Coastal Wetlands
Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection
Gao ID: GAO-08-130 December 14, 2007
Louisiana, home to 40 percent of all coastal wetlands in the lower 48 states, is projected to lose almost 17 square miles of coastline each year for the next 50 years to storms, sea level rise, and land subsidence. Coastal wetlands are an important wildlife and commercial resource, and provide a natural buffer against the storm surge that accompanies storms and hurricanes. The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) established a program in 1990 that undertakes projects to stem coastal wetland losses. Recently, the Congress passed other measures that will make billions in new funding available for coastal Louisiana over the next 20 years. GAO has prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority as part of a continued effort to assist the Congress. GAO reviewed the CWPPRA program to identify the (1) types of projects that have been designed and constructed to restore and protect coastal wetlands, as well as their estimated costs and benefits, and (2) lessons learned from past and ongoing restoration efforts that can help guide future efforts. GAO's review included interviews with each program agency. Although GAO is not making any recommendations, this review emphasizes the need for agencies to carefully consider the lessons learned from the CWPPRA program as they propose significantly larger efforts to restore Louisiana's coast. GAO received technical comments from two agencies which have been incorporated as appropriate.
Over the last 17 years under CWPPRA, federal agencies and Louisiana have designed and/or constructed 147 projects to restore and protect over 120,000 acres of coastal wetlands--about 3 percent of the Louisiana coast. Projects have included large-scale efforts that reintroduce freshwater and sediment to declining wetlands, as well as smaller projects such as shoreline barriers and vegetation plantings to protect and restore the coastal landscape. As of June 2007, of these 147 projects, 74 were completely constructed, 16 were under construction, and 57 were being designed and engineered. While the majority of projects are full-scale restoration and protection efforts, 22 were demonstration projects, initiated to test new techniques and materials. The cost of projects can vary considerably from about $9,000 per acre to plant marsh plants to almost $54,000 per acre to restore barrier islands. As of June 2007, the estimated cost to complete all 147 projects was $1.78 billion. Projects also require a continuous source of funding to maintain them over their expected life spans, which in most cases are about 20 years--yet like naturally occurring wetlands, most restored wetlands are also subject to continuous erosion and subsidence over time. Because the CWPPRA program has not implemented a comprehensive evaluation and monitoring approach, it is not possible to determine the collective success of constructed projects. Previous and ongoing efforts to restore and protect Louisiana's coastal wetlands offer important lessons to guide future restoration plans and strategies. Of particular importance is maintaining the collaborative process used by the CWPPRA program agencies, under which scientists, engineers, and others with a range of experience and expertise work together to plan and design restoration projects that are feasible and achievable. In addition, a number of other issues will need to be addressed as larger and more complex restoration efforts are undertaken in the future. Specifically, increasing project costs can delay individual projects, as well as the overall program--currently 10 CWPPRA projects are on hold waiting for funds because estimated construction costs exceed funds available. Without an integrated monitoring system, officials cannot determine whether goals and objectives are being met--even after 4 years such a system is not fully implemented for CWPPRA. Identifying and addressing private landowner issues is critical in the project design phase--in some instances, these issues have led to costly project modifications or construction delays for some CWPPRA projects. Some projects simply fail to perform as designed due to landscape, structural, or other causes beyond the designers' control--some CWPPRA projects were terminated because such problems were not anticipated or could not be resolved. Storms and hurricanes can result in significant setbacks to projects--large areas of both naturally occurring and restored wetlands can be destroyed in just a few days if hit by a powerful storm. A well-developed implementation strategy that has mechanisms to address these types of uncertainties, when they arise, is more likely to be successful.
GAO-08-130, Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-130
entitled 'Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in
Louisiana Could Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection' which was
released on December 14, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-130, a report to congressional addressees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Louisiana, home to 40 percent of all coastal wetlands in the lower 48
states, is projected to lose almost 17 square miles of coastline each
year for the next 50 years to storms, sea level rise, and land
subsidence. Coastal wetlands are an important wildlife and commercial
resource, and provide a natural buffer against the storm surge that
accompanies storms and hurricanes. The Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) established a program in 1990
that undertakes projects to stem coastal wetland losses. Recently, the
Congress passed other measures that will make billions in new funding
available for coastal Louisiana over the next 20 years. GAO has
prepared this report under the Comptroller General‘s authority as part
of a continued effort to assist the Congress. GAO reviewed the CWPPRA
program to identify the (1) types of projects that have been designed
and constructed to restore and protect coastal wetlands, as well as
their estimated costs and benefits, and (2) lessons learned from past
and ongoing restoration efforts that can help guide future efforts.
GAO‘s review included interviews with each program agency.
Although GAO is not making any recommendations, this review emphasizes
the need for agencies to carefully consider the lessons learned from
the CWPPRA program as they propose significantly larger efforts to
restore Louisiana‘s coast. GAO received technical comments from two
agencies which have been incorporated as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
Over the last 17 years under CWPPRA, federal agencies and Louisiana
have designed and/or constructed 147 projects to restore and protect
over 120,000 acres of coastal wetlands”about 3 percent of the Louisiana
coast. Projects have included large-scale efforts that reintroduce
freshwater and sediment to declining wetlands, as well as smaller
projects such as shoreline barriers and vegetation plantings to protect
and restore the coastal landscape. As of June 2007, of these 147
projects, 74 were completely constructed, 16 were under construction,
and 57 were being designed and engineered. While the majority of
projects are full-scale restoration and protection efforts, 22 were
demonstration projects, initiated to test new techniques and materials.
The cost of projects can vary considerably from about $9,000 per acre
to plant marsh plants to almost $54,000 per acre to restore barrier
islands. As of June 2007, the estimated cost to complete all 147
projects was $1.78 billion. Projects also require a continuous source
of funding to maintain them over their expected life spans, which in
most cases are about 20 years”yet like naturally occurring wetlands,
most restored wetlands are also subject to continuous erosion and
subsidence over time. Because the CWPPRA program has not implemented a
comprehensive evaluation and monitoring approach, it is not possible to
determine the collective success of constructed projects.
Previous and ongoing efforts to restore and protect Louisiana‘s coastal
wetlands offer important lessons to guide future restoration plans and
strategies. Of particular importance is maintaining the collaborative
process used by the CWPPRA program agencies, under which scientists,
engineers, and others with a range of experience and expertise work
together to plan and design restoration projects that are feasible and
achievable. In addition, a number of other issues will need to be
addressed as larger and more complex restoration efforts are undertaken
in the future. Specifically,
* Increasing project costs can delay individual projects, as well as
the overall program”currently 10 CWPPRA projects are on hold waiting
for funds because estimated construction costs exceed funds available.
* Without an integrated monitoring system, officials cannot determine
whether goals and objectives are being met”even after 4 years such a
system is not fully implemented for CWPPRA.
* Identifying and addressing private landowner issues is critical in
the project design phase”in some instances, these issues have led to
costly project modifications or construction delays for some CWPPRA
projects.
* Some projects simply fail to perform as designed due to landscape,
structural, or other causes beyond the designers‘ control”some CWPPRA
projects were terminated because such problems were not anticipated or
could not be resolved.
* Storms and hurricanes can result in significant setbacks to
projects”large areas of both naturally occurring and restored wetlands
can be destroyed in just a few days if hit by a powerful storm. A well-
developed implementation strategy that has mechanisms to address these
types of uncertainties, when they arise, is more likely to be
successful.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-130]. For more information, contact Anu
K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Report to Congressional Addressees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2007:
Coastal Wetlands:
Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could Help Guide Future
Restoration and Protection:
Coastal Wetlands:
GAO-08-130:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Various Projects Have Been Designed and Constructed to Restore and
Protect Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands:
Accomplishments and Challenges to Restoring Louisiana's Coastal
Wetlands Provide Lessons Learned for Future Restoration Efforts:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Summary Schedules of CWPPRA Projects:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
GAO Comments:
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary Schedule of CWPPRA Projects in Design and Engineering
as of June 2007:
Table 2: Summary Schedule of CWPPRA Projects under Construction as of
June 2007:
Table 3: Summary Schedule of CWPPRA Projects Completed as of June 2007:
Table 4: Summary Schedule of CWPPRA Projects Terminated as of June
2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: Louisiana Coastal Area Projected Land Changes between 2000-
2050:
Figure 2: The Maurepas Swamp Before a River Reintroduction Project:
Figure 3: Crevasse in a Sediment Diversion Project:
Figure 4: Gate in an Outfall Management Project:
Figure 5: Marsh Creation Project Using Dredged Material:
Figure 6: Rock Berm Built for Shoreline Protection:
Figure 7: Water Control Structure to Restore Drainage Patterns and
Water Flow:
Figure 8: Gates to Control Saltwater Levels:
Figure 9: Barrier Islands:
Figure 10: Native Marsh Plants:
Figure 11: Terraces Built to Trap Sediment and Slow Water Flow:
Figure 12: Constructing Terraces to Trap Sediment in Open Water:
Figure 13: Nutria Overgraze on Native Wetland Plants:
Figure 14: Organization of the CWPPRA Task Force:
Abbreviations:
CIAP: Coastal Impact Assistance Program:
Corps: Army Corps of Engineers:
CWPPRA: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service:
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service:
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service:
USGS: United States Geological Survey:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 14, 2007:
Congressional Addressees:
Since the 1930s, coastal Louisiana has lost over 1.2 million acres of
wetlands or other coastal habitats and the U.S. Geological Survey
estimates that the region will continue to lose about 10,800 acres--
almost 17 square miles--each year for the next 50 years to storms, sea
level rise, land subsidence (sinking), and the construction of levees
and canals that weaken the sustainability of the landscape. Flood
control structures, such as dams, have reduced the amount of suspended
sediment in the Mississippi River and levees have disconnected the
river from the floodplain, disrupting the natural process by which the
river historically deposited sediment in the delta to build and sustain
coastal wetlands. Coastal Louisiana is one of the most wetland-rich
regions of the world--home to about 2.5 million acres of fresh,
brackish, and saltwater marshes, accounting for about 40 percent of the
coastal marshland in the lower 48 states. Wetlands support a diverse
mix of plants and wildlife, filter rainwater runoff, and provide a
natural buffer against the storm surges that accompany tropical storms
and hurricanes. For example, based on observations of hurricanes
striking the Louisiana coast, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
estimated that storm surge was reduced about 1 foot for every 2.75
miles of coastal wetlands that the surge had to cross. Coastal wetland
losses in Louisiana account for up to 90 percent of the total coastal
wetlands loss occurring in the lower 48 states today and expose the
state's coastal areas to the devastating effects of hurricane storm
surges. It is generally accepted that the deterioration of Louisiana's
coastal wetlands exacerbated the degree to which Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita and flooding from the associated storm surge affected New Orleans,
coastal Louisiana, and the greater Gulf Coast region.
In 1990, the Congress passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
and Restoration Act (CWPPRA),[Footnote 1] the first federal program
specifically directed toward authorizing funding for the restoration of
Louisiana's coastal wetlands. CWPPRA created the Louisiana Coastal
Wetlands:
Conservation and Restoration Task Force, which includes five federal
agencies and the state of Louisiana. The CWPPRA task force makes
decisions on coastal restoration projects, including project funding,
planning, and the transition of projects from initiation through design
and engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, and monitoring.
The CWPPRA task force assigns individual projects to member agencies--
called federal sponsors--to plan, design, construct, operate, maintain,
and monitor the projects. As chair of the CWPPRA task force, the Corps
manages project funds and maintains records and data on projects. The
other task force members are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), and the Louisiana Governor's Office of Coastal Activities. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also participates in the CWPPRA program,
although it is not a member of the task force.
CWPPRA projects are designed to protect and/or restore coastal wetlands
and reduce land loss. Projects to protect coastal wetlands include
constructing shoreline barriers with rocks, sheet piling, or other
engineering materials to reduce the effects of wave energy and removing
destructive invasive wildlife species such as nutria, a rodent that
damages marsh vegetation. Protection is critical to preventing or
slowing the rate of wetlands loss caused by erosion, saltwater
intrusion, subsidence, and other factors. Projects to restore coastal
wetlands include planting marsh vegetation to promote the return of
wildlife, placing dredged sediment in deteriorating marshes to
encourage plant growth, blocking or backfilling dredged canals that
change natural water flows and contribute to erosion and allow
saltwater intrusion, cutting gaps in levees to reestablish natural
drainage patterns, and diverting freshwater and sediment to declining
swamps and marshes. Individual CWPPRA projects are designed to protect
and restore between 10 and 10,000 acres, require an average 5 years to
transition from approval to construction, and are funded to operate for
20 years.
While the CWPPRA program has received almost $800 million over the last
17 years to plan, design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor
projects, based on their preliminary estimates, Louisiana state
officials told us that they expect to receive more than 10 times this
funding--about $8.5 billion--for restoring and protecting the state's
coast over the next 20 years from new federal programs. Specifically,
they estimate that Louisiana will receive up to $523 million over 4
years beginning in 2008 through the Coastal Impact Assistance Program
(CIAP), which was created by Section 384 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005.[Footnote 2] CIAP is intended to help certain coastal states and
their political subdivisions (parishes and counties) mitigate the
effects of oil and gas production by allocating a portion of qualified
outer continental shelf oil and natural gas revenues to them. Among
other things, these funds may be used for projects and activities to
conserve, protect, or restore coastal areas, including projects
designed and engineered under CWPPRA. In addition, based on their
review of the provisions contained in the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006,[Footnote 3] Louisiana state officials told us
they expect to receive up to $6.2 billion over at least 20 years from
certain outer continental shelf oil and gas production revenue;
specifically, $200 million in the first 10 years and between $400 and
$600 million per year thereafter to fund efforts such as the
restoration of coastal wetlands. Finally, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007[Footnote 4] contains provisions for over $1
billion for coastal restoration in Louisiana.
In anticipation of this potential surge in additional funding for the
restoration and protection of the Louisiana coast, both Louisiana and
the Corps, with input from other CWPPRA federal agencies, have prepared
or are developing specific coastal restoration plans for the state. In
June 2007, Louisiana approved a master plan for the restoration and
protection of coastal Louisiana that officials estimate will cost more
than $50 billion to implement and take up to three decades to complete.
In response to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of
2006,[Footnote 5] the Corps is also conducting a study and plans to
issue a preliminary report by December 2007 that will recommend a
comprehensive approach to flood, coastal, and hurricane protection for
Louisiana. In coastal Louisiana, flood control generally includes
interior drainage systems, such as pumps and canals, to reduce rain-
induced flooding while hurricane protection includes levees and other
structures to reduce the risk of flooding from storm surges. Corps
officials told us they plan to submit a final report to the Congress in
the fall of 2008.
In light of the importance of coastal wetlands to help protect against
future Katrina-level devastation and the significant efforts under way
or proposed to restore Louisiana's coastal wetlands, we undertook this
study under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct evaluations
on his own initiative as part of our continued effort to assist the
Congress. Specifically, we identified the (1) types of CWPPRA projects
that have been designed and/or constructed to restore and protect
Louisiana's coastal wetlands, including their expected benefits and
estimated costs, and (2) lessons learned from past and ongoing
restoration efforts that can help guide future plans to restore and
protect these coastal wetlands.
To identify the types of projects that have been designed and/or
constructed to restore and protect Louisiana's coastal wetlands, we
reviewed documentation on every CWPPRA project in design, under
construction, completed, or terminated, including project plans and
designs, project manager's technical fact sheets, and monitoring plans
and reports. We interviewed officials at the headquarters offices of
the Corps (within the Department of Defense), EPA, FWS (an agency
within the Department of the Interior), NMFS (an agency within the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), NRCS (an agency
within the Department of Agriculture), and USGS (an agency within the
Department of the Interior), and interviewed officials working in
Louisiana for each of these agencies. We also interviewed officials
from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. We observed the
work performed on three CWPPRA projects and two other restoration
projects constructed by the Corps. To identify the lessons learned from
past restoration efforts that can help guide future plans to restore
and protect coastal wetlands, we reviewed program funding reports,
minutes of task force and technical committee meetings, and Louisiana
annual project reviews. We interviewed federal agency project managers
and members of CWPPRA task force committees and work groups in
Louisiana, as well as officials from USGS and the Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources on the process to protect and restore coastal
wetlands under CWPPRA. We also reviewed relevant federal laws and
regulations and, where appropriate, state laws and cases. In conducting
our work, we concentrated our efforts on the CWPPRA program because of
the exceedingly high rate of wetlands loss in Louisiana and because the
program is the first federal program specifically directed toward
authorizing funding to restore Louisiana's coastal wetlands. We
conducted our work between October 2006 and October 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Over the last 17 years under CWPPRA, federal agencies and Louisiana
have designed and/or constructed a range of 147 projects to restore and
protect over 120,000 acres of coastal wetlands, which is equivalent to
about 3 percent of the state's coastal area. As of June 2007, of these
147 projects, 74 were completely constructed, 16 were under
construction, and 57 were being designed and engineered. These 147
projects fall into about 12 major categories ranging from large-scale
efforts that reintroduce freshwater and sediment across declining
wetlands to smaller projects such as shoreline barriers and vegetation
plantings to protect and restore the coastal landscape. The majority of
projects were full-scale restoration and protection efforts, while 22
were demonstration projects, initiated to test new techniques and
materials to restore or protect coastal wetlands. Of the 74 projects
constructed since 1990, more than half were one of two types--shoreline
protection (building barriers from material such as rock or plants) and
hydrologic restoration (restoring natural drainage patterns). These two
types of projects also accounted for over one-quarter of the more than
120,000 wetland acreage protected and restored by the CWPPRA program.
The cost of CWPPRA projects can vary considerably; for example,
projects to plant marsh plants have averaged about $9,000 per acre
while projects to protect barrier islands have averaged almost $54,000
per acre. As of June 2007, the total cost to complete all 147 projects
was estimated at $1.78 billion, which includes initial funding for
operations and maintenance. However, most projects will require
continuous funding to maintain them over their expected life span of 20
years. Like naturally occurring wetlands, restored wetlands can
experience continuous erosion and subsidence, which over time generally
diminishes the amount of restored acreage. As a result, most of these
projects are designed with the expectation that they will provide
wetland benefits for a 20-year period, after which they may or may not
be viable. Because the CWPPRA program has not fully implemented a
comprehensive monitoring process, we were unable to determine the
extent to which the completed projects have been successful in creating
and restoring coastal wetlands in Louisiana.
Past and ongoing efforts to restore and protect Louisiana's coastal
wetlands offer important lessons that can help guide future restoration
plans and strategies. In particular, officials from Louisiana and the
five federal agencies that have collaborated on Louisiana's coastal
wetland projects through the CWPPRA task force told us they believe
that the CWPPRA program's unique interagency approach and process are
the primary reasons that the program has been able to design and
construct a range of projects on the Louisiana coast. Specifically, the
CWPPRA process brings together biologists, other scientists, civil
engineers, and others, whose broad range of experience and expertise
helps ensure that the projects they design and construct are
technically feasible and will achieve their environmental objectives.
To improve collaboration, the CWPPRA task force formed committees and
technical work groups with members from federal agencies and Louisiana
to assist each phase of the restoration process. Maintaining this
collaborative interagency approach will be essential to future success.
Ultimate success, however, will also be dependent upon a project
managers' ability to address a number of issues that have surfaced on
past CWPPRA projects. Specifically,
* Increasing project costs. Over the life of a project, costs can
increase significantly causing unanticipated delays for individual
projects, as well as the overall restoration program. For CWPPRA
projects, costs have increased significantly over original estimates
because of the increasing costs of fuel, labor, and building material.
As a result, fewer projects are being designed and constructed. For
example, as of October 2007, there were 10 fully designed CWPPRA
projects awaiting funding because the $190 million estimated cost for
construction exceeded the amount of annual program funds available for
new construction. Further, the funds were needed to pay for the higher
construction, operations, and maintenance costs of other projects.
* Limited monitoring and assessment capabilities. Without an integrated
monitoring and assessment process, it is difficult to determine whether
restoration efforts are meeting their goals and objectives. Further,
while Louisiana officials have monitored and prepared reports for
projects constructed under the CWPPRA program, task force and USGS
officials told us their reports have provided limited performance data
on the success of these projects. Since 2003, USGS has been working
with the CWPPRA task force to develop a coast-wide monitoring system.
The system is expected to be fully implemented in 2008. However, until
the system is fully implemented and able to provide sufficient data to
support statistical and trend analysis, officials will not know whether
projects are collectively restoring the coast or whether these efforts
are having adverse unintended effects.
* Private land ownership issues. During a project's planning and design
phase, it is important to identify and attend to private land ownership
issues which, if not addressed, could lead to costly design
modifications or construction delays. Coastal Louisiana is about 85
percent privately owned by individuals and businesses. Agency officials
have had to spend significant amounts of time locating individual
landowners to obtain approval to construct CWPPRA projects. For
example, agency officials told us they had to contact from 1 to 100
landowners to obtain approval to initiate one project. To construct
projects on commercially owned lands, federal agencies have had to
relocate or temporarily move infrastructure which has, in some
instances, significantly increased CWPPRA project costs.
* Uncertainty of project performance. Some projects simply fail to
perform as designed for reasons largely beyond the designers' control,
such as existing drainage patterns or other landscape features. Over
the years, about 20 CWPPRA projects have had to be terminated due to,
in some cases, technical difficulties and design problems that the
designers could not resolve. For example, officials terminated a
terracing project after concluding that it would not be technically
feasible to construct terraces on the land due to poor sediment
quality.
* Setbacks as a result of storm damage. Storms and hurricanes can cause
significant damage to coastal areas, including both naturally occurring
and restored wetlands. Although most CWPPRA projects did not sustain
significant damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, other Louisiana
coastal restoration projects were significantly impacted by the storms.
Specifically, Hurricane Katrina destroyed more than 25,000 acres of
wetlands in the Caernarvon Project area, a large Corps' project
constructed in 1991 that diverts water from the Mississippi River to
restore nearby wetlands.
As federal and state planners move forward with much larger scale
efforts to protect and restore Louisiana's coastal wetlands, we believe
that it will be critical for them to carefully consider the lessons
learned, both the keys to success and the challenges, from the
experiences of CWPPRA projects. As the CWPPRA experience demonstrates,
while not all of the uncertainties surrounding wetlands protection and
restoration projects can be predicted in advance, a well-developed
project implementation strategy that includes mechanisms to address
these kinds of uncertainties is essential for ensuring project success.
We provided a copy of this report to the Departments of Commerce,
Defense, Interior, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
review and comment. In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA
provided comments indicating agreement with our findings and
observations. The Department of Commerce, commenting for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, generally agreed that our
report was accurate and thorough but disagreed with our
characterization of CWPPRA monitoring. Specifically, the agency stated
that while long term data acquisition will be required before officials
are able to develop scientific conclusions on integrated project
effectiveness, it emphasized that individual project monitoring
currently taking place offers critical insights into project
performance. While we believe that our description of CWPPRA monitoring
efforts was accurate, we have revised the report to clarify some of the
issues included in the agency's comments. Both the Department of
Commerce and Department of Defense also provided technical comments,
which we have incorporated throughout the report as appropriate. The
Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture did
not provide comments on this report.
Background:
Coastal Louisiana's 2.5 million acres of fresh, brackish, and saltwater
marshes support a diverse mix of plants and wildlife, filter rainwater
runoff, and help protect the region from damaging storm surges from the
Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana's coastal landscape provides a habitat for
millions of migratory birds and 17 threatened or endangered species and
supports the largest shrimp, oyster, and blue crab production in the
United States. Its coastal wetlands also protect coastal regions and
critical infrastructure, such as oil and gas platforms and pipelines,
from the storm surges that accompany tropical storms and hurricanes.
The Louisiana coast has lost over 1 million acres of wetlands since the
1930s and that loss is expected to continue. In 2004, USGS projected
that, between 2000 and 2050, more than 430,000 acres, or about 13
square miles per year, would be lost if no further protection and
restoration measures are implemented. If current plans to protect and
restore the wetlands were implemented,[Footnote 6] USGS estimated
wetlands losses would slow to 329,000 acres, or just over 10 square
miles per year, by 2050. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Louisiana Coastal Area Projected Land Changes between 2000-
2050:
This figure is a map of the Louisiana Coastal area projected land
changes between 2000-2050.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Since the 2005 hurricanes, estimated land loss rates are being revised,
in part, to reflect the immediate land loss caused by the storms and
estimated rates of recovery. According to a USGS official, up to 16.9
square miles of coastal wetlands may be lost each year over the next 50
years, assuming no future protection and restoration measures are
implemented.
In addition to the storms, sea level rise, and land subsidence
(sinking) that have contributed to and continue to cause coastal
wetlands loss, the construction of levees and canals, such as the
hundreds of miles of Mississippi River levees constructed to control
flooding, also weaken the sustainability of the landscape and
contribute to coastal wetlands loss. Flood control structures such as
dams on Mississippi River tributaries and levees on the lower
Mississippi River have disrupted the natural processes by which the
river deposited sediment in the delta to build and sustain coastal
wetlands. Specifically, dams and levees reduce the amount of suspended
sediment in the river, which reduces the amount of sediment reaching
the Mississippi River delta--the area of land built up by sediment
deposited by the river as it slows down and enters the Gulf of Mexico.
Currently the Mississippi River delivers an estimated 141 million tons
of sediment to the Gulf each year--less than one-third the amount of
sediment the river carried prior to the 1950s and including but not
limited to, the hundreds of miles of levees along the Mississippi River
and its tributaries constructed to reduce flood damage, also impact the
sustainability of the landscape and contribute to coastal wetlands
loss. Much of the sediment that reaches the Gulf is carried away from
the land and deposited over the continental shelf where it is lost to
the ocean and cannot be recovered.
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act:
CWPPRA was originally enacted in November 1990, and it authorized
funding through 1999.[Footnote 7] The Congress subsequently extended
the program's funding authority through 2009 and later through 2019
providing about 30 years of funding for the program. Federal funding
for the CWPPRA program currently comes from the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund (Trust Fund), which is administered by the
Department of the Interior and funded by taxes on the sale of motor
boat fuel, small engine fuel taxes, and sport fishing equipment.
Federal funding for the engineering, design, construction, operation,
maintenance, and monitoring of CWPPRA projects has averaged
approximately $50 million each year, ranging from about $28 million per
year in the early 1990s to $71 million in 2007. Task force officials
told us they expect to receive an estimated $76 million in federal
funds in 2008 and annual increases each year up to an estimated $108
million in federal funds by 2017, based on Department of the Interior's
estimates of increases to the Trust Fund, the source of federal funding
for the CWPPRA program. Total estimated funding for all program
planning and construction through 2019 is $2.44 billion in federal and
nonfederal funds.
Under CWPPRA, the federal government generally is required to fund 75
percent of project costs, with the state providing the remaining 25
percent. However, according to CWPPRA, Louisiana's share may be reduced
if the state develops a coastal wetlands conservation plan. In 1997,
the Corps, EPA, and FWS approved Louisiana's conservation plan so the
states' contribution was reduced from 25 percent to 15 percent.
Further, in 1996, the Water Resources Development Act authorized the
task force to reduce the states' contribution to 10 percent for
projects approved in 1996 and 1997. At least one-third of Louisiana's
share must be in the form of a cash contribution; the balance may be in
the form of providing lands, easements, rights-of-way, or other in-kind
contributions that the CWPPRA agency sponsor determines to be
appropriate, such as designing and engineering projects. Under CWPPRA,
no more than $5 million per year may be used for task force planning
purposes; the remainder must be used for the design, construction,
operation, maintenance, and monitoring of projects.
Under the CWPPRA program, the annual process to nominate candidate
projects typically begins around January when federal CWPPRA agencies
and the state meet with local governments and individuals to propose
protection and restoration measures to address critical areas of need.
In February, the CWPPRA agencies meet with other stakeholders, such as
state and parish officials, to review proposals and select up to 20
projects for potential development. From these, the task force's
technical committee selects 10 projects for potential engineering and
design, designates a lead federal agency to begin developing designs
and cost estimates, and evaluates the potential benefits of these
projects. For each project, agency officials provide an estimate of how
many wetland acres will be created, restored, and/or protected after 20
years based on the proposed design and assumptions, such as anticipated
changes in water flow or salinity. After project designs and estimates
are prepared, the various CWPPRA work groups meet to review and
evaluate proposed project plans, preliminary cost estimates, and
projected benefits, and to estimate life-cycle costs for proposed
projects. Based on this set of conceptual project planning information,
the task force selects a subset of candidate projects, typically in
October of each year, to begin engineering and design. Around the
following January, the task force approves funding for certain projects
that have completed engineering and design to begin construction,
operations, maintenance and monitoring. Project implementation averages
about 5 years from the time candidate projects are selected through the
completion of construction. Following construction, Louisiana typically
operates, maintains, and monitors the performance of projects for up to
20 years.
CWPPRA requires that the task force also consider funding small-scale
projects that demonstrate the use of new techniques or materials for
coastal wetlands restoration. In 1993, the task force recommended that
funding for demonstration projects be limited to about $2 million per
year. In 2006, concerned that funding constraints would eliminate
demonstration projects, the task force recommended that it consider
funding at least one demonstration project per year as long as
demonstration projects do not exceed $2 million in total costs. The
task force also funds monitoring for demonstration projects.
As chair of the CWPPRA task force, the Corps is responsible for the
administration of federal program funds. Based on documentation
submitted by federal agencies, the Corps disburses funds from the Trust
Fund, as well as the states' share from an escrow account to pay for
the planning, design, construction, operations, maintenance, and
monitoring of projects. Louisiana and federal agencies also fund
individual projects through cost sharing agreements, cooperative
agreements, or grants that outline approved project cost estimates,
federal and state cost shares, and how the states' cost share payments
will be made, such as through work-in-kind or cash payments.
Additional Funding to Restore and Protect Louisiana Coastal Wetlands
Will Become Available over the Next 20 Years:
Two new federal programs are expected to provide billions of dollars in
additional funding for the restoration and protection of coastal
Louisiana. Taken together, Louisiana expects to receive between $6.5
billion and $8.5 billion over at least 20 years from these new programs
to fund coastal restoration and hurricane protection projects. These
new programs are:
* Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). The Energy Policy Act of
2005 established CIAP, a revenue-sharing program to help coastal states
and their parishes and counties mitigate the effects of oil and gas
production.[Footnote 8] Under this program, the Secretary of the
Interior is required to disburse $250 million each year for 4 years
(fiscal years 2007 through 2010) to certain coastal states based on an
allocation formula specified in the law.[Footnote 9] Funds for the
program will come from qualified outer continental shelf oil and
natural gas revenue. States must submit a plan to the Department of the
Interior's Minerals Management Service by July 1, 2008, which must be
approved in order for states to receive CIAP funds. States may use CIAP
funds for projects and activities to conserve, protect, or restore
coastal areas, and for certain other purposes. In February 2007,
Louisiana state officials estimated they would receive up to $523
million over 4 years from CIAP. In June 2007, Louisiana submitted its
plan to the Minerals Management Service and plans to fund the
construction of six CWPPRA projects using the first year of CIAP funds.
In July, Louisiana state officials told us they expected to receive the
first funds beginning in 2008. On November 29, 2007, the Minerals
Management Service approved Louisiana's plan.
* Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. Under this law, four
coastal, energy-producing states--Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas--and their parishes and counties will share 37.5 percent of
certain revenues from royalties from the production of oil and natural
gas in the Gulf of Mexico.[Footnote 10] They may use the funding for
such efforts as coastal restoration and hurricane protection. Under
this program, Louisiana expects to receive $200 million over the course
of the first 10 years and between $400 and $600 million per year
thereafter. Louisiana state officials told us the state expects to
receive the first funds under this act in 2008 or 2009.
In addition, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 included
authorizations for hundreds of projects and studies, including about
$1.6 billion for the Corps to construct coastal Louisiana restoration
projects. At least one of the projects contained in the law was
engineered and designed under the CWPPRA program.
In response to the 2005 hurricanes, both the state of Louisiana and the
Corps began developing coastal restoration plans for the state, which
are expected to be paid for, in part, with this additional funding. The
following are summaries of these two plans:
* Louisiana's Plan. In June 2007, the Louisiana state legislature
approved a comprehensive master plan, developed by a state agency, for
ecosystem restoration and hurricane protection for the Louisiana coast.
The plan is based on previous hurricane protection initiatives and
established flood control and coastal restoration concepts. It outlines
several planning objectives and makes a series of recommendations such
as restoring the sustainability of the Mississippi River delta,
immediately closing the Mississippi River gulf outlet, and it suggests
strategies to provide greater hurricane protection to coastal
Louisiana. The plan acknowledges challenges and trade-offs, such as the
likelihood that not every coastal community will receive the same level
of hurricane protection. It also acknowledges certain technical
unknowns, such as how to balance the effects of protection projects,
such as levees, with restoration projects, such as diversions and marsh
restoration. Although final cost estimates have not been developed,
Louisiana officials estimate that the plan will cost more than $50
billion over several decades. In April 2007, the state released its
2008 annual plan for the restoration and protection of coastal
Louisiana that estimated it would cost $1.07 billion to implement the
first 3 years (2008 through 2010) of the state's master plan.
* The Corps' Plan. The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
of 2006 required the Corps to conduct a study and recommend a
comprehensive approach to flood, coastal, and hurricane protection for
Louisiana. To prepare its report, the Corps is conducting a series of
public meetings to discuss alternative proposals to restore and protect
areas of need. The Corps is also working with other federal agencies
and Louisiana to identify cost, performance, and risks for each
alternative proposal. In July 2007, Corps officials told us they plan
to submit a preliminary report to the Congress by December 2007 and a
final report in the fall of 2008.
Various Projects Have Been Designed and Constructed to Restore and
Protect Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands:
Over the last 17 years under CWPPRA, federal agencies and Louisiana as
of June 2007 have designed and/or constructed 147 projects to restore
and protect more than 120,000 acres of coastal wetlands--about 3
percent of the Louisiana coast. The total cost of these projects is
estimated to be about $1.78 billion. Although costs vary significantly
between project types, many projects are generally expected to erode
and subside over time, as a result of naturally occurring hydrologic
and geologic processes.
The various types of CWPPRA projects that have been designed and/or
constructed to protect and/or restore coastal wetlands include the
following:
Freshwater reintroduction. Freshwater reintroduction projects move
water through a gate, siphon, or pump to drain water from a body of
water, such as the Mississippi River, to a nearby area of declining
wetlands or marsh. The water carries some sediment and nutrients and
helps slow saltwater intrusion, which in turn slows the loss of marsh
and creates a small amount of new marsh. For example, the River
Reintroduction into Maurepas Swamp project sponsored by EPA is designed
to restore and protect a deteriorated swampland by reintroducing
Mississippi River water, along with sediment and nutrients, into the
nearby Maurepas Swamp (see fig. 2) and protect 5,438 acres of wetlands.
EPA has been developing the project since August 2001, but construction
is not expected to begin until June 2009. As of June 2007, federal
agencies and Louisiana were designing and engineering eight projects to
reintroduce freshwater to nearby wetlands or marsh.
Figure 2: The Maurepas Swamp Before a River Reintroduction Project:
This figure is a photograph of the Maurepas Swamp before a river
reintroduction project.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Sediment diversion. Sediment diversion projects redirect sediment to
nearby wetlands to promote natural land-building processes. A gap,
called a crevasse, (see fig. 3) is cut into a river levee, allowing
river water, nutrients, and sediment to flow into a marshland. The
uncontrolled diversion (where water is allowed to flow freely and is
not controlled by a dam or lock) is designed to create new marsh in
shallow water. For example, the Corps constructed the West Bay Sediment
Diversion project in November 2003 to restore wetlands in shallow open
water by adding sediment that will restore 9,831 acres of marshlands.
As of June 2007, federal agencies and Louisiana were designing and
engineering seven projects and had completed five projects to divert
sediment to nearby wetlands.
Figure 3: Crevasse in a Sediment Diversion Project:
This figure is a photograph of Crevasse in a sediment diversion
project.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Outfall management. Outfall management projects work together with
freshwater reintroduction or sediment diversion projects. They use a
variety of techniques to control the flow of water and sediment through
a combination of gates, locks, weirs, canal plugs, and gaps cut in
artificial levee banks (see fig. 4). For example, the Caernarvon
Diversion Outfall Management project completed by NRCS in June 2002 is
designed to restore 802 acres of wetlands by promoting better sediment
and nutrient flow from an existing Corps sediment diversion project
along the Mississippi River. As of June 2007, federal agencies and
Louisiana were designing and engineering one project and had completed
two projects to manage the flow of water and sediment.
Figure 4: Gate in an Outfall Management Project:
This figure is a photograph of a gate in an outfall management project.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Marsh creation. Marsh creation projects restore and protect marshlands
using sediment material from river dredging projects or material
dredged specifically to create a marsh. The dredged material is placed
in open water and/or on declining wetlands to raise land levels so that
marsh plants will become established to form new marsh (see fig. 5).
For example, the Corps constructed the Bayou LaBranche Wetland Creation
project in April 1994 by depositing 2.7 million cubic yards of sediment
dredged from Lake Pontchartrain into open water areas to create 203
acres of new marsh. As of June 2007, federal agencies and Louisiana
were designing and engineering 12 projects, constructing 3 projects,
and had completed 7 projects to create marshlands.
Figure 5: Marsh Creation Project Using Dredged Material:
This figure is a photograph of a marsh creation project using dredged
material.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Shoreline protection. Shoreline protection projects are designed to
slow or stop shoreline erosion. Some techniques, such as rock berms
(see fig. 6), are built along eroding shorelines to reduce the effect
of waves on the shore. Other techniques, such as breakwaters and
intertidal dikes, are built in open water to slow waves before they
reach the shoreline. For example, NRCS constructed the Boston Canal/
Vermilion Bay Bank Protection project in November 1995 by creating
1,400 feet of rock dikes and 1,000 feet of fence to protect and trap
sediment for land building. As of June 2007, federal agencies and
Louisiana were designing and engineering 13 projects, constructing 3
projects, and had completed 23 projects to protect shorelines from
erosion.
Figure 6: Rock Berm Built for Shoreline Protection:
This figure is a photograph of rock berm built for shoreline
protection.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Hydrologic restoration. Hydrologic restoration projects are designed to
restore natural drainage patterns and water flow. Gates, locks, or
sheet pile dams (see fig. 7) are constructed along rivers and other
major waterways to change water flow. For example, FWS designed the
East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration project that will use various
structures, such as a culvert and terraces, to restore and protect 225
acres of marshes by controlling saltwater entering the project area
from nearby waterways. Project design began in January 2001 and
construction is expected to be completed by July 2008. As of June 2007,
federal agencies and Louisiana were designing and engineering 6
projects, constructing 3 projects, and had completed 18 projects to
restore hydrologic patterns and flows.
Figure 7: Water Control Structure to Restore Drainage Patterns and
Water Flow:
This figure is a photograph is a water control structure to restore
drainage patterns and water flow.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Marsh management. Marsh management projects are designed to provide a
healthy ecosystem for waterfowl and animals. For example, projects to
control and maintain fresh and saltwater levels promote the growth of
native vegetation and help restore wildlife habitat. NRCS' East Mud
Lake Marsh Management project, constructed in June 1996, uses gates to
control and maintain saltwater levels to manage over 8,000 acres of
open water and salt marsh and to restore 1,520 acres of marshland (see
fig. 8). As of June 2007, federal agencies and Louisiana had completed
one project to manage marshlands.
Figure 8: Gates to Control Saltwater Levels:
This figure is a photograph of gates used to control saltwater levels.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Barrier island restoration. Barrier island restoration projects are
designed to protect and restore Louisiana's barrier islands--small
island chains separated from the mainland by open water that provide
the first line of defense from hurricanes and storm surge (see fig. 9).
These projects include adding dredged material to expand barrier
islands' height and width, building structures to protect barrier
islands from erosion, and erecting sand-trapping fences and planting
native vegetation to strengthen sand dunes on barrier island beaches.
For example, the Barataria Barrier Island: Pelican Island and Pass La
Mer to Chaland Pass project sponsored by NMFS is designed to construct
484 acres of sand dunes and marshes and plant them with native plants.
The project began in 2002 and construction completed on the Pass La Mer
to Chaland Pass portion of the project in December 2006. As of June
2007, federal agencies and Louisiana were designing and engineering
five projects, constructing four projects, and had completed five
projects to restore barrier islands.
Figure 9: Barrier Islands:
This figure is a photograph of barrier islands.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Vegetation planting. Vegetation planting projects use native marsh
plants (see fig. 10) to reduce erosion, hold soil firmly in place, and
expand/improve wildlife habitats. For example, NMFS constructed the
Chandeleur Islands Marsh Restoration project in July 2001 after the
storm surge resulting from Hurricane Georges in 1998 reduced the
Chandeleur Islands by 40 percent. The project is designed to restore
220 acres of barrier islands using native plants to help trap sediment.
As of June 2007, federal agencies and Louisiana were designing and
engineering one project and had completed five projects to plant
vegetation.
Figure 10: Native Marsh Plants:
This figure is a photograph of native marsh plants.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Terracing. Terracing projects involve building low ridges in open
water, usually in patterns, to slow water flow and trap sediment for
marsh creation (see fig. 11). For example, NMFS' Little Vermilion Bay
Sediment Trapping project constructed in August 1999 has 23 terraces
about 3 and ½ feet above sea level in an area covering almost 1,000
acres of mostly open water to capture sediment previously lost to high
winds and waves and to restore 441 acres of wetlands. The project is
also expected to improve wildlife habitat and allow access for
recreational fishing. As of June 2007, federal agencies and Louisiana
were designing and engineering one project and had completed three
projects to construct terraces for marsh creation.
Figure 11: Terraces Built to Trap Sediment and Slow Water Flow:
This figure is a of terraces build to trap sediment and slow water
flow.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Sediment and nutrient trapping. Sediment and nutrient trapping projects
use brush fences or low land ridges (also called terraces as discussed
above) to slow water flow and promote the buildup of sediment in
shallow water to restore wetlands (see fig. 12). For example, NMFS
completed the Four Mile Canal Terracing and Sediment Trapping project
in May 2004 using material dredged from nearby waterways to create over
68,000 feet of terraces in open shallow water. NMFS also planted native
grass on top of the terraces to help secure the dredged soil and reduce
erosion. As of June 2007, federal agencies and Louisiana were designing
and engineering one project and had completed three projects to trap
sediment and nutrients.
Figure 12: Constructing Terraces to Trap Sediment in Open Water:
This figure is a photograph of construction of terraces to trap
sediment in open water.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
Invasive species control programs. Invasive species control programs
pay licensed trappers or hunters to harvest non-native animals, such as
nutria (see fig. 13), brought to the United States from South America
during the 1930s for the fur trade. Nutria damage marshlands by
overgrazing on wetland plants. NRCS introduced the Coastwide Nutria
Control Program in November 2002 that paid licensed trappers $4 for
each nutria tail delivered to a collection center. In 2005, almost
300,000 nutria were caught and killed under this program. As of June
2007, federal agencies and Louisiana were conducting one project and
had completed another project to manage programs for the control of
invasive species.
Figure 13: Nutria Overgraze on Native Wetland Plants:
This figure is a photograph of nutria overgraze on native wetland
plants.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USGS.
[End of figure]
In addition to these projects, four projects are not construction-type
projects but are plans or small funds under CWPPRA to support coastal
restoration efforts. These four projects are the Storm Recovery
Assessment Fund, the Monitoring Contingency Fund, the State of
Louisiana Wetlands Conservation Plan, and the Coastwide Reference
Monitoring System for Wetlands.
Estimated Cost for CWPPRA Projects That Restore and Protect about
120,000 Acres of Coastal Wetlands Is $1.78 Billion:
As of June 2007, federal agencies and Louisiana have designed and/or
constructed 147 projects under CWPPRA to protect and restore 121,109
acres of coastal wetlands at an estimated cost of $1.78 billion.
Between fiscal years 1992 and 2007, the CWPPRA program has received
approximately $794 million, $714 million of which has been provided for
the construction of projects, and $80 million of which has been
provided for other program activities such as planning. As of June
2007, $356 million had been spent and $616 million had been obligated.
Of the 147 projects designed and/or constructed, 74 were completely
constructed, 16 were under construction, and 57 were being designed and
engineered. (See app. I for detailed information on each of the 147
CWPPRA projects.) Shoreline protection projects (building barriers from
rock or plants) and hydrologic restoration projects (returning areas to
their natural drainage patterns) made up more than half of the 90
projects that were completed or under construction and accounted for
more than one-quarter of the wetland acreage protected and restored
under CWPPRA. Shoreline protection and marsh creation projects
accounted for about half of the 57 projects still being designed and
engineered, or about one-fifth of the acreage planned for restoration.
Of the 147 projects, 22 were demonstration projects, initiated to test
new techniques or materials to restore or protect coastal wetlands, and
more than half of these were to test new designs for shoreline
protection or marsh creation. For example, in 1997, NRCS constructed
eight breakwaters next to a barrier island to demonstrate the
effectiveness and feasibility of using multiple breakwaters to reduce
shoreline erosion on barrier islands and assess their potential for use
in future barrier island restoration projects. NRCS officials concluded
that the eight breakwaters have reduced shoreline erosion and increased
land coverage over the effected area.
In addition to the projects designed and constructed since 1990, the
CWPPRA task force has terminated 20 projects for various reasons but
most often due to problems associated with land rights, technical
difficulties, and project cost-effectiveness. (See app. I for detailed
information about the 20 terminated projects.) For example, an EPA
project to create a marsh using dredged sediment was terminated in 2005
because of problems with land rights and technical difficulties
building the marshland and finding the sediment. Similarly, a NMFS
project to restore a marshland was terminated in 1998 when officials
determined the project area was so degraded that the project design was
not cost-effective. Most project terminations took place in the first
10 years of the CWPPRA program, whereas just 3 projects have been
terminated in the past 5 years. As of June 2007, however, 17 projects
were delayed due to problems such as land rights, oyster leases, and
uncertain benefits of the project design, and CWPPRA officials told us
that some of these projects may also be terminated if these issues
cannot be resolved.
Project Costs Vary Significantly, and Most Restored Wetlands Are
Generally Expected to Erode over Time:
The cost of CWPPRA projects varies considerably by project type, and
most projects require a continuous source of funding to maintain them
and ensure that they will deliver benefits over their expected
lifetime. Projects to plant marsh plants have averaged about $9,000 per
acre, while projects to restore barrier islands have averaged more than
$54,000 per acre. Some projects, such as freshwater reintroduction
projects, have averaged $11,400 per acre because they covered a larger
area and only required the construction of structures, such as culverts
and gates. In contrast, officials said freshwater reintroduction
projects are relatively less expensive to operate and cost little to
maintain because they are generally self-sustaining.
Most CWPPRA projects are generally designed to be maintained in a
manner that will protect wetlands and reduce land loss for a 20-year
period. Maintenance activities may include replacing rock on a
shoreline protection project and repairing routine damage to
structures, such as a small dam, on a hydrologic restoration project.
As of September 2007, the CWPPRA task force plans to spend an estimated
$265 million on operations and maintenance over the life of projects
currently in design, under construction, and completed. Despite these
maintenance efforts, restored and protected acreage is also subject to
the effects of rising seas, subsidence, and erosion that are
experienced by naturally occurring wetlands. As a result, most restored
and protected wetlands also are generally expected to lose acreage over
time, particularly areas that experience high waves from the Gulf, such
as restored barrier islands. In some cases, these natural effects
preclude the feasibility of certain maintenance. For example, federal
agencies may add vegetation or replace sand fences to maintain barrier
island restoration projects, but they do not add dredged material to
repair erosion. According to agency officials, the high cost of
replenishing dredged material on these projects, and the high rate of
erosion caused by waves from the Gulf of Mexico, make this kind of
maintenance impractical. While barrier islands are expected to continue
to erode, agency officials told us that protecting these islands
provides a certain level of protection to developed areas and marshes
behind the islands, even if only for the short term.
Accomplishments and Challenges to Restoring Louisiana's Coastal
Wetlands Provide Lessons Learned for Future Restoration Efforts:
Past efforts to restore and protect Louisiana's coastal wetlands offer
important lessons that can help guide future restoration plans and
strategies. In particular, agency officials attributed the CWPPRA
program's progress in restoring and protecting wetlands primarily to
the effective interagency collaboration that exists among the
participating agencies. However, the CWPPRA program has also faced
several challenges such as increasing project costs, limited capability
to monitor project effectiveness, and the need to acquire private
landowner rights, which are likely to be issues that will extend to the
larger and more complex restoration efforts currently being planned.
Agency Officials Consider an Interagency Structure and Collaborative
Process a Key to Restoring Coastal Wetlands:
Officials from Louisiana and the five CWPPRA agencies that have
collaborated on Louisiana's coastal wetlands projects generally told us
they believe that the CWPPRA program's unique interagency approach and
processes have been critical to designing and constructing a range of
projects in the region. To improve collaboration, the CWPPRA task force
formed committees and technical work groups with members from the
federal agencies and Louisiana to assist in each phase of restoration
development and implementation. (See fig. 14 for the organization of
the CWPPRA task force.) The multiagency task force, along with its
committees and work groups, brings together biologists, other
scientists, civil engineers, economists, and other technical experts to
provide the collective experience and expertise needed to review
project cost estimates, designs, schedules, and work plans.
Figure 14: Organization of the CWPPRA Task Force:
This figure is a chart showing the organization of the CWPPRA task
force. Environmental Work Group, Engineering Work Group, Economics Work
Group, and Monitoring Work Group are all side by side on the bottom of
the chart, with Task Force, Technical Committee, Planning & Evaluation
Subcommittee stacked above the bottom line.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Through semiannual budgetary task force meetings, the members review
and approve projects to begin design or construction. Officials told us
that this review process has been critical to designing and
constructing projects that are cost-effective, environmentally sound,
and technically feasible. For example, during a project's design phase,
agency officials present project design proposals to the environmental
and engineering work groups for review and comment on the feasibility
of the design, the validity of the assumptions, and strategies for
success. The task force also requires reviews at various points during
a project's development, particularly during the early stages of
project design and again when design is nearing completion. During
these reviews, federal agency and Louisiana officials meet to review
and discuss project designs, cost estimates, and restoration benefits.
Some CWPPRA officials told us that these project design reviews are key
to resolving potential problems and identifying project cost growth as
early as possible.
In November, the Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 which includes authorizations for various Corps projects and
studies for the restoration of coastal Louisiana. This act also
established a task force comprised of representatives from nine federal
agencies and Louisiana to make recommendations to the Secretary of the
Army on plans and programs for the protection and restoration of the
Louisiana coast. The act authorizes the task force to establish working
groups--similar to those used by the CWPRRA task force--to integrate
the planning, design, and implementation of various Corps projects for
flood control, coastal restoration, and hurricane protection and
provide a broad range of expertise and representation from Louisiana
and local governments.
Restoration Efforts Face Various Planning and Implementation
Challenges:
In designing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and monitoring
projects, the CWPPRA program continues to face challenges, including
increasing project costs, limited capability to assess project
effectiveness, the need to address private landowner rights, uncertain
project performance, and damage from hurricanes and storms. As larger
and more complex restoration efforts are planned for the future, we
believe that they too are likely to face similar challenges and will,
therefore, need to consider how to resolve these issues as part of
their project development and implementation processes.
Increasing project costs. The costs of constructing and maintaining
many CWPPRA projects have increased beyond their original estimates
and, as a result, fewer projects are being designed and constructed.
According to CWPPRA agency officials, costs for construction,
operations, and maintenance have increased 25 to 50 percent above
estimates since the 2005 hurricanes. Fuel cost increases, for example,
have increased the cost to provide building materials, such as rock and
sand, especially when such material is not available locally in
sufficient quantities. NRCS officials told us there are not any rock
quarries in Louisiana so that rock must be purchased and transported
from out of state. Similarly, federal agency officials told us that
sand suitable for constructing projects is not available locally in
sufficient quantities and must be dredged and transported to project
sites. In one instance, EPA initiated a project to demonstrate the
feasibility of dredging sand deposits 8 miles from shore in the Gulf of
Mexico to provide the material needed to restore a barrier island.
Officials also told us that the cost of building materials, such as
rock which is often used to construct shoreline protection projects,
has increased since the 2005 hurricanes. Finally, costs to construct,
operate, and maintain projects have also increased due to increasing
labor costs. For example, NRCS officials told us that the need for
specialized contract labor, such as contractors with the capability to
work in water, has increased project costs.
These unexpected cost increases have impacted the overall
implementation of CWPPRA projects in a variety of ways. First, it has
delayed project construction for new CWPPRA projects. As of October
2007, there were 10 fully designed CWPPRA projects awaiting almost $190
million in funds to begin construction. Funds to construct these
projects were not available because their estimated costs exceeded the
annual amount of program funds available for new construction, and
funds were needed to pay higher costs for construction, operations, and
maintenance of other projects. Second, because of the potential for
funding shortfalls, the task force has been approving fewer projects to
begin design and engineering. Since 1990, the task force has approved
an average of about 12 projects per year to begin design and
engineering. Since October 2002, however, the task force has approved 5
or fewer projects per year to begin design and engineering. Finally,
cost increases for ongoing projects have limited the number of
demonstration projects that the CWPPRA program has been able to
undertake. The task force did not approve any demonstration projects in
2004 and 2005 even though the authorizing legislation considered this
an important aspect of the program. In 2006, the task force approved 1
demonstration project after it decided to consider funding 1 per year,
as long as the demonstration project did not exceed $2 million in total
costs.
Limited monitoring and assessment capabilities. Although CWPPRA
requires the task force to evaluate the effectiveness of each project
following construction, it lacks a coast-wide monitoring program to
assess the overall effectiveness of these projects to restore coastal
wetlands. Further, according to the CWPPRA task force, it has been
unable to fully assess individual project performance due to the
limited availability and/or usefulness of monitoring data. According to
Louisiana and USGS officials, as of October 2007, Louisiana, USGS, and
the CWPPRA federal agencies have developed 85 project monitoring plans.
Louisiana and USGS have monitored all constructed projects, and
Louisiana has prepared many monitoring reports that are available on
its Web site. For example, to monitor an FWS hydrologic restoration
project, Louisiana officials measured the ratio of open water to land,
salinity, and vegetation composition and reported these measurements
compared with preconstruction levels. CWPPRA agency officials told us
that they have used monitoring data and reports to assess project
performance and adjust project designs, as needed. However, according
to the task force and a USGS official, most monitoring reports have
provided incomplete and inconsistent data so that officials have not
been able to perform the kinds of statistical analysis needed to fully
evaluate project effectiveness.
In 1998, a study of coastal restoration prepared by Louisiana concluded
that there was a need for coast-wide monitoring to assess the overall
effectiveness of coastal restoration and protection projects. Since
2003, USGS and Louisiana have been working with the CWPPRA task force
to develop such a coast-wide system. This system is expected to collect
data on changes in levels of salinity, water levels, and vegetation and
sedimentation in marshlands, as well as monitor the cumulative and wide-
ranging effects of multiple CWPPRA projects and help project managers
design more effective and better integrated restoration projects. The
planned system includes 390 randomly located monitoring stations
installed across 3.67 million acres of coastal Louisiana and all
stations are expected to be fully operational by the spring of 2008. As
of October 2007, 256 of 390 monitoring stations were installed and
collecting data. According to officials, the process to implement the
system has taken longer than expected due to the time required to
design and implement a coast-wide system, survey lands and obtain land
rights agreements, and fund the construction of hundreds of monitoring
platforms due to rising construction costs. Until a coast-wide
monitoring system is fully operational and providing reliable data,
federal agencies and the task force will not be able to evaluate
whether coastal restoration projects are collectively restoring the
Louisiana coast and if these efforts are having adverse unintended
effects. Further, even when all monitoring stations are collecting
data, CWPPRA and USGS officials estimated the system will not provide
multiyear data needed to assess certain restoration trends, such as
sediment elevation tables, for another 5 to 10 years.
Private land ownership issues. Because coastal Louisiana is about 85
percent privately owned, state agency officials, in some cases, have
spent a significant amount of time locating landowners to obtain
approval to construct CWPPRA projects. For example, according to NMFS
officials, one marsh creation and terracing project area had about
1,500 individual landowners, and it was a challenge to locate all of
the landowners and obtain permission to construct the project on their
land. More often, NMFS and other CWPPRA agency officials told us that
they have had to contact from 1 to 100 landowners to obtain approval to
begin a project. According to various federal agency officials,
obtaining access from landowners has significantly delayed the design
process for some projects, sometimes to such an extent that they became
concerned that the project might not be feasible because of
difficulties locating landowners and obtaining land rights agreements.
Most federal agency officials also told us that landrights issues are
eventually resolved, however, and projects are designed and engineered.
Implementing a project on commercially owned lands can also present
problems, particularly because in Louisiana they often have
infrastructure such as oil and gas pipelines, canals, and rail lines
constructed on them. To restore coastal wetlands on commercially owned
lands, federal agencies or commercial landowners have relocated or
temporarily moved infrastructure to construct projects. In some
instances where federal agencies have moved commercial infrastructure,
moving costs significantly increased the cost of the CWPPRA project.
For example, when Corps officials realized a sediment diversion project
could not be constructed without disrupting nearby infrastructure, they
proposed relocating two pipelines and two power poles, which would have
increased project costs by more than $2.15 million. Largely in response
to these cost increases, the Corps eventually decided to terminate the
project. On another sediment diversion project, Corps officials told us
that they relocated a pipeline so that it would not be in open water.
However, in this case, the pipeline owner reimbursed the Corps for
relocating the pipeline, and construction of the project was able to
proceed and be completed in 2003.
In Louisiana, commercial fishermen may also lease publicly owned lands,
known as water bottoms and, based on lessons learned from recent court
decisions and legislative activity, Louisiana officials told us it is
important to notify project sponsors as early as possible about leases
of public lands so that project designs can take these into account. In
2000, a Louisiana state court ruled that the Caernarvon diversion
project--a project that diverts freshwater from the Mississippi River
to restore freshwater wetlands--had altered the salinity levels and
damaged or destroyed oyster beds in state-owned waters that had been
leased to commercial fishermen and were near the project. A jury
awarded over $1 billion to the oyster leaseholders in a ruling against
the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.[Footnote 11] In 2004,
the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower courts,
concluding that the state was not liable for changes in water salinity
due to restoration projects, and the oyster fishermen's claim was
dismissed.[Footnote 12] However, in 2006, the Louisiana state
legislature passed a new law clarifying that oyster leaseholders
generally may not sue the state or the federal government for claims
arising from projects, plans, acts, or activities related to coastal
protection, conservation, or restoration. The new law also established
an acquisition and compensation program for oyster leaseholders if
dredging or soil placement occurs on leased lands as a result of
coastal protection, conservation, or restoration projects.[Footnote 13]
As a result of these developments, during the early stages of a CWPPRA
project design, Louisiana provides a map to federal agencies indicating
any oyster leases that could be potentially affected by the project.
Louisiana also provides data on the leases such as acreage and the name
of the lessee so that federal agencies may fully consider existing
commercial fishing leases when designing projects.
Uncertainty of project performance. Some projects simply fail to
perform as designed for reasons largely beyond the designers' control.
A number of uncertainties that cannot always be fully modeled or
predicted when designing a project can cause a project to be
unsuccessful. A CWPPRA official told us that uncertain landscape
features such as drainage patterns, earthen deposits, and soil content
have prevented some projects from restoring an area as planned. For
example, the Davis Pond Diversion--a structure comprised of large
culverts built by the Corps to divert freshwater from the Mississippi
River to restore nearby wetlands--releases less than half the amount of
water it was designed to release. This has happened because landscape
features prevented the water from flowing to the wetland areas as
anticipated, and the flows cannot be increased because they might flood
nearby private developments. According to Corps officials, however,
most of these unanticipated problems have been corrected and officials
expect water flow to increase to design levels by 2009. Although the
Davis Pond Diversion project is not a CWPPRA project, some CWPPRA
projects have also not performed as designed. For example, a NMFS-
sponsored CWPPRA project to repair a breach in a barrier island was
unable to reconnect the two portions of the island because the rate of
erosion had reached a point where the landscape could no longer be
sustained. Additionally, a Corps project constructed in 1996 designed
to restore 445 acres of marshland has been able to restore only 9 acres
of vegetated wetlands because oyster leases in or adjacent to the
project site prevented the use of dredged material to sufficiently
elevate the marsh, causing the area to be flooded with saline water and
restricting marsh growth. Finally, of the 20 CWPPRA projects terminated
since 1990, 8 were terminated due to technical difficulties and design
problems. For example, agency officials terminated a terracing project
after concluding that it would not be technically feasible to construct
terraces on the land due to poor sediment quality. However, some agency
officials also told us that uncertain project performance may be
anticipated, and it is not uncommon to change project designs after
implementation to address problems.
Setbacks as a result of storm damage. Hurricanes can cause significant
damage to coastal areas, including both naturally occurring and
restored wetlands. For example, although Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
did not directly hit and, therefore, cause significant damage to most
CWPPRA projects, it destroyed tens of thousands of naturally occurring
and other restored wetlands in the region. In particular, Hurricane
Katrina destroyed about 25,000 acres of restored and naturally
occurring wetlands on the Caernarvon Project. The Caernarvon Project
includes a large diversion structure constructed by the Corps in 1991
that diverts water and sediment from the Mississippi River to restore
nearby wetlands. Although the Caernarvon Project is not a CWPPRA
project, it is similar to some ongoing CWPPRA projects, and the damage
that was inflicted by the hurricanes to this project demonstrates the
vulnerability of restored areas to storms. With regard to the CWPPRA
projects, storm surge from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita damaged 18 of
the 90 CWPPRA projects completed or under construction. Typical storm
damage included sand fences torn away, storm debris scattered about,
and water control structures that were overtopped. According to
officials, 16 of the 18 damaged projects appeared to function as
designed, but 2 were so damaged that officials considered them
inoperable. Officials told us that plans were in place to repair the 2
inoperable projects but, as of July 2007, repairs had not begun.
In this context, a draft report by the Association of State Wetland
Managers[Footnote 14] noted that although both freshwater and saltwater
marshes in Louisiana sustained significant damage from recent
hurricanes and storms, freshwater marshlands suffered more long-lasting
effects. In many cases, canals and other flood protection structures
have cut off freshwater marshes from freshwater and sediment, such as
rivers, so that freshwater marshlands are unable to repair themselves.
Sediment is necessary for the recovery of freshwater marshlands. In
these cases, the study concluded that freshwater marshes may not heal
following a hurricane or storm so that some form of restoration effort
may be necessary.
Concluding Observations:
Since 1990, CWPPRA projects have made an important first step to
reducing land loss and ecosystem deterioration in Louisiana by
protecting and restoring about 3 percent of the state's coastal areas.
However, this level of effort is inadequate to stop coastal wetland
losses that are projected to occur over the next 50 years, much less
restore the coastal landscape to the condition it was in prior to the
1950s before levees and other flood control structures were constructed
to control the Mississippi River. In light of recent proposals to
restore and protect all of the roughly 2.5 million acres of Louisiana
coastal wetlands through a comprehensive system of large-scale
restoration projects and strategies that will receive billions of
dollars over at least 20 years, it is important that planners carefully
consider the lessons learned from the experiences of the CWPPRA
program. As the CWPPRA experience has demonstrated, restoration
projects are subject to the same forces of erosion and subsidence as
natural wetlands and, therefore, the long-term sustainability of these
projects is dependent on the continuous infusion of resources for
decades into the future. As recognized by the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007, establishing an interagency approach and
consultative process similar to that of the CWPPRA program is vital to
ensuring that large-scale wetlands restoration efforts are developed in
a comprehensive manner using the most cost-effective approaches. Also,
critical to assessing the success of these efforts is the design and
implementation of a comprehensive monitoring program. Even after 17
years, such a program has not been fully developed and implemented for
the CWPPRA projects and, therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the
projects constructed to date is still not possible. Finally,
restoration project planners must take into account various
uncertainties that could impact the successful implementation of
projects and could lead to project delays and cost increases. As the
CWPPRA experience demonstrates, not all of these uncertainties can be
predicted in advance, however, a well-developed project implementation
strategy that includes mechanisms to address these kinds of
uncertainties as and when they arise is more likely to be successful.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of this report to the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, the Interior, and EPA for review and comment.
EPA agreed with our findings and observations and emphasized the
importance of the collaborative approach used by the CWPPPRA agencies
to provide for an effective program for coastal restoration. See
appendix III for EPA's letter.
The Department of Commerce provided comments on behalf of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in which it stated that our
report was generally accurate and thorough. However, the agency also
stated that the report's characterization of CWPPRA monitoring efforts
was misleading because it suggested that the program is not able to
assess the success of constructed projects. Although the agency
acknowledged that proving project success based on statistical and
scientific analysis is a challenge because long-term data are not
generally available, it also emphasized that current efforts to monitor
projects offer critical insights into project performance. While we
disagree that our description of the CWPPRA monitoring efforts was
misleading, we have revised the report to clarify some of the issues
raised by the agency. The Department of Commerce also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated throughout our report as
appropriate. The Department of Commerce's letter can be found in
appendix II.
The Department of Defense provided only technical comments, which we
incorporated throughout the report as appropriate. The Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior did not provide comments on this report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, the Interior; and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency; and interested congressional
committees. We also will make copies available to others upon request.
In addition, the report will be available, at no charge, on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Anu K. Mittal Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
List of Congressional Addressees:
The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky:
Chairman:
The Honorable David L. Hobson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives:
The Honorable Norm D. Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable Todd Tiahrt:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Richard H. Baker:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu:
United States Senate:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Summary Schedules of CWPPRA Projects:
This appendix contains tables listing Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) projects in design and
engineering (see table 1), under construction (see table 2), completed
construction (see table 3), and terminated (see table 4) as of June
2007.
Table 1: Summary Schedule of CWPPRA Projects in Design and Engineering
as of June 2007:
1;
Project name: Alligator Bend Marsh Restoration and Shoreline
Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 330;
Project approval date: Oct. 2006;
Total cost estimate: $19,620,813.
2;
Project name: Southwest Louisiana Gulf Shoreline Nourishment and
Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 888;
Project approval date: Oct. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 36,922,487.
3;
Project name: Enhancement of Barrier Island Vegetation Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Vegetative planting;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Oct. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 919,599.
4;
Project name: Madison Bay Marsh Creation and Terracing;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 372;
Project approval date: Oct. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 32,353,377.
5;
Project name: West Belle Pass Barrier Headland Restoration Project;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 299;
Project approval date: Oct. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 32,563,747.
6;
Project name: Lake Hermitage Marsh Creation;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 438;
Project approval date: Feb. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 32,673,327.
7;
Project name: Bayou Lamoque Freshwater Diversion;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 620;
Project approval date: Feb. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 5,375,741.
8;
Project name: Venice Ponds Marsh Creation and Crevasses;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 511;
Project approval date: Feb. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 8,992,955.
9;
Project name: South Pecan Island Freshwater Introduction;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 98;
Project approval date: Feb. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 4,438,695.
10;
Project name: East Marsh Island Marsh Creation;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 189;
Project approval date: Feb. 2005;
Total cost estimate: 16,824,999.
11;
Project name: South Shore of the Pen Shoreline Protection and Marsh
Creation;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 116;
Project approval date: Feb. 2005;
Total cost estimate: 17,513,780.
12;
Project name: White Ditch Resurrection;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 189;
Project approval date: Feb. 2005;
Total cost estimate: 14,845,193.
13;
Project name: Riverine Sand Mining/Scofield Island Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 234;
Project approval date: Feb. 2005;
Total cost estimate: 44,544,636.
14;
Project name: Goose Point/Point Platte Marsh Creation;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 436;
Project approval date: Jan. 2004;
Total cost estimate: 20,867,777.
15;
Project name: Bayou Sale Shoreline Protection;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 329;
Project approval date: Jan. 2004;
Total cost estimate: 32,103,020.
16;
Project name: Spanish Pass Diversion;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 433;
Project approval date: Jan. 2004;
Total cost estimate: 14,212,169.
17;
Project name: Whiskey Island Back Barrier Marsh Creation;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 272;
Project approval date: Jan. 2004;
Total cost estimate: 22,243,934.
Agency sponsor: Project name: Mississippi River Sediment Trap: Project
type: Project name: Mississippi River Sediment Trap: Anticipated total
acres[A]: Project name: Mississippi River Sediment Trap: Project name:
Mississippi River Sediment Trap: Project approval date: Project name:
Mississippi River Sediment Trap: Total cost estimate: Project name:
Mississippi River Sediment Trap: [Empty].
18;
Project name: Mississippi River Sediment Trap;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment and nutrient trapping;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,190;
Project approval date: Jan. 2003;
Total cost estimate: 52,180,839.
19;
Project name: Avoca Island Diversion and Land Building;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 143;
Project approval date: Jan. 2003;
Total cost estimate: 18,823,322.
20;
Project name: Bayou Dupont Sediment Delivery System;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 400;
Project approval date: Jan. 2003;
Total cost estimate: 24,925,734.
21;
Project name: Lake Borgne and Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Shoreline
Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 266;
Project approval date: Jan. 2003;
Total cost estimate: 22,748,889.
22;
Project name: Ship Shoal: Whiskey West Flank Restoration;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 195;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Total cost estimate: 42,918,821.
23;
Project name: West Lake Boudreaux Shoreline Protection and Marsh
Creation;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 277;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Total cost estimate: 19,585,055.
24;
Project name: River Reintroduction into Maurepas Swamp;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 5,438;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Total cost estimate: 57,815,647.
25;
Project name: South Grand Chenier Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 440;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Total cost estimate: 19,930,316.
26;
Project name: Grand Lake Shoreline Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 540;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Total cost estimate: 11,811,039.
27;
Project name: Pass Chaland to Grand Bayou Pass Barrier Shoreline
Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 263;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Total cost estimate: 30,217,567.
28;
Project name: Dedicated Dredging on the Barataria Basin Landbridge;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 605;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Total cost estimate: 15,842,343.
29;
Project name: Lake Borgne Shoreline Protection;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 165;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 25,581,099.
30;
Project name: Terrebonne Bay Shore Protection Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 2,503,768.
31;
Project name: Small Freshwater Diversion to the Northwestern Barataria
Basin;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 941;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 13,803,361.
32;
Project name: Delta Building Diversion North of Fort St. Philip;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 501;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 6,297,286.
33;
Project name: Rockefeller Refuge Gulf Shoreline Stabilization;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 920;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 50,408,478.
34;
Project name: Benneys Bay Diversion;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 5,706;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 53,702,881.
35;
Project name: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Bank Restoration of Critical
Areas in Terrebonne;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 366;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 29,987,641.
36;
Project name: Delta Building Diversion at Myrtle Grove;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 8,891;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 3,002,114.
37;
Project name: East Grand Terre Island Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 335;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 31,226,531.
38;
Project name: Little Pecan Bayou Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 144;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 14,597,263.
39;
Project name: South Lake Decade Freshwater Introduction;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 201;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 3,873,744.
40;
Project name: Opportunistic Use of the Bonnet Carre Spillway;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 177;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 1,121,757.
41;
Project name: Freshwater Bayou Bank Stabilization-Belle Isle Canal to
Lock;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 241;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 17,756,468.
42;
Project name: Periodic Introduction of Sediment and Nutrients at
Selected Diversion Sites Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 1,502,817.
43;
Project name: Castille Pass Channel Sediment Delivery;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 577;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 19,657,695.
44;
Project name: Weeks Bay Marsh Creation and Shore Protection/ Commercial
Canal/Freshwater Redirection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 278;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 30,027,305.
45;
Project name: LaBranche Wetlands Terracing, Planting, and Shoreline
Protection;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Terracing;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 489;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Total cost estimate: 8,828,343.
46;
Project name: Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation, Part Two of Five;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 261;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Total cost estimate: 9,490,000.
47;
Project name: Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation, Part Four of Five;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 163;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Total cost estimate: 0.
48;
Project name: Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation, Part Five of Five;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 168;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Total cost estimate: 0.
49;
Project name: Lake Boudreaux Freshwater Introduction;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 603;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Total cost estimate: 10,519,383.
50;
Project name: Penchant Basin Natural Resources Plan, Part One;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,155;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Total cost estimate: 14,455,551.
51;
Project name: Grand Bayou Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 199;
Project approval date: Feb. 1996;
Total cost estimate: 8,209,722.
52;
Project name: Mississippi River Reintroduction into Bayou Lafourche;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 988;
Project approval date: Oct. 2001;
Total cost estimate: 11,200,000.
53;
Project name: Myrtle Grove Siphon;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,119;
Project approval date: Feb. 1996;
Total cost estimate: 481,803.
54;
Project name: West Pointe a la Hache Outfall Management;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Outfall management;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,087;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Total cost estimate: 4,068,045.
55;
Project name: Brown Lake Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 282;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Total cost estimate: 4,002,363.
56;
Project name: Storm Recovery Assessment Fund;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Operation and maintenance;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Oct. 2006;
Total cost estimate: 303,359.
57;
Project name: Monitoring Contingency Fund;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Monitoring;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Dec. 1999;
Total cost estimate: 1,500,000.
Grand total;
Agency sponsor: [End of table];
Project type: [End of table];
Anticipated total acres[A]: 41,468;
Project approval date: [End of table];
Total cost estimate: $1,051,924,598.
Source: GAO analysis of Corps data.
Note: Data as of June 8, 2007.
[A] The CWPPRA program does not report acreage for demonstration
projects. Demonstration projects test new techniques and materials for
the restoration or protection of coastal wetlands. Other projects, such
as the FWS' Storm Recovery Assessment Fund and Monitoring Contingency
Fund, are projects that support the CWPPRA program.
[End of table]
Table 2: Summary Schedule of CWPPRA Projects under Construction as of
June 2007:
1;
Project name: Coastwide Reference Monitoring System for Wetlands;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Monitoring;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Aug. 2003;
Current total cost estimate: $66,890,300;
Construction start date: Aug. 2003.
2;
Project name: Freshwater Floating Marsh Creation Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Jan. 2003;
Current total cost estimate: 1,080,891;
Construction start date: Jul. 2004.
3;
Project name: Coastwide Nutria Control Program;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Invasive species control program;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 14,963;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Current total cost estimate: 68,864,870;
Construction start date: Nov. 2002.
4;
Project name: Little Lake Shoreline Protection/Dedicated Dredging near
Round Lake;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 713;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Current total cost estimate: 38,496,395;
Construction start date: Aug. 2005.
5;
Project name: Raccoon Island Shoreline Protection/Marsh Creation, Part
Two;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 167;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Current total cost estimate: 10,609,834;
Construction start date: Dec. 2005.
6;
Project name: Barataria Barrier Island: Pelican Island and Pass La Mer
to Chaland Pass;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 534;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Current total cost estimate: 67,349,433;
Construction start date: Mar. 2006.
7;
Project name: North Lake Mechant Landbridge Restoration;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 604;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Current total cost estimate: 30,952,917;
Construction start date: Apr. 2003.
8;
Project name: East Sabine Lake Hydrologic Restoration[B];
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 225;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Current total cost estimate: 6,490,751;
Construction start date: Dec. 2004.
9;
Project name: Barataria Basin Landbridge Shoreline Protection, Part
Three;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 264;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 34,151,587;
Construction start date: Oct. 2003.
10;
Project name: Timbalier Island Dune and Marsh Restoration[B];
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 273;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 16,726,000;
Construction start date: Jun. 2004.
11;
Project name: Black Bayou Culverts Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 540;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 6,091,675;
Construction start date: May 2005.
12;
Project name: New Cut Dune and Marsh Restoration;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 102;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 13,158,878;
Construction start date: Oct. 2006.
13;
Project name: Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation, Part Three of Five;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 187;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Current total cost estimate: 4,536,666;
Construction start date: Oct. 2006.
14;
Project name: Barataria Basin Landbridge Shoreline Protection, Part One
and Two;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,304;
Project approval date: Jan. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 31,288,623;
Construction start date: Dec. 2000.
15;
Project name: West Belle Pass Headland Restoration;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 474;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 6,751,441;
Construction start date: Feb. 1998.
16;
Project name: Jonathan Davis Wetland Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 510;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 28,886,616;
Construction start date: Jun. 1998.
Grand total;
Agency sponsor: [Empty];
Project type: [Empty];
Anticipated total acres[A]: 20,860;
Project approval date: [Empty];
Current total cost estimate: $432,326,877;
Construction start date: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of Corps data.
Note: Data as of June 8, 2007.
[A] The CWPPRA program does not report acreage for demonstration
projects. Demonstration projects test new techniques and materials for
the restoration or protection of coastal wetlands. Other projects, such
as the Coastwide Reference Monitoring System for Wetlands, support the
CWPPRA program.
[B] Damaged by Hurricane Rita in 2005.
[End of table]
Table 3: Summary Schedule of CWPPRA Projects Completed as of June 2007:
1;
Project name: Shoreline Protection Foundation Improvements
Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Jan. 2004;
Current total cost estimate: $1,055,000;
Construction completion date: Aug. 2006.
2;
Project name: South White Lake Shoreline Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 844;
Project approval date: Jan. 2003;
Current total cost estimate: 19,673,929;
Construction completion date: Aug. 2006.
3;
Project name: Holly Beach Sand Management[B];
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 330;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Current total cost estimate: 14,130,233;
Construction completion date: Mar. 2003.
4;
Project name: Barataria Basin Landbridge Shoreline Protection, Part
Four;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 256;
Project approval date: Jan. 2002;
Current total cost estimate: 21,457,097;
Construction completion date: Apr. 2006.
5;
Project name: Delta Management at Fort St. Philip;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 267;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Current total cost estimate: 3,183,940;
Construction completion date: Dec. 2006.
6;
Project name: Grand-White Lake Landbridge Restoration;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 213;
Project approval date: Jan. 2001;
Current total cost estimate: 8,584,334;
Construction completion date: Oct. 2004.
7;
Project name: State of Louisiana Wetlands Conservation Plan;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Conservation plan;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Dec. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 191,807;
Construction completion date: Nov. 1997.
8;
Project name: Freshwater Introduction South of Highway 82;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 296;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 6,203,110;
Construction completion date: Dec. 2006.
9;
Project name: Mandalay Bank Protection Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 1,767,214;
Construction completion date: Sept. 2003.
10;
Project name: Chandeleur Islands Marsh Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Vegetative planting;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 220;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 937,977;
Construction completion date: Jul. 2001.
11;
Project name: Four Mile Canal Terracing and Sediment Trapping;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Terracing;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 167;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 4,886,818;
Construction completion date: May 2004.
12;
Project name: Perry Ridge West Bank Stabilization;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 83;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 3,747,742;
Construction completion date: Jul. 2002.
13;
Project name: Sabine Refuge Marsh Creation, Part One of Five;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 214;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Current total cost estimate: 3,421,671;
Construction completion date: Feb. 2002.
14;
Project name: Hopedale Hydrologic Restoration[B];
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 134;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Current total cost estimate: 2,432,958;
Construction completion date: Jan. 2005.
15;
Project name: Humble Canal Hydrologic Restoration[B];
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 378;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Current total cost estimate: 1,530,812;
Construction completion date: Mar. 2003.
16;
Project name: Lake Portage Land Bridge;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 24;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Current total cost estimate: 1,181,129;
Construction completion date: May 2004.
17;
Project name: Grand Terre Vegetative Plantings;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Vegetative planting;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 127;
Project approval date: Jan. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 492,774;
Construction completion date: Jul. 2001.
18;
Project name: Pecan Island Terracing;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Terracing;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 442;
Project approval date: Jan. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 2,391,953;
Construction completion date: Sept. 2003.
19;
Project name: Thin Mat Floating Marsh Enhancement Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Jan. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 538,101;
Construction completion date: May 2000.
20;
Project name: Flexible Dustpan Demo at Head of Passes Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 1,911,487;
Construction completion date: Jun. 2002.
21;
Project name: Marsh Island Hydrologic Restoration[B];
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 408;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 5,143,288;
Construction completion date: Dec. 2001.
22;
Project name: Nutria Harvest for Wetland Restoration Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Invasive species control program;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 804,683;
Construction completion date: Oct. 2003.
23;
Project name: Black Bayou Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 3,594;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 5,972,613;
Construction completion date: Nov. 2003.
24;
Project name: Delta Wide Crevasses;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 2,386;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 4,752,653;
Construction completion date: May 2005.
25;
Project name: Sediment Trapping at The Jaws;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Sediment and nutrient trapping;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,999;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 3,392,135;
Construction completion date: May 2005.
26;
Project name: Barataria Bay Waterway East Side Shoreline Protection;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 217;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 5,224,477;
Construction completion date: May 2001.
27;
Project name: Cheniere au Tigre Sediment Trapping Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Sediment and nutrient trapping;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 624,999;
Construction completion date: Nov. 2001.
28;
Project name: Oaks/Avery Canal Hydrologic Restoration, Part One;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 160;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Current total cost estimate: 2,925,216;
Construction completion date: Oct. 2002.
29;
Project name: Bayou Chevee Shoreline Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 75;
Project approval date: Feb. 1996;
Current total cost estimate: 2,589,403;
Construction completion date: Dec. 2001.
30;
Project name: Little Vermilion Bay Sediment Trapping;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Sediment and nutrient trapping;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 441;
Project approval date: Feb. 1996;
Current total cost estimate: 886,030;
Construction completion date: Aug. 1999.
31;
Project name: Freshwater Bayou Bank Stabilization;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 511;
Project approval date: Feb. 1996;
Current total cost estimate: 2,543,313;
Construction completion date: Jun. 1998.
32;
Project name: Naomi Outfall Management;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Outfall management;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 633;
Project approval date: Feb. 1996;
Current total cost estimate: 2,181,427;
Construction completion date: Jul. 2002.
33;
Project name: Raccoon Island Breakwaters Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Feb. 1996;
Current total cost estimate: 1,795,388;
Construction completion date: Jul. 1997.
34;
Project name: Sweet Lake/Willow Lake Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 247;
Project approval date: Feb. 1996;
[Empty];
Current total cost estimate: 4,242,995;
Construction completion date: Oct. 2002.
35;
Project name: East Timbalier Island Sediment Restoration, Part Two[B];
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 215;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Current total cost estimate: 7,600,863;
Construction completion date: Jan. 2000.
36;
Project name: Barataria Bay Waterway West Side Shoreline Protection;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 232;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Current total cost estimate: 3,013,365;
Construction completion date: Nov. 2000.
37;
Project name: Perry Ridge Shore Protection;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,203;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Current total cost estimate: 2,289,090;
Construction completion date: Feb. 1999.
38;
Project name: Plowed Terraces Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Terracing;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Current total cost estimate: 325,641;
Construction completion date: Aug. 2000.
39;
Project name: Channel Armor Gap Crevasse;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 936;
Project approval date: Oct.1993;
Current total cost estimate: 888,985;
Construction completion date: Nov. 1997.
40;
Project name: Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Disposal Area Marsh
Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 755;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 313,145;
Construction completion date: Jan. 1999.
41;
Project name: Whiskey Island Restoration[B];
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,239;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 7,106,586;
Construction completion date: Jun. 2000.
42;
Project name: Sabine Refuge Structure Replacement (Hog Island)[B];
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 953;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 4,528,418;
Construction completion date: Sept. 2003.
43;
Project name: East Timbalier Island Sediment Restoration, Part One[B];
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,913;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 3,729,587;
Construction completion date: May 2001.
44;
Project name: Lake Chapeau Sediment Input and Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 509;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 5,605,856;
Construction completion date: May 1999.
45;
Project name: Lake Salvador Shore Protection Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 2,801,782;
Construction completion date: Jun. 1998.
46;
Project name: Brady Canal Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 297;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 5,279,558;
Construction completion date: May 2000.
47;
Project name: Cameron-Creole Maintenance[B];
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 2,602;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 5,840,505;
Construction completion date: Sept. 1997.
48;
Project name: Cote Blanche Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 2,223;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Current total cost estimate: 7,889,103;
Construction completion date: Dec. 1998.
49;
Project name: Clear Marais Bank Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,067;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 3,696,088;
Construction completion date: Mar. 1997.
50;
Project name: Isles Dernieres Restoration Trinity Island[B];
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 109;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 10,774,974;
Construction completion date: Jun. 1999.
51;
Project name: Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge Hydrologic
Restoration, Part Two;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,280;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 1,642,552;
Construction completion date: May 1997.
52;
Project name: Atchafalaya Sediment Delivery;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 2,232;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 2,532,147;
Construction completion date: Mar. 1998.
53;
Project name: Big Island Mining;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,560;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 7,077,404;
Construction completion date: Oct. 1998.
54;
Project name: Point Au Fer Canal Plugs;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 375;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 3,235,208;
Construction completion date: May 1997.
55;
Project name: Caernarvon Diversion Outfall Management[B];
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Outfall management;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 802;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 4,536,000;
Construction completion date: Jun. 2002.
56;
Project name: East Mud Lake Marsh Management[B];
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Marsh management;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,520;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 4,095,936;
Construction completion date: Jun. 1996.
57;
Project name: Freshwater Bayou Wetland Protection;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,593;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 3,455,303;
Construction completion date: Aug. 1998.
58;
Project name: Fritchie Marsh Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,040;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 2,201,674;
Construction completion date: Mar. 2001.
59;
Project name: Highway 384 Hydrologic Restoration[B];
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 150;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 1,058,554;
Construction completion date: Jan. 2000.
60;
Project name: Vermilion Bay/Boston Canal Shore Protection;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 378;
Project approval date: Oct. 1992;
Current total cost estimate: 1,012,649;
Construction completion date: Nov. 1995.
61;
Project name: Barataria Bay Waterway Wetland Creation;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 445;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 1,172,896;
Construction completion date: Oct. 1996.
62;
Project name: Bayou Labranche Wetland Creation;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 203;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 3,817,929;
Construction completion date: Apr. 1994.
63;
Project name: Lake Salvador Shoreline Protection at Jean Lafitte
National Historic Park and Preserve;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 58,753;
Construction completion date: Mar. 1996.
64;
Project name: Vermilion River Cutoff Bank Protection;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 65;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 2,022,987;
Construction completion date: Feb. 1996.
65;
Project name: West Bay Sediment Diversion;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 9,831;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 22,312,761;
Construction completion date: Nov. 2003.
66;
Project name: Isles Dernieres Restoration East Island[B];
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Barrier island restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 9;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 8,762,416;
Construction completion date: Jun. 1999.
67;
Project name: Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge Hydrologic
Restoration, Part One;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 1,550;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 1,630,193;
Construction completion date: May 1996.
68;
Project name: Cameron Creole Plugs[B];
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 865;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 991,295;
Construction completion date: Jan. 1997.
69;
Project name: Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Shoreline
Protection;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 247;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 1,227,123;
Construction completion date: Aug. 1994.
70;
Project name: Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Erosion Protection;
Agency sponsor: FWS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 5,542;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 1,602,656;
Construction completion date: Mar. 1995.
71;
Project name: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Clovelly Hydrologic
Restoration[B];
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 175;
Project approval date: Oct, 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 8,916,131;
Construction completion date: Oct. 2000.
72;
Project name: Vegetative Plantings-Falgout Canal Planting
Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Vegetative planting;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 209,284;
Construction completion date: Dec. 1996.
73;
Project name: Vegetative Plantings-Timbalier Island Planting
Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Vegetative planting;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 293,124;
Construction completion date: Jul. 1996.
74;
Project name: Vegetative Plantings-West Hackberry Planting
Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Vegetative planting;
Anticipated total acres[A]: Data not applicable;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Current total cost estimate: 258,805;
Construction completion date: Mar. 1994.
Grand total;
Agency sponsor: [Empty];
Project type: [End of table] ;
Anticipated total acres[A]: 58,781;
Project approval date: [Empty];
Current total cost estimate: $298,606,032;
Construction completion date: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of Corps data.
Note: Data as of June 8, 2007.
[A] The CWPPRA program does not report acreage for demonstration
projects. Demonstration projects test new techniques and materials for
the restoration or protection of coastal wetlands. Other projects, such
as the state of Louisiana Wetlands Conservation Plan, support the
CWPPRA program. The Lake Salvador Shoreline Protection project at Jean
Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve was designed under CWPPRA
but construction was funded by the National Park Service.
[B] Damaged by Hurricane Katrina or Rita in 2005.
[End of table]
Table 4: Summary Schedule of CWPPRA Projects Terminated as of June
2007:
1;
Project name: LA Highway 1 Marsh Creation;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Project approval date: Jan. 2000;
Project termination date: Feb. 2005;
Current total cost estimate: $343,551;
Reason for termination: Cost-effectiveness, technical difficulties.
2;
Project name: Bayou L'Ours Ridge Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Project termination date: Apr. 2003;
Current total cost estimate: 371,232;
Reason for termination: Land rights.
3;
Project name: Upper Oak River Freshwater Siphon;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Freshwater reintroduction;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Project termination date: Jan. 2003;
Current total cost estimate: 56,476;
Reason for termination: Cost-effectiveness.
4;
Project name: Bayou Bienvenue Pump Station Diversion and Terracing;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Terracing;
Project approval date: Jan. 1999;
Project termination date: Apr. 2002;
Current total cost estimate: 212,153;
Reason for termination: Cost- effectiveness.
5;
Project name: Compost Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Project termination date: Jan. 2002;
Current total cost estimate: 213,645;
Reason for termination: Technical difficulties.
6;
Project name: Red Mud Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Project termination date: Aug. 2001;
Current total cost estimate: 470,500;
Reason for termination: Technical difficulties.
7;
Project name: Beneficial Use of Hopper Dredge Material Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Project termination date: Oct. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 58,310;
Reason for termination: Technical difficulties.
8;
Project name: Violet Freshwater Distribution;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Outfall management;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Project termination date: Oct. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 128,627;
Reason for termination: Land rights.
9;
Project name: Flotant Marsh Fencing Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Vegetation planting;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Project termination date: Oct. 2000;
Current total cost estimate: 106,960;
Reason for termination: Technical difficulties.
10;
Project name: Southwest Shore White Lake Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Shoreline protection;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Project termination date: Oct. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 103,468;
Reason for termination: Technical difficulties.
11;
Project name: Pass-a-Loutre Crevasse;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Project termination date: Jul. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 119,835;
Reason for termination: Cost-effectiveness.
12;
Project name: Grand Bay Crevasse;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Sediment diversion;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Project termination date: Jul. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 65,747;
Reason for termination: Land rights.
13;
Project name: Marsh Creation East of the Atchafalaya River-Avoca
Island;
Agency sponsor: Corps;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Project termination date: Jul. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 66,869;
Reason for termination: Cost- effectiveness.
14;
Project name: Bayou Boeuf Pump Station;
Agency sponsor: EPA;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Project approval date: Apr. 1997;
Project termination date: Jul. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 3,452;
Reason for termination: Technical difficulties.
15;
Project name: Bayou Perot/Bayou Rigolettes Marsh Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Marsh creation;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Project termination date: Jan. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 20,963;
Reason for termination: Cost- effectiveness.
16;
Project name: Eden Isles East Marsh Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Project approval date: Dec. 1994;
Project termination date: Jan. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 78,051;
Reason for termination: Land rights.
17;
Project name: White's Ditch Outfall Management;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Outfall management;
Project approval date: Oct. 1993;
Project termination date: Jan. 1998;
Current total cost estimate: 32,862;
Reason for termination: Land rights.
18;
Project name: Lower Bayou LaCache Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Project termination date: Feb. 1996;
Current total cost estimate: 99,625;
Reason for termination: Land rights.
19;
Project name: Vegetation Plantings-Dewitt-Rollover Planting
Demonstration;
Agency sponsor: NRCS;
Project type: Vegetation planting;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Project termination date: Feb. 1996;
Current total cost estimate: 184,024;
Reason for termination: Design problems.
20;
Project name: Fourchon Hydrologic Restoration;
Agency sponsor: NMFS;
Project type: Hydrologic restoration;
Project approval date: Oct. 1991;
Project termination date: Jul. 1994;
Current total cost estimate: 7,703;
Reason for termination: Land rights.
Grand total;
Agency sponsor: [End of table];
Project approval date: [End of table];
Project termination date: [End of table];
Current total cost estimate: $2,744,053;
Reason for termination: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of Corps data.
Note: Data as of June 8, 2007.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Commerce's letter
dated November 26, 2007.
The Secretary Of Commerce:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
November 26, 2007:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director. Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's draft report entitled Coastal Wetlands: Lessons
Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could Help (Guide Future
Restoration and Protection (GAO-08-130). On behalf of the Department of
Commerce. I enclose the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's comments on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Carlos M. Gutierrez:
Enclosure:
Department of Commerce:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Comments on the Draft
GAO Report Entitled "Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past
Efforts in Louisiana Could Help Guide Future Restoration and
Protection" (GAO-08-130/November 2007):
General Comments:
The Department of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to review this
report on lessons learned in Louisiana coastal restoration. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has found the
report generally accurate and thorough. However, the manner in which
the current state of monitoring is described appears somewhat
misleading. The report suggests the Coastal Wetlands Planning.
Protection. and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) program is not able to assess
the success of constructed projects. Given the extremely large scale
and complexity of the Louisiana coastal area, statistically proving
project success is a challenge, and long term data acquisition will be
required prior to drawing scientifically defensible and reproducible
conclusions. In the meantime, NOAA believes that ongoing project
monitoring offers critical insight into qualitative and quantitative
project performance. NOAA integrates this information into planning and
design of new projects. In addition, NOAA and partner agencies
recognize the usefulness of project-specific data in designing more
effective projects. For many projects, NOAA specifically requests that
the CWPPRA Task Force allocate CWPPRA funds for project- specific
monitoring.
GAO Comments:
1. We disagree with the agency that the reports' characterization of
CWPPRA monitoring is misleading because it suggests that the program is
not able to assess the success of constructed projects. However, we
have modified the report to clarify some of the issues raised by the
agency.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Region 6:
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733:
Internet address: [hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov]:
November 21, 2007:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed report entitled
Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could
Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection (GAO-08-130). As the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) representative on the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) Task Force,
I would like to express my appreciation for the focus and attention
given to this very important restoration effort. EPA Region 6 and
Headquarters have participated with GAO staff in informational
briefings during the development of the report and have provided input
on the preliminary statement of facts. We have also reviewed the
current draft report and have no additional comments.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to recognize one of the
key points in this report -- the importance of the collaborative
approach used by the CWPPRA program agencies. Since 1990, CWPPRA, or
the Breaux Act, has been a consistent mainstay in dedicated Federal and
State funding for wetland restoration throughout the Louisiana coast.
The suite of restoration techniques implemented under this program,
including barrier island restoration and the use of renewable
Mississippi River freshwater and sediment resources, have served as
examples of the critical work that can be accomplished collaboratively.
As the draft report points out, it is the collaborative interagency
process that has greatly contributed to the CWPPRA program's
effectiveness. Addressing the ongoing wetland loss and increased
hurricane risk in coastal Louisiana will continue to require a wide
range of expertise and capabilities. By establishing this interagency
process for comprehensive project planning and implementation, the
CWPPRA program optimizes the diverse array of resources, technical
skill, and perspectives of Federal and State agencies with expertise in
coastal restoration. Given the experience gained from nearly two
decades of coastal wetland restoration project implementation, CWPPRA
remains the most effective model for the interagency collaboration and
public participation necessary for success.
Thank you again for taking such an active role on the critically
important issue of addressing coastal Louisiana wetland loss. I believe
that continued collaborative efforts in protecting and restoring such
vital aquatic resources offer the long-term promise of benefits to the
economy, communities, and natural resources of the State of Louisiana
and to the Nation as a whole.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
William K. Honker:
Deputy Director:
Water Quality Protection Division:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841, or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Edward Zadjura, Assistant
Director; James Dishmon; Doreen Feldman; Christine Frye; Moses Garcia;
Sheila McCoy; and Alison O'Neill made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 101-646, Title III. The Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act is also referred to as the Breaux Act
after Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, one of the act's authors.
[2] Pub. L. No. 109-58.
[3] Pub. L. No. 109-432, Division C, Title I.
[4] Pub. L. No. 110-114.
[5] Pub. L. No. 109-103.
[6] The USGS estimate of current plans to protect and restore the
wetlands includes all CWPPRA projects, two Corps' freshwater diversion
projects, and two Corps' delta building projects constructed, or funded
for construction, as of October 2002.
[7] Pub. L. No. 101-646, Title III, § 308.
[8] Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 384.
[9] 43 U.S.C. § 1356a(b).
[10] Pub. L. No. 109-432, Division C, Title I.
[11] The appellate court affirmed this ruling, but slightly increased
the damage award. Avenal v. State of Louisiana, Dep't of Natural Res.,
858 So. 2d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
[12] Avenal v. State of Louisiana, Department of Natural Resources, 886
So. 2d 1085 (La. 2004).
[13] H.B. 1249, 2006 Leg., Reg. Sass. (La. 2006).
[14] Kusler, Jon. Draft of "Wetlands and Natural Hazards." 2007.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, DC 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, jarmong@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548: