetairie, LouisianaJohn F. SchneiderPonchatoula, LouisianaCyrus TheriotDulac, LouisianaDirectors EmeritusHugh C. BrownCharles Leblanc, Jr.L. P. LeBourgeois, Jr.Dear Mr. Belhadjali:The Louisiana Landowners Association (LLA) represents hundreds of private propertyowners who own and manage over two million acres in coastal Louisiana stretching fromBiloxi Marsh to Sabine Lake. The LLA commends the Master Plan Delivery Team forassembling a comprehensive and thought-provoking Plan that balances both protection andrestoration of our coastal resources. We are committed to a sustainable coast and offer thefollowing comments with that goal in mind.LANDOWNER INVOLVEMENTThe Plan acknowledges that 80% of coastal LA is privately owned and that the importanceof cooperating with landowners is paramount to achieving success. With that in mind, LLAsuggests adding language that clearly spells this out. Some examples follow below:• Expropriation of private property will only be considered as a last resort.Acquisition of easements will be the primary method of achieving access to privateholdings but obtaining fee title from willing sellers can also be an option.• The landowner community must continually be involved in the Master Plan processand kept abreast of any proposed changes being considered, particularly in regard tolaws and regulations including mitigation requirements. It cannot be stressedenough that communication early and often will be key to the success of the Plan.• With the above cooperation in mind and to facilitate such dialogue, LLA suggeststhe State form a Landowner Focus Group which we would be willing to coordinate.POLICY/PROGRAMSWe note that the Plan’s framework is centered around “Adaptive ManagementPrinciples” and with that in mind, LLA recommends language that clearly allows for

Page 2February 23, 2012inclusion of additional projects based on developing technologies and additional fundingopportunities. Along those same lines, we also recommend that beneficial use of spoil/dredgedmaterial not be constrained to only those projects identified in the Plan as other opportunities maypresent options.Additionally, we want to emphasize that local basin material be used when available. The science andmodeling that determined sediment should come from outside the basin is questionable in our viewand we would like a clarification as to how the conclusions were reached.Also, the cost estimates for project implementation appear to be high and this raises questions as tohow these costs were obtained and their degree of accuracy.The use of some new, untested models suggests that their accuracy in predicting short and long rangeoutcomes/conditions could be flawed so we emphasize the need to monitor project successes andfailures in order to improve on the modeling.LLA members have participated in and fully support the CWPRA program and the process it uses toachieve success on the ground. An explanation of how the State intends to cost-share projects offeredthrough CWPRA that are not identified in the Plan needs to be addressed. Also, LLA recommendsthat the CWPRA program be allowed to remain independent of the Plan though we acknowledge thetwo programs must interconnect in a constructive way.LLA restates our objection to the State position regarding funding of Bank Stabilization and ShorelineProtection projects along federal navigation channels. These projects should be prioritized on meritand not discarded because funding is not 100% federal.We do not agree with the statement in the draft that claims modeling suggests many of our cypressforests will be lost in the next 10-20 years. Much of what has been lost is directly attributable to theMRGO and HNC and the large majority of remaining cypress is well inland and isolated from coastalinfluences. But, we must caution that introduction of more water in some basins can have a negativeimpact on cypress forests if the water ponds and is not allowed to flow out.LLA appreciates the opportunity to work with all concerned to design and implement a workable andfunctional 2012 Coastal Master Plan.Yours truly,Paul D. FreyPaul D. FreyExecutive DirectorPDF/babcc:Louisiana Congressional DelegationSen. Gerald LongRep. Gordon Dove

Thetis CusimanoPresident337.962.6954thetiscusimano@yahoo.comLWV of LafayetteCarol DeVilleFirst Vice President318.288.8199tjccdeville@dishmail.netLWV of Caddo‐BossierSally O. DonlonSecond Vice President337.288.4396sodonlon@gmail.comLWV of LafayetteLinda “Kay” H. AndrewsTreasurer337.794.8545kayandrewslwv@yahoo.comLWV of Lake CharlesLeslie “Robin” Herrick BaudoinSecretary337.274.6904mbaudoin@suddenlink.netLWV of Lake CharlesLinda Hawkins, Director985.809.3983linjay@bellsouth.netLWV of St. TammanyAlthea M. Lawes504.365.0193LWV of New OrleansMolly Morgan, Director337.496.6362Mollymor1@att.netLWV of Lake CharlesSandra Slifer, Director985.285.3552sandraslifer@gmail.comLWV of St. TammanySandra Maria Trahan, Director504.913.5702Strahan1@tulane.eduLWV of New OrleansWanda Wright, Director318.470.5779wandaright@aol.comLWV of Caddo‐BossierLea Young, Director504.289.1791yxenos@gmail.comLWV of New OrleansLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ®OF LOUISIANA431 Karen Drive • Lafayette, LA 70503225.332.5777 • www.lwvlouisiana.comCoastal Protection and Restoration Authority, c/o Karim BelhadjaliP. O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804February 24, 2012 (and e‐mailed February 24 to masterplan@la.govRE: Draft Comprehensive Master Plan for Coastal Restoration and Protection, 2012The League of Women Voters of Louisiana is a non‐partisan organization which believesin public participation in government. The League has membership in Shreveport,Lafayette, Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, St. Tammany and New Orleans.The League has long standing positions on the preservation of areas of unique ecologicalsystems, particularly the coastal wetlands and the Atchafalaya Basin, on sharedresponsibility for management of natural resources by all levels of government fornatural resource protection and management decisions, encouragement of regional,interregional and/or international cooperation when appropriate, procedures formitigation of adverse impacts, and special consideration for the protection of areas ofcritical environmental concern, natural hazards, historical importance, and aestheticvalue. The League of Women Voters also supports measures to reduce pollution in orderto protect surface water, groundwater and drinking water. The League of Women Votersof New Orleans has long supported coastal restoration and protection.The plan includes comprehensive criteria for project evaluation, provides readablerationales and explanations, and appears based on a balanced, broad range ofappropriate areas of expertise and perspectives. A number of public comments havealready been taken through holding civic group and regional public meetings. Therestoration of the ecosystem affected by the creation of the Mississippi River Gulf Outletis included in the projects.While the plan appears to meet the language of Act 8 of 2005 we ask that more “teeth”be placed into the master plan. Modeling, use of a systems approach, consideration andbalance of goals and cost of each suggested project appear insufficient. The plan shouldalso include requirements or stricter requirements in monitoring and regulations toprevent further environmental abuse of the wetlands, including the projects themselvesthat involve construction in areas at risk for coastal storm surge and inland flooding. Wesuggest including the types of ordinances and legislation needed for implementation ofthe plan, a time framework, a plan for actual coordination, and clarification ofresponsibility among the many agencies within and outside of the state level. Projectsand continued planning, regardless of which agency or private contractor is in charge,should be handled in the open, with public access.The Leag ue o f Wo m en Vo ter s o f o Luis ian a . . . Wher e Han ds o n Wo r kLeads to Civic Im pr o vem en t.

‐2‐ League of Women Voters of Louisiana, Feb. 24, 2012In the proposed plan neither the role of the leadership nor the relationship among the agencies to achieve “onesingle clearinghouse” under the CPRA is stated in sufficient depth. The responsibility and role of the federal,state, and local governments are not clearly shown.It seems the present splitting of responsibilities among agencies may add more complexity, conflict of issues,and delay to decisions. Does the DOTD commit itself to coastal restoration, given its other charges? Will it bewilling to fund the expertise needed to meld hurricane protection (levees) with the coastal projects and to addsufficient staff? Should all the related issues be in one agency to adequately fund and cooperate in order tobest meet objectives?Additionally, public fiscal oversight above and beyond the CPRA for completion, meeting of standards, and totalcost of projects implemented should be provided, perhaps through the scrutiny of the State Inspector General’sOffice. We would also like to see a price in real dollars, rather than today’s dollars, through an estimated costwith inflation factors figured in, for either the next 50 years or a lesser period of time, in order to more closelyreflect the cost of implementation. In general we would like to see a greater emphasis on non‐structuralmeasures.The League of Women Voters of Louisiana appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. Weknow our comments will be reviewed and considered.Respectfully submitted,Thetis CusimanoPresidentLeague of Women Voters of LouisianaThe Leag ue o f Wo m en Vo ter s o f o Luis ian a . . . Wher e Han ds o n Wo r kLeads to Civic Im pr o vem en t.

SLFPA Overview Presentationhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012SLFPA Overview PresentationJM Drake [jmdrake@cox.net]Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:49 AMTo:Master PlanI recently gave an overview presentation of the Southeast Louisiana FloodProtection Authority (SLFPA) at the Joint Engineering Society Conferenceheld in Lafayette LA Jan 19-20, 2011. I am attaching a link the presentationwhich I would like to make available for public outreach. I am available togive this presentation to any professional or community group who might beinterested and this material is available for use by anyone working in the LAMaster Planning process. There are speakers notes associated with eachslide in the edit mode. My wife and I attended the LA Master Plan publicmeeting held at UNO in New Orleans, Jan 23 and who like to express ourappreciation for all the great efforts being made to make Louisiana a saferand more secure place to live.Link to SLFPA Overview PresentationJ.M.___________________________J. Madison Drake, PE, CSP CQE F.NSPELouisiana Engineering SocietyNational Society of Professional EngineersOffice: (504) 734-4236Cell: (504) 669-3370

COAST BUILDERS COALITION ‐ 2012 Coast Master Plan CommentsRepresenting the interests of contractors and consultants active in coastal restoration and hurricaneprotection in Louisiana, the Coast Builders Coalition applauds the State of Louisiana for theadvancements made in the master planning efforts reflected in the 2012 Master Plan. The 2012 MasterPlan moves the State of Louisiana closer to realizing a sustainable coast.The evaluation of hundreds of candidate projects was a tremendous task and an importantadvancement for the plan. This is a critical step to getting projects in the ground. It also helpsindividuals and communities visualize the future restoration and protection for their area.There are also many beneficial aspects to suggesting a planning timeline (50 years) and system cost ($50billion). This plan represents the most detailed look to date on the time and resources required toachieve sustainability.Understanding the 2012 Coastal Master Plan is both an important planning tool, but also an importantdocument to communicate Louisiana’s policies and priorities, the Coast Builders Coalition offers thefollowing comments below as suggested improvements to the Master Plan:1. The plan provides detailed insight into a future without action scenario and a scenario wherethe coast receives $50 billion over the next 50 years. What the plan does not provide is a sensefor much in between. While the analysis in the plan is an important advancement, the planneeds to highlight the lack of analysis detailing the time sensitive nature of many of the projectsand the real benefits to executing projects in the near‐term. The plan needs to highlight thatthe coast and coastal communities will benefit if projects are executed sooner rather than later.While there are obstacles to a quick implementation, the plan should highlight a quickerimplementation would have significant benefits. It is suggested on page 38 the plan should havea section that talks about the important elements and analysis not included and discuss whatwill possibly be added in the 2017 plan.2. On page 40, the 50 year planning horizon is discussed. This plan should make clear this is notthe optimum horizon for sustaining the coast. There would be tremendous benefits to the coastif the plan could be implemented faster. It appears the reason 50 years was chosen is duemainly to funding and permitting constraints. If funding and permits were available, the coastalindustry could implement the plan in a much shorter time period than 50 years. This should behighlighted in the plan.3. Pg. 46, Framework Development Team – The Coast Builder’s Coalition is requesting to be part ofthe FDT moving forward.4. On page 86, the budget section needs to be more robust in order to effectively communicatethe critical piece this plays in the plan. In order to fund $50 billion in projects over the next 50years, the budget relies on tremendous increases in local, state and federal funding in additionto money from the 2010 oil spill. The third bullet on page 86 gives the impression much of the

necessary funding will come from existing programs. We do not see how dedicated fundingstreams will get the state close to $50 billion over 50 years. Also, the low funding scenario of$20 billion needs to be put in the context of its impact on the overall plan. If the state only has$20 billion over the next 50 years, the suggested plan would be decimated, protection levelswould fall dramatically and Louisiana would continue to experience high levels of land loss.5. Pg. 88, Issues Not Addressed in Our Analysis – Accounting for storm erosion is a crucial elementin coastal engineering design and is standard practice. This is usually done by selecting a returnfrequency that has reasonable probability with respect to design life. The resulting erosionwhich is expected to occur during that single event or multiple events of less intensity can thenbe divided by the number of years in the project life and added to the background erosion rates.This was done for the Barrier Island analyses in the LCA Study and accounted for in both projectbenefits and costs. Applying these methods would result in more conservative cost/benefitratios.6. On page 89, we like the state’s commitment to additional analysis highlighting the jobs createdby restoration and protection projects. This industry will be an important part of the stateworkforce for more than 50 years. Working with the private sector throughout theimplementation of the coastal plan will allow for greater economic development opportunities.7. Pp. 102 & 103, Land Building Experiments – Analysis adequately illustrates that sedimentdiversions will be needed to maximize long‐term land building. While the planning toolevaluates effects among projects as additive for valid reasons cited in the assumptions, this is anarea where additional analysis and research on the effects of diversion interactions with respectto the Lower Mississippi River system will be key. For example historic sub‐delta switching hasbeen well documented and was naturally driven by hydraulic efficiency, sediment loads, andregressive and transgressive phases of the life cycle. Mimicking these processes over time on asystem‐wide basis by coordinating diversion designs and operational schemes with soundengineering will be a key challenge.8. On page 107, policy level decision points that should be added are:‐ The plan assumes a 50 year implementation period and nothing quicker‐ The plan assumes delays due to funding and permitting (Appendix G). If money and permitswere available, this plan could be implemented in less than 20 years.‐ The plan suggests about $32 billion of the $50 billion in projects will be implemented in thefirst 20 years. This should be highlighted as a key goal.9. Pg. 108, Decision Points – Should the Lake Pontchartrain Barrier and/or realignment of theMississippi River be included in the plan in the future, this would consume a lot of the plan’sfunding and would seem to cause some significant shifts is the plan’s projects. While weappreciate the desire by some to have the master plan changed as new data and analysis occur,

we believe five year intervals for reworking the Master Plan are generally appropriate and allowfor greater planning and implementation efficiencies.10. On page 128‐130, we applaud the figures showing the increased levels of protection from theplan. They demonstrate the funding of this plan will provide a good return on investment.11. Pg. 68/Pg. A‐40 (Appendix A), Engineering and Construction Management Costs – Recommendusing a fee curve to estimate engineering costs such as one developed by the American Societyof Civil Engineers. A flat 10% for projects with construction values of up to $500M is high inmost cases. Design fees for jobs over $5M in construction value generally level out at around 6or 7% even for complex jobs. This could reduce cost estimates significantly. The 5% estimateused for construction management fee is more in line for larger jobs but it is still recommendedto use a fee curve as this % generally increases for smaller and more complex jobs.12. Pg. 95/ Appendix B pp. 28 & 29/ Appendix E pp. 41 & 42, Funding – Results discussion points outthat at lower funding levels, risk reduction is more sensitive and at higher funding levels, landbuilding ability is more sensitive (see analysis provided below developed using data from Figures10 & 11 in Appendix E). Therefore, we recommend the plan consider building in shifts of the50/50 split both in risk reduction/land building ratio and the near term/long term ratio into theadaptive management plan accordingly.

Figure 1: Risk Reduction (Top) & Land Building (Bottom) Differences vs. Funding Levels13. Pg. 113, Figure 5.1/pg. 70, Appendix E – As stated, the planning tool is robust and exhaustive. Itdoes a great job at statistically capturing all factors in arriving at a viable and realistic draft planthat maximizes risk reduction and land building on a coast‐wide scale. We recommend furthersummarizing the reasons for plan exclusions on a planning unit and project by project basis. Werecognize that this will be arduous, however local non‐scientific oriented professionals, officialsand citizens who operate on these planning levels will have difficulty understanding projectdecision absent additional explanations. We feel that a project by project breakdown would goa long way in communicating results, attracting constructive feedback, and fostering long‐termworking relationships.14. Pg.24, Appendix E – Tableau Results Visualizer – Could this tool be used in workshops on thelocal level for stakeholders to make suggestions and become and interactive partner?15. Pp. 43, 64, & 65, Appendix E – Near Term vs. Long Term Risk Reduction – Results from Figure 12show that changing the relative balance between near‐term and long‐term risk reductionbenefits does not change the results significantly. If this is so, how were period ofimplementation for risk reduction projects listed in Table 13 selected? Why does this table list 3periods and the main report list only 2?16. The project costs in the plan are present value costs. Even modest inflation over the next 50years could have a significant impact on project costs and when inserted into the prioritizationtool, but could result in varied project priorities. The plan should make note of the uncertaintyof future inflationary pressures as a risk to the current analysis.17. Related to project costs, the plan should highlight the opportunity to drive down project costs infuture years. Hopefully, innovation can offset inflationary pressures. A consistent commitment

to the state’s coastal program will allow for private sector innovation, allowing the state to domore with less. The Master Plan should highlight the importance of innovation and reflect astate commitment to an initiative that brings together government, academia and the privatesector to seek innovative means and methods to sustain the Louisiana Coast.

Melanie SaucierFrom:Joan&Bill Herke Sent:Friday, February 17, 2012 10:51 AMTo:Master PlanSubject: Draft Master Plan dated January 2012Attachments:Morganza -4109.pdfFirst, I congratulate you on drafting a plan based primarily on science rather than politics. It is generally a good plan,and I approve it as a good start toward one that will improve over time. However, I am concerned that it may adverselyaffect Louisiana’s saltwater fisheries. It will move that fishery Gulfward, but that is not my concern. That is a necessaryprice to pay for stopping our marsh loss. What does concern me is the effect it may have on fisheries production.The plan appears to include the Morganza to the Gulf project planned by the Corps of Engineers. I believe that project isguaranteed to harm saltwater fisheries both above and below the levee. I know the proposed levee follows existingroads, levees, etc. for about 75% of its alignment. The remainder of the alignment cuts across marsh not affected bysuch physical obstructions. This unobstructed area has allowed significant ingress and egress by fisheries organisms toand from the area that will be landward of the levee. The levee with its few associated water control structures willdrastically reduce stocking of the thousands of acres landward of the levee by larval and juvenile fisheriesorganisms. Please see the attached summary of some of the studies we have done regarding ingress and egress offishes and crustaceans through water control structures. The take‐home conclusion from these studies is that: over 100species immigrate and emigrate between the Gulf and the marsh nursery; there is no time of the year when severalimportant species will not have to pass in or out through the structures; water control structures inhibit immigration andemigration, and the more they restrict water movement, the more they inhibit immigration and emigration; and there isno part of the water column that can be closed off without hindering organism movement.. (The attachment gives onlysummaries of the studies: hard copies of the complete peer reviewed published studies will be sent on request.) I knowthere is much support for the proposed alignment by people in Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes, and they certainlydeserve protection. But I believe an alignment could be found that would give equal, or better, protection and be lessharmful to fisheries. I hope you will find one in time for it to be included in the 2017 Master Plan.I have similar concerns regarding the numerous hydrologic restoration structures proposed in the Draft Plan. I think thestructures are necessary , but they must not seriously harm the areas they control as a nursery for saltwater fishes andcrustaceans. But how to do this gets into “The devil is in the details.” The structures should allow the maximum waterflow possible without seriously interfering with hydrological restoration; they should allow organism movement at allwater levels; and they should allow movement both day and night every day unless the structures must be closedagainst tidal storm surge. Also, do not fall victim to the misconception that tidal fresh marshes do not serve as anursery for saltwater fishes and crustaceans. My group, and others, have taken them in significant numbers inoligohaline to totally fresh water. For example, we have taken menhaden miles above the saltwater/freshwater line.(Annual Louisiana landings of menhaden are about a billion pounds, and menhaden are among the most important sportfish prey.) In my dissertation research I took numerous Atlantic croaker, spot, bay anchovies, and brown shrimp insalinities of one part per thousand. (Full sea strength is about 35 parts per thousand. None of my sample sites hadsalinities less than one part per thousand.)‐‐‐‐Please let me know if I can be of assistance in working out these details.Operation of the structures should not be controlled by local authorities, who may be under too much pressure to keepthe structures closed more often than they need to be.William H. Herke, PhD555 Staring LaneBaton Rouge, LA 70810Certified Fisheries Scientist, American Fisheries Society, and1

Fellow, American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists2

February 24, 2012Coastal Protection & Restoration AuthorityPO Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804Re: Comments – CPRA’s Draft 2012 Coastal Master PlanThe Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation (LFBF) appreciates this opportunity to commenton the “Draft” Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. We commend theCPRA for its efforts in developing the Plan and understand the complexity and urgency for thisundertaking. We also appreciate the concerns from those who could be negatively impacted bycertain projects or the lack of, without a thorough review and understanding from the CPRA forthese concerns.LFBF is a statewide voluntary organization of farm families and individuals interestedand involved in the agricultural economy. Many of our member families live, work and farm inour coastal parishes, which gives us a vested interest in how our coastal resources are managed,protected and sustained.We believe it is important for the CPRA to understand and take into consideration thetremendous economic value of agriculture and fisheries in our coastal parishes, when makingdecisions on projects. To reflect this value, we recommend that the CPRA review and include asa reference to the Plan, the latest publication of the LSU AgCenter’s Louisiana Summary –Agriculture and Natural Resources (http://www.lsuagcenter.com/agsummary/home).Thispublication provides a concise breakdown of commodity interest and economic value by parish.Agricultural interest must be taken into consideration before projects are implemented. The Planshould include agriculture in the decision making process.With continued respect to the Plan, we offer the following suggestions for considerationby the CPRA, as expressed by our coastal parish members and residents.

Southwest Coast;Cameron Parish- Cameron Parish has three channels (Sabine River, Calcasieu Ship Channel,Mermentau River Cut) that introduce high salinities during storm events. Thesechannels need to be rocked to their authorized widths and, where feasible,hydrologically disconnected from surrounding wetlands to prevent further saltwaterintrusion and to stop further erosion of channel shorelines.- Projects providing shoreline protection to deter storm surges and wave energy shouldincorporate breakwaters with sand nourishment along the coastline.- Levees along the Gulf Intracoastal Water Way (GIWW) are not viewed as beneficialto hurricane protection in the parish. However, projects to elevate LouisianaHighways 82 and 27 would be beneficial to hurricane protection.- Beneficial use projects that pump sediment and dredge material into open watermarshes are essential for restoration of these areas.- Projects to restore historic chenier ridges would result in deterring the impact of waveenergy along the coast.Vermilion Parish- Beneficial use projects for dredged materials are needed to sustain and re-build spoilbank formations.- Projects that provide freshwater infusion into the Mermentau Basin are needed tosustain agricultural producing lands and coastal vegetated marshes.- Projects addressing channel breaches in order to stop tidal flow from entering theMermentau Basin. Immediate action should be taken to halt saltwater intrusioncoming into the basin from tidal breaches and/or when tidal action circumvents thesaltwater barrier structures such as the Leland Bowman Locks from LouisianaHighway 333 west to the existing levee on the GIWW.- Moving the Tom’s Bayou Control Structure project from the 2 nd implementationperiod to the 1 st implementation period of the Plan.- Continuity in the construction of the Iberia/Vermilion upland protection levee.- Bank stabilization for Freshwater Bayou which is essential for agriculture productionand marsh restoration.- Restoration of East and West Coteau Bay reefs to deter wave energy and saltwaterintrusion.Central Coast;Iberia Parish- Plan should expand scope of projects for protection and restoration of Marsh Island.- Project to fortify the southern levee of the GIWW. The GIWW should be utilized tomove freshwater from the Atchafalaya River to address breaches, that if leftunattended will only increase saltwater intrusion.

St. Martin Parish- Beneficial use of sediment to restore marshes, prevent saltwater intrusion, andpreserve the eco-system of the Atchafalaya Basin.Southeast Coast;Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard Parishes- Projects in these areas in particular large-scale river diversions must take into accountthe impact such activities will have on area fisheries, including oyster farmers,shrimpers, crabbers, fin fishermen, seafood dealers and seafood processors. Theimplementation of large-scale diversions in these areas would severely diminishhabitat for raising oysters. It would result in water quality issues that would forceoyster farms to move farther off-shore into open exposed waters which would bedevastating to the oyster industry. Certain amounts of river diversions are needed toaddress the needs of our marshes and wetlands, but not to the extent that destroysexisting eco-systems beneficial to oyster production. Efficient use of water andsediment is essential for diversions to be effective and non-intrusive.- The Plan should provide specifics on how much displacement in these fisheries eachproject will result in and provide mitigation programs that include relocation, buyouts, retraining, and recapitalizing of those affected.In closing, we recommend that the comprehensive coastal plan include projectevaluations that take into account the threat of loss of irrigation water resources (bothsurface and groundwater) essential to agriculture; the beneficial use of dredged materialfor marsh and wetland restoration; managing levees for multi uses, in particular movingfreshwater and sediment to areas that will be positively impacted; freshwater diversionsimpact on oyster farms and other fisheries; and consideration for individuals andcommunities negatively impacted. Furthermore, we recommend that once plan isfinalized and authorized for implementation that the CPRA move forward with projectimplementations. We realize that this is indeed a robust undertaking but one that must beactively and judiciously pursued. We again stress the importance of agriculture in ourcoastal areas and request that agricultural interests as it pertains to coastal parisheconomies and the growing need for food and fiber important to all citizens be includedin the long-term comprehensive plan and project priorities.LFBF looks forward to working with the CPRA in advancing the Master Plan.Sincerely,Ronnie AndersonLFBF President

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityc/o Karim BelhadjaliP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027February 24, 2012Re: Sierra Club Delta (Louisiana) Comments on the 2012 Draft, Louisiana's ComprehensiveMaster Plan for a Sustainable Coast.Dear Mr. Belhadjali,We have reviewed Louisiana's 2012 Draft Coastal Master Plan and we support the scientificreview and independence outlined in the Plan. The use of science to guide the outcome is asignificant change from earlier plans. This must be continued for each version of the MasterPlan. We also support the emphasis of non-structural measures included in the Master Plan.Sierra Club Delta Chapter priority concerns with the Plan as presented are as follows:Expand the Coastal Zone Boundary:"The Louisiana Legislature should consider an updated inland boundary for the coastal zonebased on findings and recommendations of the 2010 Coastal Protection and RestorationAuthority document: “Defining Coastal Louisiana: A Science-based Evaluation of the Adequacyof the Inland Boundary of the Louisiana Coastal Zone.” p. 157, Main Report (MR)We support the extension of the State's Coastal Zone Management authority to include all areasthat fit the scientific definition of a coastal zone. The Atchafalaya Basin, including the floodway,must be included. A watershed approach should be incorporated in Coastal Zone Planning.Monitoring Programs:"To accommodate the dynamic nature of coastal processes, reducing flood risks and therestoration of coastal Louisiana is an evolving process. The master plan should lay thegroundwork for an effective monitoring and evaluation process that seeks to reduce scientificand engineering uncertainty, assesses the success of the plan, and supports the adaptivemanagement program." p. 41, MR"All efforts should be focused on monitoring projects and system responses to implementationof the master plan. Monitoring the physical (e.g., salinity, land, ecosystem services) and social(e.g., demographics, economics, social acceptance) response of the coastal system with orwithout project implementation will be key to determining effectiveness of the coastal program.This effort will need to take a full evaluation of the current coast wide monitoring efforts (e.g.,CRMS, NOAA, BICM, etc.) and those for individual projects (e.g., levee monitoring systems),and identify and prioritize additions needed for these monitoring efforts." G1-11Environmental Compliance:"To ensure progress in implementing projects identified in the 2012 Coastal Master Plan, anenvironmental compliance process is needed for additional studies that support projectdevelopment and future Congressional authorizations. Specifically, compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required for Federal actions such as permitting, licensingand funding and can be accomplished in several ways, as described in this document. Projectsthat have a more-than-minimal environmental impact must prepare a more detailedEnvironmental Assessment (EA) if there is uncertainty over whether or not the impacts aresignificant. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be needed if the impacts are knownto be significant (whether negative or positive)." G3-2We support a strong NEPA environmental impact study of each major project. We are opposedto the use of "Alternative Arrangements" (NEPA). These "arrangements" have been used forthe rebuilding of the $14 billion Hurricane Protection Levee around New Orleans and, in ouropinion, they have been a failure. It allows the Corps (lead agency) to "cherry pick" and decidewhat information the public is allowed to have. There is also built in discretion by theCommander of the NOD to determine the outcome of the process. The requirement of a FOIArequest has been overused by the Corps and prohibited the public from receiving information ina timely manner to use in public/written comments.Appendix G3 gives a good overview of the different environmental regulations. It is agood reference.All federal and state permitting actions for construction and other projects in the coastal zoneshould be evaluated for their effects on the integrity of coastal forests and wetlands. This wouldinclude Section 404 permits issued by USACE under the Clean Water Act and would includeCoastal Use Permits currently issued by State regulatory agencies under the federal CoastalZone Management Act. The currently ongoing permitting of residential subdivisions, waterwaybulkheads, oilfield locations, access canals and pipelines should not be allowed withoutadequate mitigation and restoration.Coastal Forests:Our observations indicate that many of Louisiana’s cypress forests may be lost in the next 10 to20 years. These forests provide unique habitats and intrinsically valuable landscapes. Theyalso help protect coastal communities from storm surge flooding. The state’s Coastal ForestConservation Initiative aims to support these and other coastal forests by acquiring land rights(fee title or conservation servitude) from willing landowners." p.158, MR. "A secondary aspect ofthe program involves funding small scale projects that enhance the forests’ sustainability. The2012 Coastal Master Plan supports the ongoing investment in and management of theprogram."p. 158, MR. We suggest that the plan include significant new resources dedicated toprotection of existing forests in the coastal zone.The replanting of cypress trees in areas, which have been freshened to provide a sustainableforest environment should be addressed in the plan. The area along the upper Mississippi RiverGulf Outlet (MRGO) historically had a significant cypress forest of over 27,000 acres. Theforest disappeared from salt-water intrusion after the 1960's dredging of the MRGO.There is a plan to introduce fresh water into the St. Bernard/Orleans Parish wetlands east of theMississippi River. The central wetlands, as well as the wetlands along Bayou Bienvenue,should be reforested with cypress once the conditions are met to sustain them. There is stronglocal support for this. The re-establishment of a forest will provide another line of defense forthese parishes. We therefore, support the Central Wetlands, North Marsh Creation, which themodeling maps show would create approximately 4,700 acres of land (001.MC.08). Whenreplanted with cypress and bottomland hardwood trees this area will provide a significant bufferto future storm surges.

The Plan’s emphasis on Ecosystem Services is an important one, and another area wherecoastal forests make a critical contribution. The definition of Ecosystem Services delivered bythe coast does not mention coastal forests, but they clearly support storm surge/waveattenuation, carbon sequestration, freshwater availability, nutrient uptake, and nature-basedtourism (p. 53).Nonstructural Measures:"Consider amending regulatory requirements, as appropriate, to ensure that goals are met infour areas: 1) local land use planning, 2) building codes, 3) flood damage preventionordinances, and 4) risk reduction project funding." p. 160, MR"Nonstructural projects are integral to the coast-wide risk reduction goal and were proposed forall of the inhabited areas of the coast. A nonstructural project consisting of floodproofing,elevation, and acquisition of residential structures and floodproofing of nonresidential structureswas proposed for each parish and community. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)does not recognize residential flood proofing when determining flood insurance premiums.." G2-3We strongly support nonstructural measures as a way to reduce the re-occurring costsof repairing flood impacted structures, especially structures outside the hurricane leveeprotection system. In many cases, nonstructural measures can replace expensive ring leveesystems. Appendix G2 provides a thorough analysis of the issues. See our additionalcomments in "Land Use Planning" section below.The Corps should consider non-structural solutions more seriously. They currently issuepermits for homes to be built on slabs in wetland areas that frequently flood. The Corps' CWA,Section 404 permitting procedures and guidance must be re-evaluated to keep new structuresout of harms way. There are several Executive Orders on flood-plain management that theCorps ignores. Their position is that if the local government recommends that a developmentshould receive a Sec. 404 permit for building in wetlands or floodplain, then that gives the Corpsthe green light to issue the permit. It is estimated that there have been over 2,000 acres ofwetlands destroyed through the New Orleans District Corps' permitting. The NOD processesover 2,000 wetland permits a year.Land Use Planning:"Land use planning determines where and how people may develop and redevelop land.Effective land use plans can direct development away from high hazard areas and helppreserve the natural functions of floodplains and other critical areas. Land use planning is anessential ingredient in reducing flood risk to future building inventory. In Louisiana,comprehensive land use plans are required of parishes and cities that have a planningcommission; however, not every coastal parish and community has developed a land use planor has an up to date plan.Land-use planning is very important in the coastal zone and should supplement nonstructuralmeasures. Since many coastal parishes do not have land use plans, we propose a MandatoryLand Use Plan (MLUP) to protect the coastal zone and prevent building of structures in high-riskareas. This MLUP should also prohibit development in wetlands. All parishes in the coastalzone, which receive coastal protection money from the State or Federal Government, must be

equired to adopt a uniform MLUP. If this became law, it would assist the State in advancing itsnon-structural programs.There is no reference in the Plan as to what patterns of land ownership change may occur onimplementation of the Plan. We would be particularly concerned if public funds are allocated torestoration of lands that remain under private ownership. Management of land use changessuch as donated or publicly funded acquisitions and servitudes should occur in an open andpublicly accountable process.We are also concerned that official Louisiana maps of coastal land ownership do not reflect thathuge areas have already become open water and should have returned to public ownership, yetthey remain in private ownership. Ownership of coastal areas that are under water should bereturned to the State. State maps should be updated to reflect the fact of submergence ofcoastal lands.Sea Level RiseThe Plan should state clearly the significant risks to the Louisiana Gulf Coast that are presentedby human caused climate change. The much increased risk of severe storms and warminginduced sea level rise should be noted so as to identify clearly that these considerations weretaken into account when drafting gulf wide responses to foreseeable events.The CPRA Technical Report, "Recommendations for anticipating sea-level rise impactson Louisiana coastal resources during project planning and design," (DeMarco et al., 2012),should be added to the appendices of the Draft Master Plan. This is important information andshould be discussed in the Master Plan.Barataria Basin:Specific Project Comments:1). Lafitte Ring Levee: (002.HP.07)We are concerned about the proposed ring levee with floodgates (project 002.HP.07), which willencircle Crown Point, Lafitte and Barataria. The footprint of the levee will encroach onto theBarataria Preserve of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. We are opposed to anyencroachment on or taking of NPS land. The State Master Plan should explore alternativedesigns for this project, which also protect these communities and avoid the National Park land.Many of the properties, to be protected, were approved through permitting by the Corps andDNR, which allowed developers to build in a known flood zone.2). Bayou Segnette Waterway:This waterway provides an avenue for flood surges to Westwego in Jefferson Parish. Afloodgate was recently built to protect that community. The National Park Service, which iscongressionally authorized to protect the Barataria Preserve of the Jean Lafitte NationalHistorical Park, had the following observations in regard to projects in the Barataria Basin:"NPS recommends that COE examine the role of its navigation waterways in thesystem’s hydrology and storm vulnerability, specifically the GIWW, the Barataria BayWaterway, and the Segnette Waterway, and consider alteration of these waterways tohelp restore a more naturally functioning hydrology, and improve ecosystem function

and storm readiness for communities in the upper basin. Specifically, we oppose thecontinued dredging of the Segnette Waterway and strongly recommend the deauthorizationof this little-used canal, and the development of an alternative navigationroute through natural water bodies. Further, we recommend that measures be taken torestore the landscape scarred by the canal or mitigate its ecological effects." (NPS,2007, page 12).3). Donaldsonville to the Gulf (DTG):We are pleased that a preferred alignment of the Corps' Donaldsonville to the Gulf project,which would have followed the GIWW across the basin, is not included in the 2012 version ofthe Master Plan. If constructed, this hurricane barrier would have had a devastating effect onthe productivity of the Basin further impeding sheet flow. It would also have impacted theingress and egress of fisheries by changing the hydrology of the Basin and increasing the waterexchange velocity through the gated levee system.Sheet flow issue, Barataria Basin:The Barataria Basin should undergo a complete hydrologic analysis including proposedstructural projects and the effects of structures already built in the basin. The GIWW, therailroad embankment and U.S. highway 90 all impede the sheet flow of surface water frommoving south. Sheet flow is an important natural process, which helps nourish the wetlandsecosystems. Any man-made impediment should be examined during a basin-wide studymodeling the hydrology of the Barataria basin. Elevating Highway 90 would stop theimpoundment of water and backwater flooding of communities including Kraemer andChackbay. In addition, a modification of the railroad embankment, which parallels Highway 90to allow rainwater to flow south, would alleviate the backwater flooding in the upper part of theBasin. The plan for freshwater diversions in the upper basin will not work unless the water willflow south unimpeded.Terrebonne Basin:4). Morganza to the Gulf (MTG):We are opposed to the MTG levee alignment included in the Plan, which will impound 70,000acres (109 sq. mi.) of wetlands. The impoundment of wetlands cuts off water movement alongwith suspended sediment that could nourish and sustain the marsh. This Project should bemodeled to determine whether the proposed and existing levees would cause long-termdegradation of wetlands in Terrebonne Parish. We suggest that the Plan include an alignmentproposed by the Multiple Lines of Defense document (Lopez et al., 2008). The MLODalignment excludes most of the wetlands from impoundment.Flood protection levees should be limited to protecting currently developed areas. The corpsstates, in its programmatic EIS for Morganza-to-the-Gulf, "the 70,000+ acres of wetlands,impounded by the project, would be "potentially developable"". This shows the problem inplacing wetlands behind a hurricane levee system. The enticement to develop to too great forlocal politicians to oppose. Wetlands should not be impounded. The state must restrict induceddevelopment by buying conservation easments in all areas that become "potentiallydevelopable" to control land use. Again, there is a need for a comprehensive Coastal Land UsePlan mandated for all coastal Parishes.Basin-specific hydrologic modeling:The inevitable interaction of levees, floodgates, barriers, weirs, and leaky levees with diversionsis not addressed. Habitat goals for a sustainable coast should be proposed so that the naturalfunction of the estuary is supported. Many of the "leaky levees" proposed have not been

adequately modeled to determine the adverse impacts to commercial fisheries and wetlandsustainability. We understand from discussions with the staff that there has not been basinspecific hydrologic modeling.Lake Pontchartrain Basin:5). Central Wetlands diversion and swamp rebuilding:This is an important project, which will protect eastern New Orleans and reforest an areadenuded by the Corps' MRGO project that has recently been deauthorized. We request that theBayou Bienvenue triangle be included as part of any freshwater/sediment reintroduction into theCentral Wetlands.We thank the LACPRA for generating a good draft plan and we appreciate the opportunity tocomment on the features of the plan. If our organization can be of further assistance, pleasecontact us.Sincerely,Haywood Martin, ChairSierra Club Delta Chapterhrmartin2sc@gmail.comP.O. Box 52503Lafayette, Louisiana 70505References:DeMarco, K., J. Mouton and J.W. Pahl, 2012. Recommendations for anticipating sea-level riseimpacts on Louisiana coastal resources during project planning and design. Technical reportdated Jan. 24, 2012, by the Louisiana Applied Coastal Engineering & Science (LACES)Division, LACPRA.GRN et al., 2011. Letter to Gulf Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, EPA on PolicyConsiderations. Signed by GRN, Sierra Club, Louisiana Audubon Council, La EnvironmentalAction Network, Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper. Letter dated, May 6, 2011, to EPAAdministrator Lisa Jackson.Lopez, J. et al, 2008. Comprehensive Recommendations Supporting the Use of the MultipleLines of Defense Strategy to Sustain Coastal Louisiana, 2008 Report (Version I). 220 pp. +Appendices.NPS, 2007. National Park Service Vision Statement, dated Oct. 25, 2007, in response to theLACPRA draft Report. Letter from Arthur Frederick, NPS Acting Regional Director, SE RegionalOffice to Col. Alvin B. Lee, USACE, NOD.Penland, S., L. Wayne, L. D. Britsch, S. J. Williams, A. D. Beall and V. C. Butterworth, 2001.Process Classification of Coastal Land Loss between 1932 and 1990 in the Mississippi RiverDelta Plain, Southeastern Louisiana. USGS Open-file Report 00-418, Poster.http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-418/Taylor, A. and K. Rhinehart, 2011. Funding for Federal Navigation Channel Maintenance in

Louisiana: A Case for Reform. Navigation Channel Policy Discussion: Funding for FederalNavigation Channel Maintenance in Louisiana, LACPRA Report, June 15, 2011.http://www.lacpra.org/assets/docs/June%20CPRA/Navigation%20Channel%20White%20Paper_6%201.pdfUSACE, 2007. Memo outlining sediment criteria used pre-Katrina and post-Katrina for use inembankment material (hurricane protection levees). Gib Owen, USACE to Barry Kohl dated,August 28, 2007. Re: IER #18, Government Furnished Borrow Material.U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1994. Chapter 8, COASTAL LOUISIANA: in The Impact of FederalPrograms on Wetlands, Vol. II, Part II, The Coastal South and the Everglades. A Report toCongress by the Secretary of the InteriorMarch, 1994.http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch8.html

Fresh water diversion.........https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Fresh water diversion.........Willshoum@aol.com [Willshoum@aol.com]Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 7:31 AMTo:Master PlanDo they really under stand what will happen to the fisheries industry and the rapid growth of water hyacinths andother aquatic species. The BP spill had them open the flood gates, The Miss. river was another. The fresh waterwas a blessing and a nightmare at the same time. Fresh water kills oysters, so how do they propose to save theindustry, same with the shrimp and crabs........I think it's to late and too little for the people of lowerterrbonne..........Wills from Bourg La.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/23/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 81First NameJenniferLast NameCoulsonAddress810 Rue Dauphine, Ste. 304Metairie, LA 70005United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Orleans Audubon SocietyEmailOrleansAudubon@aol.comCommentsI am writing today on behalf of the 985 members of the Orleans Audubon Society representing Audubon members in9 coastal parishes in southeast Louisiana. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2012 Draft LouisianaComprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. We congratulate the Coastal Protection and RestorationAuthority for the Plan and for the science-driven process used to develop it. The Plan commits the state to the reintroductionof the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers into the collapsing delta with massive sediment diversions. Asthe science you outline demonstrates, such re-introductions are the only possible means of reviving the delta, and willcreate hundreds of square miles of critical habitat for the nation’s migratory birds, estuarine organisms, and deltawildlife. Without taking this step the future of the delta, its wildlife, and the people who depend upon it, is in seriousjeopardy.As residents of southeast Louisiana, we further commend the Plan for its emphasis upon a balanced approach tohurricane protection for our communities, big and small. We note the increased levels of levee and floodgateprotection for most citizens, and the revolutionary and welcome emphasis on non-structural measures in our mostvulnerable coastal areas.Unless we move toward a future of living with and adapting to natural forces such as river flooding, erosion,subsidence and sea level rise, we are doomed to continuing to repeat the mistakes of the past, to the detriment ofourselves and the magnificent delta ecosystem in which we live, work, and recreate.Going forward, we understand that the plan will be revised every five years, and the state has pledged to adopt anadaptive management framework. As we work towards project design and the 2017 plan, we urge CPRA to:1) place even greater emphasis on re-introducing the remaining flow of the river to the delta by de-coupling thenavigation system;

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/23/20122) devise ways to sustain the Bird’s Foot during the period of transition to new deltaic platforms in the mid-Breton andBarataria basins;3) explore means for even greater capture of sediment from the Atchafalaya, possibly by diversion to the easternTerrebonne basin;4) sustain through hydrologic modification, river re-introduction, and pulsed sediment delivery in flood years, ourmagnificent swamp forests in the upper Terrebonne, Barataria, and Pontchartrain basins before they are lost or areconverted to marsh;5) create incentives for landowners to:a) maintain coastal forests;b) restore forest on marginal agricultural and developed lands on natural levees and cheniers;c) improve remaining wetlands through hydrologic restoration, including back-filling canals, gapping spoil-banks,plugging canals, restoring natural wetlands waterways, and by increasing capacity through culverts in road fills;6) and protect or create vital colonial bird nesting habitat on our barrier and bay rim islands.Thank you for the opportunity to comment.Sincerely,Jennifer CoulsonPresident, Orleans Audubon Society

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.John Wear [john@johnwear.us]Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:44 AMTo:Master PlanFrom: John Wear Subject: Coastal Stabilization & RemediationMessage Body:My company Trident Environmental Services & Technologies, and methods for marshlands stabilization withhydrocarbon remediation have been used in 3highly successful deployments.Our plan is working well. We are sending proposals toCPRA, and we are ready to deploy product and serviceson a much larger scale. www.tridentworld.org/wetlandsRespectfully, John Wear, Chief Scientist/Consultant504-858-0397 or 228-314-0400--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

vermillion corp coastal restorationhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/22/2012vermillion corp coastal restorationchadhabetz@aol.com [chadhabetz@aol.com]Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:09 PMTo:Master Plan; bayou@connections-lct.comTo whom it may concern,I am Chad Habetz of Lafayette, I am president of Hunter medical a tri-state medical implant company thatsupports conservation, and all of the waterfowl programs in the country. I support these programs in the hopesthat my kids and grand kids will get to enjoy the Louisiana coast as I do now.I have had a duck lease with Vermillion Corporation for about 7 years after hunting all over the world looking forthe right place to call home. Duck hunting in Vermillion parish is some of the finest in the U.S.The year I took over the lease, I was amazed at all of the vegetation in the hard bottom marshes I had leased.The marsh had lilly pads, and widgeon grass so thick you could not walk in the ponds. the grass would chokeyour props on the boats. The water was clear and always able to navigate with plenty of water. As hunting seasonapproached the ducks that were on the ponds were in the thousands. We had resting ducks on every pond in thelease. It was truly a hunters paradise.After the hurricane, things have changed for the worse. The marsh has not a single lilly pad in it, nor any widgeongrass in it like years past. The water is just empty with no vegetation and you can just see thebottom. The duck hunting is not even close to what it was, and on any day during season, thegun blast that were heard all around the marsh at one time are few to the years before. I nolonger have ducks resting in the ponds feeding. The worst problem is the tide of the marshnow. We cant keep water in the marsh on a north wind and it does not allow us to hunt are getinto the marsh by boat, it literally goes dry. When the water does come in it is salty and kills allthe vegetation. I don't know why, but I have not seen a nutria in 4 years and very seldom seealligators, when I do, they are very small. Something has to be done to restore Vermillionparish marshes to what they were.I thought the state received federal funding for coastal restoration years ago? Where did themoney go? Why has this not been fixed. I have people from up north come hunt and wediscuss the problem, they also thought money was set aside for our coast.They ask the same question, who's pockets did it go too?If any plan is in the works , it needs to include bank line stabilization along fresh water bayou.and shoreline protection to protect our Vermillion parish marshes. We are loosing land andwildlife at a fast pace. Ducks migrate south and teach their young where to migrate. I wanttheir patterns to include the Louisiana marshes not the Texas marshes.Please take all of this into consideration when making a plan for my grandkids futureenjoyment.Thanks,Chad Habetzchadhabetz@aol.com

2/25/2012 Print Preview : Public Comment Form :…Public Comment Form : Entry # 119First NameJeffLast NameCarneyAddress212 design buildingBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70803United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Coastal Sustainability StudioEmailjcarney@lsu.eduCommentsFirst, we would like to commend the masterplan team on the tremendous effort put forth to produce the 2012 update tothe Louisiana Comprehensive Masterplan for a Sustainable Coast. The transformation that the plan has gone throughover the past five years is truly remarkable. We now have a plan that acknowledges that land subsidence, coastalerosion, and sea level rise pose a tremendous threat to our state and that we must act now. Most importantly, themasterplan provides a bold path forward using the best science and the constructive power of the Mississippi River sothat we and future generations can continue to thrive in this landscape. The plan is unambiguous about the costs ofinaction, yet clear about the trade-offs we must make as a State.Environmentally speaking the plan puts forth a bold yet clear vision for the coast. It looks far into the future, producesmultiple scenarios, based on tested and modeled variables. However, the vision put forth for Louisiana's people,communities, and regional settlement networks lacks this some rigor, breadth, and depth. We feel that in future effortsit is essential that the state consider human and economic planning with equal clarity, scientific study, design andcommitment paid to the ecological and protection issues. It is also our strong belief that including designers andplanners on the team as active participants alongside biologists, coastal scientists, and engineers will broaden theperspective of the masterplan producing an even bolder, more comprehensive vision for Coastal Louisiana.The masterplan objectives "reflect the key issues affecting people and "seek to improve flood protection for familiesand businesses...". We suggest that "Human Settlement" should be an objective of the masterplan on par with theothers. Well planned human settlement is resilient and fluid; adapting to jobs, education, transportation systems, aswell as environmental change. Planning fundamentally supports and strengthens the premise of the masterplan.When settlement is not treated as an integrated, responsive part of the ecosystem it becomes static and inflexible,dependent on equally static forms of protection.The modeling effort used to generate scenarios of future ecological conditions for the masterplan is truly remarkable,but demographic changes, job center growth, transportation planning, water management, building code, zoning, andothers human systems can be studied and modeled, designed and modified, projected and adaptively managed.These are in many ways the most powerful tools of mitigation and resiliency but we spend most of our efforts andlimited resources considering the smallest and most limited unit: the single family house. Intelligent design and…louisiana.gov/…/print-entry.php?fid=… 1/2

2/25/2012 Print Preview : Public Comment Form :…planning is essential to build the houses, communities, and regions that we will want to inhabit in 50 years.The masterplan does not adequately discuss urban and regional planning. We believe this is a missed opportunity.There is a serious disconnect between community planning and the restoration and protection community inLouisiana and this will continue to hamper efforts made by each field to cope with change. Now that the criteria forprojects has been established for protection, restoration, and land building it is essential that the masterplan find ameans to engage with regional and local planning, design, and development efforts across the state. We support thesuggested unification of planning and mitigation planning and funding efforts in a single office. This office must beengaged directly and as equal partner to the ongoing masterplanning process.We are impressed and excited about the 2012 masterplan and its potential to move Louisiana forward. We hope thatour comments are taken as enthusiastically supportive of this effort. We believe that by broadening the masterplanningprocess to actively engage the human as well as ecological and infrastructural landscapes we can build a strongregional and statewide consensus to protect and build a sustainable coast.…louisiana.gov/…/print-entry.php?fid=… 2/2

The North Lafourche Conservation,Levee & Drainage DistrictPresident:George Broussard2/24/2012ExecutiveDirector:Dwayne BourgeoisCommissioners:Ronald AdamsLonny BabinKeith BarkerGeorge BroussardTed FalgoutCory KiefLarry MarongeKenney MatherneRev Nolan Smith Sr.Mr. Karim BelhadjaliCoastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana450 Laurel Street, Suite 1200Baton Rouge, LA 70804‐4027Re: 2012 Draft Comprehensive Master PlanDear Mr. Belhadjali,The North Lafourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District stands in support ofthe CPRA 2012 Master Plan. We truly appreciate the magnitude of the development of sucha complicated and interrelated effort. We would like to thank the individuals on your teamthat both put the draft plan together and delivered it to the general public and publicofficials. We also appreciate the opportunity to provide the following comments andconcerns.Looking at this from a structural flood protection point of view, and specificallyfrom the direct mission of the NLLD, we appreciate several projects included in the plan.These include the Morganza to the Gulf (High) and Maintain Golden Meadow to LaroseHurricane Protection Systems. These items provide much needed protection from stormsurge approaching from the western side of our District.However, in the same vain, our eastern flank remains exposed with very fewprojects included in the plan that will provide us protection from storm surge approachingfrom the eastern side of our systems. We believe that elements of the Donaldsonville tothe Gulf (002.HP.06), the only structural flood protection plan under consideration thatwould have an impact on the eastern side of the Bayou Lafourche ridge, should be includedin the final plan.That being said, we do not see flood protection and coastal restoration as twoentirely separate items. We realize our charge for drainage and flood protection. But, werealize our long term success in that endeavor can only be achieved by having a viable andsustainable coastal restoration plan. We applaud the Coastal Protection and RestorationAuthority for realizing the interrelation of these two activities so much so that it is in theirvery name.As such, we support all of the restoration activities that are included in the draftplan which provide us protection on the eastern flank of the Lafourche Ridge. We alsosupport the consideration and inclusion into the final plan elements of the followingprojects:P.O. Box 230 | Raceland, LA 70394 | P 985.537.2244 | F 877.272.4021

The North Lafourche Conservation,Levee & Drainage DistrictUpper Barataria Basin Hydrologic Improvements at Highway 90Pipeline Sediment Conveyance Marsh Creation projects in the Barataria Basin (002.MC.04/.05)Des Allemandes/Bayou Lafourche & Third Delta Fresh Water Diversions (002.DI.17/ .21 & 03a.DI.01/ .08Belle Pass to Caminada Pass Barrier Island and Headland projects (002.BH.05)All Caminada / Barataria Basin Marsh Creation Projects (002.MC.07/ .08/ .04c/ .05 / .07b/ .12a)We realize that without the required seemingly infinite amount of funding, the Master Plan isnecessarily a collection of trade‐offs, and a very complex one at that. We hope that you seriouslyconsider the reccomendations of the North Lafourche Conservation Levee and Drainage District andinclude increased protection for our eastern flank into the final plan.Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and express our concerns.Sincerely,North Lafourche Levee DistrictDwayne BourgeoisExecutive DirectorP.O. Box 230 | Raceland, LA 70394 | P 985.537.2244 | F 877.272.4021

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 1 of 9February 24, 2012Louisiana Coastal Protection & Restoration Authority450 Laurel St., Suite 1200Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027Submitted via email to masterplan@la.govRe:Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast(Jan. 2012 Draft)Dear Louisiana Coastal Protection & Restoration Authority,The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is pleased to present these comments toLouisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast (Plan). The NRDC is a nonprofitnational environmental advocacy organization with more than 1.3 million members andonline activists. With offices in New York, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles,Chicago, and Beijing, our staff of nearly 400 lawyers, scientists, policy analysts and others worksto protect the environment and public health through advocacy and education.We commend the CPRA for undertaking a plan with scientific integrity and specificity,especially in regards to project costs. Clearly, swift, aggressive action must be taken to preventfurther coastal land losses, which lead to increased damage from floods and hurricanes,commercial seafood industry losses, shipping channel damages, water quality problems, andmany other impacts. Implementing projects like those included in the Plan that minimize floodrisk and maximize land building is an important step towards increasing resiliency along thecoast.We urge Louisiana, however, to make the Plan part of a larger climate change mitigation andadaptation policy in the state. Climate change mitigation and adaptation are inherentlyconnected. The level of greenhouse gas emissions released determines the severity of climatechange impacts and by consequence, the nature of adaptation measures necessary. Further,adaptation measures are best determined holistically—that is, taking into account the myriadthreats facing a region. Ideally, measures would be chosen not only for their adaptivecapabilities to increased sea level rise and land subsidence, but also to other threats such as watersupply challenges and saltwater intrusion. For instance, low impact development and waterefficiency measures can help augment and preserve water supply even in the face of shortagesdue to climate change or population growth.Accordingly, we offer the following comments as a way to strengthen the Plan itself, and also asa way for Louisiana to move forward with a more comprehensive climate change adaptation

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 2 of 9policy.A Coordinated Effort on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Would EncompassOther Coastal IssuesWe were struck by the fact that, despite being based on future environmental scenarios of sealevel rise and subsidence that account for climate change, 1 the body of the Plan fails to mentionclimate change even once. Although land loss in coastal Louisiana has been caused in part byMississippi River flood-protection levees, dredging of ship channels, oil and gas production, andindustrial facility siting, sea level rise and subsidence caused by climate change will contribute tocoastal land loss. 2 Climate change itself is not debatable; as stated by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is nowevident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespreadmelting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” 3We commend the CPRA for evaluating projects in part based on an assessment of the region’svulnerability to certain threats, including sea level rise and subsidence. 4 Adaptation planning,however, should be part of a coordinated statewide effort to both mitigate and adapt to climatechange. Louisiana is one of only 14 states that does not have a greenhouse gas mitigation plan,nor has it adopted a greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal. Efforts to move in that directionhave apparently stalled: the Climate Change Policy Commission, established in 2009 to developa state strategy for climate change, was recently dissolved having never been fully appointed orever holding a meeting. 5 Louisiana should reinstate the Commission with the purpose ofdeveloping and implementing a climate action strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions andprepare for the impacts of climate change. Certainly, local and regional activities are importantand should be commended. But without a clear directive from the executive level, there isunlikely to be sufficient action by all necessary government agencies within a state on climatechange adaptation. In the absence of action on these issues, Louisiana’s people, economy, andnatural environments will continue to be at unnecessary risk.One of the first steps should be a detailed scientific vulnerability assessment of all of Louisiana’simpacts to climate change. For instance, a complete evaluation of water-related risks wouldinclude future water availability, precipitation, drought, runoff patterns, sea level rise, saltwaterintrusion and flooding risks. It would use local data and downscaled or decision-scaledmodeling, and consider both moderate and worst-case scenarios. A thorough vulnerabilityassessment would also include an inventory of critical infrastructure at risk due to threats like1 Draft Plan at Appendix C.2 M. Dorfman and M. Mehta, NRDC, Thirsty for Answers: Preparing for the Water-related Impacts of ClimateChange in American Cities (2011), http://www.nrdc.org/water/files/thirstyforanswers.pdf.3 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S.,D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.4 Draft Plan at Appendix C.5 “Climate Change Policy Commission,” Louisiana State Legislature, accessed September 2, 2011,http://www.legis.state.la.us/boards/board_members.asp?board=903.

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 3 of 9flooding and sea level rise. 6 By examining the full suite of potential impacts, states and citiescan better assess their vulnerabilities as well as prepare for a changing climate.A more thorough vulnerability assessment and coordinated effort on climate change wouldencompass other coastal issues like water quality and water supply. Louisiana has seen awarming trend of approximately 1°F since the late 1960s. 7 Furthermore, average fallprecipitation has increased up to 30 percent in the state since 1901, and there has been anincrease in heavy precipitation events in many areas. However, spring and summer precipitationhas declined by 5 to 10 percent. 8 Paradoxically, the extent of areas experiencing moderate tosevere drought has also expanded over the past 30 years. 9 Climate models project that allseasons will experience warming with average annual temperatures projected to rise by 4.5°F to9°F by the 2080s. 10 Models generally project that Gulf Coast states like Louisiana will have lessprecipitation in the winter and spring compared to more northerly states in the region. 11These changes in precipitation and patterns of runoff will impact surface water resources and theusers and ecosystems that rely upon them. More heavy precipitation events are likely to havenegative implications not only for property and infrastructure located in vulnerable floodplainsby escalating flooding risks, but also on aquatic species by deteriorating water quality. Extremerunoff events could also lead to the overload of sewage treatment systems and result in thedischarge of untreated sewage into waterways. 12 In particular, increasing runoff of the nutrientladenMississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico could increase the size and frequency of lowoxygenor hypoxic conditions, which would impact coastal fisheries. 13 Moreover, increasingwater temperatures in response to rising air temperatures could reduce dissolved oxygen in otherwater bodies and lead to fish kills and a loss of biodiversity. 14 The Plan briefly mentionspolluted runoff and hypoxia problems in the Gulf, and how both the Plan and the Gulf HypoxiaAction Plan 2008 will address such problems, 15 but a coordinated climate change adaptationeffort would help account for future climatic variability that would lead to better choice ofprojects and tools to deal with increased water quality problems in the Gulf.A coordinated climate adaptation strategy would also ideally incorporate green buildingprinciples that address water supply challenges and increased flooding. Low impactdevelopment (LID) uses smarter city design such as permeable pavement to infiltrate rainwater6 For more recommendations, see Thirsty for Answers, note 2, at 115.7 U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), “Regional Climate Impacts: Southeast,” Global ClimateChange Impacts in the United States (2009), http://www.globalchange.gov/images/cir/pdf/southeast.pdf.8 USGCRP, note 7.9 USGCRP, note 7.10 USGCRP, note 7.11 USGCRP, note 7. Note that climate model projections are not consistent with respect to trends in total annualprecipitation across the southeastern U.S.12 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Ecological Society of America (ESA), Louisiana: State Findings fromConfronting Climate Change in the Gulf Coast Region (October 2001),http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/acfmqxsat.pdf.13 UCS and ESA, note 12.14 USGCRP, note 7.15 Draft Plan at 152.

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 4 of 9into the earth and recharge groundwater supplies, rain barrels to capture rainwater for use whereit falls, and green roofs to filter pollutants and evaporate runoff. This reduces the runoff thatcontaminates waterways, while often collecting clean water that can be used to meet our watersupply needs. 16In addition to reducing stormwater pollution and increasing water supply reliability in a regionprone to natural disasters, LID can reduce flooding and erosion associated withurban runoff, reduce the “heat island” effect from solar radiation in urban settings, and providegreen space and open land, enhancing property values. The use of LID can also reduce the costsof municipal stormwater infrastructure and decrease the frequency and severity of combinedsewer overflow events. 17Similarly, an assessment of potential water supply challenges in the region would set the stagefor an adaptation plan that would address water efficiency and water conservation options as well.There is a host of specific water conservation and efficiency measures that Louisiana shouldconsider in the context of a coordinated climate adaptation strategy, especially as the NewOrleans region continues to rebuild.For instance, water efficient landscapes are more resilient to warmer temperatures. 18 In warm,dry climates, more than half of urban water supplies can be used for landscape irrigation.Landscape design (including plant selection and groupings based on water needs and climaticconditions), installation, and maintenance can and should be water efficient. Ordinances thatensure efficient landscapes in new developments and reduce water waste in existing landscapesare among the most cost-effective ways to stretch limited water supplies. Other benefits includereduced irrigation runoff, reduced pollution into waterways, drought resistance, and less greenwaste.Especially for businesses and institutions with large turf areas, water efficient landscapes cansave significant amounts of water and money. Businesses and institutions should be encouragedand incentivized to replace turf with low-water use vegetation, and invest in innovative devicessuch as smart controllers and moisture sensors.Other cost-effective measures include switching out non-water conserving fixtures with waterconservingones, irrigation water-use efficient measures such as modest crop shifting, smartirrigation scheduling, advanced irrigation management, and efficient irrigation technology, and16 N. Garrison & K. Hobbs, NRDC, Rooftops to Rivers II: Green strategies for controlling stormwater andcombined sewer overflows (Nov. 2011), http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsii/files/rooftopstoriversII.pdf;NRDC, Water Savings Solutions: Stopping Pollution at its Source with Low Impact Development (Aug. 2009),http://www.nrdc.org/water/lid/files/flid.pdf.17 Rooftops to Rivers II, note 16; Water Savings Solutions, note 16.18 Between 1906 and 2005, global surface temperatures increased approximately 1.3°F (0.74°C) or at an average rateof 0.13°F (0.074°C) per decade. In recent decades, this rate of warming has accelerated. Over the past fifty years,the warming trend has averaged 0.23°F (0.013°C)—nearly twice the rate of warming over the past century. SeeIPCC, note 3.

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 5 of 9conservation pricing for drinking water and wastewater.Strategies such as LID and water use efficiency would be included in a comprehensive climatestrategy, as both ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change. 19 Although it is common fordifferent agencies to take the lead in designing and implementing different water-related climateadaptation strategies, a state-wide adaptation plan would help those agencies coordinate with oneanother and set the stage for a truly cooperative and coordinated effort to become more resilientto climate change’s effect. Accordingly, we urge Louisiana to build upon the vulnerabilityassessment included in the Plan for some of the threats facing Louisiana and conduct a completevulnerability assessment and adaptation plan for climate change.Environmental ScenariosWe commend the CPRA for selecting projects based on extensive scientific research and a rangeof environmental scenarios, including a moderate and less optimistic value for impacts such assea level rise, subsidence, storm intensity, river discharge, and marsh collapse. 20 We alsorecognize that climate science is constantly in flux, and that the CPRA plans to capture updatesin the literature in future updates to the Plan.However, even without taking into account the most recent literature on sea level rise, the Plan’sestimates may be too low. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimatesfor sea level rise, upon which many sea level rise studies aregrounded, may be too conservative. Indeed, observed changes in sea level rise have exceededpredictions by about 50 percent. Thus, the influential 2009 study by Vermeer and Rahmstorfestimated that by 2100, sea levels will be, on average, 1 to 1.4 meters (3.3 to 4.6 feet) higher thanthey were in 1990. 21 The study estimated the full global sea level rise range to be 0.75 to 1.9meters (2.5 to 6.2 feet). 22As other researchers put it, “the take-home point of the [Vermeer and Rahmstorf study] andindependent previous work is that it would be wise to assume that global sea-level rise couldsignificantly exceed 1 m by 2100 unless dramatic efforts are soon made to reduce globalgreenhouse gas emissions.” 23 Much deeper cuts in emissions than those being givenconsideration by the world’s leaders are “probably required to avoid the widespread largeimpacts of a 1-m sea-level rise on the East and Gulf coasts of the United States and elsewhere.” 24Indeed, the Plan acknowledges the Vermeer and Rahmstorf study, stating, “Per input from the19 See, e.g., NRDC, Water Efficiency Saves Energy: Reducing Global Warming Through Water Use Strategies(2009), http://www.nrdc.org/water/energywater.asp; Rooftops to Rivers II, note 16; Water Savings Solutions, note16.20 Draft Plan at 82-84; 97; Appendix C.21 Vermeer, M. and Rahmstorf, S., “Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature,” Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 106, 21527-21532 (2009).22 Vermeer and Rahmstorf, note 21.23 Overpeck, J.T. and Weiss, J.L, Projections of future sea level becoming more dire, Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 106, 21461–21462 (2009), http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21461.full.pdf+html.24 Overpeck and Weiss, note 23.

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 6 of 92012 Coastal Master Plan Science and Engineering Board, CPRA will also consider a SLR of0.78 meters over the next 50 years (Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009) in later modeling efforts.” 25But the Plan fails to specify when those “later modeling efforts” will take place. Given thenumber of projects that rely on the sea level rise estimates in this version of the Plan, the mostprudent approach is to include the larger sea level rise estimates in the Plan at this time. Asstated above, “it would be wise to assume” that global sea level rise could reach 0.78 meters by2060. 26 Yet currently the Plan’s “less optimistic value” for sea level rise in 2060 is only 0.45meters. 27CPRA’s own research confirms this recommendation of a more protective approach.Recognizing the Vermeer and Rahmstorf study, the LACES Division recently recommended that“SLR modeling scenarios models for state restoration projects assume a 1-meter (3.3’) MSL riseby 2100 compared to the late 1980s and should be bracketed by GSLR ranges of 0.5-1.5 meters(1.4’-4.9’) by 2100.” 28 “The report additionally recommends that these assumptions becombined with local geological and ecological processes, such as subsidence and marsh verticalaccretion, when calculating the relative elevation of coastal wetlands for project planning anddesign.” 29 Indeed, accounting for subsidence, relative sea level rise in coastal Louisiana mayexceed the global sea level rise. In some coastal states, including Louisiana, land subsidence iscontributing to rates of relative sea level rise of 9.24 mm (0.36 inches) per year. 30 Thus,accounting for the Vermeer and Rahmstorf projections of global sea level rise on the order of0.75 to 1.9 meters (2.5 to 6.2 feet) by 2100 would translate to a relative sea level rise of as muchas 1.5 to 2.7 meters (5 to 9 feet) along the most heavily subsiding areas of the Louisiana coast,such as Grand Isle on the Lafourche Delta. 31Given that CPRA’s own research through LACES recommends assuming a larger sea level risescenario than assumed in the Plan, we urge CPRA to incorporate that scenario into the Plan nowas opposed to waiting until “later modeling efforts.” At a minimum, projects themselves shouldbe designed specifically with the larger sea level rise scenario in mind.Benefits of Nonstructural MeasuresAs acknowledged by the Plan, nonstructural measures are a vital component for addressingcoastal hazards. Nonstructural measures, such as land use regulations and habitat restoration,25 Draft Plan at Appendix C-7.26 See Overpeck and Weiss, note 23, concluding that it would be “wise to assume that global sea-level rise couldsignificantly exceed 1 m by 2100.”27 Draft Plan at Appendix C-4.28 CPRA, Louisiana Applied Coastal Engineering & Science (LACES) Division, Recommendations for AnticipatingSea-Level Rise Impacts on Louisiana Coastal Resources During Project Planning and Design, Summary of theTechnical Report for Project Managers (Jan. 24, 2012),http://www.lacpra.org/assets/docs/LACES/20120124_Executive_Summary_for_SLR_PaperNEW.pdf.29 CRPA website, “LACES Sea-Level Rise Recommendations,” accessed February 23, 2012,http://coastal.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=240.30 “Mean Sea Level Trend 8761724 Grand Isle, Louisiana,” NOAA Tides and Currents, accessed February 23, 2012,http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8761724.31 Vermeer and Rahmstorf, note 21.

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 7 of 9help to reduce vulnerability by reducing risks to future development and building resilience ofthe existing community. These measures are also relatively low-cost (when compared totraditional structural approaches) and are likely to be the most flexible given the greaterlikelihood of more extreme climatic conditions and sea level rise from climate change.The Plan proposes $12.9 billion for protection projects that consist of either floodproofingresidential and commercial properties or elevating or acquiring residential properties. 32 Certainly,the funding of these projects would help to reduce the vulnerability of individual properties, butgiven the infeasibility and enormous cost of applying these measures to all properties invulnerable areas, the project types selected for inclusion in the Plan do not reduce communityvulnerability on the whole and as stated in the plan, “include residual risk to the community anddo not provide 100% damage reduction.” 33 In addition, the Plan’s assumption of a participationrate of 70 to 80 percent for these types of proposed projects seems considerably optimistic giventhat the historic participation rate for elevation projects has been 30 percent. 34 These measuresalso leave critical infrastructure (e.g., roads, electric transmission lines, potable water facilities,etc.) at risk and the public at-large responsible for bearing the costs of infrastructure repair andreplacement. 35Nonstructural Projects vs. Nonstructural ProgramsAs written, the Plan focuses predominantly on nonstructural “projects,” which “focus on existingbuildings,” 36 without setting a clear statewide strategy for implementing nonstructural “programs”that address future land use and development. Both nonstructural projects and programs will benecessary for reducing community vulnerability to coastal flooding and storm surge. The focuson addressing risks to existing buildings through floodproofing and elevating structures is wellintentionedbut neglects to address the underlying root problem—unwise and unsafedevelopment in hazardous areas. Recognizing the natural hydrology in future planning wouldalso encompass increasing residential densities in higher ground areas and promoting decreasedresidential densities in lower ground areas. 37The state should do more than “consider requiring implementation of nonstructural programs tocoincide with implementation of structural and nonstructural projects” 38 and should make the useof nonstructural programs a condition of communities receiving state funding. By doing so,vulnerable communities will be reducing risks to existing people and structures while alsoensuring that future development does not repeat the same mistakes of the past. If implementedeffectively, nonstructural programs will help to reduce the long-term vulnerability of32 Draft Plan at 30, 65.33 Draft Plan at 66.34 Draft Plan at Appendix G2-2.35 J.G. Wilkins, R.E. Emmer et al., Louisiana Coastal Hazard Mitigation Guidebook (2008), 57,http://www.lsu.edu/sglegal/pdfs/LaCoastalHazMitGuidebook.pdf.36 Draft Plan at Appendix G2-2.37 Carbonell, A. and Meffert, D.J., Climate Change and the Resilience of New Orleans: The Adaptation of DeltaicUrban Form, Commissioned Research Report for the World Bank 2009 Urban Research Symposium, Marseilles,France (2009).38 Draft Plan at Appendix G2-11.

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 8 of 9communities to coastal hazards. In particular, the proposed CPRA standing committee onnonstructural programs should strongly consider land use planning and coastal developmentregulations.Benefits of Land Use PlanningLouisiana should implement statewide comprehensive land use planning requirements andprovide technical assistance to support local efforts to develop comprehensive land use plans.As acknowledged by the Plan, there are numerous benefits associated with land use planning.These include “direct[ing] development away from high hazard areas…and preserv[ing] thenatural functions of floodplains and other critical areas.” 39 The state’s current land use planningstatutes are outdated and inadequate—only localities that have a planning commission arerequired to develop a land use plan. Consequently, cities and parishes can avoid developing acomprehensive land use plan by simply not appointing a planning commission. 40 While thecapacity and resources necessary to develop and implement comprehensive land use plans mayvary, localities should not be exempt from having to develop a plan on this basis alone.The benefits that land use planning can provide in the form of more sustainable and bettermanaged growth and risk reduction far outweigh the “inconvenience” of plan development. Therisks and costs of unwise development are underwritten by those far removed from local land usedecision-making and by society as a whole. A clear example is the National Flood InsuranceProgram (NFIP), which makes available federally-backed flood insurance to homeowners andbusinesses. In the wake of the catastrophic 2005 hurricane season, NFIP borrowed nearly $17billion from the U.S. Treasury to cover losses. 41 With interest, this debt obligation has grown tonearly $18 billion and according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), theprogram is unlikely to ever be able to repay its debt. 42 Consequently, people across the U.S. thatdo not participate in NFIP are shouldering some of the costs of those that do.By requiring comprehensive land use plans in statute, Louisiana also can standardize theelements or components of these plans. In Florida (a state that experiences similar coastalhazards to Louisiana), the comprehensive plan of all coastal jurisdictions is required to contain acoastal management element, which contains among other things, measures to limit publicexpenditures that subsidize development in high hazard areas and measures to mitigate the futureimpacts of coastal hazards. 43 Including a similar element in land use plans in Louisiana wouldserve to inform the adoption of local land use regulations (e.g., zoning ordinances, buildingcodes, etc.) that direct development away from extremely hazardous areas or requiredevelopment projects to plan and design for coastal hazards.39 Draft Plan at Appendix G2-7.40 R.E. Emmer, J.G. Wilkins, et al., Hazard Mitigation and Land Use Planning in Coastal Louisiana:Recommendations for the Future (2007), 21, http://www.lsu.edu/sglegal/pdfs/CompPlanningReport.pdf.41 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the NationalFlood Insurance Program (June 2011), 1, http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/319467.pdf.42 GAO, note 41.43 Florida Department of Community Affairs, Comprehensive Planning Florida: A Guidebook for Front PorchFlorida Communities (2006), 20, www.dca.state.fl.us/fhcd/fpf/Documents/ComprehensivePlanning.pdf.

Comments on Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable CoastFebruary 24, 2012Page 9 of 9Adoption of Statewide Coastal RegulationsThe adoption of statewide regulations to address coastal hazards also would help to reduce thevulnerability of communities. In 2008, the Maryland General Assembly passed the “LivingShoreline Protection Act of 2008,” which requires homeowners to use nonstructural stabilizationmeasures for erosion protection except for in areas approved by the state for structuralmeasures. 44 Living shoreline techniques use vegetation, such as native wetland plants andgrasses, to stabilize banks and absorb wave energy. They also provide ancillary benefits byfiltering pollutants, creating habitat for wildlife, and improving aesthetic values. 45 In contrast tostructural measures, living shorelines do not impede connectivity between the land and water incoastal ecosystems or disrupt natural processes.Other states have established statewide minimum setbacks for coastal development. In SouthCarolina, there is both a baseline and setback line. The baseline is generally established at thecrest of the primary sand dune (beaches) or the most landward point of erosion in the past fortyyears (unstabilized inlet zones), and the setback line is established landward of the baseline at arate of forty times the average annual rate of erosion or a minimum of twenty feet. 46 Buildingwithin the setback area is allowed, but is subject to specific regulations. Similar measures, ifenacted in Louisiana, also could prove beneficial towards reducing future vulnerability to coastalhazards.We appreciate your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions, please contactMichelle Mehta at (310) 434-2300.Sincerely,Michelle MehtaAttorney, NRDCBen ChouPolicy Analyst, NRDCcc: Office of the Governor, State of Louisiana44 Maryland General Assembly, 2008 Regular Session, Chapter 304, House Bill 973.45 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Living Shorelines for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (2007), 1-2,http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=60.46 South Carolina Shoreline Change Advisory Committee, Adapting to Shoreline Change: A Foundation forImproved Management and Planning in South Carolina (2010), 36,http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/library/CR-009823.pdf.

THE LEAGUEOF WOMEN VOTERSOF ST. TAMMANYwww.lwvst.infoFebruary 23, 2012Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityc/o Karim BelhadjaliP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027To the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Plan Team:The League of Women Voters of St. Tammany is pleased to comment on the.draft “Louisiana'sComprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast” presented in January 2012.The LWVST attended the meeting held at the University of New Orleans on January 23, 2012 andlistened to the presentations and public comments. We were impressed with the dialogue,attentiveness and responses of the panel team.In the Plan, we note there are multiple avenues proposed for coastal restoration and protection,depending upon the various locations studied. For the first time, we see a viable set of options forproceeding with the gigantic task before us that is based on a comprehensive combination ofcriteria and good science.Methodologies proposed for St. Tammany are moderate and appropriate for the risks to the citizensof our parish. Home elevation will decrease any damage in future storms, and buyout of higher riskhomes is sensible. However, it would make sense for our parish to not allow home construction inhigh risk areas as it now does. (e.g. construction on the shores of eastern Lake Pontchartraincurrently under request )Putting citizens at risk opens the parish for more problems when the nextstorm strikes. Are there any methods that could be included in the plan to put such restrictions on agoverning body? Could there be a carrot and stick approach?Ring levees in the Slidell area are probably justifiable given the events of Katrina. However, webelieve the real solutions lie in marsh restoration and more stringent local building restrictions andconstruction requirements.We would like to see more mitigation banks for coastal restoration projects in St. TammanySincerely,Sandra SliferBarbara DoddsSandra Slifer, PresidentBarbara Dodds, Vice President985-875-9388 985-892-8671sandraslifer@gmail.combarb35@bellsouth.netP.0. Box 8 Covington, Louisiana 70434

Screened measureshttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Screened measuresChad Courville [cjcourville1@bellsouth.net]Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:15 PMTo:Master PlanWhere can I go to find the screened measures and the rationale for the screening?Chad J CourvilleMiami Corporation309 La Rue France Suite 201Lafayette, Louisiana 70508337.264.1695cjcourville1@bellsouth.net

Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/23/2012Master PlanDavid [dpmorley@austin.rr.com]Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:10 PMTo:Cc:Master Planvermilioncorporation@connections-lct.comTo Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority:I am writing to urge CPRA to include in the State Master Plan bank line stabilization and shoreline protectionalong Freshwater Bayou. It is critically important that the Plan include bank line stabilization and shorelineprotection along Freshwater Bayou in order to protect the fragile soils of the Mermentau Basin and RaineyMarshes.Sincerely,David Morley

Comment about the Louisiana Coastal Master PlanThank you for all of the effort that has been put into creating thisdocument. I appreciate the effort of your non structural advisorycommittee. The Nonstructural appendix contains some useful elements toa non structural approach. However, overall, the plan lacks anappreciation of the state-of-the art approach that is being adoptednationally of how communities become more resilient. The outcomes atthe end are framed only in the physical structures of houses.Resilient communities assess what are the community values and thenseek to reduce risk to those valued states, entities. * A functioningcommunity is what a community wants. Looking solely at the houses is aninadequate measure of whether the community is functional. Way toonarrow and inadequate. Housing is important AND you fill in the blank,“so much more.” Considering education in only five lines of the appendix isinadequate when robust, collaborative processes to engage communitiesand to assist them in their own education is what is needed. Warningsabout whether the non structural violates the restoration/structural plansas if the non structural must always be in compliance with the latter doesnot recognize the vital importance of non structural. And the fact that onehas to turn to the non structural appendix to see any significant discussionof them tells the reader where the non structural stands in priorities.The draft proposal requires major changes in order to acceptable. It lacksany real consideration of all of the effort that should be going on WITH thecoastal communities to insure that they are able to survive “between nowand then,” until the time if and when the restoration projects andstructural measures are completed. Without such a program/center, thereis very little likelihood that even the communities targeted for protectionwill still be in existence except for a mere ghost of themselves when theprojects become effective.CPRA should create a Louisiana Coastal Services Center (LaCSC)fashioned fully after NOAA’s Coastal Services Center in Charleston, SC.This center is a model of what should be created because it is based onexactly the principles of community resiliency support that is needed forthe communities here in Louisiana. I attended along with a few other staterepresentatives from Sea Grant, an amazing conference last week at thecenter on the social dynamics to which I referred. Assist the communitiesvia such a Center to identify what they value and help them work toward

educing the risk to those valued elements through building of robustsocial capital of groups, organizations, engaged citizens. NOAA’s Center istremendously successful because it functions with these principles in mind.The creator of NOAA’s CSC model, Margaret Davidson, has tight ties withLouisiana and I know would be only too happy to assist in the visioning ofsuch a center and in its formation. Some of the same funds that are nowseen as directed to restoration and structural solutions should be used tocreate such a center. It should be funded robustly and should bemanaged by experts who know how to address the human, social,community dynamics of engagement and social capital building that will bethe only means to retain the coastal communities until/and if theprotection promised by restoration and structural solutions is achieved.I feel so strongly that the state is wrong in its approach – relying soheavily on restoration and structural with such limited knowledge aboutand commitment to the human, community dimensions that are needed toenhance the resiliency of the communities during the ‘bridge’ period (andof course after as well), ‘between now and when’ the restoration andstructural projects might be effective at reducing risk. I liken thecomparison to what happened with the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet(MRGO). * Major dollars were invested in a mega project, the achieving ofit spanning 4 decades. Little attention was paid to what the project wasgoing to do to the ecosystem. None of the developers benefitting from theconstruction and the hoped for outcome – a straight channel to the Gulf tobenefit New Orleans business – ever asked such questions and nogovernment oversight group did either. The result? The total inundationof the Lower Nine Ward/St. Bernard Parish, and the completion of theinundation of central Orleans Parish when Katrina hit.Why do I see this Master Plan effort as similar? Because it is based on amega project approach that like MRGO takes on a ‘life of its own’ due tothe benefits that redound to the contractors who will do the project anddue to the difficulty in managing such projects. We do not know if theprojects will even work. We do not know fully how much time they willtake. We expect them to take many years, thus the 50-year plan.Despite these uncertainties, the plan and the appendix on non structuraldo not contain any significant commitment to address this critical question:Where is the comprehensive, resiliency-building state-of-the-art programto assist the coastal communities to become as resilient as they can so as

to have a chance to remain in existence until the projects are completedand have produced the risk reduction that they are intended to produce.The rest of the report brags that the restoration and structural projects willbe state-of-the-art. Why wasn’t consulting and internal resources used topropose the same for the community risk reduction?What about an approach with sophistication and adherence to thebest practices articulated nationally to support the survival of thecommunities ‘between now and then’?MRGO created a nightmare because no one asked the question: What isthis project doing to the environment? No one in a leadership role wantedto know. The city leaders simply wanted the project. Period.I am convinced that the Master plan will create as serious a nightmarebecause no one is asking the question: What is really going to happen tothe communities while the mega projects are being constructed andimplemented? I don’t think anyone in a leadership role wants to ask thisquestion or to truly deal with the answer: The communities won’t bearound to benefit from the mega projects unless they are given resourcesand assistance (as is done with by the Coastal Services Center) to achievetheir own culture of safety providing as much resiliency as they possiblecan. Listing the existing programs or planning tools or suggesting a forumfor public officials is just not enough. Just like with MRGO, the focus isalmost exclusively on the physical projects, the mega billion-dollaropportunities for the engineering and dredging companies.The non structural appendix offers limited appreciation for this need tocommit funding and sophisticated staffing to support community effortstoward resiliency. Describing a program that has as its most importantcharacteristic, that it be centralized in CPRA control, demonstrates that thewrong approach is being taken. Singular control may be beneficial but it isnot the important issue that should be emphasized. If communities do notgrow in their commitment to take advantage of the resources,centralization of these resources isn’t going to make much of acontribution.Successful engagement with the communities and strong relationshipswith the communities to support their achieving the resiliency is whatshould be robustly discussed. Not simply saying, it might be necessary forthe state to have oversight. Regulation is important but robust assistance

to achieve risk reduction inherently, organically, like the Tulsa Partnersprogram and the various programs that the CSC facilitates is the way to doit.Create a Louisiana Coastal Services Center. Resource it as it should be.Or don’t bother with the restoration and structural measures unless thereal intent, as many of us suspect it is, is to support the private companiesand others who will benefit from being paid to do their construction. Itcertainly won’t be the communities who benefit unless you give them areal chance to survive ‘between now and then’. __________________ *Laska, Shirley and Robert Gramling with Chad M. Berginnis, Monica Farris, William Freudenburg, Michelle Gremillion, Pam Jenkins, Richard Krajeski, Harriet McCombs, Nancy Mock, Betty Morrow, Brad Ott; Kristina Peterson, and Henry Taylor. (2009) “Expanding the Identification and Measurement of the Human Consequences of Disastrous Flooding: Toward the Refinement of the ‘Other Social Effects’ Account.” Vol. I, Economics Appendix, Attachment 2, Pg. 90 (105 pages) of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Report (LACPR) to the U.S. Congress. http://lacpr.usace.army.mil/. ** Freudenburg, William R., Robert Gramling, Shirley Laska and Kai T. Erikson. 2009. Catastrophe in the Making: The Engineering of Katrina and the Disasters of Tomorrow. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Submission of Comments on the 2012 Master Plan Draft Revisionhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 42/23/2012Submission of Comments on the 2012 Master Plan Draft RevisionJames Hallinan [james@lademo.org]Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:03 PMTo:Master PlanKarim,Below are the official comments from the Louisiana Democratic Party on 2012 Master Plan Draft Revision. Ihave also mailed you a copy on letterhead.Thanks,JamesFebruary 23, 2012Attention:Subject:From:Coastal Protection & Restoration AuthorityLouisiana Democratic Party Comments on 2012 Master Plan Draft RevisionBuddy Leach, Chairman, Louisiana Democratic PartyThe Louisiana Democratic Party is pleased to offer the following comments on the Draft Revision of theComprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast.Restoration of Louisiana’s endangered coast and protection of its coastal communities and resources remains amajor priority for people of all political affiliations in the state. The value of Louisiana’s coastal region forseafood, domestic energy production, hurricane protection, the nation’s port system, and home for its residents issomething that all of us must continue to promote.The draft revision of the Master Plan for 2012 is a reminder of a number of key considerations. First isthe tremendous expertise in coastal science that the state has assembled through decades of investmentin its universities, along with the impressive capacity from private sector companies and organizationswho work on coastal restoration and protection. These participants have made a critical contributionworking with the state and federal agencies on the draft plan.Second is a reminder of the long history of this endeavor, including the passage of Act 6 (1989),the Breaux Act/CWPPRA (1990), the Coast 2050 Plan (1998), Act 8 (2005), and the 2007Master Plan. Partnership with the federal government has been an integral part of this effort.Even with its challenges, this partnership is a key part of building and maintaining nationalsupport for coastal protection and restoration here. President Obama reaffirmed this partnershipand the importance of Louisiana’s coast for the national interest early on with the formation of

Submission of Comments on the 2012 Master Plan Draft Revisionhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 2 of 42/23/2012the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Working Group (October 2009) and the Roadmap forRestoring Ecosystem Resiliency and Sustainability for the Louisiana and Mississippi GulfCoasts (March 2010).The core principles of the 2012 Master Plan, such as seeking sustainability and long-termsolutions, and conducting a participatory process, are of vital importance for achieving its goals.The people and communities of southern Louisiana have weathered a series of difficultchallenges over the past few years: the major hurricanes of 2005 and 2008, smaller storms, andthe Deepwater Horizon Disaster of 2010. We are clearly in a period of change.Our specific comments on the Draft Plan focus on the issue of funding, discussed primarily inChapters 3-6. The Draft Plan lists a number of sources of potential funding, noting that none ofthem are guaranteed. The largest unknowns include potential funds from the Deepwater HorizonDisaster, through the Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Clean Water Act Penalties.Passage of the RESTORE Act, which would direct a majority of those fines to Gulf Coastrestoration and recovery, is also uncertain at this stage. Three of the major sources of funding forcoastal protection and restoration – CWPPRA, the Gulf of Mexico Energy and Security Act(GOMESA), and the Energy and Water Act – are federal (the Water Resources and DevelopmentAct [WRDA] that funds operations of the Army Corps of Engineers will likely continue to playa role as well.)From the beginning, Louisiana’s coastal restoration effort has recognized that a large nationalinvestment would be necessary for its success, and the state has succeeded in garneringsignificant support. Federal funding for the CWPPRA program was for a number years thelargest source of dollars for restoration. Large federal relief efforts after the storms of 2005 and

Submission of Comments on the 2012 Master Plan Draft Revisionhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 3 of 42/23/20122008 have made a crucial contribution to the state’s economy and played a large role inbuffering us from the national economic downturn that started in 2007. The Draft Plan cites astwo recent examples $14 billion in federal funding to repair and upgrade New Orleans’hurricane protection system, and $496 million to the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP)to restore shorelines, marshes, and other areas.In terms of federal funding, it is clear that we are in a new and in some ways unprecedentedsituation regarding the national budget. The future size and shape of major national legislativeprograms such as the Farm Bill and WRDA are unclear, and coastal restoration and protection inLouisiana is only one part of a crowded field of national priorities whose funding is nowuncertain. The near default of the U.S. government this past summer, and proposals for policiesof fiscal austerity have added to this uncertainty.We raise the question of whether supporting default and austerity, as a number of Louisiana’srepresentatives have done, makes it possible to effectively pursue large-scale federal funding forcoastal restoration and protection in our state. Louisiana’s Congressional representativesstruggled this past summer (2011) to retain $35.6 million in Corps funding that the White Househad specified for coastal restoration work in Louisiana, ultimately restoring $1 million of thatrequest.While coastal protection and restoration enjoy bipartisan support within Louisiana, continuedbroad national support is not guaranteed. Promoting new, large-scale federal appropriations willbe more difficult than ever, and will require a thoughtful approach by all of the state’s officials.

Submission of Comments on the 2012 Master Plan Draft Revisionhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 4 of 42/23/2012A cooperative attitude that recognizes the interests of other parts of the country, as we continueto make the case for Louisiana’s coast being a key national interest, seems a basic requirement.This would include instances such as the debate over whether to require budget offsets fordisaster relief for the states hit by Hurricane Irene in 2011.We are fortunate that the President supports the national partnership with Louisiana, withcreation of the Gulf Ecosystem Restoration Task Force following the Deepwater Horizondisaster and continued support for a portion of federal agencies funds going towards coastalprotection and restoration. It is incumbent on Louisiana’s officials and stakeholders to recognizethat our future depends on continuing to cultivate a strong partnership with our country.Respectfully submitted,Buddy LeachChairmanLouisiana Democratic PartyJames HallinanDirector of Communications and ResearchLouisiana Democratic PartyMobile: 505 459-1702Email: james@lademo.orgTwitter: @JamesHallinan

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/25/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 103First NameChristopherLast NameSchmidtAddress564 Brooklyn AvenueNew Orleans, Louisiana 70121United StatesMap ItEmailrainermschmidt@aol.comCommentsWe attended the Coastal Restoration Master Plan meeting held in New Orleans Jan. 23. This is an addendum to myfather’s comments submitted regarding the nutria problem. He talked to a gentleman who informed him thatLouisiana had a handle on the problem with their bounty on tails plan. You plan to spend “”$18,000,000,000”” onMARSH CREATION with a nutria control plan that is falling short on its goal of 500,00 nutria per year. (According toState Biologists, 500,000 must be trapped each year in order to keep the population under control) It does not take amathematician to see how the tail control plan is not enough. In the last 6 years, the tails turned in average out to350,000 nutria trapped each year. Louisiana is estimated to have from 15 to 20,000,000 nutria. Each female canhave 2 litters of 5+ pups each per year. Say only 1,000,000 females (out of 15million!!) give birth to 10 pups in oneyear. That’s 10,000,000! La. trapped a measly 350,000!!!! 25% of the 10million are females who give birth to 10 morepups the following year….that’s 25,000,000…plus the original 1,mil. females have more, giving you a grand total of35,000,000 in the second year!!! How is that controlling the problem?? With the warmer winters we are having, it willonly get worse. There are not enough alligators out there, and we are trapping them too. Also, trappers are gettingolder and the young are not interested. Unemployment pays more and is a lot easier! All the trapping is not evenbeing done in the areas where the marsh restoration is taking place. All you will be doing is providing the nutria with avery expensive free lunch. The solution is to bring back the incentive program to sell the meat. 98% of the nutriapresently trapped are thrown away(in the marsh?). The trapper gets $2.00 more for bringing his catch, skinned,gutted, and head and feet removed, to a processor, and the processor gets $.50 per lb. of meat he processes(as longas it can be processed and sold as we do pigs). In this way, 700,000 to a million nutria would be removed from theequation. According to a study published in 2010 and done by the Department of Agricultural Economics andAgribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, trappers would need to get $6 per nutria to hit 500,000per year. We have a market for all the nutria meat that can be obtained. We should get rid of as many as we canwhile we have the chance.AttachmentsChris-Nutria.doc

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityc/o Karim BelhadjaliP.O. BOX 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804February 25, 2012Dear Mr. Belhadjali,These comments are in addition to comments my at Public meeting IN New Orleans and Houma.1. Add ‘central wetlands unit’ (Bayou Bienvenue area in Orleans Parish) into Master Plan as a Cypress –Tupelo Forest regeneration project. The Sierra Club urges the CPRA to consider both the ecosystem andeducational benefits of cypress swamp restoration in the Bayou Bienvenue Triangle in the Lower 9 th Ward.a. There is no “Ecosystem Services” listed for health Cypress Forest of the regeneration of CypressForest that have been damaged/destroyed by navigation canals allowing salt water into the CypressForest, the classic example of this is the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) which caused thedeath of 30,000 acres of Cypress and has left “Ghost Forest” in St. Bernard and Orleans Parish.b. The “Central Wetlands Unit” is currently in the 2012 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan as only adiversion project which will not regenerate the Cypress – Tupelo Forest.c. Improve computer models so that it incorporates the “worth” of Cypress – Tupelo Forest as aecosystem in the 2012 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan2. Expand funding for ‘Coastal Forest Conservation Initiative’ to purchase coastal forest for protection.3. Create a “local hire” policy for all work related to Coastal Master Plan restoration project, non-structuralprojects, and any levee construction projects. (would give 1 st change at jobs to Louisiana residents) Weneed to ensure that as much as possible the $ 50 Billion over 50 years funds for coastal restoration create ajob growth for Louisiana residents and business.a. The 2012 Coastal Master Plan should show how the Louisiana educational system from HighSchool; to Jr. Collages; to 4 year colleges; to advanced degree work is going to be focused on trainingLouisiana residents to fill the jobs created by this massive effort to restore our coastal wetlands4. Refine computer modeling for risk to place more ‘worth’ on community and residential damages ratherthan oil & gas strategic assets (at a time when major oil companies are reaping major profits it should notbe the people of Louisiana who pay to protect their oil rigs, pipeline, refineries, or oil / gas storage

facilities) when 40-60% of Louisiana’s coastal land loss is directly tied to the exploration & operations ofthe oil & gas industry. (Example levee structure on west side of Calcasieu River near Interstate 10 mainlyprotects Petro Chemical Plants)5. Since the 2012 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan will be funded in part by Federal dollars, there needs to be ananalysis how the actions and projects proposed in the plan will be in compliance with the PresidentialExecutive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 as it related to Federal Actions To Address EnvironmentalJustice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population.6. The Sierra Club opposed any effort to remove coastal restoration, levee building, or non-structuralprograms from Federal Law requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). AfterHurricane Katrina the Corps of Engineers levee reconstruction work and rebuilding work has beenoperating under a “alternative NEPA agreement” Over the last seven years we have seen projects movingforward and completed without migration projects moving forward with the same speed. We believe insome cases we are being “mislead” by the Corps of Engineers and the State of Louisiana that the projectswill be build but the migration work to repair damages to the environmental will “run out of funds” andtherefore the environmental damages will never be repaired. After the BP Deepwater Horizon disasterLouisiana pushed through a “berm protection projects” which were driven by a ‘political agenda’ withoutany scientific basics for the actions a number of environmental laws were broken but the ‘politicalpressure’ won over the sound scientific approach.Attached documents:1. L9 Waterfront2. PPL22 PROJECT NOMINEE FACT SHEET3. Making sustainability public: The bayou observation deck in the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans4. Summary of the reports on Bayou BienvenueYours truly,Darryl Malek-WileyEnvironmental Justice & Community PardershipsOrganizerSierra Club716 Adams St.New Orleans, LA 70118Darryl.malek-wiley@sierraclub.org

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 46First NameJamesLast NameLinnAddressPO Box 142SPRINGFIELD, Louisiana 70462United StatesMap ItEmailsamuel_adams@reagan.comCommentsMan-made global warming has been exposed as a hoax. There are international peer-reviewed studies that actuallyconfirm that the era of global warming has ended, and that a period of global cooling has begun and will peak in theyear 2031. Why are we pushing carbon credits when the entire premise upon which it is based is a fraud?I understand that we need money to restore our coastlines, but stealing money through some scheme is immoral anddoes not serve the people of Louisiana. The people of Louisiana do not consider the goals and motives of the UnitedNations Agenda 21 to be in the best interest of our state. If you continue to promote an agenda of control, loss ofsovereignty, loss of constitutional rights, freedoms and protections, and unification with a new world order, we will beforced to vote out every elected official involved, and we will stop at nothing to proclaim the tyranny throughout thestate at every level so that everyone knows the truth.

ayou binevenuehttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 22/23/2012bayou binevenueSierra Club [information@sierraclub.org] on behalf of james dover [10jdo27@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:09 PMTo:Master PlanFeb 22, 2012Coastal Protection & Restoration Authority450 Laurel StreetBaton Rouge, LA 70801Dear Restoration Authority,The Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Plan is a great step forward for ourstate. It is realistic about the size of the problem; realistic aboutthe cost of the restoration ($50 billion over 10 years); realisticabout solving the problem with strong scientific analysis; andrealistic about the need to involve citizens of Louisiana in ameaningful way.am retired attorney. came 2 new orleans 2 gut houses after katrina.ended up buying a restored shotgun in holy cross [lower 9th ward]. therestoration of bayou bienvenue is an important piece in the effort 2restore our coastal wetlands. i hope u agree with me and will fundthis necessary program.james dover5124 dauphine st, nola 70117After reading the Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Plan I would like tosee these changes to make the plan better and address some seriousissues our state faces:1) The computer modeling used to determine which projects will be builtover the next 50 years has some problems. The model cannot determinethe value of coastal cypress-tupelo forest over just coastal marshlands. We learned during Hurricane Katrina the value of cypress-tupeloforest growing on the waterside of protection levees, the forest actedas a natural barrier and helped the levees survive the hurricane'ssurges.Please include as a priority the "Central Wetlands Unit"(Bayou Bienvenue area) as a cypress-tupelo forest so we can learn moreabout large-scale cypress-tupelo forest regeneration and help protectOrleans and St. Bernard Parishes from hurricane storm surges.2) 40-60% of Louisiana's Coastal wetlands loss was caused by the oil& gas industries in the exploration and extraction of oil andnatural gas. I want an analysis and cost assessment of the damages doneby the oil & gas industry over the last 40 years included in thisLouisiana 2012 Coastal Master Plan -- they should pay a fair share forthese coastal restoration projects.3) There will be a massive amount of the physical work, scientificresearch, and policy analysis that will be required by the CoastalProtection and Restoration Authority to implement the 2012 Louisiana

ayou binevenuehttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 2 of 22/23/2012Coastal Master Plan. I want to see that policies are included that willensure that the jobs created by the plan's implementation go toLouisiana residents.Sincerely,james dover5124 Dauphine StNew Orleans, LA 70117-3812

master planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012master planSam Schudmak [sam@schudmak.com]Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 1:43 PMTo:Master PlanDear Sirs:Is this the plan that ties to the Corps of Engineers 100 year flood planthat has been posted on the internet.Will there be levees built and maintained in your plan that are not inthe Corps plan?Please refer me to the proper authority if you are not the one.Thank you,Sam Schudmak

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/24/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 94First NameMary AnnLast NameBazileAddress102 Rue St. ClairP. O. Box 1356Braithwaite, LA 70040United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)COPE memberEmailmaryann.bazile@shell.comCommentsI am writing as a representative of the Citizens of Plaquemines Eastbank (COPE) to ask for your help. Two majorprojects were left out of the Louisiana’s 2012 Draft Coastal Master Plan.1. The non-federal 18 mile back levee from Braithwaite to White Ditch2. Implementation of Parish’s Coastal Restoration Program which seeks to implement the multiple lines of defenseapproach to coastal restoration/hurricane protection. (A complete overview of this plan can be found online: GoogleCoastal Restoration in Plaquemines Parish)The east bank non-federal levee was not included in the Federal Plan. COPE has fought (and lost) this battle formany years. This project was in the 2007 State Master Plan. The non-federal levee is currently at 8 feet and in theplanning/desig phase to raise to 12 feet (the maximum the base will allow). The levee to the north at Caernarvon is28 to 32 feet. The levee to the south is currently 19 feet with plans to be raised to 21 feet. You can imagine what willhappen to this 18 mile area. This project not only needs to be placed in the 2012 Master Plan, it needs to be given ahigh priority. Our lives are at stake.What the plan DOES have for Plaquemines Parish is Sediment Diversions – LOTS OF THEM:1. Lower Breton Diversion (50,000 cfs) located in Black Bay2. Upper Breton Diversion (250,000 cfs) located in Braithwaite (This compares to the Bonnet Carre Spillway)

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/24/20123. Mid-Breton Diversion (5000 cfs) located in White Ditch area4. Mid-Barataria Diversion (50,000 cfs) located in Myrtle Grove. Extended to 250,000 cfs in 2nd implementationperiod (2031-2061)5. Lower Barataria Diversion (50,000 cfs) located in EmpireThese diversions are in addition to the EXISTING diversions and those already PLANNED by the Army Corp ofEngineers. After the Parish’s program is implemented, the need for diversions will be evaluated. All Diversions inPlaquemines Parish SHOULD be REMOVED from the 2012 State Master plan.In addition, the following should be added to the State’s plan:1. Grant Parish control over diversions within the Parish2. Program to control invasive species introduced through diversions3. Marsh creation projects on Eastbank using marsh that was deposited in canals/lakes by storms4. Maintain salinity regime to establish brackish marsh in the upper region and salt marsh in lower region of theestuary which are sustainable in a hurricane environment5. Define how to provide funding to compensate those who have losses due to destructive process caused byDiversions (fisherman, etc.)6. Restore the over 200,000 acres of Essential Fisheries Habitat (EFH) that was converted to freshwater habitat bythe Caernarvon DiversionThank You for your attention in this urgent matter,Mary Ann BazileBraithwaite resident and member of COPE(cell: 504-583-0555; work: 504-728-6560; home: 504-682-1394)

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 28First NameMitchLast NameOrgeronAddress18258 West Main StreetGalliano, LA 70345United StatesMap ItEmailmitchorgeron@yahoo.comCommentsTo Whom it May Concern,Overall I find the 2012 Coastal Master Plan encouraging and disappointing. Below I will outline each.Encouraging:I have long stated that there will be some difficult decisions to be made regarding coastal protection and restoration and theplan takes that into account.The use of more diversion project is also encouraging; however, they should be used to their full potential regardless of whatfew residence are affected and the affect on the fishermen, i.e., Oyster fishermen.DisappointingThe plan makes the assumption that building/restoring wetlands are not worth the investment. From my stand point therestoration areas identified are futile. Building/restoring marsh near Port Fourchon does not benefit the state or the LA1 areawhen the proposed area is transited by an elevated highway. One should consider building/restoration between GoldenMeadow and Leeville. Further more the other proposed areas would just be islands to wash away after one storm when thereis nothing behind to support the area.The plan waste money on home elevation. The elevation of homes should be the responsibility of the home owner. The statemay make low interest loans available for such projects if a home meets certain qualifications.The plan waste money on extensive levee protection. Science has proven and confirmed by historical record that theLouisiana Estuariary system can produce the same affect as a levee system. Money from levee construction should beredirected to restoration.Finally, there still has been no change in the handling/disposal of sediment from dredging, namely the Mississippi River.Dumping the sediment in the open gulf is beyond boneheaded.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/14/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 50First NameDebbieLast NameKellyAddress146 Bec's PlaceBraithwaite, LA 70040United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Citizens of Plaquemines Eastbank (C.O.P.E.)Emaildebmckelly@hotmail.comCommentsThe 2007 State Master Plan included an 18 mile hurricane protection levee from Braithwaite to White Ditch. This wasremoved in the 2012 Plan. The inclusion of this levee in The Plan is desperately needed to adequately protect thecoastal communities along the East bank of Plaquemines Parish. Currently this area does not fall into any state orfederal hurricane protection plan. Exclusion of this levee promotes a funnel affect, channeling higher storm surge intothis region.Plaquemines Parish's Coastal Restoration Plan was also excluded in The Plan. It would seek to implement themultiple lines of defense approach to coastal restoration/hurricane protection. Building marsh through dredging wouldbe a quicker, cheaper method of building marsh. Time is of the essence.Large scale diversions in Plaquemines Parish will not achieve a sustainable marsh and will need to be removed fromThe Plan. There is sufficient data from the USGS that shows the small scale diversion at Caernarvon has caused36% marsh loss in the past 20 years while adjacent areas not influenced by the diversion only suffered 12% marshloss. We do not need the loss on a greater scale.Many noted scientist, R. Eugene Turner, Mark A. Kulp, and John A. Barras, to name just a few, have publishedarticles on the negative effects of diversions. Findings conclude that diversions promote fresh and intermediatemarsh which is unsustainable in a hurricane environment. Too much fresh water kills brackish and salt marsh whichis sustainable in a hurricane environment. Large volumes of nutrient rich river water destroys essential fishery habitat,introduces and promotes invasive species and creates dead zones.This plan is not in the best interest of Plaquemines Parish. It neither reduces flood risk nor builds/maintains new land.

Sean Gravolet29 Oriole St.New Orleans, Louisiana 70124United StatesAs a lifelong resident of New Orleans, Louisiana I have grown up fishing and enjoyingthe benefits of the incredible resources our wetlands provide. Sine Katrina, I have also come torealize how important it is to maintain our coast and how degraded it has become after years ofexploit and neglect. I am glad to see a fairly comprehensive plan come out that outlines realisticprojects that have great potential for mitigating the damages our coast has sustained.From what I have read, diversions are one of the best ways to both maintain and rebuildland that has been lost. They are the closest we can come to mimicking the natural processes thathave built this delta to begin with. Unfortunately, diversions do cause a lot of controversyespecially with fishermen because of their effects on the waters around them. As a recreationalfisherman, I understand that the flow from diversions can displace some fish species and are ahuge problem for commercial oyster and shrimp fishermen. However, we are going to have tomake some compromises, and I feel that having to venture further out to catch saltwater speciesis a small price to pay for implementing a solution that will benefit our cost in the long run. Whatpeople, especially those opposed to diversions, need to understand is having the inconveniencesposed by sediment diversions are far better than having the vast resources or our coastal areasdisappear for good if nothing large-scale is done. If not already in the plan, including somecompensation measures to help fishermen and other businesses affected by the effects of thediversions would be a good way to get more support for these projects. I would like to know whythe current diversions, Caernarvon and Davis Pond, have not been utilized fully.I would also like to point out that some of the proposed levee projects in the south centralpart of the state around Florence as well as Cocodrie seem too expensive for the property theyprotect and too far out into the gulf to be effective. It just seems that some money could be savedby putting levees around more populated and less exposed areas and using non-structural floodrisk reduction measures.Overall, I feel that the 2012 Coastal Master Plan is one of the most thought-out restoration planswe have had. I do hope this plan can get past the funding and politics barriers that have keptother plans such as the 1998 Coast 2050 plan from being more than a good idea. Action needs tobe taken, what good is it to keep drafting these grand plans if nothing ever gets accomplished?

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 32First NameKenLast NameBrownAddressBiological SciencesLSUBaton Rouge, LA 70803United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)LSUEmailkmbrown@lsu.eduCommentsCongratulations, another study of the Louisiana coast with not a SINGLE engineer or scientist from Louisiana. I amsick of people that are not experts in our area, and have no stake writing these plans. What a joke.

SHELL PIPELINEhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012SHELL PIPELINEHelen & Ken [8246buras@att.net]Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:11 PMTo:Cc:Master PlanPJ Hahn [pjhahn@plaqueminesparish.com]Hi, I just learned from a Shell Oil employee that the company has a 12’ pipe line from Empire to PelicanIsland. It is their West Delta Blk 54 pipe line. The line is inactive and Shell may donate it to the state forcoastal restoration use. Please let me know you have an interest in the line and I will get theinformation needed for you to get in contact with Shell.Ken Ragas 504‐342‐2909

Comments, Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Comments, Master PlanIvan P Gill [igill@uno.edu]Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:36 AMTo:Master PlanTwo comments:1. could I have a hard copy of the plan? You had run out by the time I got there.2. The plan includes permanent sediment diversion sites. What criteria were used to select these sites, and whywas a pipeline/dredge system rejected in favor the diversion sites?Dr. Ivan GillScience Education CoordinatorUniversity of New Orleans504.280.6607

RE: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 42/16/2012RE: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanSavoie, Kevin A. [KSavoie@agcenter.lsu.edu]Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:24 AMTo:Cc:Master Plan; Charlie Atherton [charlieatherton@suddenlink.net]Bill Rase [brase@portlc.com] ; Ginger Adams [gingeradam1@gmail.com] ; Alan Basden [basden@basdenagencies.com] ; AlanCourmier [acourmier@moranshipping.com] ; Brian D McLarnon [brian.d.mclarnon@ConocoPhillips.com] ; Charles N Harper[charpe1@citgo.com] ; Dan Morrish [dmorrish@lakecharlespilots.com] ; Dave Trent [dtrent@lakecharlespilots.com] ; DwayneChatoney [dwayne@harbordocking.com] ; Jeff Brightwell [jeffrey.brightwell@sug.com] ; Joe Devall [joedevall@devalltowing.com]; Lynn E Hohensee [lhohensee@netcommander.com] ; Marc Hopkins [marc.hopkins@bg-group.com] ; Mark Pippin[mark.pippin@iss-shipping.com] ; Rick Bastian [Ricky.Bastian@Crowley.com] ; Sheron Faulk [sfaulk@shiptoshoreco.com] ;Stephen C Porter [Stephen.Porter@crowley.com] ; Steve Trahan [STrahan@SempraGlobal.com] ; Thomas P Fanning[tfannin@citgo.com] ; Tim Guinn [tjguinn@portaggregates.com] ; Willie Tempton [willie.a.temptonjr@conocophillips.com] ;Aaron Andrus [aaron.andrus@sbulk.com] ; Alirio Zambrano [azambra@citgo.com] ; Anthony Waller [anthony.r.waller@uscg.mil] ;Brett Palmer [bpalmer@lakecharlespilots.com] ; Charles J Morrison [cmorrison@lakecharlespilots.com] ; Christopher Ellison[christopher.c.ellison@uscg.mil] ; Clark Peterson [lkc@moranshipping.com] ; Cliff Kerr [clkerr2@comcast.net] ; Clint Smith[Clinton.P.Smith@uscg.mil] ; Compher, Robert LCDR [Robert.C.Compher@uscg.mil] ; Craig D Messer [cmesser@iscgrp.com] ;Cumulus Broadcasting [newsdesk@kykz.com] ; D Gremillion [dgremillion@cppj.net] ; Dan Moesser[Dan.B.Moesser@conocophillips.com] ; Dav Godsey [dgodsey@dunhamprice.com] ; David Conner [dconner@allianceswla.org] ;David Wagoner [dwagoner@portlc.com] ; Dennis Odum [dennis.odum@sug.com] ; Don Darbonne[dodarbonne@dynamicind.com] ; Donna Dedeaux [donna.dedeaux@dhs.gov] ; Dwight Savoie [dsavoie@martinMLP.com] ; ErnieBroussard [cppd_ebroussard@camtel.net] ; Frank Meyer [upgas@aol.com] ; Fred G Eason [for2nat@bellsouth.net] ; GeorgeMowbray [gmowbray@lakecharlespilots.com] ; George Swift [gswift@allianceswla.org] ; Graylin Gant[Ggant@nwgulfFedpilot.com] ; Greg Wicke [gwicke@csbbanking.net] ; Howard Romero [envirohr@swbell.net] ; Jackie Rice[jackie.l.grayless@uscg.mil] ; James Kaucher [jkaucher@cheniere.com] ; James R Ducote [james.ducote@hotmail.com] ; JasonBarnett [barjason@gmail.com] ; Jeff Williams [jwill35@entergy.com] ; Jill Landry [jill_landry@vitter.senate.gov] ; Jim Stark[jstark@gicaonline.com] ; John Alford [applewoodcap@aol.com] ; John Ara [John.ara@crowley.com] ; Justin E Farrell[jfarrell@lsu.edu] ; Kabir Ahmad [kahmad@ifgweb.com] ; Kelly J Clark [kellyjclark@msn.com] ; Ken Roderick [kroderi@citgo.com]; Kenny Devall [kdevall@devalltowing.com] ; Kurt M Hallier [kurt.m.hallier@conocophillips.com] ; Larry DeRoussel[lderoussel@laia.com] ; Leon McClain Jr [leon.mcclain@uscg.mil] ; Lisa Guidry [lisa.guidry@grace.com] ; Louis Buatt; LTC NathanC. Joseph [nathan.c.joseph@usace.army.mil] ; Luis C Gonzales [luis.c.gonzales@usace.army.mil] ; Lydia Aboagye[laboagy@entergy.com] ; Mario A Espinosa [mario.espinosa@cdicorp.com] ; Mark McMurray [administration@cppj.net] ; MichaelM Measells [michael.m.measells@uscg.mil] ; Nelson, Mark William (Govt Affairs) [wmnelson@sempra.com] ; Niels Aalund[naalund@wgma.org] ; Niels B. Lyngso [nlyngso@wgma.org] ; Patrick Fink [Patrick.Fink@noaa.gov] ; Paula Gay[pgay@rainforrent.com] ; Phyllis Ortego; Port Coordination Team [tamops@gearbulk.com] ; Randy Oakley[roakley@SempraGlobal.com] ; Richard Ortego [rortego@leevac.com] ; Robert Ward [rward@dynamicind.com] ; Rusty Vincent[jrv@centurygrp.com] ; S Robinson [srobinson@ckor.com] ; Scott Ervin [Scott.Ervin@bg-group.com] ; Scott Hancock[scott.hancock@sug.com] ; Steve Newman [snewman@citgo.com] ; Steven M Couch [steve.couch@sug.com] ; SuzanneChisholm [suzanne.chisholm@alliedbarton.com] ; Terri G Angelini [angelini@ppg.com] ; Tim Osborn [tim.osborn@noaa.gov] ;Tina Horn [cppjury@camtel.net] ; Tony Colletta [tony.colletta@clmequipment.com] ; Tony Moré [julio.a.more@uscg.mil] ; TracyFalk [Tracy.A.Falk@mvn02.usace.army.mil] ; Ward A Howard [wardhoward@mixpro.net] ; Wendell Wilkerson[wendellwilks@yahoo.com] ; Winston Ebarb [webarb@citgo.com] ; Yojna Singh Calix [Yojna.Singh@usace.army.mil] ;chayden@portlc.comThe 50 yr. projection for the chenier plain region looks grim. However, I believe these projections to be accurate,possibly even on the conservative side. I saw a lot of uncertainty mentioned in the plan concerning relative sealevel rise. If the rate is constant, based on the last 50 yrs. we will continue to lose land no matter what we do. Ifthis is true, it needs to be given some credence in the plan so that coastal residents and decision makers canmake wise decisions based on the best available science.Another huge problem facing coastal Louisiana is that insurance companies are very aware of these relative sealevel predictions and land loss, which drives up their risks and subsequently insurance premiums. My question is:What is the rate of relative sea level rise used for the 50 yr. projection for Cameron Parish? What is the source ofthis data?Kevin A. SavoieKevin A. SavoieArea Agent - SW RegionNatural Resources - Fisheries(337)475-8812

RE: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 2 of 42/16/2012FAX (337)475-8815cell (337)263-28807101 Gulf Hwy.Lake Charles, La. 70607ksavoie@agcenter.lsu.eduFrom: Master Plan [mailto:MasterPlan@LA.GOV]Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:41 AMTo: 'Charlie Atherton'; Master PlanCc: 'Bill Rase'; 'Ginger Adams'; 'Alan Basden '; 'Alan Courmier'; 'Brian D McLarnon'; 'Charles N Harper '; 'DanMorrish'; 'Dave Trent'; 'Dwayne Chatoney'; 'Jeff Brightwell '; 'Joe Devall '; Savoie, Kevin A.; 'Lynn E Hohensee';'Marc Hopkins'; 'Mark Pippin '; 'Rick Bastian '; 'Sheron Faulk'; 'Stephen C Porter '; 'Steve Trahan'; 'Thomas PFanning '; 'Tim Guinn '; 'Willie Tempton '; 'Aaron Andrus'; 'Alirio Zambrano'; 'Anthony Waller '; 'Brett Palmer';'Charles J Morrison '; 'Christopher Ellison'; 'Clark Peterson '; 'Cliff Kerr '; 'Clint Smith '; 'Compher, Robert LCDR';'Craig D Messer '; 'Cumulus Broadcasting '; 'D Gremillion'; 'Dan Moesser '; 'Dav Godsey '; 'David Conner'; 'DavidWagoner'; 'Dennis Odum'; 'Don Darbonne '; 'Donna Dedeaux'; 'Dwight Savoie'; 'Ernie Broussard '; 'Frank Meyer';'Fred G Eason '; 'George Mowbray '; 'George Swift '; 'Graylin Gant '; 'Greg Wicke'; 'Howard Romero '; 'Jackie Rice ';'James Kaucher '; 'James R Ducote'; 'Jason Barnett '; 'Jeff Williams '; 'Jill Landry '; 'Jim Stark '; 'John Alford '; 'JohnAra '; 'Justin E Farrell '; 'Kabir Ahmad'; 'Kelly J Clark '; 'Ken Roderick'; 'Kenny Devall '; 'Kurt M Hallier'; 'LarryDeRoussel'; 'Leon McClain Jr '; 'Lisa Guidry'; Louis Buatt; 'LTC Nathan C. Joseph'; 'Luis C Gonzales'; 'Lydia Aboagye'; 'Mario A Espinosa '; 'Mark McMurray '; 'Michael M Measells '; 'Nelson, Mark William (Govt Affairs)'; 'Niels Aalund ';'Niels B. Lyngso '; 'Patrick Fink'; 'Paula Gay '; Phyllis Ortego; 'Port Coordination Team'; 'Randy Oakley '; 'RichardOrtego'; 'Robert Ward '; 'Rusty Vincent '; 'S Robinson'; 'Scott Ervin'; 'Scott Hancock '; 'Steve Newman '; 'Steven MCouch '; 'Suzanne Chisholm'; 'Terri G Angelini'; 'Tim Osborn '; 'Tina Horn '; 'Tony Colletta '; 'Tony Moré '; 'TracyFalk'; 'Ward A Howard '; 'Wendell Wilkerson'; 'Winston Ebarb '; 'Yojna Singh Calix'; chayden@portlc.comSubject: RE: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanDear Mr. Atherton:Thank you for your interest in the 2012 Coastal Master Plan. The plan is based on a $50 billion budget.It's important to note that we do not have our total budget in hand today. The $50 billion is the amountthat we have a reasonable chance of receiving over the coming decades. Projects will be implemented inphases, as appropriate funding is received.You are correct that not all of the 381 candidate projects shown on our website are part of the 2012Coastal Master Plan. The list of projects that were selected are shown in Chapter 5 of the master plan.Together, these projects would use our $50 billion budget to protect and restore coastal Louisiana.You had requested a breakdown of master plan spending by parish. Because some projects cross parishlines, it is difficult to provide an exact breakdown of that kind.The table below shows master plan spending by planning unit. Appendix A of the master plan alsoincludes project fact sheets that provide details about individual projects, including cost, location, andgeneral description. You can download the project fact sheets by going to:http://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/2012‐master‐plan/draft‐2012‐master‐plan/. Scrolldown the page and click on Appendix A-2, Project Fact Sheets. The file is large and will take time todownload.Planning Unit Parish Master Plan Funding

RE: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 3 of 42/16/2012ProvidedPlanning Unit 1OrleansSt. BernardPlaqueminesTangipahoaSt. TammanyJeffersonLivingstonAscensionSt. JamesSt. John the BaptistSt. Charles$14.2 billionPlanning Unit 2St. JamesSt. John the BaptistSt. CharlesJeffersonPlaqueminesLafourcheAssumption$10.2 billionPlanning Unit 3aAssumptionLafourcheSt. MaryTerrebonne$8.9 billionPlanning Unit 3bIberiaVermilionSt. MaryTerrebonne$7.5 billionPlanning Unit 4VermilionCameronCalcasieuJefferson DavisAcadiaLafayette$10.9 billionWe used our models and Planning Tool to arrive at this distribution, which reflects the reality that wehave needs and solutions coast-wide. The 2012 Coastal Master Plan attempts to address these coast-wideneeds as fairly as possible.If there is a specific project that you would like to discuss in more detail, please let us know. We will behappy to answer your questions.SincerelyKarim BelhadjaliMaster Plan Delivery TeamFrom: Charlie Atherton [mailto:charlieatherton@suddenlink.net]Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:56 AMTo: Master PlanCc: 'Bill Rase'; 'Ginger Adams'; 'Alan Basden '; 'Alan Courmier'; 'Brian D McLarnon'; 'Charles N Harper '; 'DanMorrish'; 'Dave Trent'; 'Dwayne Chatoney'; 'Jeff Brightwell '; 'Joe Devall '; 'Kevin Savoie '; 'Lynn E Hohensee'; 'MarcHopkins'; 'Mark Pippin '; 'Rick Bastian '; 'Sheron Faulk'; 'Stephen C Porter '; 'Steve Trahan'; 'Thomas P Fanning ';'Tim Guinn '; 'Willie Tempton '; 'Aaron Andrus'; 'Alirio Zambrano'; 'Anthony Waller '; 'Brett Palmer'; 'Charles JMorrison '; 'Christopher Ellison'; 'Clark Peterson '; 'Cliff Kerr '; 'Clint Smith '; 'Compher, Robert LCDR'; 'Craig DMesser '; 'Cumulus Broadcasting '; 'D Gremillion'; 'Dan Moesser '; 'Dav Godsey '; 'David Conner'; 'David Wagoner';'Dennis Odum'; 'Don Darbonne '; 'Donna Dedeaux'; 'Dwight Savoie'; 'Ernie Broussard '; 'Frank Meyer'; 'Fred GEason '; 'George Mowbray '; 'George Swift '; 'Graylin Gant '; 'Greg Wicke'; 'Howard Romero '; 'Jackie Rice '; 'JamesKaucher '; 'James R Ducote'; 'Jason Barnett '; 'Jeff Williams '; 'Jill Landry '; 'Jim Stark '; 'John Alford '; 'John Ara ';'Justin E Farrell '; 'Kabir Ahmad'; 'Kelly J Clark '; 'Ken Roderick'; 'Kenny Devall '; 'Kurt M Hallier'; 'Larry DeRoussel';'Leon McClain Jr '; 'Lisa Guidry'; Louis Buatt; 'LTC Nathan C. Joseph'; 'Luis C Gonzales'; 'Lydia Aboagye '; 'Mario AEspinosa '; 'Mark McMurray '; 'Michael M Measells '; 'Nelson, Mark William (Govt Affairs)'; 'Niels Aalund '; 'Niels B.

RE: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 4 of 42/16/2012Lyngso '; 'Patrick Fink'; 'Paula Gay '; Phyllis Ortego; 'Port Coordination Team'; 'Randy Oakley '; 'Richard Ortego';'Robert Ward '; 'Rusty Vincent '; 'S Robinson'; 'Scott Ervin'; 'Scott Hancock '; 'Steve Newman '; 'Steven M Couch ';'Suzanne Chisholm'; 'Terri G Angelini'; 'Tim Osborn '; 'Tina Horn '; 'Tony Colletta '; 'Tony Moré '; 'Tracy Falk'; 'WardA Howard '; 'Wendell Wilkerson'; 'Winston Ebarb '; 'Yojna Singh Calix'; chayden@portlc.comSubject: Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master PlanQuestion to Master Plan,What will be the total dollars available for the total Master Plan project?We know not all projects will make the final list (some added, some deleted), but as the list currentlystands, not including the 112 non‐structural projects, how many dollars are proposed to be spent ineach parish by name or groups of names?Usually the bottom line question is “how much money will be spent in each parish, what is the criteriaused to determine if a project is built, and how do citizens stop a project they don’t agree with?”Please send me the link that explains how the funding for each project and parish will be determined.Thank you for your help, Charlie Athertonhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/2012‐master‐plan/projects/candidate‐projects/

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/22/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 68First NameDianneLast NameAlfonsoAddress412 Palm DriveBraithwaite, LA 70040United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)COPEEmaildalfonso@gillis.comCommentsI am writing as a representative of the Citizens of Plaquemines Eastbank (COPE) to ask for your help. Two majorprojects were left out of the Louisiana’s 2012 Draft Coastal Master Plan.1. The non-federal 18 mile back levee from Braithwaite to White Ditch2. Implementation of Parish’s Coastal Restoration Program which seeks to implement the multiple lines of defenseapproach to coastal restoration/hurricane protection. (A complete overview of this plan can be found online: GoogleCoastal Restoration in Plaquemines Parish)The east bank non-federal levee was not included in the Federal Plan. COPE has fought (and lost) this battle formany years. This project was in the 2007 State Master Plan. The non-federal levee is currently at 8 feet and in theplanning/desig phase to raise to 12 feet (the maximum the base will allow). The levee to the north at Caernarvon is28 to 32 feet. The levee to the south is currently 19 feet with plans to be raised to 21 feet. You can imagine what willhappen to this 18 mile area. This project not only needs to be placed in the 2012 Master Plan, it needs to be given ahigh priority. Our lives are at stake.What the plan does have for Plaquemines Parish is Sediment Diversions-lots of them.1. Lower Breton Diversion (50,000 cfs) located in Black Bay2. Upper Breton Diversion (250,000 cfs) located in Braithwaite (This compares to the Bonnet Carre Spillway)3. Mid-Breton Diversion (5000 cfs) located in White Ditch area

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/22/20124. Mid-Barataria Diversion (50,000 cfs) located in Myrtle Grove. Extended to 250,000 cfs in 2nd implementationperiod (2031-2061)5. Lower Barataria Diversion (50,000 cfs) located in EmpireThese diversions are in addition to the existing diversions and those already planned by the Army Corp of Engineers.After the Parish’s program is implemented, the need for diversions will be evaluated. All Diversions in PlaqueminesParish needs to be removed from the 2012 State Master plan.In addition, the following should be added to the State’s plan:1. Grant Parish control over diversions within the Parish2. Program to control invasive species introduced through diversions3. Marsh creation projects on Eastbank using marsh that was deposited in canals/lakes by storms4. Maintain salinity regime to establish brackish marsh in the upper region and salt marsh in lower region of theestuary which are sustainable in a hurricane environment5. Define how to provide funding to compensate those who have losses due to destructive process caused byDiversions (fisherman, etc.)6. Restore the over 200,000 acres of Essential Fisheries Habitat (EFH) that was converted to freshwater habitat bythe Caernarvon DiversionYour help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 31First NameDebbieLast NameMitchellAddressWaldemar S. Nelson & Co. Inc.1200 St. Charles AvenueNew Orleans, LA 70130United StatesMap ItEmaildebbie.mitchell@wsnelson.comCommentsI am trying to open your pdf or convert it to a pdf but can'tThe end result I'm looking for is to be able to print pages 110-127. Can you please assist me?Thanks.Debbie Mitchell• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/25/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 110First NameBrandonLast NameCarter Jr.Address813 Oak Grove Hwy.Grand Chenier, Louisiana 70643United StatesMap ItEmailBedah1985@yahoo.comCommentsI live in the Oak Grove community of lower Cameron Parish. I have personally witnessed the shoreline erosionoccurring between the Grand Chenier jetty system and the old mouth of the Mermentau River.This area has lost thereplenishing sediments due to the movement of the downshore drift further offshore. Possibly a sand nourishmentproject similar to the one in the Holly Beach-Constance beach area could benefit this shoreline.Thanks for the opportunity to express my comments.Brandon J. Carter Jr.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/14/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 61First NameDonaldLast NameLiretteAddress101 Cypress LnThibodaux, La. 70301United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Past Chairman Coalition To Restore Coastal LouisianaEmailliret6@aol.comCommentsThe Barataria Terrebonne Estuary Program has a Comprehensive Management Plan that I was part of theManagement Conference which won national awards for it's development . I believe it has all the components tomanage the area between the Atchafalaya and Mississippi Rivers which is the most critical area in Louisiana . Onequick and fairly inexpensive fix can be used to close the tidal passes on the barrier islands and that is placeabandoned barges from the Mississippi River and fill them with rocks and sink them to slow the tidal prism in turnslowing the erosion caused every time the tide changes . This idea worked well on Fourchon Beach years ago toprevent beach erosion and it actually reclaimed beach front. Another quick fix would to narrow up the HoumaNavigation Canal to 200 feet by placing a structure called a vertical slot weir . This would also slow a lot of the tidalprism and would act as a leaky floodgate to slow approaching hurricanes tidal surge . I observed that when HurricaneGeorge was headed towards land Lake Boudreaux didn't have time to fill up because of a slotted weir in BoudreauxCanal. Same senario only on a larger scale . The weir could also be incorporated into a proposed floodgate plannedfor the Houma Nav. I have been flooded many times in Dulac which made me decide to sell my beautiful home inthere and move to higher ground.I have seen many like me do the same and this has caused me to lose touch withfriends and family I had known all my life .The community is dying and there is no hope for saving what's left .It willtake bold and quick action but I believe it's worth saving. My whole life has been on that bayou and my children grewup there now only one still lives there and has to climb 11 feel up to reach her house. If some foreign country wouldtake as much land from the United States as the Gulf of Mexico is doing today the country would spend billions anddeclare war to get it back. Don't the citizens of south Louisiana deserve the same as the rest of the country or are wejust second class citizens.I don't want to be left to fend for myself I still own property in Dulac and it floods every timewe have a high tide . Thank you for the opportunity to comment

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.Stephen Truchon [stephen.truchon@shell.com]Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:54 AMTo:Master PlanFrom: Stephen Truchon Subject: Master Plan Public Meetings in TexasMessage Body:Hello -Are there meetings planned in Texas for The Plan? I thought I saw some dates listed but can't seem to find themanymore on the website. Many Thanks,Steve--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/25/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 109First NameSumanaLast NameKalyanasundaramAddress606 W 3rd StreetThibodaux, LOUISIANA 70310United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Nicholls State UniversityEmailsumanak2710@gmail.comCommentsI am a student at Nicholls State University. I am pursuing my masters in Marine biology. The Coastal Master plan isdefinitely a great way to achieve the main objectives like flood reduction and rebuilding land.My specific concern was the diversion at the mid-Barataria Bay. It looks like the diversion might cause flooding in theareas where diversion is going through. Lafitte will be one of the areas that would be mainly affected. Will Lafitte beprotected?Some of the earlier diversions have had a great impact on the oyster population due to the surge of fresh water. Thiscreated a huge economic impact. The oyster men in these areas would be affected to a greater extent due to thesignificant decrease in oyster population.Gulf Inter coastal water way flows towards the Mid Barataria bay. If the diversion created brings in excess amount ofwater there is a possibility it might lead to back flow in the GIWW.• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Gerald Schouest9722 East Park AvenueHouma, LA 70363 USACoastal Master PlanCommentsI have looked at the 2012 Coastal Master Plan and can see the amount of time andeffort used to put this plan together. I applaud the many people who spent many hoursworking on this plan.The problems I see with the plan are the parameters that were used to develop it.They are as followed:1. Long Term Sustainability (45-50 year life expectance)In Terrebonne Parish, we are willing to trade off the 50 years sustainability for25 years sustainable projects that will better protect our most vulnerablecommunities and estuaries. This will give time to find ways to strengtheninterior marshes north of these projects. (fresh water diversion, terracing,ridge building)2. No borrow material used from inside systemThe ability to borrow sediment from inside the system will greatly reduce thecost of some of these projects. Science has shown if done correctly, it has noadverse effect on the Eco system.Projects that we in Terrebonne Parish feel must be put in the 50 Billion dollarCoastal Master Plan are as follows:1. North Terrebonne Bay Land Bridge restoration4 CWPPRA projects are in this area that are in different stages of theCWPPRA process. By not having this in the Coastal Master Plan, it couldpossibly cause the loss of nearly 100 million dollars in CWPPRA money.It is strange that all the members of the CWPPRA task force (federalagencies) feel the best place to put their efforts are in the Terrebonne BayLand Bridge concept. Two of the four projects were voted # 1 two years in arow and the state we live in does not find it to be a priority.The land Bridge will protect valuable communities and estuaries in the areaand also protect the Eastern Flank of the Morganza Levee System and theWestern Flank of the Lafourche Levee Systems. Approximate value of thesetwo levees is 10 Billion dollars.2. Caillou Bay Land Bridge RestorationThis is important because the loss of this land bridge could jeopardize themillions of dollars of projects north of the land bridge that have been eithercompleted, in the process of being completed or in the engineering stage.Also the land bridge protects the Caillou Lake Oyster Bedding Grounds. Thisis a state oyster bedding ground. The state is planning to spend over 14

million dollars to improve the oyster industry and some of this money is goingtowards the Caillou Lake area.

3. West Terrebonne Sediment Pipeline ProjectThis project is a must for Terrebonne parish. By using the dredge materialthat is a nuisance in the Atchafalaya River can be used to build up land insteadof sending it offshore. This only makes common sense. We can build landfaster nd cheaper by this method than some of the proposed bucket dredgingin the same area. Then extend the pipeline east and south to do major landbuilding in the Terrebonne inter-marsh areas.As you saw at the Houma Public meeting, elected officials, citizens, youngstudents interested in coastal restoration has come together to say that in Terrebonneparish, you must rethink the parameters used in this study. You must think more onsaving our lower communities and estuaries than long-term sustainability.It is not important to us to be able to say in 30 years, we accomplished a no netland loss if we have to read about it in a newspaper north of I-10 because that is wherewe were force to move to because of our land being lost.Thank You Respectfully,Gerald Schouest

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.RORY M. NETTLES [rorynettles@yahoo.com]Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:09 AMTo:Master PlanFrom: RORY M. NETTLES Subject: Highway connecting Grand Isle to VeniceMessage Body:I would like to talk to you about getting some of the BP coastal restoration money presently on the table to builda 40 mile highway along the coast to connect Grand Isle to Venice following the beaches on the barrier islandscreating a protection levee similar to the one on Grand Isle and a beautiful sight seeing / scenic route to attracttourist, fisherman, bird watchers, sight seersetc.. to enjoy ourbeautiful coastline so as to draw attention to the need to protect this natural resource for generations to come andto open the loop to two dead end highways and opening up a new route for commerce of all types.This highwaywould forever insure that this stretch of coastline would remain in tack--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 39First NameMatthewLast NameHerronAddress1075 St. Rt. 343Yellow Springs, OH 45387United StatesMap ItEmailmatthew.s.herron@gmail.comCommentsThis document is testament to Louisiana government's naive belief that engineers can fix anything. One of the mostimportant "ecosystem services" not considered as such in this plan is the original, abiotic services of the water andwind. These already perform marsh building, levee construction, dune building, channeling. Spending billions onearthworks projects that go against nature's will are doomed to fail. What hubris! Why are we only spending 2.5% ofthe money on hydrologic restoration when hydrologic disruption is the root of the problem? Flood protection? Pumps?Levees? This is a profound misallocation of resources. Whose going to pay for the upkeep in these low populationareas? What about the hundreds of stochastic, destructive events that are to be expected in these dynamicenvironments near the gulf? We should be inviting the flood by breaking the levees. Spend the rest on stopping upthe navigation canals, helping the natural process through land conservation and ecological management. We shouldallocate money to educate communities about why flood prevention is unsustainable and help them move, elevate oraccept the reality of the landscape they've chosen to live in. These billion dollar earthworks projects are frighteninglyshort-sighted. You can't hold back the tide or the river. Let's never forget the engineering disasters of Lake Peigneurand the BP Oil Spill: a small mistake can have huge consequences.• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 30First NameDavidLast NameGaudetAddress707 Hwy. 55Montegut, La. 70377United StatesMap ItEmailswamp66@charter.netCommentsHas anyone looked into re-opening Bayou Terrebonne,Bayou Grand Caillou, and Bayou Du Large? The closure ofthese water ways is one of the main causes of the issues we are dealing with. Without a steady out flow of freshwater, the marshes will never grow back. It would help bring sediment to the marshes.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/25/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 122First NameStacyLast NameMartinezAddress118 Leighton DriveBThibodaux, LA 70301United StatesMap ItEmailsmartinez6@its.nicholls.eduCommentsI am concerned about the maintenance of the the risk reduction projects in the master plan. The plan states that thelocal sponsors must take full responsibility for operation and maintenance costs. Does this mean that the local parishor city must maintain the costs? Can this be clarified?Also, what happens if the projects are not maintained? Will there be fines?

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/14/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 58First NameEdwardLast NameDerouen, Jr.Address30028 hwy 23Port Sulphur, Louisiana 70083United StatesMap ItEmailembl@bellsouth.netCommentsAfter reading the Master Plan draft, I am concerned about the process and order in which the master Plan addressesthe southern end of Plaquemines Parish. Are the residents of the southern not as important because of the number ofvoters? What a shame, because the residents of the southern end of Plaquemines Parish pay taxes and have tofollow rules like the northern end as well as the New Orleans area. This Master Plan seems like a lot of hot air fromBaton Rouge just like the past 25 years. When money became available, it was spent on studies. Seems we havestudied this problem to a point of no return. I am deeply saddened by the GREED of our politicians in this state, to putself interest first instead of where the interest should have been placed..,THE PEOPLE!!! Now it seems as thoughsome interests in the New Orleans area are going to be in harms way. What about the people in the coastalcommunities? Are their interests, culture, way of life, and happiness going to be protected like the New Orleans area?I think if our politicians were good for their word, the situation wouldn't be as dreadful because communities would beable to put trust in them to help as much as possible. All the residents see is false hope and untrue statements togain votes. Why not have open meetings in the lower end of Plaquemines Parish to address the areas where the realproblems are happening now, but instead you make meetings difficult to make be having them 50-60 miles away.Just another reason people don't trust politicians. A simple process of lining big rocks along our sunken coast line 8to 12 feet tall with all natural channels open would be a terrific start. Mother nature would do the rest. If you peopleare serious about this....show us.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.ph...Page 1 of 12/2/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 44First NameWhitneyLast NameRichardAddress215 St. Anthony St.Luling, LA 70070United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Performance IT of LouisianaEmailwhitney@performanceIT-LA.comCommentsIt has been brought to my attention that my home, business, and property has been left out of the hurricaneprotection master plan. I currently reside, work, and raise my family on the the West bank of St. Charles parish. Alongwith 30,000 other residents, Two huge chemical plants, One Nuclear Power Plant, These resources are critical to thelives of millions of people. Having survived hurricane Katrina myself. I was responsible for writing a disaster recoveryplan and then implementing it. My plan worked. I had people working and systems restored within 48 hours of thestorm event. I see the current Master plan is flawed. The ignorance to to protecting of these vital resources. Not tomention to possibility of a nuclear meltdown affecting the lives of everyone in the country. I will be contacting everynews agency explaining my assessment of the dangers of the current situation. In the wake of the recent Japaneseearthquake and resulting tsunami. The dangers of not protecting a nuclear power plant are fresh in everyones minds.I suggest you rethink your plan. Thanks for listens. You will be hearing more from me in the near future!

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 40First NameCynthiaLast NameLeBlancAddress4739 Hwy. 108 WSulphur, LA 70665United StatesMap ItEmailcgleblanc@centurytel.netCommentsShoreline protection projects should take precedence over all other projects. If the coast continues to degrade anddisappear we will lose our protection from storms and salt water. The proposed levee system for Lake Charles is notfeasible on too many levels to begin to comment on using this forum.

ASSOCIATION OF LEVEE BOARDS OF LOUISIANAPOST OFFICE BOX 2961, BATON ROUGE, LA 70821Telephone (225) 405‐0884 louisianalevee@live.com Fax (225) 243‐4452“Without Flood Control, Nothing Else Matters.”www.albl.orgFebruary 25, 2012Re: Draft 2012 Coastal Master PlanDear Mr. Graves,The Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana supports the Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan. Weappreciate the scope and complexity of such a huge task. We believe that your task force hasstated the problems well and we appreciate the enormous effort of all of those who have workedon this Draft Plan. .Our concerns and comments are based on the goals which the Association has been implementingsince 1995. Please keep in mind the motto of the Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana.“Without Flood Protection, Nothing Else Matters”. This is a hard fact for all of our coastalcommunities.COMPREHENSIVE HURRICANE PROTECTIONSTRATEGIC PLANOF THEASSOCIATION OF LEVEE BOARDS OF LOUISIANAThe Association has been working under these precepts since 1995 with the creation of theComprehensive Hurricane Protection Committee.GOAL 1.TO POSITION THE STATE TO MAKE BETTER DECISIONSOBJECTIVE1. To build on the mutual benefits derived from programs and projects.2. To maximize benefits from projects that provide hurricane protection, restorewetlands, rehabilitate infrastructure, do not adversely impact navigationroutes, and protect hurricane evacuation projects.3. To eliminate and avoid conflicts among existing or proposed hurricaneprotection, wetlands restoration, infrastructure rehabilitation, navigation,and hurricane evacuation projects.4. To approach hurricane protection from a state perspective while workingwithin the context of a watershed, such as the Barataria system or theCalcasieu River watershed.

GOAL 2.TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC THROUGH OUTREACHOBJECTIVE1. To inform the general public on coordination of hurricane‐related projectsand coastal restoration projects.2. To advise the individual what he/she must do to protect themselves even ifhurricane protection structures are built or upgraded.GOAL 3. BETTER MANAGE THE FINANCING OF HURRICANE RELATED PROGRAMS OR PROJECTSOBJECTIVE1. To coordinate federal, state, and local financing of hurricane projects andcoastal restoration projects.2. To combine or match hurricane project funds with other sources offinancing, such as storm water management, evacuation routes, or flooddamage reduction, thereby distributing the costs of projects equitablyamong several participants while achieving multiple objectives.GOAL 4 ‐TO MAKE A HURRICANE RESISTANT COASTOBJECTIVE1. To foster activities in the coastal zone that are compatible with both the risksto human life and property and the risks to the natural functions posed bythese human activities.2. To sustain the resource base and economic vitality of the coastal zone byencouraging mitigation practices that reduce flood damages.3. To address the issues of repetitive losses, nonstructural alternatives, andstructural projects within the coastal zone.It is from these goals and our work experience that we base the following broad recommendations:1. In all basins develop a land bridge concept that assists flood protection during stormthreats, but allow unimpeded water exchange during all other times. Target the salinitylevels based on these cross basin barriers. Utilize cooperative resources and thinking toremove regulatory hurdles that will allow this concept to become reality.Major ridges must be maintained. As an example, the loss of the Bayou Lafourche Ridgeseparating the Barataria Bay System and the Timbalier Terrebonne Bay Areas may create alarge super coastal bay system making storm flooding grow and accelerating wetlandserosion.2. Continue efforts to prioritize wetland projects which are in a protective relationship withcommunity infrastructure for synergistic effects.3. Where possible, prioritize maintenance of broken marsh, lake and bay edges.4. Develop a procedure that allows in‐basin dredging where it does not influence furthererosion and is cost effective, and environmentally sound. This procedure could also be usedto help maintain larger projects which have been created by the introduction of materialsfrom external sources.2 | P age

5. Continue utilizing public outreach as well as input through CPRA member representatives toseriously consider the comments and concerns of the parish Coastal Zone Managementcommittees, and Levee Districts, whose board members live in coastal communities.Under the same guiding principles and goals, the Association highly recommends that thefollowing specific concerns be addressed in the final plan.A) We support all of the structural protection projects currently in the draft plan. Further,while we support coastal restoration efforts, it is imperative that these structural projectsnot be removed from the plan.B) We feel that the data must be provided and obtained to allow inclusion or continuance ofthe protection projects that reach the appropriate level of protection that was to beaccomplished in Donaldsonville to Gulf, Morganza to the Gulf, and Gibson to Morgan City aswell as West Shore LPV, and Bayou Chene Structure.C) Whenever possible, and without jeopardy to federal cost sharing, funds to executeelements of this plan should be sent through CPRA to Levee Districts and Parishes toimplement the projects to take advantage of local knowledge and construction expertise, aswell as expropriation authority so that projects across the coast may be built more quicklyand at lower cost than if managed by USACE.We believe the Plan has captured the available technical knowledge, and hope for continued andenhanced inclusion of available practical knowledge. We hope that our recommendations helpreinforce our commitment to a continued partnership and we thank you for the opportunity tocomment.Steve Wilson, President,andWindell A. Curole, ChairmanComprehensive Hurricane ProtectionCommittee for theAssociation of Levee Boards of Louisiana3 | P age

State of LA Master Plan 2012 Hearing in Lake Charles 2/16/20121. We congratulate you on your new, systems-analytic approach to coastalprotection and restoration. We believe you are a workable and approachableteam. We must be in contact with you often, as solutions typically come fromthe bottom up. We are the best advocates for our solutions. We cannot expectthe State to advocate for us.2. We ask that you address the causes of erosion in SWLA & help us designlarge regional concepts for large problems. With the SWLA CoastalFeasibility Study not funded in the federal 2012 Budget -- perhaps because itis an “earmark”-- we are concerned that we will not qualify for the very largefederal dollars anticipated in future years. We must complete federal dollarrequests as Congress requires us to, and this Study was our first regionaleffort. With this Study now stalled, we are not yet even in the queue forfederal funds (estimated at $100 million/year from GOMESA, to beadministered by the State).3. All industry must answer to erosion cause & effects of any of its proposedexpansion/investment so that industry itself is sustainable. There can be noexceptions.4. Propose doable concepts for SWLA storm surge realities. Urban waterwayspermeate the urban parts of SWLA. Ike, more than Rita, taught us that surgesare opportunistic. They 1 st overwhelm urban waterways. Do you plan tolevee the Ship Channel which dumps into a very small Lake Charles. Can youlevee our bayous, our coulees? During Ike we had exceptional home damagefar inland from flooding. Class action lawsuits have begun.5. We must give water a place to go in urban areas. We must encouragebuilding above anticipated surge levels, plan for storage of great amounts ofwater during storms. We must develop urban floodplains, wetlands, storagesites and we must address appropriate urban forests – something Katrina madeclear on the North Shore and Rita did in Calcasieu. This means working withZoning & Planning Boards of our Parishes, and getting on their agendas, sothat the elected decision-makers themselves learn of our challenges. Weobserve a great deal of building and development in SWLA. We question ifthere has been due consideration of future storm & erosion probabilities. Ifnothing is done, the insurance industry will do our business for us.6. To the extent that we do levee portions of SWLA, these levees need a designto let out heavy rainwater events, common to the Region.7. Add the word “Preservation” to the words restoration & protection. We lose afootball field per hour; that rate is down perhaps because of massive land lossin SELA since measuring began in1932. SWLA land loss is now accelerating,taking the crown, if you will. Instead of watching it happen and restoring, wewant to preserve what we now have. Establish a base line of loss below whichfurther loss is not acceptable. And, make projects answerable to preservationgoals, as well as restoration and protection goals.8. Maintain what is there & acts as a chief cause of erosion, conduits of saltwater far inland. Specifically, we are concerned about the under- or unmaintainedboundaries of the Calcasieu Ship Channel and the GIWW.Concerning the rapidly eroding borders of the GIWW, we anticipate theC. Woosley notes 1 of 2

State of LA Master Plan 2012 Hearing in Lake Charles 2/16/2012imminent blending of Grand Lake with the GIWW (and implications forinland lake 2 nd surge phenomena”). We cite the extraordinary role 1 st of theCalcasieu Ship Channel and then the GIWW in funneling water surge ontoand through lands west of Calcasieu Lake during Ike.9. Set an achievable base line for the Chenier Plain. The Chenier Plain is nolonger a fresh water marsh. Except for marsh areas protected, e.g., by theberms/levees of SNWR, we are now an “Intermediate Marsh”. This categorywith its higher salt content is far less diverse than our verdant fresh watermarsh of old, but it is what we are, and we are fast going towards brackishmarsh. Make “intermediate marsh” your baseline. To attempt restoring theChenier Plain to be a fresh water marsh will prove to be a waste of time andresources.10. Address manmade issues that have compromised our Chenier Ridges: 1. theadvanced de-forestation on this mostly privately owned land, and 2. sandmining that has cored out the heart of some significant Ridges. We ask forinnovative, but precedented, solutions that would address these concerns.11. Review the impact of our jetty designs.12. We request that the State dialogue with the State of Texas on the rapidlyincreasing need for fresh water sources. We wish that the Sabine RiverAuthority protect adequate supply of fresh water which is part and parcel ofthe health of the Chenier Plain to the west.13. We submit that, although population density is modest in Region 4 and thatapproximately 25% of Cameron Parish has already relocated since Ike, thisRegion is of exceptional strategic significance to the USA. We suggest thatthe USA has extraordinary reason to preserve the Chenier Plain. We have apreliminary 12-point paper to submit to you for your consideration. Somepoints need verification, and are written in general terms as a result.C. Woosley notes 2 of 2

2012 Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/20122012 Master PlanSTUART WILLIAMSON [compass3@bellsouth.net]Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:57 PMTo:Master PlanIs there any part in the 2012 Master Plan that discusses a Managed Retreat Alternative? many thanksStuart Williamsoncompass3@bellsouth.net

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.ph...Page 1 of 52/7/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 48First NameKonradLast NameKingAddress5919 Pratt DriveNew Orleans, LA 70122United StatesMap ItEmailk0c0king@gmail.comCommentsThis plan is, at best, ethically, technically and managerially corrupt. It does not reflect the lessons learned from bothKatrina or the Deepwater Horizon Incidents let alone best engineering practices relevant to the real problem.My comments relate not to specific phrases but to the core concepts and practices proposed. The followng addressmajor deficiencies in the DraftResilienceThe theme of the Plan is "sustainability" while it should address the much larger concern of resilience and specificallyaddress all the elements of disaster resilienceComplexityLevees and elevations are some of the simplest engineering tasks and have been understood for centuries. What thedraft fails to do is recognized the challenge confronting residents and workers with this simplicity is combined with thenumber of official and unofficial stakeholders each with conflicting interests. The draft does not take into account theuncertainties associated preparing for, surviving and recovering from catastrophic incident. It has been shown thatthe class of low probability/high consequence events that threaten us are in fact random do not behave as normallydistributed probabilities.Threat

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.ph...Page 2 of 52/7/2012To adequately assess the risks to the residents and workers of Louisiana it is essential to fathom the magnitude andnature of threats coming in from the coast. From a systems perspective, the threats are treated incompletely withoutdated methods. Mostly, threats need to be considered from a worst case position across all of the disturbances,natural or anthropogenic that disturb our coast and citizensMulti-layered defense.While not scientifically proven and not employed by the US Army Corps of Engineers, using multiple layers ofdefense is a widely accepted practice for realizing resilient systems. Even the graphic on page I distorts the originalMLD suggested by John Lopez (no evacuation layer)SystemsThe draft asserts that it follows a "systems approach" and has used "world class science and engineering" to arrive atthat approach. As a retired Boeing Systems Engineer and a member of the International Council on Systems(INCOSE) Engineering's Resilient Systems Working Group (RSWG) I recognize very little in the Draft that draws onthe Council's established best practices let alone the extensions being considered by the RSWG. I assert that thedraft's statements on these issues are false and substantiated. With the exception of evolutionary spiral life cyclesaligned with iterative aspects ofAdaptive Management there is little to recognize as sound engineering demanded by the risks and complexity ofcoastal protection and restoration.The most critical findings of the Corps' Inter-service Task Force Evaluation of Performance for Katrina was that theflood protection works were a systems "in name only" and that those works weren't design as systems, did notperform as systems and should, in the future, be upgraded to be systems. It is clear that the recovered risk reductionsystems employ only a few of a large number of best, world class systems practices. One can only expect that it willperform as it has historically done.SafetyOne of the most egregious omissions from the Draft is a near total absence to safety in general and stakeholdersafety in particular. More than once the draft single out economic loss minimization as the sole focus and purpose ofthe plan and its work products. This grossly belittles the loss in life and quality of life endured by hundreds ofthousands of Lousianians from recent catastrophic costal incidents.Stakeholder Focus.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.ph...Page 3 of 52/7/2012The central focus of modern systems engineering is that it is vitally imperative that stakeholders be constantly andcontinuously engaged not just as tax payers or disinterested by standers but as the reason the system exists in thefirst place. Stakeholder lives and livelihood should be the continuous focus of every level of activity in building,operating and sustaining costal protection works. Stakeholders must not just be informed about the systems but mustin assured that they are empowered to influence decisions. The stakeholder engagement practices incorporated inthe Draft tend more to ceremonial bystanders than empowered stakeholders.Experience has shown that without empowered stakeholders, challenging and complex systems rarely meetanyone's expectations. In this respect, resilient systems engineering practices focus exclusively on goals that can beexpressed as results of value to specific classes of stakeholders. Neither of the two goals in the draft are expressedin nor can be measured in terms of stakeholder value. While protection implies someone (or something) is beingspared damage, land building has no such equivalent measure. I recommend that these goals and their extensionsbe refurbished.One of the master plans underlying principles is to acknowledge residual risk. In this case residual risks fall mostly onthe citizens and workers of our state. These potential victims are the ones that are critical to accepting residual risks.To be effective those risks must be expressed as unmet goals in terms of individual as well as collective decisionmakers. There is no evidence of this ever having occurred in Louisiana given conflicts with political and real estateinterestsRegulators have important public protection missions and must be considered as first class stakeholders in theoverall system definition. Their "regulatory cases" need to be integrated with those of stakeholders that haveoverlapping perspectives and should be part of the "team"Adaptive ManagementWhile recognizing the Adaptive Management has been successfully employed in natural resource management, I donot believe that it is in any suitable or appropriate to manage human safety or thelevel of risk and uncertainty proposed by any of recent catastrophes in the Gulf of Mexico. What is needed here isstronger and better controlled processes guided by proven resilience engineering concepts. I don't believe thatAdaptive Management meets that standard of care and performance.As stated in various Deepwater Horizon reports, the level of safety-focus need for all concerned will require deep andpervasive cultural change. Cultural change is not a feature of the Department of Interiors Adaptive ManagementpracticeA Shared Vision

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.ph...Page 4 of 52/7/2012As the Draft often states, restoration is not presented in the literal sense of going back to some previous , acceptablestate. Given our history, we have never been in an "acceptable" state. I hope that the Authority has the courage toclearly and unambiguously portray the real work to be done. A proper systems approach will go a long way to createand share a clear and unambiguous set of actionable goals.Without a deeply and clearly shared vision, the effort will be continuously at risk.TeamingWork in other complex and high risk domains has shown high performance, empowered teaming can increasecommunication and reduce risk in all phases of a systems life cycle. This includes design, development, operationand maintenance as well as disturbance event cycles with prevention, survival, and recovery. In particular,stakeholders in very risk efforts, such as deep water petroleum operations, have a direct interest in using the safestand highest performing practices available.Changing UncertaintiesIt is one thing to react to uncertain changes as the occur but is much more preferable to anticipate those changesand understand options and response times available. Best systems practices typically combine this with theirrequirements generation to portray scenarios of how stakeholders values are gained or protected by a triggeringincident. In the case of disturbances, these cases of usage are called "safety cases" and become the stories ofprotecting value and in the case of beneficial goal operations, delivering value.Throughout the life of a complex , high risk system, new safety cases may be identified as well as experience.Continuously improving the system must be driven by this discovery processAlternative ProjectsI wouldn't be surprised if an appropriate systems treatment of the Coastal Protection space came up with differentways to identify and prioritize implementing the systems as a series of integrated and interdependent projects.Integration at the coastal protection level would if nothing help identify common approaches to individual projects thattypically saves an enormous amount of resources and time.Summary

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.ph...Page 5 of 52/7/2012I apologize for not being able to find more to like about the Draft plans approach but I cannot, in good conscienceneglect the body of work of systems engineering in general and resilient systems engineering in particular. I would bedelighted to communicate further and offer whatever assistance that I can

Appendix A in master planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Appendix A in master planmscallan@timespicayune.com [mscallan@timespicayune.com]Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:13 PMTo:Master PlanCan’t seem to find it on the web site. I’m looking for a complete list of projects that were evaluated for inclusion.Matt ScallanThe Times-Picayune504.352.2542 cell985.652.0953 office985.652.0915 faxhttp://twitter.com/MscallanTP

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/14/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 56First NameCAPT. LYNNELast NameZANEAddress127 CAMELIA DRIVEPORT SULPHUR, LOUISIANA 70083United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)EmailPROPELLER CLUB PORT OF NOLA, PABI, USCG RETIRED, USCG AUXILIARY, FLEET RESERVEASSOCIATION, BR.162,GRETNA,LAcoastymarine@bellsouth.netCommentsMany of the proposed coastal restoration plans look very ineresting and seem good, although I'm not sure they areaggressive enough. But, they seem promising.I DO FEEL that LOWER PLAQUEMINES PARISH, WHERE I LIVE AND WORK, SHOWS NOT MUCH TO BE DONEIN THESE AREAS. I see many other needy areas with plans. BUT, our area shows VERY LITTLE PLANNING INTHIS MASTER PLAN.What positive real time plans are there for Lower Plaquemines Parish and the Lower Mississippi River and adjoiningareas, where we are losing land and marsh at a very fast rate?WE NEED SERIOUS ATTENTION TO THESE AREAS !!!WE ARE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE FOR ANY STORM OR EVENT COMING UP AND AROUNDD THELOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, WHICH THEN IMPACTS UPPER PLAQUEMINES PARISH AND NEW ORLEANS,LA !!!CAPT. L. E. ZANECOASTY MARINE I, L.L.C.CELL: 504-912-6952E-MAIL: coastymarine@bellsouth.netWEB SITE: coastymarine.com

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/26/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 131First NameDonLast NameEwoldtAddress902 Monterey DriveChesterton, Indiana 46304United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Coastal Mitigation Bankers,LLC.Emaildewoldt@lel.netCommentsI would like you to consider doing projects or having private companies do projects that could use currently permittedborrow sites which would provide a great deal of restoration at much lower costs. The average costs in the MasterPlan for marsh creation is $150,000. per acre, I know of several areas that could use existing borrow sites wherecosts would be in the $40,000.-$60,000. range. Private companies can also do the work less because they do nothave as much overhead cost as the current agencies or organizations. For example, our group currently is in theprocess of developing a mitigation bank in the Barataria area that would cost approximately $50,000. per acre for2,500 acres and use a currently permitted borrow site. This would be substantially less than the projected cost of$257,000. per acre in the Barataria area cited in the Master Plan. Also, if the site was developed as a mitigationbank, it could be transferred to the state agencies and credits could be sold for a future revenue stream for futureprojects. These revenue streams created by developing environmental credits (wetland, nutrient and carbon) couldprovide substantial revenue for future Master Plan projects.

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.Linda Sens [lgriffith6@cox.net]Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 6:01 AMTo:Master PlanFrom: Linda Sens Subject: St Charles ParishMessage Body:Why has the west bank of St Charles Parish be excluded from levee protection? Whose tax dollars are paying forthe other parishes to be protected? Why is my home an property less important than anyone else?--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 45First NameGuthrieLast NamePerryAddress1285 Arsen LeBleu RdLake Charles, Louisiana 70607United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)LDWF RetiredEmailperry@camtel.netCommentsI could not attend the Lake Charles meeting due to a prior commitment. However, I was able to view the coverage onTV.In July I retired after 45 years of service at Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge in Grand Chenier. I first became aware of ourshoreline erosion by annual measurements Allan Ensminger, Bob Chaubreck, Ted Joanen, and Larry McNeasemade between wooden pilings at waters edge and pilings further inland. Later, LSU researchers, Burns and McBride,supporteed the earlier primitive measurements with GPS extending from Texas to Vermillion Bay. They reportedsiginificantly more erosion from Rockefeller's eastern boundary to several miles west of our western boundary.There are presently two studies in progress at Rockefeller evaluating several methods to lessen shoreline erosionalong our shoreline. It's a challange, soils along this area will not support large rock, researchers are evaluating waysto lessen or spread the weight. Hopefully, one of these will lead to the development of a usefull technique and beready to build once this Master Plan is adopted.I also hope reviewers will hear those of us in southwest Louisiana asking to give priority to perimeter protection as inmilitary actions. Not doing so will compromise our interior resources,

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/15/2012delaying this will compromise our internal wetlands.

September 2, 2011Thomas Thompson217 Windward PassageEden Isles, Louisiana 70458thomasthompson@yahoo.com985-285-1768Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA)P.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027Phone: 225.342.7308Fax: 225.342.5625MasterPlan@la.govCoastal Protection & Restoration Master Plan Comments:Thank you for your 2012 Coastal master Plan presentation at the St. Tammany Library on August 30, 2011.It is encouraging to see the CPRA is now taking an overall comprehensive view of storm surge protectionand how various projects impact surrounding communities. Over the last 40 years various projects havebeen built throughout the New Orleans area without consideration of how they impact the communitiesalong the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain.The entire north shore of Lake Pontchartrain and in particular St. Tammany has been excluded from allcoastal storm surge protection consideration, studies, funding and projects.I would like to make the following comments, observations, and request for inclusion into your master plan.1) Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge caused billions of dollars in damages the people living along the northshore of Lake Pontchartrain. Due to the massive destruction many residents and businesses have statedthey would move to another state rather than try to rebuild after another Katrina. The social andeconomic impact of such an exodus would be very harmful to Louisiana, both in population loss and infinancial losses. The frustration of north shore residents is made worse by the lack of attention given tothe issue and leaving the population without any hope for protection in the near future.2) Restoration projects may be appropriate in other areas of the state, but they can not provide adequateprotection to the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. Restoration projects would do little to prevent aslow moving storm surge from entering the lake. Also restoration projects can not prevent the surgedamage as it leaves the lake. Restoration projects are too susceptible to damage from storm surge actionand years of restoration activity can be easily wiped out by one storm and the restoration process wouldneed to start over again.3) The ideal solution is to keep the surge out of the lake in the first place, but since we have allowed thesurge to enter the next best solution would be to provide as many outlets as possible for the surge to exitthe lake thereby reducing its destructive force. We have failed to address ether solution.4) Hurricane Katrina damage to the north shore was not caused by storm surge as it slowly entered thelake; the destruction to the north shore was caused once the storm passed and the built up surge rapidlytried to escape through the narrow five mile opening under the I-10 Twin Span between Irish Bayou and

Slidell. The key to protecting the north shore Lake Pontchartrain basin is to reduce the size of the fastmoving surge as it exits the lake.a) The CPRA Master Plan should include storm surge models that show before and after impacts to thenorth shore as a result of all the projects that have been built and are being built along the southshore of Lake Pontchartrain and along Lake Borgne. The “before models” should represent pre 1965conditions, when Congress first authorized the Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protectionflood control act and the “after models” should show the impact all the subsequent projects have hadon the north shore.i) Closing of the MRGO and levee project along Lake Bourn will push more water in LakePontchartrain. The Corps has maintained that the increase into Lake Pontchartrain is minimaland amounts to only a few inches. This may be true if you spread the increase evenly throughoutthe entire lake basin, but the reality is the increase is hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of waterthat is stacked up several feet high as the surge tries to escape the lake.ii) Building a 21’ levee from the west edge of Jefferson Parish to the Twin Spans and constructinggates at the Industrial Canal has eliminated all escape routes of receding storm surge leavingonly the narrow five mile opening at the Twin Span for the massive surge to flow through.Existing Corps reports admit that the Industrial canal alone had provided an outlet for 20% of thelakes receding storm surge before the gate was installed.iii) New pumping stations in Jefferson and Orleans parishes have vastly increased the quantity ofwater pumped into the lake.iv) Private developers along with city and parish projects have also disrupted storm surge flows andhave placed communities at greater risk. Specifically the levee built south of Slidell withoutbenefit of studies or modeling has placed over 3,000 homes and business located south of thelevee at greater surge risk.v) As a result of all these projects, the only question is how much additional surge damage willthese projects be responsible for? Please include into your plan the actual quantity of waterCorps projects have diverted into Lake Pontchartrain and what impact that increased quantityalong with other projects will have on storm surge as it tries to escape the lake. Have theseprojects increase storm surge by one foot or by 10 feet as it attempts to squeeze through thenarrow opening under the Twin Spans?vi) This “before” and “after” comparison is vitally important and validates the need for acomprehensive over view of how projects impact surrounding communities.5) The obvious question is: what is the best, most comprehensive and cost effective way to provide stormsure protection to the hundreds of thousands of residents living within the Lake Pontchartrain basin?a) This question was answered 50 years ago when the Corps wanted to build control structures at theRigolets and Chef Pass.b) The control structures were authorized and funding approved by congress 40 years ago and thatauthorization and approval has never been rescinded.c) The control structures plan was abandoned by the Corps and funding diverted to other projects notbecause of any technical or engineering or environmental issues, but because there was a lack ofpolitical support and the Corps chose to follow the course of least resistance.d) In 2007, the former colonel commanding the U.S. Corps of Engineers, New Orleans district said thebiggest mistake he made during his 35 years as an Army officer was not pursuing control structuresat the Rigolets and Chef Pass. (See attached Times-Picayune editorial)e) A preliminary concern over the structures plan was how it would effect the environment. At anEden Isles meeting on July 21, 2011, Garret Graves, the Chair of the Coastal Protection andRestoration Authority of Louisiana (CPRA), stated he believes the environmental concerns raised inthe 1970s can be adequately addressed based upon new innovative control structure designs that arenow available.

f) Another misconception that control structures at the Rigolets and Chef Pass would adversely impactMississippi is without merit. A structure designed to be over topped at an elevation ofapproximately 12 feet as the storm approaches the coast would provide protection for LakePontchartrain residents without adversely impacting Mississippi. That, along with the Bay St. Louisseawall will insure no adverse impact from control structures in the Lake Pontchartrain passes.i) A design that allows overtopping at an elevation of approximately 12’ would keep the slowmoving surge that precedes the storm from entering the lake. The over topping that would occuras the storm passes over does not last long and can be absorbed throughout the basin withoutcausing significant damage.g) Cost is always an issue, but not to the extent some would have us believe. Cost projections of 8billion dollars for such a project are grossly exaggerated and can not be supported based upon theactual cost data from the structures installed on the MRGO. Elevating Highway 90 a few feet to anelevation of 12’ and construction structures at the Rigolets and Chef Pass using new innovateddesigns can be achieved for a fraction of the cost that has already been spent on inadequate andfaulty projects that have been constructed along the south shore of the lake. At the CPRA meetingon August 30 th State Senator, A. G. Crowe, presented an Italian design currently being built toprotect Venice, Italy which is very cost effective and I’m sure that is not the only cost effectivemethod of constructing control structures. If we can put a man on the moon we can solve this issue!i) A true and realistic cost estimate for structures at the Rigolets and Chef Pass needs to bepreformed.h) Scheduling is also a concern. The time it would take to plan, authorize, design, obtain fundingauthorization and construct control structures at the Rigolets and Chef Pass is often used as adeterrent to even consider such a project. The MRGO project from conception to completion wascondensed into just a few years and there is no reason that control structures at the Rigolets and ChefPass could not be fast tracked in a similar manner.i) Control structures at the Rigolets and Chef Pass were studied, designed, authorized and receivedfunding approved by Congress 40 years ago and that authorization and approval has never beenrescinded.ii) Using the models showing how the south shore projects have increased the storm surge risk andenvironmental harm to St. Tammany provides a strong case to fast track the control structures asa mitigation project bypassing much of the “Red Tape” similar to what was done to close theMRGO.i) Political support is a vital contingency for any project to be successful and the construction ofstructures at the Rigolets and Chef Pass has the support of:i) The St. Tammany Parish Councilii) The St. Tammany Parish Presidentiii) The Mayor of Slidell,iv) State Representative Greg Cromerv) State Senator A. G. Crowevi) State Representative Nita Huttervii) And many othersIn conclusion, I respectfully request the CPRA perform an extensive and comprehensive study of thefeasibility and cost benefit ratio of building storm surge structures at the Rigolets and Chef Pass and makethat evaluation a prominent element of their Coastal master plan.Sincerely,Thomas Thompson

Mr. Kirk RhinehartCoastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804February 24, 2012APACHE LOUISIANA MINERALS LLC(985) 879-3528 TEL · (985) 876-5267 FAXMailing Address:Post Office Box 206, Houma, LA 70361-0206Deliveries Only:1913 LaTerre Court, Houma, LA 70363-7525RE:2012 Master Plan CommentsDear Mr. Rhinehart:By now you’ve been inundated with comments, both pros and cons, to the draft Master Plan.Based upon the comments I witnessed at the public meeting in Houma, I’d venture to say that most of thecomments you’ve received are negative. I hope you do not take the enclosed recommendations in thatlight, but instead consider them as constructive dialogue from a landowner representative responsible forthe management of over 270,000 acres of coastal wetlands in six parishes located across the coast.I commend the efforts of you and your staff in the preparation of the plan. I especially appreciatethe mindset of holding the analysis to scientific review and removing any unwarranted influence on thedecision process. In a perfect world, the results of that analysis should govern. Unfortunately, theimperfect world we live in will require that the merits of the unbiased, scientific analysis yield to thecommon-sense approach of trying to balance coastal restoration with protecting the Louisiana residentswho inhabit that coastal area, along with the infrastructure that sustains them. Some constructivecriticism of the design of the plan follows:External borrow sources, while certainly preferred, should not be exclusive. To disallow interiorborrow for marsh creation projects is the kiss of death for worthwhile projects, current and thoseyet to be proposed, which will protect the people and infrastructure of south Louisiana.Landowner input and involvement is crucial. With the majority of the coast held in privateownership, it baffles me why more credence seems to be given to folks who neither live, work orpay taxes in the area of proposed protection. The plan should speak to the fact that projects willbe considered only when there are willing landowners, and expropriation will not be a toolemployed to accomplish this plan.The plan should allow for the use of hard bankline stabilization along federal navigationchannels. Though these channels were created by Federal authority, they were built with thebenefit of the citizens of Louisiana in mind, and feel the state should relax their hard line stanceagainst cost-sharing on these types of projects.The existing CWPPRA program should be allowed to continue as-is. Though quite limited, thissystem has resulted in meaningful restoration projects being built. To discontinue this programand lump the funding for same into the Master Plan funding stream will be a step in the wrongdirection. Additionally, the State should reverse its decision to provide a “NO” vote for future,proposed CWPPRA projects because they are not contained in the Master Plan project list.J:\Shared_Data\Wetlands & CWPPRA\CPRA Master Plan - Final\2012 Master Plan\Master Plan Comments - ALM.Doc

The Master Plan is silent on the state’s Conservation and Restoration Partnership Fund. This aworthwhile program that should be continued and addressed in the Plan. A stable though modestfunding stream ($10MM annually) should be attached to allow landowners and local governmentsthe ability to put meaningful, small scale restoration and conservation practices on the ground.The state must find a way to make beneficial use of the spoil generated from the federalmaintenance dredging projects. Loss of this spoil material is the most egregious flaw in thecurrent efforts to restore our coast.Project SpecificsSouthwest Apache owns approximately 26,000 acres of property in Cameron Parish in the vicinity of HollyBeach.We have supported the beach nourishment projects and rock breakwater projects along theCameron coast. It’s been our observation that the breakwater projects have handled the stormevents far greater than the beach nourishment projects.The Mud Lake Marsh Creation project is partially on our land, and we support it, but question theamount of funding being estimated for this project. Additionally, there is an active oil and gasfield within this project area for which landowners and oil and gas operators can be an invaluablewealth of information for you during project design.We suggest that the Sabine Lake, Grand Lake and West Cove bank stabilization projects shouldutilize hard structures, not earthen fill and vegetative plantings.Central Coast Apache owns approximately 200,000 acres in this area, the majority of which is located inTerrebonne Parish.The Point-au-Fer project should be eliminated from the plan and that funding directed to moreareas of immediate need and which reduce flood risk to the local citizenry, which is a stated goalof the plan.The Upper Penchant Diversion should be eliminated. The fragile freshwater marshes in the upperpart of this basin cannot withstand 150,000 cfs. The “Increase Atchafalaya Flow to EasternTerrebonne” project will deliver the needed freshwater inflow without destroying the floatantmarsh in that area.The lower part of this basin should be the target area. For that reason, the Bayou Penchant MarshCreation project should be moved further south in the system to work more synergistically withthe existing CWPPRA projects in that area.The Plan is silent on the long-distance pipeline sediment delivery project currently being studiedby the State and Terrebonne Parish. That project should be included. It would provide moremeaningful benefits than the Point-au-Fer project.J:\Shared_Data\Wetlands & CWPPRA\CPRA Master Plan - Final\2012 Master Plan\Master Plan Comments - ALM.doc2

Apache is an affected landowner for several of the Ridge Restoration projects in Terrebonne.While we certainly support the concept, we are not in favor of creating large borrow channelsacross pristine wetlands in order to construct these ridges. We oppose the Mauvais Bois Ridgeproject. Much dialogue with affected landowners should ensue.The Plan is void of meaningful restoration projects in eastern Terrebonne Parish, therefore, thecitizens of this area have essentially been written off. As a minimum, the Terrebonne BayShoreline project should be implemented using local borrow material so the project can be costeffective.Your support of the Morganza to the Gulf and HNC lock are appreciated and are absolutelyessential to the sustainability of the land, culture and people of this area.Southeast Apache owns approximately 52,000 acres in the Barataria basin, west of the Mississippi river.The North Caminada Marsh Creation project should be scaled back considerably. Any marshcreation projects should have more emphasis on protecting Louisiana Highway 1, Port Fourchon,LOOP, and the Larose to Golden Meadow levee system.Barataria Compartment B should be scrapped and that money applied to projects closer to theBayou Lafourche ridge, (such as the Lower Barataria-Compartment C, Leeville Area MarshCreation project and/or the Belle Pass-Golden Meadow-Compartment B), which will protect theresidents and infrastructure of lower Lafourche.In conclusion, time is short. You have much work to do to correct what we perceive as oversightsof the Plan before submitting it to the legislature. I trust you will do the right thing and put greateremphasis on the protection of the people and infrastructure of the coastal communities.Sincerely,APACHE LOUISIANA MINERALS LLCTimothy J. Allen, PLSGeneral ManagerJ:\Shared_Data\Wetlands & CWPPRA\CPRA Master Plan - Final\2012 Master Plan\Master Plan Comments - ALM.doc3

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/22/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 70First NameScottLast NameGiroirAddress407 Palm Dr.Braithwaite, Louisiana 70040United StatesMap ItEmailgiroirscott@gmail.comComments1. Remove all Diversions in Plaquemines Parish from the 2012 State Master plan2. Add 18 miles of current non-federal levees on east bank of Plaquemines Parish from Braithwaite to White Ditch tothe 2012 Master plan for elevation to 21 feet.

Untitled Messagehttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Verret, Kirby [kverret@tpsd.org]Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 8:54 AMTo:Master PlanComment:If we are to protect the large areas of population, we have to build protection as far south as we can, including thebarrier islands to reduce storm surge. This is a war between man and Mother Nature. We fight our wars at greatdistances to minimize the damage to our homeland, so it is with this war. The greater distance the storm has totravel before it reaches large populations, the weaker the storm will be, thus reducing losses.In Terrebonne Parish, the Morganza to the Gulf Hurricane Protection Levee System needs to be completed with astructure below Dulac to block tidal surge coming up the Houma Navigation Channel. A lock that can keep saltwater from intruding would be of great help to reduce erosion caused by salt water. We have the potential formore industry coming to our area if we provide a place where industry can locate and minimize damage due tostorms.We must build as far south as possible to protect existing communities and resources. We need to remind the restof this country of the great amount of oil and gas produced along the coast which helped the rest of this country. Itis only fair that the rest of this country help restore and protect our coast.Kirby Verret,Former Coastal Zone Management Committee Member, Terrebonne ParishFormer Chairman, United Houma NationStill a resident: 183 Coast Guard RoadDulac, Louisiana 70353Cell (985) 856-5037

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 29First NamescottLast NamemillerAddress160 bazile daigle rdlake charles, la 70607United StatesMap ItEmailsjdgmiller@yahoo.comCommentsWhat effects would the levie system have on the big lake community? Has tis been lookd at?

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 47First NameBoLast NameMarkovicAddress1905 Highway 59Mandeville, LA 70448United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)B&K Construction CO., LLCEmailbom@bkconst.comCommentsB&K Construction has been in volved in the restoration of Louisiana's Coast and Flood Protection throughnumberous projects. We are thankful and blessed to have great minds working on a plan to restore our Coast. Welook forward to performing many of the projects in the Master Plan. Please keep us updated.Thank you again for all of your work.Bo MarkovicSenior EstimatorB&K Construction Co., LLC1905 Highway 59Mandeville, LA 70448985-626-1866

NEW PROJECTShttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012NEW PROJECTSHelen & Ken [8246buras@att.net]Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 9:15 PMTo:Master PlanWill any new projects be considered or are we locked into only those previously approved projects?Can the parish representatives offer new projects for inclusion in the Master Plan?Ken Ragas

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.Robert and Linda Taylor [linda.taylor@williams.com]Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:20 AMTo:Master PlanFrom: Robert and Linda Taylor Subject: Regional Communtiy MeetingsMessage Body:I was not aware of the meeting held for my community. I live lower Bayou DuLarge on Brady Road and am veryconcerned that I will be out of the protection of the levee system. I have lived on this bayou for 30 years and feelas a taxpayer we should all be included in the protection levee system.Please add my email to the Master Plan email distribution. I would like to voice my concerns at the next meetingin 2012.--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.sam schudmak [sam@schudmak.com]Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 11:46 AMTo:Master PlanFrom: sam schudmak Subject: secondary levee on border of jefferson parish and st.charles parisMessage Body:I represent the owners of the a piece of land on the border of st.charles parish and jefferson parish. How do i findout if this levee is part of the new state master plan? the levee runs from airline hwy to behind the airport. myunderstanding was, that when the new levees were built, that this secondary levee was not needed any more.who can i contact that would have any information to help.sincerelysam schudmak--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 59First NameEricLast NameEliasAddressPo box 219Breaux bridge, La 70517United StatesMap ItEmailMegalodon45@yahoo.comCommentsBeing an avid outdoorsman it is obvious to me where rock wall has been placed in certain stretches along thefreshwater bayou and 4 mile cut the marsh's that have protection or healthier and not as vulnerable to erosion as theunprotected areas. I propose a Rockwall along the whole length of these waterways which run through the heart ofsome of richest wetlands in southwest la.Sincerely,Eric elias

Atchafalaya BasinkeeperDean A. WilsonCell: (225) 692-4114Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Asst.Cara LeverettCell: (225) 685-9554Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityc/o Karim BelhadjaliP.O. BOX 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804ATCHAFALAYA BASINKEEPER COMMENTS ON THE 2012 DRAFT,COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN FOR A SUSTAINABLE COAST.Dear Mr. Belhadjali,February 20, 2012Atchafalaya Basinkeeper (ABK) welcomes the opportunity to comment on theDraft 2012 Revision of the Comprehensive Plan for a Sustainable Coast. We are a nonprofitorganization, dedicated to protecting and restoring the ecosystems in theAtchafalaya Basin for future generations. 1 ABK has about 400 members, many of themare commercial fishermen, who hunt in the Basin and/or use the Basin for recreation(bird watching, hiking, canoeing, etc.) ABK is the main group monitoring for illegalcypress logging throughout coastal Louisiana.The new Master Plan is an improvement with regard to the previous plan. Whilethe new Master Plan shows more independent science, it does not address the mainthings that have caused our coast to be in the degraded state that it is today. With thesecomments, I hope to clearly address some of the problems with the Master Plan.Addressing all causes of wetland lossAlmost everyone agrees on the causes of wetland loss, but those are not fullyaddressed in the Master Plan. If the state is really serious about restoring our coast thereal causes of our coast demise have to be addressed.1. Development in wetlands:For decades, the State of Louisiana has allowed unrestricted development ofwetlands and has pressured the Corps of Engineers to look the other way, whileour coast was dismantled piece-by-piece by the digging of thousands of miles ofcanals, the dredging of our shell beds and other development in wetlands.Apparently, we did not learn our lesson. The Corps of Engineers, with the help ofthe State of Louisiana, continues to indiscriminately issue permits to companiesand powerful landowners. Illegal developers are rewarded with after-the-factpermits and almost never receive fines; in this way the State of Louisiana and theCorps encourage illegal activities, while penalizing law-abiding people andbusinesses that go through the proper permitting process. Many members of theAtchafalaya Basinkeeper 162 Croydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806. Office: (225) 685-9554Fax: (225) 922-9247 Email: Basinkeeper@aol.com Website: www.basinkeeper.org

Atchafalaya BasinkeeperDean A. WilsonCell: (225) 692-4114Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Asst.Cara LeverettCell: (225) 685-9554Louisiana Congressional Delegation continue attempts to weaken the CleanWater Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act, which would allow further destructionof our wetlands.In the Atchafalaya Basin, the Atchafalaya Basin Program is using public funds tofill in some of the most important and productive wetlands in the nation, to openoil canals, and to restrict public access to navigable waters of the U.S.; all whileignoring strong opposition from a majority of the people who attend the publicmeetings. Protective easements, paid for with tax dollars, are manipulated suchthat they afford very little protection for the environment. Landowners ignore theconditions specified by the easements, and there is no enforcement to insure thatthey are upheld, making the easements useless. One of the most recent andmost outrageous violations took place when one of the largest and most powerfullandowners in the Basin built a levee, in the form of two permanent, elevatedroads placed east to west across most of the Eastern Atchafalaya Basin. Theroad blocked swamps and natural bayous and violated environmental easementson the land. Furthermore, the permits issued to build the roads were based onfraudulent permit applications. The Corps of Engineers refused to make thelandowner remove the roads and the State of Louisiana went so far as torelinquish ownership of a previously owned bayou to avoid forcing the land ownerto remove an illegally built dam.How can the State of Louisiana ask American taxpayers to make the sacrifice ofpaying billions of dollars for coastal restoration and wetland protection, while theyhave no intention, whatsoever, of stopping the destruction of our wetlands?Louisiana is using public funds to destroy the wetlands that we still have,continues to allow development of wetlands and the digging of canals, and ispressuring the Corps not to enforce the laws that protect our wetlands. It is ashame that the penalty a fisherman receives for catching an undersized bass isgreater than the penalty a developer receives for destroying hundreds of acres ofwetlands.2. Levees:We have already seen the negative effects that levees have on wetlands and thecoast. The Morganza to the Gulf should never be built. Wetlands cannot beprotected by levees. The Morganza to the Gulf will open more wetlands fordevelopment, but it will be catastrophic for our coast in the long term, sincelevees do not protect wetlands, and furthermore cut them off from the sheet flowneeded to replenish them with influxes of nutrients and sediment. You cannotmake a levee “leaky” enough to provide the sheet flow needed to sustain ourwetlands.Atchafalaya Basinkeeper 162 Croydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806. Office: (225) 685-9554Fax: (225) 922-9247 Email: Basinkeeper@aol.com Website: www.basinkeeper.org

Atchafalaya BasinkeeperDean A. WilsonCell: (225) 692-4114Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Asst.Cara LeverettCell: (225) 685-95543. Global Warming:It is unbelievable that the State of Louisiana does not address global warmingand sea level rise. How can the State expect the rest of the nation to come to ouraid when we are choosing to ignore one of the biggest threats to our coastline?How will the Morganza to the Gulf protect communities when the sea levelreaches the levee?4. State Law. The Public Trust Doctrine:The state of Louisiana has a legal constitutional duty under the Public TrustDoctrine and that needs to be addressed in the Master Plan. A plan should becreated to fulfill the duties of the state mandated by our constitution.Marsh creation projectsJustification is needed for the huge amount of funds allocated to marsh creationprojects. Many of these projects will have a final cost $50,000 or more per acre ofmarsh restored or created. Without fully addressing the reasons for why they collapsedin the first place, those newly recreated wetlands may end up washing away again. It iscritically important that the Master Plan address questions of ownership, protections forecological values and further development. The idea of newly created wetlands beingprivately owned is outrageous. Wetlands created with tax payer dollars should beowned by the state or the federal government and those wetlands should bepermanently protected from development andtheir ecological values protected.Restored wetlands: ownership and protectionLouisiana’s coastal wetlands are an incredibly important asset to the rest of thecountry. In the case of migratory birds, Louisiana’s coastal ecosystems have enormousinternational importance. Nearly the entire eastern population of neotropical migrantseither stops over or uses Louisiana’s wetland ecosystems as their prime breedingareas. The importance of our coastal ecosystems to the nation, the planet and humanityshould be addressed in the Master Plan.We are asking for a significant investment from the rest of the nation and it iscritical that the best interests of the nation are taken into consideration when requestingcoastal restoration funds.Restored wetlands should have their ecological values and functions permanentlyprotected. If the state fails to do so, there is a very real possibility that many of theprojects funded under the Master Plan will end up causing more ecological harm thangood. One example is the case of our cypress-tupelo forests. There are land ownersAtchafalaya Basinkeeper 162 Croydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806. Office: (225) 685-9554Fax: (225) 922-9247 Email: Basinkeeper@aol.com Website: www.basinkeeper.org

Atchafalaya BasinkeeperDean A. WilsonCell: (225) 692-4114Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Asst.Cara LeverettCell: (225) 685-9554right now that are waiting for certain “restoration” projects to take place so they can gainaccess to harvest/liquidate the forests that they own (or claim to own); the cypressforests will forever be gone if harvested. Under no circumstances should the State ofLouisiana allow coastal restoration projects to facilitate further degradation of theecological values that our coastal ecosystems provide. Immediate steps should betaken to assure Louisiana’s citizens and the rest of the nation that this will neverhappen.Louisiana has taken steps to protect much of the Maurepas Basin, and wecommend the state for that. The same steps should be immediately taken topermanently protect cypress-tupelo swamps throughout coastal Louisiana, especially inthe Atchafalaya Basin and the Barataria-Terrabonne Basin.Louisiana’s Coastal Wetland ForestsA key concern of the Atchafalaya Basinkeeper and its members is theconservation and protection of Louisiana’s coastal wetland forests. The 2012 DraftRevision contains a section on Coastal Forests in Chapter 6 (“Policies and Programs”)with the following strong statement:“Our modeling indicates that many of Louisiana’s cypress forests will be lost inthe next 10 to 20 years unless we take action now. The iconic forests that are thesymbol of our coast for people around the world are not just unique habitats andintrinsically valuable landscapes, they also help protect communities from storm surgeflooding.”The Costal Wetland Forests Conservation and Use report by the ScienceWorking Group (SWG) begins like this:“Louisiana’s coastal wetland forests are of tremendous economic, ecological,cultural, and recreational value to residents of Louisiana, the people of the UnitedStates, and the world.”The environmental services provided by these forests include:• Wildlife habitat (including migratory songbirds/waterfowl, threatened and endangeredspecies).• Flood protection, water quality improvement (including nitrate attenuation), and stormsurge protection.• Carbon storage and soil stabilization.Atchafalaya Basinkeeper 162 Croydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806. Office: (225) 685-9554Fax: (225) 922-9247 Email: Basinkeeper@aol.com Website: www.basinkeeper.org

Atchafalaya BasinkeeperDean A. WilsonCell: (225) 692-4114Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Asst.Cara LeverettCell: (225) 685-9554• Economic benefits of fishing, crawfishing, hunting, timber production, and ecotourism.Millions of landbirds, including virtually all of the eastern neotropical migrantlandbird species in the United States and numerous species from the western UnitedStates, migrate through the coastal forests of Louisiana during spring and fall. Dozensof wading bird rookeries and over one hundred bald eagle nests are located inLouisiana’s coastal forests. In addition, two of three subpopulations of the Louisianablack bear use these forests.The SWG estimated a total value of $6.7 billion per year provided by Louisiana’sswamps. Based on current stumpage volume and price, the value of the standingcypress-tupelo timber in the area delineated by the SWG has been estimated by theLouisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry to be $3.3 billion (total, one-timevalue). In comparison, in the U.S., the annual economic output of bird watching, alone,is $85 billion. Our coastal wetland forests are an incredible asset to Louisiana that willcontinue to increase in value for generations to come if we protect them properly. Thevalue of the timber is less than half of the value they provide every year, so it should bea no-brainer that the State of Louisiana should be doing anything in its power to protectthese forests.Despite being one of the most important long-term, sustainable assets, toLouisiana, there is hardly any mention of our coastal forests in the plan. The LouisianaDepartment of Agriculture and Forestry and the Louisiana Forestry Association continueto ignore science, while supporting the logging of our cypress forests for mulch, ignoringthe reality that most cypress forests are lost forever once they are logged.The importance of coastal wetland forests as storm buffers, and the inability formost of them to regenerate if logged, has never been acknowledged by the State. Whenconservation organizations mobilized to stop the large-scale logging of cypress swampsin the coastal zone, their only policy options were the regulatory authority granted to theEnvironmental Protection Agency under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and to theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Theresponse of some members of Louisiana’s Congressional Delegation was to try to stripthis authority from the Corps and to gut the laws. The Louisiana Legislature passed aresolution demanding that the Corps stop enforcing Section 10. 6 In addition togenerating bad press, these actions sent a mixed message about the state’scommitment to restoring its coast. 7 They also illustrate why any revision of regulatoryprograms to ostensibly aid coastal restoration (p. 42) must be done carefully andaccomplished through an open, transparent process.After convening a Stakeholder Advisory Group that failed to reach consensus onmany elements of a state policy on coastal forest and cypress logging, the state’sAtchafalaya Basinkeeper 162 Croydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806. Office: (225) 685-9554Fax: (225) 922-9247 Email: Basinkeeper@aol.com Website: www.basinkeeper.org

Atchafalaya BasinkeeperDean A. WilsonCell: (225) 692-4114Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Asst.Cara LeverettCell: (225) 685-9554response to this issue has focused on utilizing funds from the Coastal ImpactAssessment Program (CIAP) for a forests conservation program. As noted in the 2012Draft, CIAP funds have been used to underwrite a Coastal Forest Initiative (p. 158), andthe response to the program from landowners has been growing. The report’sexpression of support for ongoing investment in and management of the program isencouraging, but the $16 million received so far from CIAP is not adequate to addressthe scale of the coastal forest sustainability problem. The fact that the State may usesome of the $6.7 million from the oil spill settlement money to fund the Coastal ForestConservation Initiative program is a step in the right direction as long and theprotections are permanent and disallow logging.We believe that an expected investment in the conservation and protection ofcoastal forests by the State is a must for a number of reasons. This investment is in linewith the stated objectives of the 2012 Master Plan (p. 39), which emphasize floodprotection, natural processes, coastal habitats, cultural heritage and a working coast –all benefits provided by coastal forests and the Atchafalaya Basin in particular.The Plan’s emphasis on Ecosystem Services is an important one, and anotherarea where coastal forests make a critical contribution. The definition of EcosystemServices delivered by the coast does not mention coastal forests, but they clearlysupport storm surge/wave attenuation, carbon sequestration, freshwater availability,nutrient uptake, and nature-based tourism (p. 53).Louisiana’s coastal forests provide a clear example of the benefits of standingforests, including mature and old-growth stands. The 2012 Draft cites the potential forcoastal wetlands to act as carbon sinks, but the cypress swamps and other coastalforests are performing this function already. A number of recent studies haveemphasized the importance of mature forests for carbon uptake and storage, and therelease of carbon that occurs when they are disturbed. 8A proposal made, but not adopted, during the Coastal Forest Stakeholderprocess was the utilization of baldcypress plantations grown on converted agriculturalland. Cypress grows quickly in this situation, and can better supply a variety ofindustries than the slower growing stands in remaining wetlands. Such efforts can feedinto regional programs to reforest floodplains for carbon uptake. 9Finally, the only explicit mention of cypress swamps in the report is in the sectionon the Southeast coast on p. 122. There are critical swamps in this region, such as theManchac Swamp, but cypress swamps and coastal forests are important across theentire coast. Even though the acreage of remaining swamps in Southwest Louisianamay be less than that of the Atchafalaya Basin or the Southeast region, they are still ofcritical importance because they provide the same ecosystem services that the reportAtchafalaya Basinkeeper 162 Croydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806. Office: (225) 685-9554Fax: (225) 922-9247 Email: Basinkeeper@aol.com Website: www.basinkeeper.org

Atchafalaya BasinkeeperDean A. WilsonCell: (225) 692-4114Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Asst.Cara LeverettCell: (225) 685-9554emphasizes, and are therefore a major component in the ongoing sustainability of thoseparts of the coast as well.The creation of the Coastal Wetland Forests Reserve, as recommended by theScience Working Group, should be an important component of the Master Plan. Aneducation campaign aimed at stopping the cypress mulch trade and the support of thestrict enforcement of the environmental laws that protect our wetland forests should bea priority for the State of Louisiana. Landowners should be educated about the lack ofsustainability of logging these forests and incentives should be created to permanentlyprotect them.Coastal RestorationA major focus of the report is land-building for restoration. The sections on theCentral Coast (p. 27 and 118) state that maintaining the land-building capacity of theAtchafalaya region is a major priority, including the direction of Atchafalaya River watereastward to sustain dying marshes in Terrebonne Parish.Sedimentation upstream in the Basin has led to a decline of cypress swampsbecause large areas have been converted to bottomland hardwood forests. Whilebottomland hardwood forests (as well as pastureland) can also serve as the Spillwayrequired by the Morganza-Old River flood control system, it would be valuable toexplore the potential for restoration of hydrology that can restore cypress swampsupstream in the Basin as well. The Science Working Group report on coastal forestsalso emphasized the importance of hydrological restoration for sustaining cypressswamps.The situation in the Atchafalaya Basin is deplorable. The Corps of Engineers’goal is to divert 65% of the sediment load of the Mississippi River into the AtchafalayaBasin. We have already lost three-quarters of the original cypress-tupelo forests, whichare now either farm land or hardwood forests. The remaining cypress-tupelo swampsare considered to be among the most valuable and productive wetlands in the nation,but the State of Louisiana, through LADNR, is investing most of their funding for waterquality projects into redistributing sediments to fill in what is left of Atchafalaya swamps.The terms for the environmental easements in the Basin have been undermined to thepoint that they do not meet their goals for wetland conservation, and no one is enforcingwhat little protection they provide. In addition, illegal developers are being rewarded withafter-the-fact permits and the State and the Corps are busy covering up illegal activities.Is this an example of how we are going to manage Coastal Restoration dollars?Atchafalaya Basinkeeper 162 Croydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806. Office: (225) 685-9554Fax: (225) 922-9247 Email: Basinkeeper@aol.com Website: www.basinkeeper.org

Atchafalaya BasinkeeperDean A. WilsonCell: (225) 692-4114Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Asst.Cara LeverettCell: (225) 685-9554Part of the reason our coast is in the situation it is today is mismanagement andabuses that happened in the past. Louisiana should make it a priority to protect itsremaining wetlands as well as the ecological values of those wetlands. Regulationsunder the Clean Water Act and the River and Harbors Act were created to protectwetlands--these laws should be fully enforced. No public funds should ever be used tofill wetlands or to diminish the ecological values of those wetlands. Furthermore, a planshould be created to permanently protect the values of the wetlands we restore orcreate.Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2012 Revision of theComprehensive Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Please let us know if AtchafalayaBasinkeeper can help in any way. Protecting and restoring our coastal wetlands is ourpriority.Sincerely,Dean A. WilsonAtchafalaya Basinkeeper. Executive Director162 CroydonBaton Rouge, LAenapay3@aol.comcell; (225) 692-41141 Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, http://www.basinkeeper.org/6 Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, 2005 Regular Session,http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=3179107 The Independent Weekly, “Mulch Madness,” http://www.theind.com/cover-story/2279-;Times Picayune, “Putting the Coast First,” May 10, 2005,http://www.eswr.com/docs/505/vitterNOTPedit.pdf.8 Luyssaert, et al, “Old growth forests as carbon sinks,” Nature, September 2008,http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ThreatsForestHealth/Climate/CI-LuyssaertNature08Old_growth_carbon_sink.pdf;9 Clarke, et al, “Project Plan for Carbon Sequestration Through Afforestation in the Lower MississippiAlluvial Valley,” 2008, http://actionlearning.mit.edu/files/slab_files/Projects/2008/USBCSD,%20report.pdf.Atchafalaya Basinkeeper 162 Croydon Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70806. Office: (225) 685-9554Fax: (225) 922-9247 Email: Basinkeeper@aol.com Website: www.basinkeeper.org

February 16, 2012Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityc/o Karim BelhadjaliP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027Re: Comments on the 2012 Draft, Louisiana's Comprehensive Master Plan for aSustainable Coast.Dear Mr. Belhadjali,We have reviewed Louisiana's 2012 Draft Coastal Master Plan and are pleased to support thescientific review and independence outlined in the Plan. The use of science to guide the outcome is asignificant change from the earlier Plan. Without a strong science and engineering input, the Plan willlikely fail. This must be continued for each version of the Master Plan.We applaud the emphasis of non-structural measures included in the Master Plan. Werecommend further that the State require a standardized Land Use Plan for all Coastal Parishes. This willassure that every Parish is required to administer a comprehensive plan to reduce future loss of life,property and the loss of natural storm buffers.The Post-Katrina, Federal sediment/soil standards for levee building should be adopted by Stateand local governments. The failure of levees protecting New Orleans was a result of poor standards.These new standards should be included in the Plan.A re-evaluation of all completed state and federal projects in the coastal zone is essential. Therewill be a continued conflict between coastal restoration and degradation, until each project is evaluated todetermine its need and impact. Federal Civil works projects can no longer be considered "sacred cows" inwhich any discussion of change or deauthorization is taken "off the table."A Coastal Restoration Task force composed of agency, academic and, NGO scientists shouldbecome a permanent feature of the Plan. This Task Force should evaluate the monitoring data andadaptive management of projects in the coastal zone as the Plan changes over time. We have additionalsuggestions on how to strengthen the plan and those comments follow:Expand the Coastal Zone Boundary:"The Louisiana Legislature should consider an updated inland boundary for the coastal zone based onfindings and recommendations of the 2010 Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority document:“Defining Coastal Louisiana: A Science-based Evaluation of the Adequacy of the Inland Boundary of theLouisiana Coastal Zone.” p. 157, Main Report (MR)We support the extension of the State's Coastal Zone Management authority to include all areasthat fit the scientific definition of a coastal zone. The Atchafalaya Basin, including the floodway, mustbe included. A watershed approach should be incorporated in Coastal Zone Planning.Congressional and Legislative Actions:"The State will identify and monitor Congressional actions needed to streamline and expedite the1

implementation of the master plan with federal coordination. The state will also identify and monitoractions needed by the Louisiana Legislature to ensure that state regulations and policies are consistentwith the master plan objectives and implementation." p. 157, Main Report (MR)Coordination between state and federal agencies is important and we support this concept.However, we are concerned that politics will enter into the decision making process and will eliminateopportunities for public review and comment. Any streamlined process must have public input andadequate time for written comments.Regulatory effects:"Revisions to some laws and regulations may be needed to help the state’s coastal program achieve itsgoals. The master plan highlights where such changes may be needed so that local, state, and federalpartners are able to act in concert with the plan." p. 42, 154 MRWe support an expedited process for approval of some projects, which have been thoroughlyreviewed by the scientific community. Others, which are using new concepts and adaptive management(design/build), must go through a complete EIS process. Federal laws and regulations must not bewatered down. We are opposed to using the "Alternative arrangements" for a NEPA review.Consistency:"Given the emergency facing coastal Louisiana, it is imperative that all government agencies actquickly and in accord with the master plan. Governor Jindal’s Executive Order BJ 2008‐7highlights the need for the plan to drive and expedite state action across agencies. The same needapplies to the state’s partners at the local and federal levels, consistent with their mandates andmissions." p. 42, MR1). State Agencies: (DNR/CZM)We agree that there must be consistency between state agencies in support of the Master Plan.There has been a divergence from this concept by state agencies. (See coastal forests below). In addition,local politics has trumped agency permit decisions in the past.However, federal agencies, such as the Corps, have missions that are not in harmony with CoastalRestoration. These missions must be re-evaluated and the projects changed to conform to the MasterPlan. (See discussion below, under Federal Agencies)."As we implement the 2012 Coastal Master Plan, we must evaluate coastal regulatory programs andpolicies that could impact land loss rates to ensure that these programs support the objectives of theMaster Plan. Sound resource management practices and policies must be implemented at the state andlocal levels so that coastal resources are used in ways that support our working coast and our protectionand restoration efforts." p. 157, MRWe agree with this statement but there is a need to review state and federal policy, which permitsthe construction of homes and businesses in flood plains and storm surge zones. These flood-prone areasare known from historical information but the Regulatory Branch of the NOD of Corps of Engineer'sissues Clean Water Act (CWA) Sec. 404 permits supporting building in areas, which will flood in thefuture. These policies must be changed. The governor has no authority to change a congressionalmandate. Congress can only do that. The Louisiana congressional delegation should be involved inchanging the policies of the Corps. Unfortunately, many of these projects have also been approved by theLa CZM.2). Federal Agencies: (Civil Works)Another consistency problem is the continuation of federal public works projects authorized byCongress. There needs to be a re-evaluation of Civil Works projects administered under the NOD of theUSACE. A re-evaluation should determine: 1) whether a project is still viable, 2) what environmental2

impacts will occur by continuing the project in perpetuity, 3) how each project effects the state's CoastalRestoration Plan, 4) whether the project is beneficial or detrimental to the long term goal of restoring thestate's coastal wetlands.Many of the Corps projects have exceeded their 50-year life. A re-evaluation must take intoaccount the present restoration/sustainable coastal plan. If they are in conflict with the goals of theMaster Plan, then they need to be modified by Congress or deauthorized, as was done with theMississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO).According to a Dept. of the Interior study published in 1994, "About 550 miles of Federalnavigation canals traverse Coastal Louisiana and range from 12 to 45 feet deep and 150 to 500 feet wide.The 302-mile Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is the largest of the seven main canals. Together these projectsconverted 17,878 acres [28 sq mi] of wetlands to open water due to excavation and another 76,676 acres[120 sq mi] due to filling with dredged material. About 274,000 additional acres [425 sq mi] disappearedin the affected drainage basins, largely because of the canals' indirect effects. The indirect effects areseveral times larger than the direct effects." (USDOI, 1994) .The Barataria Waterway is one of the ten major federally authorized navigation channels inLouisiana (Taylor et al., 2011). It cut through the barrier island sill between Grande Isle and Grand Terreincreasing salinities in lower Barataria Bay contributed to the destruction of oyster leases in the 1960s. Italso cut through a natural levee ridge south of Lafitte allowing hurricane surges to move into the upperbasin. Once a waterway is dredged, the Corps has stated that it has no responsibility to maintain thewidth of the cut even though it widens through erosion and slumping."Over time, the banks of many of these channels, inadequately armored and subject to impactsfrom ship wakes, wind, and storms, have experienced severe erosion, which has in turn directlyand indirectly led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of acres of adjacent wetlands. TheLouisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) has estimated that the losses associatedwith the erosion along navigation channels have ranged from 145 percent to greater than 300percent of the original direct losses associated with their construction. These wetlands previouslyprovided natural storm surge protection and wave attenuation areas for coastal communities,which have been significantly reduced by the construction and subsequent widening of thechannels." (Taylor et al., 2011).The USACE has a "conflict of interest" because its main mission is to provide for navigation.They are not tasked with reducing the environmental impacts of their projects. Therefore, their mission isincompatible with that of the State's Master Plan. This must be changed.3). Inclusion of FEMA in Coastal decisions:"According to FEMA, (Dallas/Fort Worth Office, 1999), they are not authorized to comment onany CWA Sec. 404 permits - even those which propose housing developments in knownfloodplains or hurricane storm-surge areas. This policy should to be changed to adequately andeffectively consider Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management. Since FEMA ischarged with administering the National Flood Insurance Program, the agency should also beproactive in preventing (i.e. recommending denial) of permits that place people and developedproperty in harm’s way. FEMA should be added to the mandatory agency review of CWA Sec.404 permits." (GRN et al., 2011)Utilizing Sediment:1). Sediment for restoration:"At present, limited supplies of, or access to, renewable sediment constrain the restoration effortswe can undertake. As a result, we have also considered dredging options if natural processes donot offer us the sediment we need. The master plan recognizes the need to maximize use ofsediment sources outside the system. Possible sources of sediment outside the system include theMississippi River, the Atchafalaya River, Calcasieu Ship Channel, and areas offshore in the Gulf of3

Mexico." p. 42, MRWe support the use of sediment from outside the coastal system to build levees and marshesand we endorse the use of surplus sediments from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers sincesediment supply is constantly being replenished by sediments introduced through their tributaries.We also support the use of sediments from shoal areas offshore if the removal will not cause adverseenvironmental impacts to fisheries.2). Beneficial Use of Dredged Material:"However, the state’s new regulations do not affect the Corps of Engineers when it dredges sediment inthe coastal zone. Because it maintains national navigation channels, particularly along theMississippi River, the Corps dredges more sediment than any other entity in Louisiana: 58 million cubicyards a year. . . . Bringing in sediment from outside the system, by mining sediment from major rivers andnavigation channels, is a fundamental principle of this plan. As the state implements the large scalemarsh creation projects laid out in the draft plan, it is imperative that we use the sediment from Corpsdredging activities." p. 155, MRWhile we agree that dredged sediments should be used for beneficial use, one hundredpercent of “available ” sediments cannot be used from the Mississippi River because of navigationissues. We support the dredging of the Mississippi River or using sediment diversions to distributesurplus sediment. The Atchafalaya is similar in having a surplus of sediment in suspension andbedload.In contrast, dredging of navigation canals and using the dredged sediments to build backwetlands is a no win proposition. As material is dredged during maintenance of a navigation canal,the sides of the waterway become unstable and more material slumps down the new, increased slope.Once the channel reaches equilibrium with the channel banks, more shoreline will have slumped intothe channel causing shoaling and the next round of dredging. It is a vicious cycle - one thatcontinues to widen navigational waterways throughout Louisiana. (Taylor et al., 2011)This is a perpetual process of "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul." Any new wetlands createdby the dredged material from navigation canals is offset by the loss of wetlands along the banks ofthe widening waterway. The failed MRGO is a good example of the process in the extreme. Thedredging of navigation and oil and gas field canals has caused 42% of the coastal landloss (Penlandet al., (2001)."Similarly, the Federal activity need not be in the Louisiana coastal zone; if the activity may havereasonably foreseeable effects on Louisiana’s coastal uses or resources, consistency with the LACRP isrequired. When necessary, the authority of the CZMA is available to stop or modify proposals which maybe detrimental to the goals of Louisiana’s Master Plan." G3-8The above statement does not take into consideration the damage done by federal navigationprojects built in the past and being maintained in perpetuity by the Corps.3). Sediment Standards:The Corps, since Katrina, has required new soil standards for borrow used in rebuilding federalHurricane Protection Levees. This standard is important in building levees that have the structuralintegrity to withstand another Katrina or larger storm. The failure of levees around New Orleans was aresult of using substandard materials by local sponsors. The Corps ignored obvious foundation problemsand incorporated those levees into the federal Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane ProtectionProject (LPVHP). The consequence was the flooding of New Orleans.Parishes would like to use any material that is available to build a levee at the cheapest cost.Although this might be seen by the public as providing quick protection, it is false protection. People willhave a phony sense of security. According to Col. Alvin Lee (past commander of NOD), many of thelevees built by local sponsors in Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes failed because of poor design. If thestate moves unilaterally, it should still use the federal engineering standards adopted by the Corps afterKatrina (see details below). We have to build on lessons learned.4

The safety factor for levees should exceed that used by the Corps before Katrina (factor of 1.3)and follow the recommendations of the independent panel of scientists and engineers, which identified theengineering failures. To push expediency at the expense of sound engineering is folly. The public willpay the consequences as they did in New Orleans.There is no mention in the Master Plan that these new soil standards will be used for levees builtas part of the Plan. In addition, it is our understanding that the federal government will not take overParish or local levees that do not meet the new Post-Katrina soil standard.One of your staff said that the cost of the levee projects, listed in the Master Plan, was based onthe new federal soil standard. If this is true, it should be spelled out in detail in the Master Plan.However, we could not find a reference to the federal post-Katrina soil standards in the Plan.Below is a portion of a memo to the Louisiana Audubon Council, from Gib Owen (USACE,2007), which gives the specific soil criteria presently used by the USACE."In all levee embankment specifications, allowable soil materials are more stringent than prior toHurricane Katrina. In particular: Bold is the present requirements; (Before is prior to HurricaneKatrina).• Soils after placement with organic contents greater than 9% are not allowed (Before -nottested -prior specs stated free from masses of peat and humus)• Soils with plasticity indices (PI) less than 10 are not allowed. (Before- PI less than 5 was notallowed; ML material allowed)• Soils classified as Silts (ML) are not allowed. (Before - ML material allowed)• Only soils classified as clays (CH or CL) are allowed.""Bottom line is we're more selective in materials utilized - there is an organic contentlimit that wasn't there before and we no longer accept silty materials ML; CH & CL's are stillacceptable - more clayey materials are being utilized." (USACE, 2007)ML = silts and very fine sandsCL = lean clays (low to medium plasticity)CH = fat clays (high plasticity)We request that this information be included in the Final version of the Plan. Parishes shouldalso know that the Federal government will not take over maintenance of levees, which do not meet thenew criteria. By stating in the Plan that the additional expenses for levees is due to a better buildingstandard and that the levees will be more durable, the public will understand that they are getting betterprotection for their money and they will be more apt to endorse the higher cost of the levee system.Mitigation:"Clearly defined goals for a compensatory mitigation program must align with and complement the MasterPlan." p. 156, MRWe agree that there should be coordination with all mitigation projects between local, stateand federal agencies. Private landowners should also be part of the process.Mitigation of federal public works projects."The mitigation program must provide additional options for mitigation of public works projects, includinghurricane protection projects, to ensure that the mitigation efforts work in concert with these projects toprovide multiple lines of defense and establish additional wetland habitat." G3-9We support the mitigation concept for future projects especially ones sponsored by federalagencies. What is also needed is mitigation for projects already built (e.g. federal navigation canals).5

The damage to the coastal zone by dredging civil works projects has been well documented. (Tayloret al., 2011; and USDOI, 1994). The NPS (2007) has also raised the issue of mitigation forenvironmental damage to the Barataria Preserve by maintenance dredging and erosion along BayouSegnette Waterway.Monitoring Programs:"To accommodate the dynamic nature of coastal processes, reducing flood risks and the restorationof coastal Louisiana is an evolving process. The master plan should lay the groundwork for an effectivemonitoring and evaluation process that seeks to reduce scientific and engineering uncertainty, assessesthe success of the plan, and supports the adaptive management program." p. 41, MR"All efforts should be focused on monitoring projects and system responses to implementation of themaster plan. Monitoring the physical (e.g., salinity, land, ecosystem services) and social (e.g.,demographics, economics, social acceptance) response of the coastal system with or without projectimplementation will be key to determining effectiveness of the coastal program. This effort will need totake a full evaluation of the current coast wide monitoring efforts (e.g., CRMS, NOAA, BICM, etc.) andthose for individual projects (e.g., levee monitoring systems), and identify and prioritize additions neededfor these monitoring efforts." G1-11We support a rigorous monitoring program with instrumentation in place before, during, and afterprojects have been built. The database for each project must be available to the public by way of accesson a website. Good science requires a sound database. This is essential if adaptive management is used.There should not only be monitoring of physical parameters but also biological. The continuedproductivity of the coastal wetlands is essential for future commercial and recreational fisheries.Environmental Compliance:"To ensure progress in implementing projects identified in the 2012 Coastal Master Plan, anenvironmental compliance process is needed for additional studies that support project development andfuture Congressional authorizations. Specifically, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) is required for Federal actions such as permitting, licensing and funding and can beaccomplished in several ways, as described in this document. Projects that have a more-than-minimalenvironmental impact must prepare a more detailed Environmental Assessment (EA) if there isuncertainty over whether or not the impacts are significant. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)would be needed if the impacts are known to be significant (whether negative or positive)." G3-2Alternative Arrangements:"Many environmental requirements must be complied with outside the traditional umbrella of NEPA, sothere may be a less clear process for regular coordination. It is difficult to demonstrate an emergency forprojects to be implemented over time. No ecosystem restoration programs have received AlternativeArrangements to date." G3-3We support a strong NEPA environmental impact study of each major project. We are opposedto the use of "Alternative Arrangements" (NEPA). These "arrangements" have been used for therebuilding of the $14 billion Hurricane Protection Levee around New Orleans and, in our opinion, it hasbeen a failure. It allows the Corps (lead agency) to "cherry pick" and decide what information the publicis allowed to have. There is also built in discretion by the Commander of the NOD to determine theoutcome of the process. The requirement of a FOIA request has been overused by the Corps andprohibited the public from receiving information in a timely manner to use in public/written comments.Appendix G3 gives a good overview of the different environmental regulations. It is a goodreference.6

Coastal Forests:"Our modeling indicates that many of Louisiana’s cypress forests will be lost in the next 10 to 20 yearsunless we take action now. The iconic forests that are the symbol of our coast for people around theworld are not just unique habitats and intrinsically valuable landscapes, they also help protectcommunities from storm surge flooding. The state’s Coastal Forest Conservation Initiative aims to supportthese and other coastal forests by acquiring land rights (fee title or conservation servitude) from willinglandowners." p. 158, MR."A secondary aspect of the program involves funding small scale projects that enhance the forests’sustainability. The program has received $16 million from the Coastal Impact Assistance Program. . . .The 2012 Coastal Master Plan supports the ongoing investment in and management of this program."p. 158, MR.We support state involvement in protecting our coastal cypress forests. Because theseforests have significant economic value as storm buffers, strategically placed forests should bepurchased (fee title) by the state for permanent protection.The state must review state agency policies regarding protection of coastal forests. In thepast, state agencies have been promoting the destruction of our coastal forests. The LA Dept ofEconomic Development (DED) funded at least two projects, which used coastal cypress for cypressmulch. One $488k grant was offered to Corbit Manufacturing in 2002, to build a mulching plant inKrotz Springs, but he turned it down. It would have harvested cypress trees from the AtchafalayaBasin to be ground up and used for mulch. Instead, he operated a mulching site at Port Allen, LA.Another $234k grant was offered to and accepted by LA State Cypress of Ponchatoula. They wereharvesting cypress in St. Charles Parish, which was sold as garden mulch.The LA Dept of Forestry supported the clear-cutting of coastal cypress forests for makinggarden mulch. In 2005, according to USACE documents, there was a 50,000 acre (78 sq. mi.) site inLafourche Parish that was planned for clear-cutting cypress to be used for mulch. Because of pressurefrom the public and USACE, the applicant withdrew the application for the project. The La Dept ofForestry was a major proponent of harvesting unsustainable cypress forests. The State should notsubsidize the cutting of our coastal forests. We hope this policy has changed.The replanting of cypress trees in areas, which have been freshened to provide a sustainableforest environment, should be addressed in the plan. The area along the upper Mississippi River GulfOutlet (MRGO) historically had a significant cypress forest of over 27,000 acres. The forestdisappeared from salt-water intrusion after the 1960's dredging of the MRGO.There is a plan to introduce freshwater into the St. Bernard/Orleans Parish wetlands east ofthe Mississippi River. The central wetlands, as well as the wetlands along Bayou Bienvenue, should bereforested with cypress once the conditions are met to sustain them. There is strong local supportfor this. The re-establishment of a forest will provide another line of defense for these parishes. Wetherefore, support the Central Wetlands, North Marsh Creation, which the modeling maps show wouldcreate approximately 4,700 acres of land. (001.MC.08). When replanted with cypress and bottomlandhardwood trees, this area will provide a significant buffer to future storm surges.Nonstructural Measures:"Consider amending regulatory requirements, as appropriate, to ensure that goals are met in four areas:1) local land use planning, 2) building codes, 3) flood damage prevention ordinances, and 4) riskreduction project funding." p. 160, MR"Nonstructural projects are integral to the coast-wide risk reduction goal and were proposed for all of theinhabited areas of the coast. A nonstructural project consisting of floodproofing, elevation, and acquisitionof residential structures and floodproofing of nonresidential structures was proposed for each parish andcommunity. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) does not recognize residential floodproofingwhen determining flood insurance premiums.." G2-37

We strongly support nonstructural measures as a way to reduce the re-occurring costs ofrepairing flood impacted structures, especially structures outside the hurricane levee protectionsystem. In many cases, nonstructural measures can replace expensive ring levee systems. AppendixG2 provides a thorough analysis of the issues. See our additional comments in "Land Use Planning"section below.The Corps should consider non-structural solutions more seriously. They issue permits for homesto be built on slabs in wetland areas that frequently flood. The Corps' CWA, Section 404 permittingprocedures and guidance must be re-evaluated to keep new structures out of harms way. There areseveral Executive Orders on flood-plain management that the Corps ignores. Their position is that if thelocal government recommends that a development should receive a Sec. 404 permit for building inwetlands or floodplain, then that gives the Corps the green light to issue the permit. It is estimated thatthere have been over 2,000 acres of wetlands destroyed through the New Orleans District Corps'permitting. The NOD processes over 2,000 wetland permits a year.Land Use Planning:"Land use planning determines where and how people may develop and redevelop land. Effective landuse plans can direct development away from high hazard areas and help preserve the natural functions offloodplains and other critical areas. Land use planning is an essential ingredient in reducing flood risk tofuture building inventory. In Louisiana, comprehensive land use plans are required of parishes and citiesthat have a planning commission; however, not every coastal parish and community has developed aland use plan or has an up to date plan. Land use planning requires an investment of resources,personnel and funding." G2-7Land-use planning is very important in the coastal zone and should supplement nonstructuralmeasures. Since many coastal parishes do not have land use plans, we propose a Mandatory Land UsePlan (MLUP) to protect the coastal zone and prevent building of structures in high-risk areas. ThisMLUP should also prohibit development in wetlands. All parishes in the coastal zone, which receivecoastal protection money from the State or Federal Government, must be required to adopt auniform MLUP.If this became law, it would assist the State in advancing its non-structural programs.Research and Development:"The entire coastal program will be greatly benefited by having a robust and focused research anddevelopment team. Expanding collective understanding of the coast is not just a responsibility of CPRA,but numerous collaborative entities across the coast. The research and development team will becomprised of staff of the Louisiana Coastal Engineering and Science (LACES) division, as well as outsideexperts and entities, such as The Water Institute of the Gulf." p. G1-10We strongly support a science-based research and development team. However, there is nomention that the research and development team will continue for the entire coastal restoration program,which could last for over 50 years.Adaptive Management:"The Adaptive Management Framework will integrate monitoring, predictive models, research, reportcards, stakeholder feedback, and other tools to evaluate CPRA’s coastal program. The AdaptiveManagement Framework will be facilitated by annual plans and updates to the master plan, which thelegislature requires every 1 and 5 years, respectively. These plans will provide opportunities to report onthe progress of the Adaptive Management Framework by assessing overall program effectiveness,reviewing stakeholder engagements, and making necessary adjustments." G1-158

Sea Level Rise:The CPRA Technical Report, "Recommendations for anticipating sea-level rise impacts onLouisiana coastal resources during project planning and design," (DeMarco et al., 2012), should be addedto the appendices of the Draft Master Plan. This is important information and should be discussed in theMaster Plan.Specific Project Comments:Barataria Basin:1). Lafitte Ring Levee: (002.HP.07)We are concerned about the proposed ring levee with floodgates (project 002.HP.07), which willencircle Crown Point, Lafitte and Barataria. The footprint of the levee will encroach onto the BaratariaPreserve of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. We are opposed to any encroachment on or takingof NPS land. The State Master Plan should explore alternative designs for this project, which also protectthese communities and avoid the National Park land. Many of the properties, to be protected, wereapproved through permitting by the Corps and DNR, which allowed developers to build in a known floodzone.2). Bayou Segnette Waterway:This waterway provides an avenue for flood surges to Westwego in Jefferson Parish. Afloodgate was recently built to protect that community. The National Park Service, which iscongressionally authorized to protect the Barataria Preserve of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park,had the following observations in regard to projects in the Barataria Basin:"NPS recommends that COE examine the role of its navigation waterways in the system’shydrology and storm vulnerability, specifically the GIWW, the Barataria Bay Waterway, and theSegnette Waterway, and consider alteration of these waterways to help restore a more naturallyfunctioning hydrology, and improve ecosystem function and storm readiness for communities inthe upper basin. Specifically, we oppose the continued dredging of the Segnette Waterway andstrongly recommend the de-authorization of this little-used canal, and the development of analternative navigation route through natural water bodies. Further, we recommend that measuresbe taken to restore the landscape scarred by the canal or mitigate its ecological effects." (NPS,2007, page 12).3). Donaldsonville to the Gulf (DTG):We are pleased that a preferred alignment of the Corps' Donaldsonville to the Gulf project, whichwould have followed the GIWW across the basin, is not included in the 2012 version of the Master Plan.If constructed, this hurricane barrier would have had a devastating affect on the productivity of the Basinfurther impeding sheet flow. It would also have impacted the ingress and egress of fisheries by changingthe hydrology of the Basin and increasing the water exchange velocity through the gated levee system.Sheet flow issue, Barataria Basin:The Barataria Basin should undergo a complete hydrologic analysis including proposed structuralprojects and the effects of structures already built in the basin. The GIWW, the railroad embankment andU.S. highway 90 all impede the sheetflow of surface water from moving south. Sheetflow is animportant natural process, which helps nourish the wetlands ecosystems. Any man-made impedimentshould be examined during a basin-wide study modeling the hydrology of the Barataria basin. ElevatingHighway 90 would stop the impoundment of water and backwater flooding of communities includingKraemer and Chackbay. In addition, a modification of the railroad embankment, which parallelsHighway 90 to allow rainwater to flow south, would alleviate the backwater flooding in the upper part ofthe Basin.9

The plan for freshwater diversions in the upper basin will not work unless the water will flowsouth unimpeded.Terrebonne Basin:4). Morganza to the Gulf (MTG):We are opposed to the MTG levee alignment included in the Plan, which will impound 70,000acres (109 sq. mi.) of wetlands. The impoundment of wetlands cuts off water movement along withsuspended sediment that could nourish and sustain the marsh. This Project should be modeled todetermine whether the proposed and existing levees would cause long-term degradation of wetlands inTerrebonne Parish. We suggest that the Plan include an alignment proposed by the Multiple Lines ofDefense document (Lopez et al., 2008). The MLOD alignment excludes most of the wetlands fromimpoundment.Flood protection levees should be limited to protecting currently developed areas. The corpsstates, in its programmatic EIS for Morganza-to-the-Gulf, "the 70,000+ acres of wetlands, impounded bythe project, would be "potentially developable"". This shows the problem in placing wetlands behind ahurricane levee system. The enticement to develop to too great for local politicians to oppose.Wetlands should not be impounded. The state must restrict induced development by buyingconservation easements in all areas that become "potentially developable" to control land use. Again,there is a need for a comprehensive Coastal Land Use Plan mandated for all coastal Parishes.Basin-specific hydrologic modeling:The inevitable interaction of levees, floodgates, barriers, weirs, and leaky levees with diversionsis not addressed. Habitat goals for a sustainable coast should be proposed so that the natural function ofthe estuary is supported. Many of the "leaky levees" proposed have not been adequately modeled todetermine the adverse impacts to commercial fisheries and wetland sustainability. We understand fromdiscussions with the staff that there have not been basin specific hydrologic modeling.Lake Pontchartrain Basin:5). Central Wetlands diversion and swamp rebuilding:This is an important project, which will protect eastern New Orleans and reforest an area denudedby the Corps' MRGO project that has been deauthorized. We request that the Bayou Bienvenue trianglebe included as part of any freshwater/sediment reintroduction into the Central Wetlands.We thank the LACPRA for generating a good draft plan and we appreciate the opportunity tocomment on the features of the plan. If our organization can be of further assisstance, please contact us.Sincerely,Dr. Barry Kohl, GeologistPresident, La Audubon Council504-861-8465bkohl40@cs.comcc:Woody Martin, Delta Chapter Sierra ClubMatt Rota, Gulf Restoration NetworkMark Davis, Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law and PolicyPaul Kemp, National Audubon SocietyJohn Lopez, Lake Pontchartrain Basin FoundationJohn Ettinger, EPADusty Pate, NPS10

References:DeMarco, K., J. Mouton and J.W. Pahl, 2012. Recommendations for anticipating sea-level riseimpacts on Louisiana coastal resources during project planning and design. Technical report datedJan. 24, 2012, by the Louisiana Applied Coastal Engineering & Science (LACES) Division, LACPRA.GRN et al., 2011. Letter to Gulf Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, EPA on Policy Considerations.Signed by GRN, Sierra Club, Louisiana Audubon Council, La Environmental Action Network, LowerMississippi Riverkeeper. Letter dated, May 6, 2011, to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.Lopez, J. et al, 2008. Comprehensive Recommendations Supporting the Use of the Multiple Lines ofDefense Strategy to Sustain Coastal Louisiana, 2008 Report (Version I). 220 pp. + Appendices.NPS, 2007. National Park Service Vision Statement, dated Oct. 25, 2007, in response to the LACPRAdraft Report. Letter from Arthur Frederick, NPS Acting Regional Director, SE Regional Office to Col.Alvin B. Lee, USACE, NOD.Penland, S., L. Wayne, L. D. Britsch, S. J. Williams, A. D. Beall and V. C. Butterworth, 2001. ProcessClassification of Coastal Land Loss between 1932 and 1990 in the Mississippi River Delta Plain,Southeastern Louisiana. USGS Open-file Report 00-418, Poster. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-418/Taylor, A. and K. Rhinehart, 2011. Funding for Federal Navigation Channel Maintenance in Louisiana: ACase for Reform. Navigation Channel Policy Discussion: Funding for Federal Navigation ChannelMaintenance in Louisiana, LACPRA Report, June 15, 2011.http://www.lacpra.org/assets/docs/June%20CPRA/Navigation%20Channel%20White%20Paper_6%201.pdfUSACE, 2007. Memo outlining sediment criteria used pre-Katrina and post-Katrina for use inembankment material (hurricane protection levees). Gib Owen, USACE to Barry Kohl dated, August 28,2007. Re: IER #18, Government Furnished Borrow Material.U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1994. Chapter 8, COASTAL LOUISIANA: in The Impact of Federal Programs onWetlands, Vol. II, Part II, The Coastal South and the Everglades. A Report to Congress by the Secretaryof the Interior March, 1994. http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch8.html11

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 40First NameCynthiaLast NameLeBlancAddress4739 Hwy. 108 WSulphur, LA 70665United StatesMap ItEmailcgleblanc@centurytel.netCommentsShoreline protection projects should take precedence over all other projects. If the coast continues to degrade anddisappear we will lose our protection from storms and salt water. The proposed levee system for Lake Charles is notfeasible on too many levels to begin to comment on using this forum.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 51First NameHeidiLast NameHernandezAddress113 Dominica CourtSlidell, La 70458United StatesMap ItEmailHeidibh113@gmail.comCommentsNo more, agenda 21 Cap & trade type policies!!!! This is eroding the great USA!!!• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/22/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 74First NameKathleenLast NameMuseAddress4818 Royal StreetNew Orleans, LA 70117United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Lower 9th Ward CSEDEmailkmuse@sustainthenine.orgCommentsWe are pleased to see the following proposed restoration projects:• Marsh creation in the Biloxi Marsh and East Orleans Land Bridge: two Critical Landscape Features for surgeprotection;• Bayou la Loutre ridge restoration: providing storm surge protection as well as critical bird habitat;• Lake Borgne shoreline restoration and MRGO bank line restoration: critical to storm surge protection;• Sediment diversion in the Central Wetlands: recreating the historic connection between the Mississippi River and ttesurrounding wetlands.Of particular importance to those of us who live and work in the Lower 9th Ward, The 2012 State Master Plan shouldrecognize the linkage of the Central Wetlands diversion to future marsh and swamp restoration in the CentralWetlands, particularly the Bayou Bienvenue Triangle in the Lower Ninth Ward.Thank you for your attention to our flood protection system.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 55First NameBlaiseLast NameLeCompteAddress103 Napa StChauvin, Louisiana 70344United StatesMap ItEmailblaise_lecompte@yahoo.comCommentsI think that slowing down tides in the worst areas would be very beneficial to slow down erosion inland. Some of ourcanals built by the oil companies years ago have created very powerful tides that cut through marsh areas. Weshould look at the most prolific flows or unatural flows and force them back into our natural bayous. Canals should beclosed to slow down the tidal flows and force these tidal flows to meander through the original bayous. They tend tocause more friction and drop more sediment along there natural path. The large canals will continue to distroy moremarsh. I have watched a large man made waterway cut it's own path over the years and distroy many acres of marsharound our camp in Northern Lake Barre( Schlitz Camp) If we could force this water to meander instead of rush outinto the Gulf we could slow down the erosion till we have a better way of transferring the sediment to the places moreneeded. Love our coast!!!!

Master Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Master PlanRick & Elly Bercier [rbercier@bellsouth.net]Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:50 PMTo:Master PlanSir: Do you know if filling in the South Bay of Prien Lake (in the citylimits of Lake Charles) is one of the projects you are considering? It is abay on the other side of the ship channel across from Citgo Petroleum docks.There was talk of making a mitigation wetlands out of the dredge from thedocks in this location, but we've not heard anything else. It would be aterrible thing for all the residents around this bay. Please let me knowthe answer. Thank you, Cheryl Bercier

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 63First NameKellyLast NameBagwellAddressPO Box 219Silver Creek, MS 39663United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Isle de Jean Charles Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw memberEmailjust_me_cher@bellsouth.netCommentsWhat I heard in the public meeting did not seem like an all inclusive plan, more so it seemed like a plan to protect thehighest tax base areas. What will be the effect on the tax base of Louisiana when people are forced to leave theirhomes, waters, lands and way of life? What will remain of our diverse way of life? What will remain of our artifacts ofour histories? I think land loss is a greater emergency than the state wants to really recognize with the effects of theBP disaster, saltwater intrusion, and the ever demanding quest for oil and natural gas. Oil and gas companies havebeen allowed to widen narrow channels into ones that two boats can navigate, increasing the flow of the water anddeteriorating more coastal lands. Is it not appropriate for the same to restore that which they destroyed?I am a member of The Isle de Jean Charles Band of Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw. Our burial grounds are in jeopardyas are the lands that our people have inhabited for generations. Our herbs for healing have already disappeared aswell as our trees. Our way of life, fishing, shrimping and harvesting oysters has been neglected for what it adds to thestate and our way of life. Once, we were a self supporting tribe who got what they needed from Mother Earth, now weshop in the stores and buy seafood from places other than our waters. Our land was once 5 miles wide and now it islucky if it is 1/2 a mile. We are part of the protection for Houma and other coastal communities but yet we areunimportant. Indian artifacts are being returned across the county to their respecting tribe but at the same time ourartifacts are left to wash away.If one does not think the land loss has increased across our barrier islands and natural habitats, look at the loss onCat Island. In 1998 it was the size of 40 football fields and now it is lucky to be the size of one. If the restorationproject fails to recognize and adopt the smaller projects what will be the lasting effect on the state of Louisiana as awhole? What will be the effects on our wildlife and our industries? Will the Gulf of Mexico shoreline be left to migrateand become the shoreline of communities that are now north of I-10?

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/15/2012Let the oil and gas industry pay for dredging and restoration of our lands off the many profits they have received fromour state, our people. Let us not say that a group of people is unimportant and deserve to be stripped of everything.Let us not pretend that we are God and doom a coastal area based off the tax dollars it provides the state ofLouisiana. Let us not continue the discrimination that has been rampant for generations against the Native Americanpeoples and classes which one deems equally unimportant. I was born and raised and choose to die in the State ofLouisiana. I love my home, don't you?

Maphttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012MapSAMUEL SCHUDMAK [samschudmak@me.com]Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 4:08 PMTo:Master PlanDear sirs:I was interested in seeing or obtaining a copy of the map of the area where St. Charles Parish and JeffersonParish meet near the New Orleans International Airport.I have been unable enlarge the map that is online to show enough detail.Please advise how I can obtain one.Thanks,Sam Schudmak504-259-6066Sent from my iPad

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 67First NameCherylLast NameBercierAddress5016 Fernwood DriveLake Charles, LA 70605United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Save Our Bay, LLCEmailrbercier@bellsouth.netCommentsSirs--Our organization represents approximately 500 families who live in the area which surrounds the South Bay ofPrien Lake. We are opposed to any plans which include filling in large areas of South Bay with ship channel dredge,or any other fill material, for that matter. It would change drainage patterns, aggravate an already terrible mosquitoproblem, and would lower property values. The place to concentrate erosion control is in the coastal parishes. Thankyou for listening--Cheryl E. Bercier

Post Office Box 1105. Larose, La. 70373.693-7355February 22, 2012Mr. Karim BelhadjaliCoastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityP.O. Box 44027Baton Rouge, LA 70804Re: Bayou Civic Club, Inc. comments on 2012 Master PlanDear Mr. Belhadjali:The Bayou Civic Club is the non-profit umbrella corporation which operates thehighly utilized Larose Regional Park and Civic Center. The 28,000 square foot civiccenter is a hub for South Lafourche communities year round. It also serves as thePrimary Evacuation Center for Lafourche Parish and Grand Isle when naturaldisasters threaten us. We have been a partner to Lafourche parish and the State ofLouisiana with housing of evacuees for up to seven weeks following the storms in2005 and 2008. In the spirit of Cajun ingenuity, the Bayou Civic Club is selffunded, relying on a thriving business community anchored at Port Fourchon andour great food and heritage festivals to provide profits to operate these vitalcommunity assets.We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Louisiana 2012 CoastalMaster Plan. We know firsthand from the meeting you had at our civic center lastfall that this plan is essential to our sustainability as a region and as a state. Thankyou for the concerted effort the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities has made todate in composing this plan.I mentioned that as a community facility we rely on the thriving businesscommunity based out of Port Fourchon, of which companies and their thousandsof employees support and utilize our community park and civic center every day.We have read about and talked about the threat of LA 1 washing-out when acertain positioned storm should strike the existing roadway between GoldenMeadow and Leeville. We know there are recent federal studies by NOAA andUSDHS acknowledging from the highest government modeling labs that thisvulnerability is real.The Governor was down at Port Fourchon in December talking about the need tocomplete the LA 1 Project to secure access to the thousands of jobs and significantcommerce taking place out of Port Fourchon. We respectfully request theinclusion of a $320 million project titled Infrastructure Priority Program inthe 2012 Master Plan section titled “Draft Plan Projects; Southeast Coast; FirstImplementation Period (2012-2031), placing this investment in the necessaryimplementation period which will address the vulnerability to LA 1 highlightedin the NOAA study predicting significant inundation of LA 1 by year 2030.Please incorporate the Infrastructure Priority Program into to 2012 State MasterPlan now so that a responsible state investment in qualified at-risk critical energyinfrastructure such as LA 1 is not jeopardized in the future from folks who do notfully understand the vital role of key coastal infrastructure relative to our ability tosustain our coastal economies, heritage and communities. It should not be left todebate later when OCS revenue sharing monies finally arrive, and all communities,qualified or not, are grasping for these funds.

Thank you for accepting our comments and visiting with our community this pastfall. We invite you to attend our French Food Festival this October and relish in thetasty food, lively music and fascinating heritage native to Bayou Lafourche.Sincerely,Jasmine AyoExecutive Director

Melanie SaucierFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Craig Prestenbach Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:44 AMMaster PlanRestore the Coast, Reduce Risk, Engage CommunitiesAs someone who cares about the future of our coast, I am writing to express my support of the 2012 Coastal MasterPlan for its use of the Multiple Coastal Lines of Defense strategy.Restoring our wetlands through river reintroductions and marsh creation; reducing risk through levees and floodgates;and engaging communities in safe development and evacuation are all necessary parts of defending coastal Louisiana.The best way to rebuild the wetlands is to use mother nature, the atchafalaya river is silting up to the point that industryis finding it difficult to use. We can kill two birds with one stone by dredging this silt and pumping it to TerrebonneEstuary by way of abandon pipe line canals and dredge barges, I know I'm not the first to bring this up but it doesn'tseem to gain traction. The up front cost will be high but once the discharge pipe is built it's just a matter of adding onthe pipe to continue replinshing the wetlands. Growing up I witnessed first hand how much land has formed along theAtchafalaya River making it difficult for fisherman, hunters and oilmen to utilize the full potential of this rich resource. Ifthere are plans for this please let me know.Craig Prestenbach322 Texas Gulf RoadBourg, LA 7034398520909761

From: Wayne P. Authement Subject: flooding from rain water when flod gates are closedMessage Body:My name is Wayne and I have lived in Montegut, La.-Terrebonne Parish all my life. Im concerned about asituation that happens when our floodgates are closed and we experience a good bit of rain fall. Onbayou Terrebonne andbayou Little Caillou after the flood gates are closed the water level has no way togo but up, rainfall -pumps pumping into the bayous- water draining all the way from Thibidaux throughHouma via bayou Terrebonne-the Intercoastal canal and the Bourg Canal adds to the flowing abundanceof rain water and drainage water heading south towards closed floodgates- again with no where to go butup. Property -buildings and roads are unindated with rising water. There is no way to remove this floodwater, no pumps have been install to prevent this flooding water from doing damage. Houma is getting aleeve along the I/C Canal-a leeve from Grand Caillou to the Little Caillou road and a gate on theNavigation Canal to help protect it from flood waters.From: Wayne P. Authement Subject: rain and flood watersMessage Body:To finish my statement : We have leeves to protect us from surges and high tides but we have noprotection from the rising water that drains as for north as Thibidaux through Houma via. bayouTerrebonne. We were told years ago that the northern flood gate on bayou Little Caillou would be movedto junction on the I/C Canal and bayou Terrebonne and a flood gate would be installed on the BourgCanal preventing all this water from building up and flooging buildings and property along these twobayous. The property, buildings and pastureland and people are just as important and equeal as thepeople north of us. I hope some one sees the importance of this matter and gives it some careful andintelligent planning to installing pumping sytems at the Montegut- Humble Canal- and Little Caillou floodgates so as the people and their property will behave a better chance of not being flooded by some oneelses rain water and drainage water. Thank you

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 41First NameScottLast NameHenryAddress1507 Marshall St.Cameron, LA 70631United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Cameron Parish Gravity Drainage District #3Emaildavis.henrytrust@yahoo.comCommentsWe are concerned with the cost basis ratio for the spending and protecting plan you all have proposed in the CoastalProtection and Restoration Authority Master Plan for a sustainable Coast. If you are going to build and protect only thepopulated areas of our coast; you are doomed to fail.Cameron Parish is the largest 'barrier island' in Louisiana. We have over 90 miles of accessible beach and more total beachthan any other parish. Our ecosystem is protected by these beach ridges and Chenier’s. For the same reason so muchmoney is being spent to restore the Eastern part of the state that has deteriorated to a point of abandonment and retreat, Weare urging the Authority to be proactive in protecting and enhancing what we have in Cameron Parish, including the majorwater ways that open to the gulf and the estuaries that are behind them. These areas, in their natural, historical andgeological importance have always been sparsely inhabited, but their value has been immeasurable by parameters that youmay have failed to observe. I believe one of the major problems in the existing plan is the overall elevations of the Sabine,Calcasieu and Mermentau water sheds and the inland reach of the basins and their effect on drainage.I am the Chairperson of the Cameron Parish Gravity Drainage District #3, and I am a third generation member of this board.My family has been in Cameron Parish since the 1800’s and when we were part of Imperial Calcasieu Parish. Thisassociation with Calcasieu, Jeff Davis, Beauregard and Vermillion Parishes was evident to our forefathers in the waterwaysthat connect us. You cannot draw a line on a map, based on were the most people live in an attempt to secure theirlivelihoods. You must protect the combined communities with a plan that begins where the threat is, The Sea, the Shore, andthe Coast. You all have a tremendous job ahead of you if you are going to salvage what is left of the years of neglect and losson the East side of Louisiana; you must try. For the same reason you have a duty to save and improve what we have on theWest side before it is too late. I believe the answer will be one of continued effort and expense, the ability to change withinthe program to address the changes in the environment, honest evaluation of progress or failure, and cooperative endeavorsthat must not be hampered by politics, population cost basis or lack of funding.Thank you for your attention and reflection on these matters of grave importance to the people of Cameron and CalcasieuParish, the state of Louisiana and the Nation. Scott Henry

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 36First NameGarrettLast NameFabacherAddressP.O. Box 471Iota, La 70543United StatesMap ItEmailgwf6309@louisiana.eduCommentsPlanning is great but we really need to get the ball rolling. In a time when unemployment is above 7% in Louisianaand as our coast continues to wash away day by day we need to start construction of our restoration projects as soonas possible. Our leaders must demand an end to the red tape in Baton Rouge and D.C. and start the projects ratherthan just continuing to study them. I also think that the construction of new barrier islands should also be consideredwest of the Mississippi river delta in order to protect the coast of St. Bernard and New Orleans East. I also think weshould radically rethink the delta region and consider ways to stop the mass dumping of valuable sediment off theContinental shelf. What is most important, however, is that we begin construction as soon as possible.• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 35First NameRobert and LindaLast NameTaylorAddress2343 Brady RdTheriot, LA 70397United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)ResidentEmaillinda.taylor@williams.comCommentsI do not agree with the plan. I believe every person should be protected. Eventhe low lying communities pay taxes. Why is it that we are not included in the master plan? There should be a waythat all the communities are protected.With today's technology I cannot believe there is no way we all can benefit from this plan. Norby Chabert spoke at themeeting held at theTerrebonne Civic Center in regards to Point au Chenes but lower Bayou DuLargepast Falgout Canal needs protection as well. There are alot of families on the lower end and they contribute to theparish just as well as anyone else.This plan needs to be revised and everyone needs to be representated in this fight to save our coast and our homes.Thank You for allowing me to voice my opinion.• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Request for GIS files for 2012 Coastal Master Plan candidate projectshttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Request for GIS files for 2012 Coastal Master Plan candidate projectsDunaway, Erin E [Erin.Dunaway@chevron.com]Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:10 AMTo: Master PlanCategories: Red CategoryHello. I’d like to request the GIS files of the candidate projects for the Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Plan. I canbe contacted at the information below.Thank you,Erin DunawayHES Regulatory Specialist, Gulf of Mexico Strategic Business UnitChevron North America Exploration & Production Company(a Chevron U.S.A. Inc. division)100 Northpark BlvdCovington, LA 70433Tel 985-773-6554Fax 985-773-6796Erin.Dunaway@chevron.com

Current Gap In Hurricane Master Plan Funnels 36 Storm Surge Into Waterford 3 Nuclear ...https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Current Gap In Hurricane Master Plan Funnels 36 Storm Surge IntoWaterford 3 Nuclear Power Plant!Whitney Richard [whitney@bayourat.com]Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:54 AMTo:Master PlanDear Sirs,It has been brought to my attention that my home, business, and property has been left out of the hurricaneprotection master plan. I currently reside, work, and raise my family on the West bank of St. Charles parish alongwith 30,000 other residents, two huge chemical plants, and one nuclear power plant. These resources are criticalto the lives of millions of people.Being a computer systems and communications network engineer with over 20 years experience. Prior toKatrina I was responsible for writing a disaster recovery plan and then implementing it. My plan worked. I hadpeople working and systems restored within 48 hours of the storm event. I see this current masterplan as seriously flawed. The ignorance to the protection of these vital resources. Not to mention to possibility of anuclear meltdown affecting the lives of everyone in the country is down right criminal in my eyes!Not only does the current plan leave the West Bank of St. Charles parish unprotected. It actually makes thesituation worse by creating a funnel effect that will pour up to 36 feet of storm surge water in to the areainundating the entire West Bank of St. Charles Parish it's Waterford III nuclear reactor, multiple chemical plants,business, and it's 30,000 residents. The resulting disaster could affect the entire country. It could be a disaster ofbiblical proportion! In the wake of the recent earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan that flooded theFukushima nuclear reactor resulting in release of radiation that left hundreds of square miles uninhabitable. If thiswere to happen here It would shut down the Mississippi river not to mention the chemical pants, oil resources,pipe lines, transportation, agriculture, international airport, etc...With the current slosh models indicating 10 to 36 feet of storm surge water funneling through the gap in protectionon the West Bank of St. Charles parish. Did you all just over look the nuclear power plant? I would think this wouldbe a primary concern. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?Sincerely,Whitney RichardComputer Systems EngineerPerformance IT of LouisianaPh: (504) 914-8202whitney@performanceit-la.com

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/26/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 136First NameDerekLast NameAdamsAddress1770 Ridgefield Ave AThibodaux, Louisiana 70301United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Nicholls State University MMEBEmaileagledadams@yahoo.comCommentsTo my understanding, the coastal wetlands were maintained by the river naturally changing course before thedevelopment of levees. In my opinion, attempting to maintain the coast by building point wetlands such as marshislands via dredging is a never ending and cost ineffective battle. Granted, there are serious economic impacts toconsider no matter which course of action is taken. I believe a network of controlled river diversions would be the bestapproach. Diversions allow for something similar to the natural and continuous deposition of sediments that wouldnormally occur.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 37First NameKENNETHLast NameRAGASAddress1311 HOLIDAY PLACENEW ORLEANS, LA. 70114United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)LAND OWNEREmail8246buras@att.netCommentsI attended the meeting at UNO Monday. I was dismayed to see that the Plaquemines Parish Plan was deleted. Thelatest plan depends on river diversions to create a surge protection. I doubt that to be possible. In what year do youestimate significant surge protection would be in place? Also, is there a place on your site that gives the sedimentcontained per cubic foot of river water and the estinated annual days when the diversion would be in operation?Thank You

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 34First NamewayneLast NamegrosAddress1409 hilma st.westlake, la 70669United StatesMap ItEmailrwg144gros@yahoo.comCommentsbuilding a dike is nice, but u cannot enforce all that is under ground, nutria rats, gators and other animals will eat itup. if u build a jetty like the one in camerom approx amile or so from low tide at beach in gulf the natural process ofsand will build up and nature will fill it in for u. you will then have land and u will also have more fishing because rockswill attract marine life. this will work for all beach property from tex. border to new orleans.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/26/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 127First NameCaptain WendyLast NameWilson-BilliotAddress2715 Bayou Dularge RoadTheriot, LA 70397United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Wetland Tour & Guide Service, Wetlands Media, and Camp Dularge, LLCEmailcaptainwendy@wetlandtours.comCommentsI visited the open house at the civic center in Houma, LA. I spoke at length to your representatives there, and I haddone many hours of homework. First off, it was a great disappointment to see that our community of Theriot that sitsalone Bayou Dularge was not listed on the map. This is a significant community with schools, churches, cemeteries,and a library. If you heard that a crazy woman put Theriot on the map in Magic Marker, that would be me--withKarim's permission. My first goal was accomplished.As a member of the Terrebonne Parish CZM Board, I would of course like to have seen the implementation tool spitout marsh creation projects that would benefit not only my parish but my community. Such is not the case. The waythe plan looks now, lower Terrebonne Parish has been written off for the most part. By now you have met publiclywith our CZM Director and Parish Manager, and I agree wholeheartedly with their recommendations of buildingmarsh in the eastern part of this parish and using the funds from the Pont au Fer Marsh Creation project to do so.And also include as part of the Final Plan those projects on which many dollars have already been spent that connectto other projects to form a co-hesive front. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but you know which ones they areby now.Lastly, I spent a good deal of time with your Non-structural expert--Hal. He took notes on some of the shortcomings Ipointed out to him. What I would like for the CPRA or other authorized entity to do, is once the communities that areeligible for the "Voluntary Acquisition Program", please notify them. As a landowner, business owner, stakeholder onlower Bayou Dularge, I would like to know when to sell out and cut my losses. I think that is the very least we couldask for. Give us a chance to sell out before taking a buy out is our only choice left.I appreciate the thousands of man hours that went into this draft plan. The Final Plan must take into consideration the

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/26/2012current viability of communities that need marsh creation so they can remain home to the residents and beproductive. I am one of those people. Please protect my community on Lower Bayou Dularge.For the wetlands,Captain Wendy W. Billiot

Melanie SaucierFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Follow Up Flag:Flag Status:Ruffin Chandler Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:22 PMMaster PlanState Master Plan in Freshwater Bayou areaFollow upFlaggedDear Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Members,I am respectively writing to ask that the State Master Plan being considered currently include the stabilization of the bankline and shoreline protection along Freshwater Bayou. It is imperative that the spoil banks behind the rocks bereestablished. It is my understanding that some funding of the project was approved on February 17, 2012. I have huntedin the area for many years. I am very much aware of the changes and damages caused by the breech that occurred atFreshwater Bayou. I think everything possible needs to be done to correct this situation. Thank you very much for yourtime and consideration.Sincerely,G. Ruffin Chandler, Jr.G. Ruffin Chandler, Jr.Ruff Property and Development, LLC32 West Broadway, Ste 201PO Box 697Madisonville, KY 424311

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.Barbara McArthur [babsmca57@yahoo.com]Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:39 AMTo:Master PlanFrom: Barbara McArthur Subject: 001.MC.05 Marsh Creation, New Orleans East Land Bridge Marsh CreationMessage Body:I would like to receive a complete breakdown of what is going to be done here in this project area 001.MC.05.Please give maps, surveys, exactly what marsh land this project will include. The cost for each part of this projectwith a list of the breakdown of each part. I would like anything and everything you have for this project before theJan. 23 meeting so our family Company can review it to beable to make a comment on this Master Plan. I cancome to your office if it is to hard for you to email or mail it to me.Thank youBarbara McArthur985-764-0296babsmca57@yahoo.com22 Trepagnier Dr.Destrehan, Louisiana70047--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

Melanie SaucierFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Crpalmer34@aol.comFriday, February 17, 2012 12:09 PMMaster PlanFreshwater BayouPlease log me in as a member of the Bayou Club requesting the State Master Plan include bank line stabilization andshoreline protection along Fresh Water Bayou in order to protect the soils of Mermentau Basin and Rainey Marshes.Thank you,Bob Palmer1

Bayou Interfaith Shared Community Organizing (BISCO)Office: 406 West Second Street, Thibodaux, LA 70301Mail: 1922 Bayou Road, Thibodaux, LA 70301Phone/Fax: (985) 227-9042 (985) 438-2148mybisco@yahoo.com www.bisco-la.orgFebruary 8, 2012RE: Comments to Louisiana’s 2012 Master PlanThe Louisiana Coastal Protection & Restoration AuthorityMasterPlan@la.govHello,Please accept these comments to the 2012 Louisiana Master Plan on behalf of Bayou InterfaithShared Community Organizing, more commonly known as BISCO. BISCO is a 501 c 3nonprofit working mostly in Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes to build the voice of the bayouresidents and communities in addressing issues of importance as determined at the grassrootslevel. We are a multi-faith, multi-race, and multi-issue organization and we strive to fosterdiversity and capacity in all of our work. Our current membership includes 19 CovenantChurches with a combined registry of over 10,000 congregants.We are pleased that Louisiana has made such a significant effort to develop a plan of action forrestoring and protecting our coast, and we commend those involved in putting this plan togetherfor their dedication and participation. We know it has been a long and tedious process, and weare appreciative of this great effort on behalf of our coast.Our comments and requests, both positive and negative, are attached hereto, and we hope theycan be of use in finalizing the Master Plan for the greatest benefit of the people of Terrebonneand Lafourche parishes, who are facing the real-time loss of modern communities as well as aculture and history that spans centuries. With a combined population of over 200,000 persons,we feel it is imperative that some changes to the draft currently proposed be made in order toachieve equitable restoration and protection of these very valuable communities which havebeen paying the ultimate price in the development of the economies of both Louisiana and thecountry.If you should have any questions for us or need further input regarding these comments, pleasedo not hesitate to call.Sincerely,Sharon GautheSharon Gauthe, Executive DirectorBISCO Comments to 2012 Louisiana Master Plan Page 1

BISCO COMMENTS TO LOUISIANA 2012 MASTER PLAN1. In this draft, no marsh restoration projects have been selected for the southern andsoutheastern part of Terrebonne Parish. We strongly disagree in this plan for this parish.a. Recommendation: It is critical that marsh restoration projects be situated in thisarea. If necessary, it would be more important to delete the Pointe-au-Fer marshrestoration project and/or the GIWW marsh restoration projects and use those fundsin creating marsh through pipeline sedimentation in an area of the parish that is morecritical as protection for the major portion of the parish’s population.2. In this draft, the only marsh restoration for southern Lafourche Parish is the areasurrounding Port Fourchon, leaving the rest of the parish vulnerable and eroding.a. Recommendation: Marsh restoration projects in southern Lafourche Parish,particularly on the western side of Bayou Lafourche should be included in this plan.3. There were NO real-time community organizations or advocates on the FrameworkDevelopment Team and there were no special focus groups organized to address issuesrelative to communities; giving industry and commerce, as well as environmentalists, anunfair advantage in their ability to affect the outcome of the tool and the plan. Communitieswere relegated to the insignificant and inadequate “public comment” phase of interaction onthe drafting of the plan. The end result is that projects were selected that reflect anincomplete and negatively weighted result for communities and the people who reside there.This is of course in complete contra-indication of both the Mabus Report and the GCERTFReport, which both emphasized the necessity for including THREE sectors equally in plansfor restoration and protection: community, commerce and environment. To point out thisdisparity, there were 12 meetings with focus groups related to fisheries, oil and gas, andnavigation, with significant access and input into proposed projects . There were only 10regional community meetings held throughout the coast between July-September 2011, andthese were only public comment type meetings without significant access or input intoproposed projects or strategies. (see page 43 of plan)a. Recommendation: We feel that this exclusion of community voice is a serious issueand needs to be addressed immediately and forcefully. Though we are loathe to askfor a delay in any manner because of the ongoing severe impacts both Terrebonneand Lafourche are facing, we feel that the CPRA’s only recourse at this point toremedy this lapse in the process is to request an extension on the submission date ofthis plan in order to refine the process and the tool to include an equitablerepresentation of real-time, grassroots community voices. And since the currentdraft seems to impact Terrebonne and Lafourche significantly, we urge that thesecommunities be given priority in speaking to the projects and selection tools used inthis process. Just please note that we are not speaking of elected representativesfrom any level of government. We are speaking of active grassroots voices who canadvocate from a community-based level.4. While we have been long-time advocates for the construction of the Morganza-to-the-GulfLevee System to serve as a part of an overall plan for these parishes, we are hesitant todepend solely upon this system as the only means of protecting the over 200,000 residents ofTerrebonne and Lafourche. This draft Master Plan is lacking in alternative strategies for“what if” realities. The Morganza Levee Project is dependent upon funding through theBISCO Comments to 2012 Louisiana Master Plan Page 2

WRDA process and control by the Corps of Engineers and United States Senate. In thesedifficult economic times for America, we are not in favor of total dependence on these twogroups for getting Morganza funded, built and protecting our communities. We cannotafford to put all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak, for therein surely lies ruin anddestruction.a. Recommendation: BISCO would urge the CPRA to include in its Master Planalternative strategies for protection and restoration in the event the selected project(s)is/are not able to be implemented for some reason. This would be especiallynecessary in areas such as Terrebonne and Lafourche where there are currently noproposed alternatives for rebuilding marshes, leaving the entire area without eithermarsh restoration or protection in the event of significant delays or incapacity toproceed with the originally selected project. We would recommend, for instance,that if Morganza is not over 50 percent funded and constructed by the beginning of2017, then alternative smaller projects (such as marsh restoration, etc.) begin to beimplemented. There needs to be a deadline and an alternative response, especiallyfor communities which are suffering the most significant land loss daily.5. The current draft is based upon a tool and selection criteria that give no prioritization toareas of the coast based upon the rate of land loss. This is on its face inequitable, especiallyto communities in the hardest hit areas, like Terrebonne and Lafourche. It is patently unfairto use the statistical data of significant land loss generated from these parishes in the state’ssearch and application for funding, yet turn around and deny that same significant land lossrate in the application and funding of solutions for the problem. This omission creates a biasagainst communities in the most extreme danger, yet those same communities’ land lossrates are used to seek funding for other parts of the state that do not have the samesignificant rate of land loss. Again, obviously unfair on its face.a. Recommendation: In our opinion, this inequity serves to label the selection processas flawed and in need of overhaul to include a prioritization category based on therate of land loss for any particular area. Again, because of this lapse in designing anequitable selection process, we regret that our recommendation is that the CPRAseek an extension of the draft deadline in order to correct this flaw and the flawedresults as currently generated.6. This plan as published has no specific projects listed for approval or funding that deal withactual relocation of entire communities and only touches upon the subject in a generalizedway with no specificity or accountability built in for the protection of communities. Thereare no defined strategies for community relocation and the cost of the same. Page 41 of thedraft proposal states, “As we address this crisis, sensitivity and fairness must be shown tothose whose homes, lands, livelihoods, and ways of life may be affected, in the near-termand long-term, by master plan projects or by continued land loss and flooding.”a. Recommendation: We feel this plan has not made a significant effort to adhere tothis principle and should be tabled to allow for inclusion of proposed strategies anddesigns for such anticipated community relocations.7. This plan does not in any fashion address the “environmental justice” impacts tocommunities, especially Native American communities in extreme coastal Terrebonne andLafourche areas, who are positioned to lose not only their “homes, lands, livelihoods, andways of life,” but also to lose their ability to meet several criteria necessary for federalrecognition by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, a very grevious harm to these tribalBISCO Comments to 2012 Louisiana Master Plan Page 3

groups. There are five state-recognized tribes in this area, and all are seeking federalrecognition. Forcing “voluntary acquisitions” without significant planning for “communityrelocation” is in contra-indication of the very principles of the plan itself.a. Recommendation: Again, we feel this plan should be tabled to allow for inclusion ofsocial vulnerability scaling at the zip code or enumeration district level. We canrecommend the Oxfam America’s “Social Vulnerability Index” with appendicesprepared relative specifically upon Terrebonne and Lafourche Parish enumerationdistricts. Our experience with an earlier version showed that data at the parish-widelevel gave an inaccurate snapshot of vulnerabilities in the area, especially since as aworking delta with significant environmental justice implications it needed to benoted that communities closer to the Gulf, where the land was sinking and eroding,were populated by more significant numbers of tribal groups with high levels ofpoverty, versus the higher ground in the more northern part of the parishes wherewhiter, wealthier people were able to situate their homes. The averaging of thesedisparate populations muddied the waters, so to speak, of a vulnerability analysis.Those waters cleared significantly with bringing the level of the index down to themuch smaller, more localized areas.8. While this public comment period is important and we appreciate the opportunity to submitcomments, BISCO has noted that this draft does not include in its booklet format (the mostreadily accessible format for the population with whom we work) any of the appendiceswhere we have been told there are more details available. If the public can’t see theappendices, do they really exist or have an impact? And how can the public comment ifthey can’t see the appendices? Also, we do not find in the draft any justification analysesfor the selection of one project over another. For instance, what is the justification for notincluding the Donaldsonville-to-the-Gulf project in this master plan? While we understandit would be difficult for the publication of the justification analyses for the non-selection ofevery small project presented to the CPRA for study, we do feel that the reasons for notincluding the major projects which did not make the final cut into this plan should beoutlined to the public in a transparent and accountable process.a. Recommendation: BISCO would recommend a simplified datasheet printout of theratings of the tool and the team in their selection process, showing what rationale andscoring was used in analyzing those projects that eventually were chosen and thosethat were not chosen. This should be in a simple table-type format where ordinarypeople can quickly find and study why their particular area was chosen or not chosenfor restoration or protection projects. Show us how the criteria were used and theprojects were scored.9. This draft does not create a strategy for community redevelopment of dislocatedpopulations. It is critical that the Master Plan take the lead in directing policy for the safe,resilient and smart relocation of entire coastal communities who will be displaced by theselection or non-selection of projects in this plan.a. Recommendation: BISCO recommends the creation of “Regional CommunityRedevelopment Teams” which include a significant representation of grassrootsvoices from communities negatively impacted by the selection or non-selection ofprojects in the Master Plan. As land in Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, forinstance, is a finite and decreasing natural resource, the ability of low-income andminority communities to relocate with minimum impacts is obviously severelylimited. It may be necessary for residents to relocate across parish lines, so it wouldBISCO Comments to 2012 Louisiana Master Plan Page 4

e important for redevelopment strategies to cross those same boundaries in order tomaximize positive results. This should be used as an opportunity for redevelopmentin accordance with “Smart Growth” principles. In such cases it will be necessaryfor the plan to take into account how individuals within these communities, as wellas the communities themselves, are able to adapt to altered circumstances. Forexample, what kind of work will fishermen who have to move inland be able toaccomplish? How will those who are poor or with limited education be able tocompete for affordable housing, education, health care, and other services in the newcommunities? How will the new communities adjust? What is the overall cost ofthese adjustments? Will that cost more than fixing the marshes would have?Thank you for the opportunity to express our comments. For further comments or discussion,please contact BISCO at 406 West Second Street, Thibodaux, LA 70301 or 985-227-9042,mybisco@yahoo.com or biscopatty@yahoo.comBISCO Comments to 2012 Louisiana Master Plan Page 5

Restore the Coast, Reduce Risk, Engage Communitieshttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/27/2012Restore the Coast, Reduce Risk, Engage CommunitiesValerie Turgeon [valerieturgeon@yahoo.com]Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:58 AMTo:Master PlanAs someone who cares about the future of our coast, I am writing to express mysupport of the 2012 Coastal Master Plan for its use of the Multiple Coastal Lines ofDefense strategy.Restoring our wetlands through river reintroductions and marsh creation; reducingrisk through levees and floodgates; and engaging communities in safe development andevacuation are all necessary parts of defending coastal Louisiana.I grew up on Bayou Barataris, in Lafitte, and have seen the disappearance of marsheaand the widening of bayous over the last 77 years. When I was a young child, a boattrip to Grand Isle took more than two hours. Now, it takes about 45 minutes to gofrom a dock in Lafitte to the island. Over the 5 years that my son and I ran a boattour from Lafitte to Queen Bess island, we saw strips of marsh become open water. Atthis rate, Lafitte could become a town on the Gulf coast - not what we wan!!Valerie Turgeon5212 Conti St.New Orleans, LA 70124

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/24/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 66First NameTravisLast NameEverage'Address209 Fairfield Dr.Thibodaux, Louisiana 70301United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Nicholls State University Masters of Marine and Environmental Biology ProgramEmailteverage@its.nicholls.eduCommentsWe as a scientific community are well aware of the problems associated with the constructions of levees. One of themain priorities of the “Coastal Master Plan” is the reduction of flood risks, this is to take place by the construction oflevees. However, a levee will interfere with the second priority of the “Costal Master Plan” of building new land. Mysuggestion is that the multi-million dollars appropriated for the construction of levees be added to the several milliondedicated to helping the residents and business owners of South Louisiana raise their homes and offices. The raisingof homes and business will decrease the flood risk in the area, and with out the levees being built, flooding andsedimentation will occur, in the process building land naturally. In my opinion, letting the river flow and act naturally isneeded for a healthy estuary and river system. For further reduction of flood risks water flow can also be diverted toother bayous such as Bayou Terrebonne, and rivers. If the waters are allowed to flow naturally, one river or waterway will not be in more danger than the others for flooding, and water will be spread evenly. Again, flooding is likelyto occur but because the homes and businesses were raised the risks are minimal, and natural land formation willoccur.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/15/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 43First NameCindyLast NameParroAddress110 Verdin LaneThibodaux, LA 70301United StatesMap ItEmailcindyparro@yahoo.comCommentsPlease incorporate more funding and resources for the coastal areas of Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes. Bothparishes have been productive to the state and the entire country for all of the seafood and sugar cane produced.Our region has mantained low rates of unemployment and high marks in the area of housing and construction. Theseparishes deserve funding. Please don't forget us in your master plan, we need resources for hurricane protection andcostal restoration.Thank you for your efforts to restore the gulf coast.• Please check this box only if you do not wish to receive future emails or advisories.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 11/30/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 33First NameJohnLast NameClarkAddress58050 Meriam StreetP.O. Box 389Plaquemine, Louisiana 70765United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Iberville Parish Council OfficeEmailjclark@ibervilleparish.comCommentsRE: Project No. 03b.DI.04Concern about the project's potential to increase backwater flooding and negative water quality impacts to the "UpperTerrebonne Basin", an area of Louisiana already impacted by backwater flooding and water quality impairments. TheUpper Terrebonne Basin begins in Pointe Coupee Parish at Morganza and continues south into Iberville and WestBaton Rouge Parishes, and Assumption Parish to the Lower Terrebonne Basin.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 22/26/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 130First NameMichelleLast NameMatherneAddressPO Box 416Montegut, LA 70377United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Pointe-au-Chien Indian TribeEmailmatherne4@aol.comCommentsI submit this comment on behalf of the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe.The Tribe is concerned about the lack of restoration and rebuilding for the Terrebonne Bay, Timbalier Bay, LakeRacourcci, Lake Barre and the Lake Chien area. The Tribe believes that this area has not been adequatelyaddressed in the Master Plan. Importantly, the Tribe believes that this neglect will ultimately result in the decline ofour population, homesites, hunting and fishing grounds, and traditional homeland. The Tribe is very concerned aboutthe Tribe's sacred sites and cemeteries that are directly impacted by not addressing the need in our area. We wouldlike to have further discussion with the State as to options for improving and restoring the marsh and land loss southof Pointe-au-Chien, including Timbalier Bay, Terrebonne Bay, and the lakes (formerly identified as Lacs desChitimachas), including Lake Racourcci and Lake Barre. Further, this lack of consideration limits options for the futureof the people who have traditionally occupied this area and whose land area has been reduced initially bygovernmental actions and inactions, such as (1) rerouting the Mississippi to decrease the freshwater flow and (2) thedestruction of land for oil exploration.As a Tribe, we are concerned as to the choices as to the ultimate impact on the tribal community by not including anyrestoration efforts in our area.We urge you to reconsider the proposed actions contemplated in the Proposed Master Plan. Without reconsideration,the protection and restoration of traditional, sacred and historical lands of the Pointe-au-Chien people will be furtherlimited and could eventual destroy the history of our area. We urge you to consider restoration efforts in SouthernTerrebonne and Western Lafourche Parishes, an area currently neglected in the Master Plan.

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 2 of 22/26/2012With respect,Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribal Council

Vermilion Parish Resilience Planhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Vermilion Parish Resilience PlanJoselin Landry [joselin_landry@yahoo.com]Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:18 PMTo:Master PlanHello,Vermilion Parish Police Jury has contracted with a group of planners to prepare acomprehensive resiliency plan for the unincorporated parts of the parish. The PoliceJury's website explains:http://vermilionparishpolicejury.com/ABOUT_resilencyplan112011.htmlAs part of the planning group tasked to work with the Parish on the resiliency plan,we are interested in the Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Plan projects withinVermilion Parish. We have identified 30 projects affecting the parish (some projectsalso affect Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes).Although the 30 identified parishes include brief descriptions (shoreline protection,hurricane protection), is there a way to access a more detailed description of theprojects so that we may work with the parish to include or consider these projects intheir resilience planning? Is there online access to more details about the projects?Our time frame for gathering information about the 2012 Coastal Master Plans isbetween now and January 6, 2012. Thank you for your time and consideration ofour request.Joselin LandryATCS, PLCPlanner504.368.2307

Jan 22, 2012Coastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityThe draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan is the most viable plan to date for restoring our coast and forprotecting our wildlife and communities. I commend the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authorityfor proposing a bold, science-based plan that will harness the land-building power of the MississippiRiver and create sensible hurricane protections. I urge the state to reject any proposed alterations tothis plan that are not based on sound science.Additionally, the oil and gas industry must be held to account for their destruction of wetlands.Terrebonne parish, the place that has been most destroyed by oil extraction, has no marsh protection inthis plan and will not be receiving protection because of how the industryhas altered the environment. the oil and gas industry must fix thecoast they broke.For Louisiana, the status quo will simply mean more land loss across the entire coast, while this plan willultimately result in Louisiana's coastline having a net gain of wetlands. Continued inaction is not anoption--I urge the state to support this draft of the Coastal Master Plan and to start the process ofrestoring the coast.Sincerely,Scott Eustis4465 Music StNew Orleans, LA 70122-4915

New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012New Contact from Louisiana Coastal Master Plan website.sam schudmak [sam@schudmak.com]Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 1:55 PMTo:Master PlanFrom: sam schudmak Subject: master planMessage Body:I am interested in the fate of levees and parts of old levee systems that are not now included in the Corps ofEngineers 100 Year Flood Plan.Is your plan going to include levees other than those in the Corps plan?Please let me know if you have any information.Thanks,Sam Schudmak--This mail is sent via contact form on Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan

Print Preview : Public Comment Form : Bulk Printhttp://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/print-entry.p...Page 1 of 12/24/2012Public Comment Form : Entry # 80First NameMichelleLast NameFeltermanAddress109 Jones Dr.Patterson, LA 70392United StatesMap ItOrganization Affiliation (if applicable)Nicholls State UniversityEmailmfelterman@its.nicholls.eduCommentsI understand how diverting the Atchafalaya River has the potential to build land east of the river, but I believe thisshould be done in a way that works in concordance with the flood protection of Morgan City, Amelia, and surroundingareas. Also, more detailed information on specific projects would be helpful for public evaluation.

Coastal master plan for plaquemines parishhttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/24/2012Coastal master plan for plaquemines parishTodd Eppley [inc1125@bellsouth.net]Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:21 PMTo:Master PlanAs a lifelong resident of the east bank of plaquemines parish this plan is a deathsentence for our community. I am a commercial fisherman, as well as a farmer and abuisness owner. I have loved our marsh since I began duck hunting when I was 6 yearsold. Flash water diversions do not work unless there is no threat if salt waterintrusion. This was proven during hurricanes George, Ivan, Katrina, Rita, Gustav andIke. Each time the land loss has been accelerated due to the fresh water vegetationbeing destroyed by salt water. I implore you to re-think your plan for plaqueminesparish, especially the east bank as, unless we pump river sediment and halt thesemonster diversions, it will be gone with the next major storm, and it will be toolate for I told you so.Todd Eppley6131 hwy 39Braithwaite, la 70040504 432-5448Sent from my iPhone

Storm Surge models in Master Plan?https://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 12/16/2012Storm Surge models in Master Plan?Thomas Thompson [thomasthompson@yahoo.com]Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:57 PMTo: Master PlanCc: Greg Cromer [cromerg@legis.state.la.us]; A.G. Crowe [ag@agcrowe.com]; Lee Longstreet [Lee@datakik.com];president@stpgov.org; John Faust [bigj340@charter.net]At the Coastal Master Plan presentation at the St. Tammany Library on August 30, 2011, I requestedthat the Master Plan publish the studies/models that show the difference in storm surge impact on thenorth shore of Lake Pontchartrain as a result of all the projects that have been build or approved forconstruction over the last forty years i.e. building a 21’ high levees/walls & gates from west end ofJefferson Parish to the twin span; the closing of the MRGO; the pumping stations; the south Slidelllevee; etc.?This data is vital in understand the storm surge issues and problems.Please tell me if the Master Plan will include this information?Your help and assistance in understanding and resolving the north shore’s storm surge problem isappreciated.Sincerely,Thomas Thompsonthomasthompson@yahoo.com985-285-1768

Melanie SaucierFrom:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Mac Friday, February 17, 2012 1:47 PMMaster Planvermillioncorporation@connections-lct.comVermilion Parish-Breach on Freshwater BayouDear Sirs: Please accept this email as my expression of support for inclusion of bank line stabilization and shorelineprotection for the Freshwater Bayou in the State Master Plan. This action is needed to prevent further deterioration of thefragile Mermentau Basin and Rainey Marshes. Lewis K. McKee, Jr.1

RE: Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan Releasehttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 1 of 22/16/2012RE: Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan ReleaseJames WraySent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:55 AMTo:Master PlanCongratulations on a remarkable document.James WrayLand Specialist IIIO.L.A.C.P.Real Estate and Land DivisionCoastal Protection and Restoration AuthorityP.O. Box 44027450 Laurel Street, 12th FloorBaton Rouge, LA 70804-4027Telephone: (225) 342-7329Fax: (225) 242-3311email: james.wray@la.govConfidentiality Notice and Request This email communication may contain confidential information which also may belegally privileged. This communication is intended only for the use of the recipientsidentified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, werequest that you not review, use, disseminate, distribute, download, or copy all or any part of the communication. If youhave received this communication in error, please immediately notify us (by reply email or facsimile, if possible) and deleteor destroy the communication and all copies.From: Master Plan Team [mailto:MasterPlan@la.gov]Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:52 AMTo: James WraySubject: Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan Release

RE: Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan Releasehttps://webmail.la.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAD2mgksEZ9cT5vOZLy...Page 2 of 22/16/2012**DRAFT 2012 COASTAL MASTER PLAN RELEASE**A ground-breaking planning effort by the state's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority showsthat while the future looks bleak, we have the opportunity to take bold action to save the coast andsecure south Louisiana's future.The CPRA's Draft 2012 Coastal Master Plan is based on a two-year analysis involving some of thestate's best scientists as well as national and international specialists. The state used this analysis toselect 145 high-performing projects that could deliver measurable benefits to our communities andcoastal ecosystem over the coming decades. The plan shows that if these projects were fully funded,at a pricetag of $50 billion, we could substantially increase flood protection for communities andcreate a sustainable coast.Louisiana is in the midst of a land loss crisis that has claimed 1,883 square miles of land since the1930s. Given the importance of so many of south Louisiana's natural assets-its waterways, naturalresources, unique culture and wetlands-this land loss crisis is nothing short of a national emergency,one that takes a daily toll on the lives of coastal residents. To address this crisis the LouisianaLegislature passed Act 8 in 2006, which created the CPRA and required it to develop a coastalmaster plan every five years. The first master plan was approved by the legislature in 2007. The newmaster plan, now under public review, will be submitted to the legislature for approval this spring.Citizens are invited to review the draft master plan during the two-month comment period, fromJanuary 12 to February 25, 2012. Click here to view a copy of the plan. Copies will also be availableat select public libraries in coastal parishes. The CPRA will be conducting three public meetings togather public comments. Each meeting will include an open house from 1:00 to 5:30 PM and a publichearing from 5:30 to 7:30 PM.• January 23, 2012, 1:00 - 7:30 PM, University of New Orleans - Lindy Boggs ConferenceCenter Auditorium• January 24, 2012, 1:00 - 7:30 PM, Houma Terrebonne Civic Center• January 25, 2012, 1:00 - 7:30 PM, Lake Charles Civic CenterIf you have questions about the draft plan, please contact us at MasterPlan@la.gov.Capitol Annex | 1051 North 3rd Street, Suite 138 | Baton Rouge, LA 70804 | PH (225)342-3968PROFILE OPTIONS: Subscribe | Unsubscribe | ArchivesIf you are having trouble viewing this message, please click here.

Fishing Member Organizations Clint Guidry, Chairman Louisiana Shrimp Association Tracy Kuhns, President Louisiana Bayoukeeper Thiện Dương Nguyễn, Vice President Southeastern Asian Fisherfolks Association Mike Roberts, Secretary Association of Family Fishermen Byron Encalade, Treasurer Louisiana Oystermen Association Theresa Dar Dar, Executive Board Member Pointe-­‐Au-­‐Chien Indian Tribe George Barisich, Executive Board Member United Commercial Fishermen Partner Member Organizations Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans (CCANO) JessicaGreater New Orleans Disaster Recovery Partnership (GNO DRP) Mary Queen of Viet Nam Community Development Corporation (MQVN CDC) GO FISH Coalition 1717 Tchoupitoulas St. New Orleans, LA 70130 gofishcoalition@gmail.com February 25, 2012Coastal Protection And Restoration Authority450 Laurel Street, Suite 1200Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4027Submitted Via: Online Public Comment Form located on theCPRA 2012 Coastal Master Plan website,Re: Public Comment on CPRA Draft 2012 CoastalMaster PlanThank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft2012 Coastal Master Plan. Projects chosen and constructedthrough this plan will have a direct and lasting impact on thefishing families we represent.GO FISH (Gulf Organized Fisheries in Solidarity & Hope) is acoalition of member organizations across the Gulf Coast thatbanded together after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill toadvocate for the rights of fishermen, restoring the fisheries, andpreserving fishing community culture.Our Gulf fishing communities were devastated when the BPDeepwater Horizon, Macondo well exploded on April 20, 2010,killing 11 people. BP spilled over 200 million gallons of crude oiland sprayed over 1.8 million gallons of toxic dispersant,impacting our communities, destroying fisheries habitat,livelihoods, and our fishing community way of life. The oilindustry ignored our lost subsistence way of life, undervaluedour economic loss compensation, and entirely devalued thehuman health impact on our community members. In summer of2010, our gulf fishing community leaders representingfishermen, oystermen, shrimpers, crabbers, and communitymembers came together from across the five Gulf States in aunique, multi-cultural organization to fight for our rights and ourfuture. We are bound together by determination and passion torestore our fisheries habitat, livelihoods and fishing culture. Wehave chosen to bring a united front to the on-going and longbattle yet ahead to restore and preserve our way of life.

Gulf fishing families supply over 30% of the wild caught seafood consumed in the UnitedStates. These fishing families not only supply fresh seafood to the nation, they feedtheir own families and local communities.Our cultural diverse communities are a close-knit mix of Cajun, Creole, Vietnamese,Thai, Cambodian, African American, Native American, and Euro American fishingfamilies. Fishing is a family tradition, upon which, Gulf coast citizens have lived out theAmerican Dream, sustained the local economy and maintained close family andcommunity ties. Gulf fishing communities are the front line stakeholders for maintaininga sustainable fisheries ecosystem.We are writing in support of comments submitted by member organizations LouisianaShrimp Association, Louisiana Bayoukeeper, Inc, Association of Family Fishermen,United Commercial Fishermen, as well as; the Louisiana Oyster Task Force and theBarataria-Terrebonne Estuary Program.We look forward to participating in future discussions relative to coastal protection andrestoration.Sincerely,Tracy Kuhns, PresidentGO FISH Coalition