Draft Environmental Assessment Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Greater Lafourche Port Commission, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana FEMA-1603-DR-LA November 2012 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VI Louisiana Recovery Office 1 Seine Court New Orleans, Louisiana 70114 SECTION PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS i LIST OF ACRONYMS iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Authority 1 1.2 Area Description 2 1.3 Project Location 3 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 6 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 6 3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action 6 3.2 Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action 7 3.3 Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags 9 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS 10 4.1 Physical Resources 10 4.1.1 Geology and Soils 10 4.1.1.1 Farmland Protection Policy Act 11 4.1.1.2 State Water Bottom Management 14 4.1.2 Air Quality 16 4.2 Water Resources 17 4.2.1 Water Quality 17 4.2.1.1 Ground Water 18 4.2.2 Wetlands 18 4.2.3 Floodplains 22 4.3 Coastal Resources 25 4.4 Biological Resources 28 4.4.1 Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat 28 4.4.2 Migratory Birds 30 4.4.3 Essential Fish Habitat 31 4.4.4 Marine Fishery Resources 34 4.5 Cultural Resources 35 4.5.1 Regulatory Setting 35 4.5.2 Existing Conditions 35 4.6 Socioeconomic Concerns 37 4.6.1 Environmental Justice 37 4.6.2 Hazardous Materials 37 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 39 6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PERMITS 40 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 44 8.0 REFERENCES 45 Site Photographs Appendix A Agency Correspondence Appendix B 8-Step Decision Making Process Appendix C Public Notice Appendix D Site Construction Plans Appendix E Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Appendix F LIST OF ACRONYMS APE Area of Potential Effects BBBS Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline BFE Base Flood Elevation BP British Petroleum CAA Clean Air Act CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources System CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DELO Deputy Environmental Liaison Officer DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DWH Deepwater Horizon EA Environmental Assessment EDMS Electronic Data Management System EFH Essential Fish Habitat EHP Environmental and Historic Preservation EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act GLPC Greater Lafourche Port Commission GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council GOHSEP Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness HP Historic Preservation HTRW Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries LGS Louisiana Geological Survey LNHP Louisiana Natural Heritage Program LOOP Louisiana Offshore Oil Port LSU Louisiana State University MVN Mississippi Valley New Orleans District Office NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory PA Programmatic Agreement PA Program Public Assistance Program RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SCS Soil Conservation Service SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SHPO State Historic Preservation Office/Officer USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Authority Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005, in southeast Louisiana near Buras-Triumph, Plaquemines Parish as a Category 3 storm. Maximum sustained winds at landfall were estimated at 120 miles per hour and were accompanied by a strong and damaging storm surge well above normal high tide. Hurricane Ike made landfall on September 13, 2008, near Galveston, Texas, as a strong Category 2 storm. Maximum sustained winds at landfall were estimated at 110 mph, with gusts of 125 mph. President George W. Bush declared major disasters for the State of Louisiana and signed disaster declaration FEMA-1603-DR-LA on August 29, 2005 for Hurricane Katrina, and FEMA-1792-DR-LA on September 13, 2008 for Hurricane Ike, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide federal assistance in designated areas of Louisiana. The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC) requested through the State of Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) that FEMA provide disaster assistance through the provision of federal grant funding pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), PL 93-288, as amended. Section 406 of the Stafford Act authorizes FEMA’s Public Assistance Program (PA Program) to fund projects to repair, restore, and replace facilities damaged as a result of the declared events. GLPC was deemed eligible by FEMA for federal disaster public assistance as an eligible applicant serving the needs of the general public. The damaged shoreline protection system is located in Fourchon Beach in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (Figure 1). The Fourchon Beach shoreline was severely damaged by wave action associated with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Ike. The original shoreline protection consisted of “boudin bags” filled with concrete and goby mats. Hurricane Katrina washed away approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sand from Fourchon Beach, at the location for the Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration project sponsored by the State of Louisiana (www.ocpr.louisiana.gov/crm/coastres). The shoreline protection project was constructed in 1986 and consisted of three (3) layers of seaform bags placed along 5,000 feet of shoreline. The eastern 2,000 linear feet of the project was also protected with concrete revetment scour mats. The area between the bags and the dunes was backfilled with dredged material from Belle Pass. A containment dike was constructed on the back of the beach to hold the dredged material in place as it was slurried onto the beach between the seaform bags and the dike. The distance landward from the seaform bags to the containment dike was 250 feet. Craig Frampton, FEMA Coastal Engineering Specialist, estimated that storm surges generated by Hurricanes Lili, Katrina, Gustav and Ike in combination washed away approximately 73,496.30 cubic yards of backfilled sand, 1700 square yards of filter cloth, 94 revetment scour mats, 188 anchor bolts, and 752 linear feet of grout. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and FEMA’s regulations implementing NEPA (44 CFR Part 10). FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects. The purpose of this EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection construction and installation of a Geotube System project. FEMA will use the findings in this EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Figure 1 – Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (http://www.lafourchegov.org/parishimages) 1.2 Area Description Lafourche Parish is located in southeast Louisiana and covers approximately 1,469 square miles (Figure 1). It is bordered by the Gulf of Mexico to its south, Terrebonne Parish to its west, Assumption Parish to its northwest, St. John Parish and St. James Parish to its north, and St. Charles Parish and Jefferson Parish to its east. There are three incorporated municipalities in Lafourche Parish: Thibodaux (parish seat), Lockport, and Golden Meadow. Lafourche Parish contains marshes, sandy ridges, bodies of water, and natural levees, which provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife such as deer, nutria, alligators, fish, shellfish, etc. (www.lafourchegov.org). According to the 2010 Census (U.S. Census Bureau), the parish population was 96,318 residents. Industries are related to agriculture, fishing, shipbuilding, offshore oil exploration and production as well as port facilities, which service 90% of all deepwater oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. Over 250 companies occupy Port Fourchon, which is located at the southern end of the parish at the Gulf of Mexico. 1.3 Project Location Fourchon Beach is part of the Caminada barrier headland, which is the principal feature of the Bayou Lafourche barrier system. The headland maintains the integrity of the Gulf shoreline and helps to protect interior coastal wetlands from further deterioration. It also protects Port Fourchon. Port Fourchon plays a strategic role in furnishing the country with up to 18% of its entire oil supply. Domestically, Port Fourchon services 90% of all deepwater oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, where America gets one-third of its domestic oil supply. Port Fourchon is the land base for LOOP (Louisiana Offshore Oil Port), which handles 10-15% of the nation's foreign oil and is connected to 50% of U.S. refining capacity. Major roadways in Lafourche Parish are U.S. Highway 90 and Louisiana Highways 1, 20, 24 and 308 (Lafourche Parish government website, 2012). GLPC has determined that the current shoreline protection structure would be too difficult to repair and, furthermore, that the improved project would allow for increased protection for the area (Figure 2). Therefore, GLPC requested approval and federal grant funds for an improved project to construct and install a 5,500 linear feet Geotube System that would consist of placing pre-fabricated geo-synthetic tubes filled with sand directly behind and on the same alignment as the existing damaged “boudin bags”. In addition, staging activities would occur within the right- of-way at the end of A.O. Rappelet Road adjacent to the beach and at the end of an unimproved access road to the west off of Chevron Road also adjacent to the beach (Figure 3). Sand for the filling of the geotubes and backfilling around the structures once they are installed would be brought to the location by the Contractor. Figure 2 – Fourchon Beach Restoration Location (Google Earth, 2012) Figure 3 – Fourchon Beach Restoration Geotube location and staging areas (Google Earth, 2012) 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The objective of FEMA’s PA Grant Program is to provide assistance to state, tribal and local governments and eligible Private Nonprofit (PNP) organizations so that communities can quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. Through the PA Program, FEMA provides supplemental federal disaster grant assistance for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of eligible PNP organizations. The PA Program also encourages protection of these damaged facilities from future events by providing assistance for hazard mitigation measures during the recovery process. Coastal erosion and wetland deterioration are serious and widespread problems affecting Louisiana’s coastal zone. Coastal Louisiana has experienced a net decrease of 1,883 square miles of land between 1932 and 2010. Over just a four year period between 2004-2008, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike transformed approximately 328 square miles of marsh to open water – an amount that exceeded total land loss for the approximately 25 year period between 1978-2004. Currently, Louisiana has 37% of the estuarine herbaceous marshes in the conterminous United States and accounts for 90% of coastal wetland loss in the lower 48 states. Land loss rates on the Louisiana coast have slowed from an average of more than 30 square miles per year between 1956 and 1978, to an estimated 16.57 square miles per year from 1985 to 2010 (http://www.ocpr.louisiana.gov/coastalfacts.asp). In order to restore the lost functions and resources that were destroyed as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, GLPC seeks federal grant funds to construct the eligible beach erosion control facility in a location directly behind and on the same alignment as the existing damaged facility. This project is needed to support implementation of the long-term community recovery plan by providing increased protection of the beach shoreline and eliminating gaps in the resources available by expanding marshes, creating essential fish habitat, and reducing storm surge risk to vital energy supply facilities. 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 3.1 Alternative 1 - No Action Implementation of the No Action Alternative would entail no construction or replacement of the “boudin bags” damaged by Hurricane Katrina and exacerbated by Hurricane Ike. Consequently, the benefits of the upcoming Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration project sponsored by the State of Louisiana would be diminished by the degraded state of the “boudin bags”, as the area could be further damaged by high-frequency storm events. The community would be deprived of the economic recompense granted in the original project funding. No Action would forego opportunities to expand marshes, create essential fish habitat, and reduce storm surge risk. 3.2 Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action GLPC seeks FEMA PA federal grant funds for an improved project to construct a 5,500 linear feet Geotube System located directly behind and on the same alignment as existing “boudin bags”. The “boudin bags” primary function was to prevent erosion and protect Port Fourchon. Construction of the beach erosion control facility has been chosen by GLPC as the desired practicable alternative because the current structure has been damaged to a state that renders repair to be technically and economically infeasible. In addition, the project would extend protection eastward from the existing geotubes (approximately at the eastern end of the breakwaters) to the eastern end of Bay Champagne. It is intended to restore lost wetlands, trap sediment, reduce open water fetch, and provide improved essential fish habitat. Figures 4 through 6 depict the construction of the new Geotube System with the same alignment as the existing “boudin bags”. Site construction plans are found in Appendix E. Figure 4 – Fourchon Beach Geotube System Site Plan (Picciola & Associates, 2010) Figure 5 – Fourchon Beach Geotube System Detail Plan View (Picciola & Associates, 2010) Figure 6 – Plan and Centerline Profile Details (Picciola & Associates, 2010) 3.3 Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags This alternative would repair the damaged “boudin bags” beach erosion control facility at the original site to pre-disaster configuration, function, and capacity. Placement of new materials on the site would be necessary to complete the reconstruction. The facility would be constructed within the respective original footprint and would include replenishing lost sand and replacing the destroyed “boudin bags”. Due to the logistics of repairing and replacing the “boudin bags”, community leaders have determined the alternative to replace the facility at the original site is not practicable, desirable, or feasible. However, as this alternative meets the purpose and need of the proposed action, it will also be analyzed in the remainder of this EA. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS 4.1 Physical Resources 4.1.1 Geology and Soils Per the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Lafourche Parish lies entirely within the Mississippi River Delta (Figure 7). Elevation ranges from about 15 feet above mean sea level along the natural levees of Bayou Lafourche, north of Thibodaux, to sea level near the Gulf of Mexico. Only about 7 percent of the parish is at an elevation of 5 feet or more above sea level. The vast expanses of swamps and marshes in the parish are at sea level. Several areas of marsh, however, are drained and are 2 to 6 feet below sea level (USDA SCS, 1981). The soils formed in decomposed plant remains and in alluvium deposited by Bayou Lafourche, which was once a channel of the Mississippi River; the Atchafalaya River; and their distributaries. The main physiographic features are the natural levees along streams and the backswamps, marshes and sandy ridges along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. About 64 percent of the total area of the parish consists of swamps and marshes, 18 percent of natural levees, and less than 0.5 percent of sandy ridges. The rest of the area is water. Loamy soils are dominant on the highest positions of the natural levees, and clayey soils are dominant on the low positions of the natural levees and in backswamps. Semifluid, organic soils are dominant in the marshes. Most of the soils in marshes, swamps, and other frequently flooded areas contain native vegetation and are used for wildlife habitat, recreation, and timber production. Most of the soils on the natural levees are used for cultivated crops, mainly sugar cane. Figure 7 – General Geology Map of Louisiana (LGS, 2010) Soils in the vicinity of the proposed project site include the Felicity loamy fine sand and Scatlake muck (Figures 8 and 9, USDA, 2012). The Felicity loamy fine sand is a very gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained, saline, sandy soil on low ridges along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico with elevations ranging from about 1 foot to 3 feet above sea level. The soil is subject to flooding by saltwater during high storm tides. Scatlake muck is a level, very poorly drained, semifluid, mineral soil in saline marshes. It is ponded and flooded most of the time, and generally parallels the natural waterways. During storms, tides from the Gulf of Mexico cover this soil with 2 or 3 feet of water. These soils are used mostly as wetland wildlife habitat and extensive forms of recreation. A small acreage of Scatlake muck is oil- and gasfields. They are not suited for cultivated crops, pasture, or woodland, as flooding, wetness, and salinity are the main limitations. 4.1.1.1 Farmland Protection Policy Act The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA: P.L. 97-98, Sec. 1539-1549; 7 U.S.C. 4201, et. seq.) was enacted in 1981 to minimize the unnecessary conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses as a result of federal actions. Programs administered by federal agencies must be compatible with state and local farmland protection policies and programs. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for protecting significant agricultural lands from irreversible conversions that result in the loss of an essential food or environmental source. Prime farmland is characterized as land with the best physical and chemical characteristics for production of food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops (USDA, 1981). Soils in these areas are not considered prime farmland and are exempt from the Prime Farmland Protection Policy Act; therefore, no prime farmlands will be impacted. Figure 8 - Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey (NRCS, 2012) Figure 9 - Web Soil Survey Legend (NRCS, 2012) Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the No Action alternative would not impact the soils or geologic processes known for the area. The No Action alternative would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Construction of the new facility directly behind and on the same alignment as existing “boudin bags” would not adversely impact or cause significant adverse disturbance of geology or soils as part of the construction. This alternative would also not result in conversion to non-agricultural uses of any prime, or state-wide and locally important farmlands. Project activities would be required by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to observe precautions to control nonpoint source pollution from construction activities and further, would also be required to obtain permits to implement the required conditions (LDEQ, 2011 – Appendix B). Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant adverse disturbance of geology or soils as part of the construction. This alternative would also not result in conversion to non- agricultural uses of any prime, or state-wide and locally important farmlands. 4.1.1.2 State Water Bottom Management The State of Louisiana Waterbottom Permits and Leases Sub-Program (Louisiana Revised Statutes 41:1701-1714) provides for the permitting and leasing of structures and facilities on non-eroded waterways and for reclamation and fill of non-eroded areas. It also provides for permits and leases for the construction and maintenance of wharves, piers, docks, and other commercial structures on navigable waterbottoms. Figure 10 - Louisiana State Claimed Water Bodies, Blue Diagonal Highlights (Louisiana Division of Administration, 2012) The beds and bottoms of all navigable waters and the banks or shores of bays, arms of the sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and navigable lakes belong to the State of Louisiana, and the policy of the state is declared to be that these lands and water bottoms, referred to as "public lands", shall be protected, administered, and conserved to best ensure full public navigation, fishery, recreation, and other interests (Figure 10). Unregulated encroachments upon these properties may result in injury and interference with the public use and enjoyment and may create hazards to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state. To provide for the orderly protection and management of these state-owned properties and serve the best interests of all citizens, the lands and water bottoms, except those excluded and exempted and as otherwise provided by law, shall be under the management of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR). The State Land Office is responsible for the control, permitting, and leasing of encroachments upon public lands, in accordance with the laws of Louisiana and the United States. Division of State Lands Permit The State of Louisiana owns the beds and bottoms of many waterways. This ownership generally extends to the average low water shoreline in rivers and other streams with ownership in most lakes, bays, sounds, and similar water bodies and in the Gulf of Mexico extending to the mean high water line. Typically, work planned in state owned water bottoms requires contact with the State Lands Office. Additionally, removed material from state owned water bottoms for fill or sale has a fee payable to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) based on the amount of material removed. However, in an email dated December 28, 2011, GLPC General Counsel Bryce Autin states the following: “The "Seashore" in Louisiana is a public thing - it's defined as the "space over which the waters of the sea spread in the highest tide during the winter season". In the area of this project, where the Seashore ends and private ownership begins, a portion of the project is located on lands owned by the Caillouet Land Corporation and a portion on lands owned by the City of New Orleans as Trustee for the Edward Wisner Trust. Quite candidly, defining the actual limits of the ever-changing "Seashore" would be a very costly legal endeavor. Not to mention that, given the always changing tidal dynamics, such a determination may not be valid a month from now. As such, the Port has prepared for the position that the project may NOT be located on the public Seashore, but actually on privately owned land. Although no formal agreement was entered with the private landowners when the project was originally constructed, it was done so with full notice to, and acquiescence of, both landowners. Under Louisiana law, the Port has acquired a servitude over the property for the presence, maintenance and repair of the project. However, both landowners have requested that formal written servitude agreements be entered to address specific concerns of the landowners - such as liability, insurance, maintenance, access, etc. The Port agrees and has been actively negotiating such an agreement. We feel we are very near to a servitude that all parties involved can agree upon and hope to have something executed within the next month.” (Appendix B). FEMA requested GLPC provide documentation of the servitude agreements among all parties, and received a rough draft of the documents on July 12, 2012. Follow-up email correspondence, dated July 17, 2012 from Joe F Young, FLUOR Contractor to FEMA, to Robert Bressett, Senior Disaster Recovery Specialist, A/I Group Lead with GOHSEP and Lauren Brumfield, State Applicant Liaison, regarding the servitude agreements stated: “Good morning, Robert and Lauren.. Our EHP section has reviewed the draft servitude agreements and is requesting the final signed servitude agreements for the Fourchon Beach shore protection project. Here is what they said: “In reviewing the submitted documents and talking it over with my DELO, it was determined that EHP will need the fully executed servitude agreements between all parties before we can finalize our review. The documents we have are rough drafts with verbiage and paragraphs that can be amended, changed or completely struck out at any time, so we need to make sure that what is submitted in the EA is the final version.” When the agreements are signed, can you please forward a pdf copy of the servitude agreements to my attention? I will pass them on to EHP.” An email response dated August 2, 2012, from Lauren R. Brumfield to Joe F. Young stated: “Good afternoon Mr. Joe, I received an email today from the Lafourche Port Commission stating that they are working on getting the signatures for the servitude agreement. They are aware that signatures are needed however, the General Counsel sent the final draft without signatures. Because of the amount of time it takes for the Wisner signatories to execute the agreement I felt prudent to send a copy that wasn't a rough draft as sent previously. He assured me that there is rarely a time if any, when there is an amendment after the advisory board has approved it. I have attached the final agreement minus the signatures which will be submitted as soon as possible. I will send the final and completed agreement once the Port has all signatures. If you have any questions, please let me know.” Based on the above email communications, FEMA finds the submitted servitude agreements to be sufficient for review and inclusion in the Draft EA document. Copies of the email communications can be found in Appendix B. Final documents will be included in Appendix B upon signatures by affected parties. Alternative 1 – No Action: The no action alternative would conform to local land uses and would not adversely impact nearby and adjacent land uses or zoning. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: The proposed alternative must be properly agreed to by the affected private parties, as well as the State of Louisiana, in compliance with land use regulatory codes. Proposed action would not adversely impact nearby or adjacent land uses and zoning, or would not represent an incompatible land use with near and adjacent uses. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact nearby and adjacent land uses or zoning and would conform to local land uses. 4.1.2 Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the State of Louisiana to adopt ambient air quality standards to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts of pollutants. Six common air pollutants (also known as "criteria pollutants") are regulated by EPA and the states under the CAA. They are particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The LDEQ has designated areas meeting the state’s ambient air quality standards by their monitoring and modeling program efforts, (i.e., attainment areas). Louisiana has no carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate or lead nonattainment areas. Currently, Lafourche Parish is classified as attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and has no general conformity determination obligations (LDEQ, 2011 – Appendix B). Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would not adversely impact ambient air quality for the area. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Negligible impacts would be anticipated from vehicle exhaust emissions and increased dust during construction of Geotube System. Best management practices are required to lessen the impact of the dust. The proposed action would not significantly affect the ambient air quality by following best management practices for reducing the amount of particulate matter (dust & vehicle emissions) from construction work occurring on the site. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Negligible impacts would be anticipated from vehicle exhaust emissions and increased dust during implementation of this alternative. Best management practices are required to lessen the impact of the dust. This action would not significantly affect the ambient air quality by following best management practices for reducing the amount of particulate matter (dust & vehicle emissions) from replacement work occurring on the site. 4.2 Water Resources 4.2.1 Water Quality Bayou Lafourche, a distributary of the Mississippi River, is the most significant physiographic feature in the parish. It flows southward over one hundred miles, through Ascension, Assumption, and Lafourche parishes, and empties into the Gulf of Mexico at Port Fourchon (http://www.blfwd.org/). It is the source of most of the sediment in which the soils of the parish formed (USDA SCS, 1981). In 1903, a large dam was constructed across the bayou near its source to seal off the flows of the Mississippi River. Water is pumped from the Mississippi River into Bayou Lafourche to provide sufficient water for domestic and industrial uses. Bayou Lafourche is a vital asset to the communities and towns that line its banks. It serves as a habitat for a variety of seafood, provides a location for numerous recreational activities, gives boats access to the Gulf of Mexico and many other waterways, and supplies the main source of drinking water in five parishes for about 300,000 people (LDEQ, 2009 Source Water Protection Program Assessment/Planning Project Final Report). 4.2.1.1 Ground Water Potable ground water may be found in two general areas in Lafourche Parish, the eastern one- half of the northern two-thirds of the parish and a small area in the most western part of the parish. In these areas, Quaternary deposits contain fresh water which grades downward to saltwater within the same sand unit. Generally, very little fresh ground water is available in Lafourche Parish because of the presence of saltwater in the aquifers. However, large quantities of saline water are available for some industrial cooling purposes. Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would not adversely impact the surface or groundwater resources of the region. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Construction of the new facility directly behind and on the same alignment as existing “boudin bags” would not adversely impact or cause significant adverse disturbance of surface or groundwater resources of the region. To minimize spills and leaks of hazardous materials from the maintenance of construction equipment, safe handling procedures per local, state, and federal regulations would be used to reduce impacts to surface and groundwater resources. Sound building techniques and the use of best management practices would mitigate minor potential effects that might otherwise result from runoff infiltration to groundwater during construction. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant adverse disturbance of surface or groundwater resources of the region. To minimize spills and leaks of hazardous materials from the maintenance of construction equipment, safe handling procedures per local, state, and federal regulations would be used to reduce impacts to surface and groundwater resources. Sound building techniques and the use of best management practices would mitigate minor potential effects that might otherwise result from runoff infiltration to groundwater during replacement activities. 4.2.2 Wetlands Wetlands and deepwater habitats are essential breeding, rearing, and feeding grounds for many species of fish and wildlife. They may also perform flood protection and pollution control functions by acting as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water, rain, groundwater and flood waters, and wetlands can intercept runoff and transform and store non- point source pollutants like sediment, nutrients, and certain heavy metals without being degraded (EPA website, 2012). Increasing national and international recognition of these values has intensified the need for reliable information on the status and extent of wetland resources. To develop comparable information over large areas, a clear definition and classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats is required (Cowardin et. al., 1979). Lafourche Parish is surrounded by fresh, intermediate and salt marsh wetlands. These wetlands are the natural spawning grounds and nurseries for much of the nation’s seafood. These wetlands also provide natural flood control, hurricane defense, and water filtration (Lafourche Parish government website, 2012). The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Jurisdictional wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Jurisdictional wetland determinations are regulated by the USACE pursuant to the CWA. Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, also directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. Review of United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI, Figure 11) identified that the area of the proposed site is classified as Marine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottoms Wetlands (M1UBL4) and Estuarine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore Wetlands (E2USP4). Marine wetlands types consist of the open ocean overlying the continental shelf and its associated high-energy coastline. Marine habitats are exposed to the waves and currents of the open ocean and the water regimes are determined primarily by the ebb and flow of oceanic tides. Salinities exceed 30 ‰, with little or no dilution except outside the mouths of estuaries. Estuarine wetlands are characterized by deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some of this low-energy coastline area there is appreciable dilution of sea water (Cowardin, 1979). Figure 11 - Wetland Classification Codes M1UBL4 and E2USP4, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory (FWS, 2012) Description for code M1UBL4: M System MARINE: The Marine System describes the open ocean overlying the continental shelf and its associated high-energy coastline. Marine habitats are exposed to the waves and currents of the open ocean and the water regimes are determined primarily by the ebb and flow of oceanic tides. 1 Subsystem SUBTIDAL: These habitats are continuously submerged substrate (i.e. below extreme low water). U B Class UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM: Includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats with at least 25% cover of particles smaller than stones (less than 6-7 cm), and a vegetative cover less than 30%. Modifier(s): L WATER REGIME Subtidal: The substrate is permanently flooded with tidal water. 4 WATER CHEMISTRY Polyhaline: 18.0-30 ppt Description for code E2USP4: E System ESTUARINE: The Estuarine System describes deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are influenced by water runoff from and often semi-enclosed by land. They are located along low-energy coastlines and they have variable salinity. 2 Subsystem INTERTIDAL: This is defined as the area from extreme low water to extreme high water and associated splash zone. U S Class UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE: Includes all wetland habitats having two characteristics: (1) unconsolidated substrates with less than 75 percent areal cover of stones, boulders or bedrock and; (2) less than 30 percent areal cover of vegetation. Landforms such as beaches, bars, and flats are included in the Unconsolidated Shore class. Modifier(s): P WATER REGIME Irregularly Flooded: Tidal water floods the land surface less often than daily. 4 WATER CHEMISTRY Polyhaline: 18.0-30 ppt Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would not impact wetlands or other waters of the U.S. and would not require a CWA Section 404 permit. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Construction of the new facility directly behind and on the same alignment as existing “boudin bags” as proposed would not adversely impact waters of the U.S. or adversely modify wetlands. USACE has issued authorization for this work under Category I of the Programmatic General Permit (Permit No. MVN 2009-1247 WB), issued as part of Joint Coastal Use Permit (Permit No. P20090468, Extended) (Appendix B). Successful project implementation may have beneficial impacts including land reclamation, wetlands restoration, and habitat enhancement. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant adverse disturbance to waters of the U.S. or adversely modify wetlands as part of replacement activities. Applicant would be required to follow all procedures and obtain required permits per local, state, and federal regulations. 4.2.3 Floodplains EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support or development within or affecting the 1% annual chance special flood hazard area (SFHA) (i.e., 100-year floodplain) whenever there is a practicable alternative (for “Critical Actions”, within or affecting the 0.2% annual chance SFHA, i.e., the 500-year floodplain). FEMA’s regulations for complying with EO 11988 are found in 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands. In compliance with FEMA policy implementing EO 11988, the proposed project was reviewed for possible impacts associated with occupancy or modification to a floodplain. The Executive Order guidelines address an eight-step process that is carried out as part of the decision-making for projects that have potential impacts to or within the floodplain. The eight steps reflect the assessment process required in Section 2(a) of the Order. The 8-Step Decision Making Process Document completed for this project is attached herein as Appendix C. FEMA used the Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map products (Preliminary DFIRM) (Figure 12) and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (Figure 13) from the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Parish Interactive Mapping (http://maps.lsuagcenter.com/la_floodmaps/?FIPS=22057) to determine the flood hazard zone for the proposed project location. In compliance with FEMA policy implementing EO 11988, the proposed project was reviewed for possible impacts associated with occupancy or modification to a floodplain. Lafourche Parish enrolled in the NFIP on April 17, 1985. According to NFIP preliminary DFIRM panel number 22057C1000E dated July 30, 2008 (Figure 12), the proposed project site lies within a special flood hazard area zones VE (EL 17) (1% annual chance flood area, 100-year floodplain, base flood elevation [BFE] determined, coastal high hazard velocity zone). The low-lying areas of Lafourche Parish are subject to periodic flooding from a variety of sources. Flooding results from intense rainfall in the general area, abnormally high tides in the Gulf of Mexico, hurricanes or lesser tropical disturbances, and/or combinations of the various events. In the northern portion of Lafourche Parish, the predominant flooding source is rainfall runoff. As hurricanes approach coastal Louisiana from any direction, large volumes of water are propelled inland over the low marshlands and into many bayous and canals. Hurricane protection levees, in combination with the Mississippi River levees, provide defense for the pumped areas from hurricanes having recurrence intervals of 10 years or less. During severe hurricanes, overtopping of the hurricane protection levees and the Mississippi River levees in their most exposed reaches can occur, producing severe flooding. Figure 12 - Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 22057C1000E Figure 13 - Ground Elevations near the Site, Flood Zones Indicated (LSU AgCenter, 2012) Alternative 1 – No Action: The no action alternative would not result in impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Construction of the new facility directly behind and on the same alignment as existing “boudin bags” as proposed would place the facility within a special flood hazard area. The ground surface at the proposed project site is at an approximate elevation between 1.9 and 3.5 feet above mean sea level (msl, North American Vertical Datum 1988). The Geotube System would provide beach protection and erosion control functions to the local community, which depends on the location of the resource and proper construction to meet its needs effectively. In order to meet these needs, it is imperative that the facility be “local” to the area intended for coastal defense. This beach protection and erosion control facility is “functionally dependent” upon its proximity to water and there is no practicable alternative outside the floodplain. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant adverse impacts to the 100-year floodplain, as it would be a replacement in kind in the same footprint. This EA forms part of the Eight Step Planning Process outlined in 44 CFR Part 9. No acceptable practicable alternatives outside of the special flood hazard area were identified by GLPC or GOHSEP. Mitigation of potential adverse impacts, if any, must be accomplished by incorporation of mitigation and minimization measures including compliance with relevant codes and standards. This project must be conducted in accordance with conditions for federal actions in the floodplain as set forth in EO 11988, Floodplain Management, and EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and the implementing regulation found at 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands. These regulations apply to Agency actions which have the potential to affect floodplains or wetlands or their occupants, or which are subject to potential harm by location in floodplains or wetlands. Additionally, FEMA Public Assistance grant funded projects carried out in the floodplain or affecting the floodplain must be coordinated with the relevant floodplain administrator for a floodplain development permit and the action must be undertaken in compliance with relevant, applicable, and required local codes and standards. This will reduce the risk of future flood loss, minimize the impacts of floods on safety, health, and welfare, and preserve and possibly restore beneficial floodplain values as required by EO 11988. 4.3 Coastal Resources The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) requires federal agency actions to be consistent with the policies of the state Coastal Zone Management Program when conducting or supporting activities that affect a designated coastal zone. The LDNR regulates development in Louisiana’s coastal zone through the Coastal Use Permit Program. The proposed Geotube System in Lafourche Parish is within the regulated Louisiana Coastal Zone and is required to obtain a Coastal Use Permit or undergo a federal-state consistency review (Figure 14). In accordance with rules and regulations of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program, Lafourche Parish applied for and received Coastal Use Permit number P20090468 (extended March 24, 2011) and USACE Category I General Programmatic Permit number MVN 2009-1247 WB. Lafourche Parish and its contractors must carry out, perform, and/or operate the use in accordance with the permit conditions, plans, and specifications approved by the LDNR (Appendix B). This permit authorizes the initiation of the coastal use described in the permit for four years from the date of the signature of the Secretary or his designee on the original permit, which was October 21, 2009. Figure 14 – Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Facility within the Highlighted Coastal Zone in Yellow (dnr.louisiana.gov › Department of Natural Resources) The USFWS regulates federal funding in Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) units under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). This Act protects undeveloped coastal barriers and related areas (i.e., Otherwise Protected Areas) by prohibiting direct or indirect federal funding of projects that support development in these areas. This promotes the appropriate use and conservation of coastal barriers along the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed project site is located within a regulated CBRS unit (Figure 15, see yellow bordered areas in photo inset below). In addition, per 44 CFR Subpart J, Coastal Barrier Resources Act Section 206.345(b)(6) (16 U.S.C. Section 3505(a)(6)(G)), after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the Regional Administrator may make disaster assistance available within the CBRS for this type of disaster assistance action, provided such assistance is consistent with the purposes of CBRA; therefore, this disaster assistance action is excepted from the prohibitions of Section 206.344 (no new expenditures or financial assistance may be made available under authority of the Stafford Act for any purpose within the Coastal Barrier Resources System), since nonstructural projects for shoreline stabilization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore natural stabilization systems are allowed. Notwithstanding 206.345(b)(6), FEMA had previously requested consultation with USFWS regarding verification of a location within the CBRS and for consistency under the CBRA for a beach restoration project. A response was received on November 9, 2009, which stated that coastal beach restoration activities are considered to be consistent with the CBRA. In an email dated April 27, 2012, FEMA requested verification on whether this determination still stands, or whether a new review process is required for the proposed project. USFWS responded on May 3, 2012 that the consistency determination for coastal beach restoration activities issued on November 9, 2009 remains applicable (Appendix B). Figure 15 – Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Facility nearest Coastal Barrier Resource System Units as Shown Highlighted in Yellow Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would not impact Coastal Barrier Resources or the Louisiana Coastal Zones. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Review of Louisiana’s Coastal Zone Boundary Map identified that the construction of the proposed action is within the coastal zone jurisdiction. Therefore, the project requires a Coastal Use Permit (applied for and issued, permit no. P20090468 indicated above) to ensure enforcement of applicable construction standards in implementing the proposed action. Furthermore, 44 CFR Subpart J, Coastal Barrier Resources Act Section 206.345(b)(6) allows this type of disaster assistance action within CBRS. In addition, the proposed action is located in a regulated CBRS unit; USFWS consistency determination for coastal beach restoration activities issued on November 9, 2009 remains applicable and will have no adverse effects on any CBRS units. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant adverse impacts to Coastal Barrier Resources or the Louisiana Coastal Zones, as it would be a replacement in kind in the same footprint. 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4.1 Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Under provisions of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies shall use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species, and shall ensure any action authorized, funded or implemented by the agency is not likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitats; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species; or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat (16 USC 1536). Nine federally listed endangered or threatened species are found in Lafourche Parish. The threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and its designated critical habitat are known to occur within the proposed project area, located in Unit LA-5 of designated piping plover critical habitat (Figure 16). Piping plovers winter in Louisiana, and may be present for 8 to 10 months annually. At the time of designation, Unit LA-5 consisted of approximately 5,735 acres of wintering habitat. Designated critical habitat is located on the Gulf shoreline extending 6.8 miles east from the east side of Belle Pass. In correspondence dated November 16, 2011, and response received by FEMA on November 28, 2011, the USFWS has indicated that the project has been reviewed for effects to federal trust resources under their jurisdiction and currently protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act). The project, as proposed on the current plans, is not likely to adversely affect those resources. This finding fulfills the requirements under Section 7(a)(2) of the Act (Appendix B). Additionally, correspondence from USFWS to GLPC dated August 25, 2009 stated the following: “According to your (June 24, 2009) letter, the project would be located in an area that is heavily used by the public for fishing and beach recreation. Any piping plovers that may utilize the area would likely be temporarily displaced to nearby suitable habitat near Bay Champagne and/or West Belle Pass. Thus, you determined the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the piping plover…Our calculations indicate that the proposed project would temporarily (i.e., 2 to 4 years) affect 3.78 acres of piping plover critical habitat, which is approximately 0.07 percent of Unit LA-5, and that acreage would eventually be fully restored by the Corps’ proposed restoration action…Based on the above information, the Service anticipates that the temporal effects of the proposed shoreline protection feature on critical habitat are insignificant and discountable because the proposed feature would restore and/or replace an existing shoreline feature and would eventually be fully restored by other large-scale restoration efforts for the Caminada Headland. Accordingly, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed Phase I Emergency Beach Rehabilitation Project is not likely to adversely affect the piping plover or its designated critical habitat” (USFWS, 2009, Appendix B). Figure 16 – Piping Plover Designated Critical Habitat Unit LA-5 (http://www.fws.gov/plover/finalchmaps/Plover_LA_5_to_6.jpg) Moreover, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP) has compiled data on rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features throughout the State of Louisiana. Heritage reports summarize the existing information known at the time of a request regarding a location in question. LNHP database indicates that the piping plover may occur within one mile of the project area. No other impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species or critical habitats are anticipated from the proposed project. No state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas or scenic rivers are known at the specified site or within ¼ mile of the proposed project (LDWF, 2011, Appendix B). Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would not adversely affect endangered, threatened, or proposed listed species as well as listed critical habitats. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: USFWS and LDWF indicate the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect protected resources. Furthermore, LDWF Office of Ecological Studies anticipates the proposed project will benefit wildlife resources, and therefore has no objections. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant long term adverse impacts to endangered, threatened, or proposed listed species as well as listed critical habitats, as it would be a replacement in kind in the same footprint. 4.4.2 Migratory Birds LDWF database also indicates the presence of bird nesting colonies within one mile of the proposed project. The project area provides feeding and nesting habitat for herons, egrets, night- herons, ibis, roseate spoonbills, anhingas, cormorants, gulls, terns, and black skimmers. Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would not adversely affect bird nesting colonies. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: USFWS and LDWF indicate the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect protected resources. LDWF Office of Ecological Studies anticipates the proposed project will benefit wildlife resources, and therefore has no objections. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant adverse impacts to bird nesting colonies, since this would be an in kind replacement in the same footprint. USFWS notes that the proposed work should not take place within 650 feet of nesting shorebirds during the nesting season (April 1 to September 15) in areas likely to support nesting shorebirds. LDWF prohibits the entry into or disturbance of active breeding colonies, as well as work within a certain radius of an active nesting colony. If work for the proposed project will commence during the nesting season, a field visit must be conducted to the worksite to look for evidence of nesting colonies; this field visit should take place no more than two weeks before the project begins. If no nesting colonies are found within 400 meters (700 meters for brown pelicans) of the proposed project, no further consultation with LDWR will be necessary. If active nesting colonies are found within the previously stated distances of the proposed project, further consultation with LDWF will be required. Colonies should be surveyed by a qualified biologist to document species present and extent of colonies and a survey report prepared for submittal to LDWF (see Appendix B for further information on survey contents). In addition, to minimize disturbance to colonial nesting birds, LDWF notes that the following restrictions on activity should be observed: * For colonies containing nesting wading birds (i.e., herons, egrets, night-herons, ibis, roseate spoonbills, anhingas, and/or cormorants), all project activity occurring within 300 meters of an active nesting colony should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 1 through February 15). * For colonies containing nesting gulls, terns, and/or black skimmers, all project activity occurring within 400 meters (700 meters for brown pelicans) of an active nesting colony should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 16 through April 1). 4.4.3 Essential Fish Habitat Per the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), aquatic and tidally influenced wetland habitats in portions of the study area are designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) for a variety of federally managed species, such as larvae/postlarvae and juvenile life stages of brown shrimp and white shrimp (Figure 17), larvae/postlarvae, juvenile and adult stages of red drum (Figure 18), larvae and juvenile stages of lane snapper, and juvenile stages of dog snapper and bonnethead shark (NMFS, 2011). The primary categories of EFH in the study area include emergent marsh, mangrove, sand and shell substrates, and estuarine water column. Detailed information on federally managed fisheries and the EFH is provided in the 2005 generic amendment of the Fisheries Management Plans for the Gulf of Mexico prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). The generic amendment was prepared as required by the Magnuson-Stephens Fishery Management Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; P.L. 104-297). Long-term effects on the tidal marsh include land subsidence (sometimes even submergence), soil compaction, conversion to terrestrial vegetation, greatly reduced invertebrate populations, and general loss of productive wetland characteristics. Loss of these low-salinity environments reduces estuarine fertility, restricts suitable habitat for aquatic species, and creates abnormally high salinity during drought years and decline in fishery production (www.nwr.noaa.gov/salmon- habitat/salmon-efh/.../efh-nonfishing.pdf). Figure 17 – Essential Fish Habitat for shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico (sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/gom_shrimp_efh_map.pdf) Figure 18 – Essential Fish Habitat for red drum in the Gulf of Mexico (sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/gom_reddrum_efh_map.pdf) Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would have no direct impacts to essential fish habitat for federally managed species. Existing conditions would persist. Without implementation of the proposed project, the continued loss of barrier and wetland habitats throughout the project area would continue to adversely impact essential spawning, nursery, nesting, and foraging habitats for commercially and recreationally important species of finfish and shellfish, as well as other aquatic organisms (Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline [BBBS] Restoration Project EIS, 2012). Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Per correspondence dated November 23, 2011, NMFS believes that while overall project implementation could be beneficial to protecting more production categories of EFH from erosion and to maintaining the productivity of marine fishery resources, the extent of EFH that will be disturbed or destroyed is unknown at this time. Armoring of shorelines to prevent erosion and maintain or create shoreline real estate simplifies habitats, reduces the amount of intertidal habitat, and affects nearshore processes and the ecology of a myriad of species. Hydraulic effects to the shoreline include increased energy seaward of the armoring, reflected wave energy, dry beach narrowing, substrate coarsening, beach steepening, changes in sediment storage capacity, loss of organic debris, and downdrift sediment starvation. It can also result in community changes from burial or removal of resident biota, changes in cover and preferred prey species, and predator attraction. However, implementation of the proposed project would restore unique and important barrier habitats and help maintain a diversity of different categories of EFH throughout the proposed project area and the Barataria barrier system. Best management practices are required to lessen impacts during construction. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Although short term impacts would be anticipated from construction activities, implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant long term adverse impacts to diverse categories of EFH, as it would be a replacement in kind in the same footprint. Best management practices are required to lessen impacts during construction. 4.4.4 Marine Fishery Resources In addition to being designated as EFH for the species and life stages of brown shrimp, white shrimp, red drum, lane snapper, dog snapper and bonnethead shark, water bodies and wetlands in the study area provide nursery and foraging habitats supportive of a variety of economically important marine fishery species, such as striped mullet, Atlantic croaker, Gulf menhaden, spotted seatrout, sand seatrout, southern flounder, black drum, and blue crab. Some of these species also serve as prey for other fish species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act by the GMFMC (e.g., mackerels, snappers, and groupers) and highly migratory species managed by the NMFS (e.g., billfishes and sharks). Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would have no direct impacts to marine fishery resources for federally managed species. Existing conditions would persist. Without implementation of the proposed project, the continued loss of barrier and wetland habitats throughout the project area would continue to adversely impact essential spawning, nursery, nesting, and foraging habitats for commercially and recreationally important species of finfish and shellfish, as well as other aquatic organisms (BBBS Restoration Project EIS, 2012). Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Direct impacts to fisheries resources would generally be associated with construction activities, including placement of borrow material. Sessile or slow moving fisheries resources would likely suffer some mortality or injury during placement of shoreline protection and/or during dredging and placement of borrow material. Construction activities would temporarily increase turbidity, temperatures and biological oxygen demand (BOD), and decrease dissolved oxygen. These temporary conditions would likely displace more mobile fisheries species from the construction area. Following construction, displaced fisheries species would likely return to the project area. Construction of the Geotube System would have short-term adverse impacts to fisheries resources, primarily due to dredging and placement operations (BBBS Restoration Project EIS, 2012). However, the long-term sustainability of local fisheries would be more likely with implementation of the proposed project. Increased productivity, as a result of increased vegetated barrier habitats, would provide indirect benefits to fisheries by enhancing the energy inputs into the food web of the area ecosystem. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Although short term impacts would be anticipated from construction activities, implementation of this alternative would not adversely impact or cause significant long term adverse impacts to marine fishery resources for federally managed species, as it would be in kind replacement in the same footprint. Best management practices are required to lessen impacts during construction. Based upon the NMFS review of the proposed project, NMFS believes that overall project implementation could be beneficial to protecting more production categories of EFH from erosion and to maintaining the productivity of marine fishery resources. 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5.1 Regulatory Setting The consideration of impacts to cultural resources is mandated under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. Requirements include the identification of significant historic properties that may be impacted by the proposed action or alternatives within the project’s area of potential effect. Historic properties are defined as archaeological sites, standing structures, or other historic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If adverse effects on historic, archaeological, or cultural properties are identified, agencies must consider effects of their activities and attempt to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts to these resources. FEMA has reviewed this project in accordance with the Statewide Programmatic Agreement dated August 17, 2009, as amended on July 22, 2011, between the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), GOHSEP, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Caddo Nation, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (2009 Statewide PA as amended). The 2009 Statewide PA, as amended, was created to streamline the Section 106 review process. 4.5.2 Existing Conditions The project area is located at Port Fourchon at the end of Highway 3090. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project consists of the 5,500 linear feet of beach from seal level to the dunes. The standing structures and archaeological APEs are identical and encompass 15.5 acres. FEMA Historic Preservation staff consulted the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Database on January 10, 2012 and the Louisiana Cultural Resources Map on January 10, 2012 and determined that the proposed location for the beach protection is not within a historic district. In addition, there are no structures within the view shed of the project area. On November 16, 2011, FEMA Historic Preservation Specialists consulted data provided by SHPO and determined that there are no previously identified archaeological sites within 0.5 miles of the APE. Two sites, 16LF8 and 16LF9, that occur within 1 mile of the project area were reported as totally destroyed and are now submerged beneath the ocean. These sites were recorded on the beach in 1952 and indicate the rate of erosion that is occurring along this stretch of the coast line. Areas that now comprise the beach were likely back swamp during the mid-20th century. No historic maps of the project area were located. The Caminada Headland was surveyed by Coastal Environments, Inc. in 2006 (Weinstein, 2006). The survey included a pedestrian survey of Fourchon Beach, which encompassed the current project area. The survey involved two transects spaced at 50 meters apart along 13.02 miles of the Gulf shoreline. Remains of sites 16LF8 and 16LF9 were not found despite 10 meters spaced transects in the vicinity of the sites along the beach. In addition, no archaeological sites were found in the vicinity of the current project area. Subsequent to this survey, the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill cleanup activities resulted in an extensive search for archaeological sites on the beaches and marshes of the Gulf, including the current project area. Extensive testing was especially concentrated in the northeast half of the archaeological APE that was treated as a high priority area, since human remains were found to the northeast of the project area. According to consultation with SHPO and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw, no archaeological material was identified within the archaeological APE during the archaeological cleanup activities. Alternative 1 – No Action: This alternative does not include any FEMA undertaking; therefore FEMA has no further responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Ground disturbing activities involved in the construction have the potential to affect below ground historic resources; however, based on FEMA’s research, the area has been previously investigated and there are no known archaeological sites within the APE. In addition, there are no standing structures within the APE. FEMA has determined that there are No Historic Properties Affected with Conditions as a result of the proposed action. SHPO concurrence with this determination was received March 13, 2012. Consultation with affected tribes was conducted per the 2009 Statewide PA as amended and 36 CFR §800.2(c)(2)(i)(B). The Tribes did not object within the regulatory timeframes. Therefore, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated by the proposed action. The applicant must comply with the Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act (R.S. 8:671 et seq.), the Inadvertent Discovery Clause, and the Source of Fill Clause which can be found under conditions found in Section 6 (Agency Coordination, Public Involvement and Permits) of this EA. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: The scope of work for this alternative indicates ground disturbing activities associated with the installation of the sand bags and sand fill. Upon consultation of data provided by the SHPO, there are no known archaeological sites within the project area although the area has been previously investigated. In addition, there are no structures within the APE. All work will occur within a previously disturbed area. Therefore, the scope of work as submitted meets the criteria outlined in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) dated August 17, 2009, Appendix C, Section A. 4.6 Socioeconomic Concerns 4.6.1 Environmental Justice EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations, mandates that federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs on minority and low-income populations. According to the most readily available U.S. Bureau of the Census American Community Survey 5-Year estimates for 2006-2010 for Lafourche Parish, 80.8 percent of the population is white, 13.3 percent is black, 3.4 percent is Hispanic, 0.7 percent is Asian, 2.8 percent is Native American, and 0 percent is Native Hawaiian. The median household income in Lafourche Parish was $47,492 (factfinder2.census.gov). However, the project area is remote and there is no population residing within the project area. Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would not adversely affect a disproportionate number of minority or low income population. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: The proposed action would not pose disproportionately high and adverse public health or environmental effects on minority and low- income populations. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative would not pose disproportionately high and adverse public health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. 4.6.2 Hazardous Materials The management of hazardous materials is regulated under various federal and state environmental and transportation laws and regulations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and the Louisiana Voluntary Investigation and Remedial Action statute. The purpose of the regulatory requirements set forth under these laws is to ensure the protection of human health and the environment through proper management (identification, use, storage, treatment, transport, and disposal) of these materials. Some of these laws provide for the investigation and cleanup of sites that have already been contaminated by releases of hazardous materials, wastes, or substances. A review of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) EnviroMapper http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/) and the Environmental Document Management System (EDMS) databases for hazardous waste management and disposal, solid waste disposal, storage tanks, and enforcement revealed that there are no Louisiana Volunteer Remedial Program (VRP)/Brownfield sites, oil and gas wells or leaking underground storage tanks located on the proposed site. However, the database searches revealed numerous oil and gas facilities in close proximity to the proposed project site. Oil and gas facilities are subject to chemical releases that have the potential to affect the site. Per the 2012 BBBS Restoration EIS, the Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) status of the proposed project area was investigated and is recorded in HTRW-ESA #253, on file in Planning Division South, at the USACE Mississippi Valley, New Orleans District Office (MVN). MVN personnel, with the assistance of contracted engineers and consultants, conducted a site visit to the proposed project area on January 3, 2006. They visited by boat all the sites where soil borings will be taken. There were no signs of HTRW problems, such as dead or discolored vegetation, stained soil, chemical sheens or odors, or dead or dying fish, amphibians, reptiles, or mammals, or discarded drums, tanks, or chemical containers. The most likely source of HTRW would be the presence of numerous oil and gas pipelines and wellheads in the area. Provided that care is taken not to disturb these pipelines, the probability of encountering HTRW is low. If the designs change or the project area is expanded, the HTRW risk may have to be re- evaluated. Certain oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) wastes are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes under subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR Parts 260 to 279). However, the RCRA Subtitle C exemption does not preclude these wastes from control under state regulations, under the less-stringent RCRA Subtitle D solid waste regulations, or under other federal regulations, such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. In addition, although they are relieved from regulation as hazardous wastes, the exemption does not mean these wastes could not present a hazard to human health and the environment if improperly managed. [USEPA, October 2002 “Exemption of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations”]. British Petroleum (BP) secured a lease from Mineral Management Services to drill and operate the Macondo Well, which is located approximately 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana within the Gulf of Mexico, in waters of the United States of America. Deepwater Horizon (DWH), the semi-submersible drilling platform that was owned and operated by Transocean, Inc., was the mobile platform used for drilling this well. On April 20, 2010, the Macondo Well experienced a blow-out, resulting in an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, killing eleven workers, and resulting in continuous discharges of oil and natural gas from the wellhead into waters of the United States (http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2011/09/14/deepwater-horizon-joint- investigation-team-federal-scene-coordinators-release-fin). During the DWH incident, oil and natural gas were discharged from the wellhead, approximately 5,000 feet below the sea surface, for 87 days. The well was capped on July 15, 2010; however, the continuous discharges of oil, gas, and dispersants that were applied to the oil have impacted the waters and coastline of the Northern Gulf of Mexico, including the State of Louisiana. The first oiling of Louisiana beaches occurred on approximately May 15, 2010. The DWH spill resulted in oil deposition on a variety of shoreline types throughout the Northern Gulf of Mexico, including the Caminada Headland and Shell Island. The shoreline at the Caminada Headland and the remnant shoreline at Shell Island are both characterized as non- amenity beaches and are currently undergoing final clean-up and treatment from effects of the DWH spill. A final inspection will be conducted to confirm that shoreline segments within the Caminada Headland and Shell Island reaches have met 2011-2012 Endpoints, at which time the affected segments will be formally signed out of the Emergency Response. The cleanup standard for heavily oiled non-residential beaches, such as Fourchon Beach and Caminada Headland, is that No Further Treatment (NFT) is needed when less than 1% visible surface oil and oiled debris remains on the beach. The determination of when this point is reached relies on the visual observations of experienced professionals, rather than an actual measurement. Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the no action alternative would not disturb any hazardous materials or create potential hazards to human health. Alternative 2 – Construct Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags” – Proposed Action: Construction of the proposed project is not likely to disturb any hazardous materials or create increased potential hazards to human health. If hazardous materials are unexpectedly encountered in the project area during the construction activities, appropriate measures for the proper assessment, remediation, management, and disposal of the contamination must be initiated in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The contractor is required to take appropriate actions to prevent, minimize, and control the spill of hazardous materials at the proposed site. Alternative 3 – Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags: Implementation of this alternative is not likely to disturb any hazardous materials or create increased potential hazards to human health, as it would be a replacement in kind in the same footprint. If hazardous materials are unexpectedly encountered in the project area during the construction activities, appropriate measures for the proper assessment, remediation, management, and disposal of the contamination must be initiated in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The contractor is required to take appropriate actions to prevent, minimize, and control the spill of hazardous materials at the site. 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. The impact of Hurricanes Katrina’s and Ike’s storm surges devastated the southeastern coastal region of Louisiana. In response, local, state, and federal agencies formed partnerships to develop and implement shoreline protection projects. The largest restoration project taking place that would affect the proposed project is the Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration project. The Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline is the regional segment of the Gulf Coast of the Louisiana that is situated between the west bank of the Mississippi River at the active delta and the eastern shore of Terrebonne Bay. The project consists of two reaches. The Caminada Headland is located at the southern end of Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes. Shell Island is part of the Plaquemines Parish barrier island chain. The purpose of this project is to restore the geomorphic (physical) function of the barrier island. Restoration of the shoreline and coastal marshes of Caminada Headland and Shell Island would restore critical habitat, form and function, and long-term sustainability of the barrier shoreline. As part of this project, materials will be pumped from offshore (Caminada) and riverine (Shell Island) sources to restore the dune, shoreline, and interior marsh habitats. The restoration of the shoreline and marsh would protect the interior marsh and chenier ridge habitats for essential fish and wildlife species by providing a buffer from the marine influences of the Gulf of Mexico. Another project that may affect the proposed project is the Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration Project. This project is an ecosystem restoration effort to reconstruct coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. The location for this project is the Isles Dernieres (Raccoon Island, Whiskey Island, Trinity Island, and East Island) and Timbalier Island (Timbalier Island and East Timbalier Island) barrier island chains located in Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes. The project will investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered to meet project objectives are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. These restoration projects may have short term impacts to resources such as wetlands, essential fish habitat, nesting shore bird critical habitat and marine fisheries during their construction phase. Longer term impacts to the natural resources and socio-economics from the proposed action and the restoration projects are anticipated but unknown at this time. These projects may reduce environmental risk, since the goal of the proposed action, in conjunction with the other shoreline restoration projects in the area, is to trap sediment and re-establish wetlands that could provide increased coastal flood defense. However, cumulative impacts are unknown at this time. 6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND PERMITS FEMA is the lead federal agency for conducting the NEPA compliance process for this EA and FEMA Public Assistance grant funded projects. It is the responsibility of the lead agency to conduct the preparation and review of NEPA documents in a way that is responsive to the needs of the parish communities while meeting the spirit and intent of NEPA and complying with mandated provisions. As part of the development of early interagency coordination related to the proposed action, state and federal resource protection agencies were contacted and FEMA distributed an informal scoping notification through a Solicitation of Views. These agencies include the State Historical Preservation Officer, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service. FEMA has received no objections to the project as proposed subsequent to these notifications, and comments and conditions received have been incorporated into this NEPA document. In accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, the applicant would be responsible for acquiring any necessary permits prior to commencing construction at the proposed project site. FEMA is inviting the public to comment on the proposed action during a 15-day comment period. A public notice will be published for 5 days in the local newspaper, The Daily Comet, announcing the availability of this EA for review at the Lafourche Parish Public Library - Golden Meadow Branch, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana and at the FEMA Louisiana Recovery Office in New Orleans, LA. A copy of the Public Notice is attached in Appendix D. Based upon the studies, reviews and consultations undertaken in this environmental assessment, several conditions and mitigation measures must be taken by the applicant prior to and during proposed project implementation. * FEMA Public Assistance grant funded projects carried out in the floodplain or affecting the floodplain must be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator for a floodplain development permit and the action must be undertaken in compliance with relevant, applicable, and required local codes and standards. Thereby, this will reduce the risk of future flood loss, minimize the impacts of floods on safety, health, and welfare, and preserve and possibly restore beneficial floodplain values as required by Executive Order 11988. * Source of Fill: Any fill or borrow material used must be sourced from areas that do not contain any buried or submerged cultural materials (e.g. brick foundations, prehistoric Indian artifacts, human burials, and the like). * Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act: If human bone or unmarked grave(s) are present with the project area, compliance with the Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act (R.S. 8:671 et seq.) is required. The applicant shall notify the law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction where the remains are located within twenty-four hours of the discovery. The applicant shall also notify FEMA and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology at 225-342-8170 within seventy-two hours of the discovery. * Inadvertent Discovery Clause: If during the course of work, archaeological artifacts (prehistoric or historic) are discovered, the applicant shall stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the finds. The applicant shall inform their Public Assistance (PA) contacts at FEMA, who will in turn contact FEMA Historic Preservation (HP) staff. The applicant will not proceed with work until FEMA HP completes consultation with the SHPO. * In accordance with the rules and regulations of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program and Louisiana R.S. 49, Sections 214.21 to 214.41, the State and Local Coastal Resources Act of 1978, as amended, the grant applicant must agree to the terms and conditions of the Coastal Use Permit and remain in compliance. * Department of the Army Permit No. MVN 2009-1247 WB and LDNR Office of Coastal Management Joint Coastal Use Permit No. P20090468, Extended, authorize the performance of the work in accordance with its specified terms and conditions. This work must be conducted in compliance with all terms and conditions and must remain in compliance. Additionally, the work must be completed within the time limit established within the issued permits and the applicant must submit a request for a time extension, if needed. * The applicant must follow all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and requirements and obtain and comply with all required permits and approvals prior to initiating work. * To minimize air quality impacts, GLPC and its contractors must implement BMPs to limit air emissions, fugitive dust and exhaust. BMPs would include maintaining and covering spoil piles, covering the loads of haul vehicles and keeping construction equipment properly tuned. * GLPC and its contractors must ensure all project activities are conducted in a safe manner and in compliance with all state and federal occupational safety regulations, including OSHA, to protect workers and the general public. * Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum products, cement, caustics, acids, solvents, paint, electronic components, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, treated timber) and may result in the generation of small volumes of hazardous wastes. Appropriate measures to prevent, minimize, and control spills of hazardous materials must be taken and generated hazardous and non-hazardous wastes are required to be disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. * If any solid or hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater contaminated with hazardous constituents are encountered during the project, notification to LDEQ’s Single-Point-of-Contact at (225) 219-3640 is required. Additionally, precautions should be taken to protect workers from these hazardous conditions. * Project activities will be required by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to observe precautions to control nonpoint source pollution from construction activities and further, will be required to obtain permits implement the required conditions. * USFWS notes that the proposed work should not take place within 650 feet of nesting shorebirds during the nesting season (April 1 to September 15) in areas likely to support nesting shorebirds. LDWF prohibits the entry into or disturbance of active breeding colonies, as well as work within a certain radius of an active nesting colony. If work for the proposed project will commence during the nesting season, a field visit must be conducted to the worksite to look for evidence of nesting colonies; this field visit should take place no more than two weeks before the project begins. If no nesting colonies are found within 400 meters (700 meters for brown pelicans) of the proposed project, no further consultation with LDWR will be necessary. If active nesting colonies are found within the previously stated distances of the proposed project, further consultation with LDWF will be required. Colonies should be surveyed by a qualified biologist to document species present and extent of colonies and a survey report prepared for submittal to LDWF. * For colonies containing nesting wading birds (i.e., herons, egrets, night-herons, ibis, roseate spoonbills, anhingas, and/or cormorants), all project activity occurring within 300 meters of an active nesting colony should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 1 through February 15). * For colonies containing nesting gulls, terns, and/or black skimmers, all project activity occurring within 400 meters (700 meters for brown pelicans) of an active nesting colony should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 16 through April 1). 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Odessa Bowen – Environmental Protection Specialist, NISTAC Contractor Tiffany Spann-Winfield –Deputy Environmental Liaison Officer, FEMA Daphne Owens – Historical Preservation Specialist, FLUOR Contractor Jason Emery – Lead Historical Preservation Specialist, FEMA 8.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm (Version 04DEC98). Federal Register. 1980. Council on Environmental Quality: National Environmental Policy Act. 40 C.F.R. 57488-57514: pp1500-1508. 28 August 1980. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2011. FEMA-1603-DR-LA Public Assistance Project Worksheet No. 7475. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2011. FEMA-1792-DR-LA Public Assistance Project Worksheet No. 1147. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map: Panel Number 22 075C 1000 D. October 30, 2008. Federal Emergency Management Agency. October 30, 2008a. Flood Insurance Study Number 22075CV000A. Lafourche Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas. Effective, May 2, 2008. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2012. 44 CFR Subpart J, Coastal Barrier Resources Act Section 206.345(b)(6) (16 U.S.C. Section 3505(a)(6)(G)). Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Coastal Management Division. 2007. Louisiana Coastal Zone Map. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management. 2011. Coastal Use Permit/Consistency Determination, P20090468. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Air Quality Assessment: Air Monitoring Program of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Accessed April 23, 2012. http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/112/Default.aspx. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 2012. Water Quality Assessment http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/DIVISIONS/WaterQualityAssessment/WaterQualityManag ementPlanContinuingPlanning.aspx Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Memo from Beth Altazan-Dixon to Tiffany Spann, DEQ SOV 111116/3215Fourchon Beach Shoreline Restoration Project. Louisiana State University. 2010. Generalized Geology Map of Louisiana. Lafourche Parish. 2012. Lafourche Parish Government Website (www.lafourchegov.org). U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Quickfacts Publication for Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. March 2012. Soil Map – Lafourche Parish Louisiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2011. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey - Soil Survey of Lafourche Parish. Accessed April 23, 2012. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. U.S. Department of the Army. 2011. Permit No. MVN 2009-1247 WB. U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Letter from Virginia M. Fay, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Response to Solicitation of Views. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Justice Geographic Assessment. Access April 19, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ej/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 30, 2011, Email Memo Received from Mick Tamara, NEPA Environmental Assessment Solicitation of Views for Fourchon Beach Shoreline Restoration. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wetlands Flood Protection. Access October 3, 2012. http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/flood.cfm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Coastal Barrier Resources System Map Units. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Memo response to SOV, Deborah Fuller, Acting Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Access April 24. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Louisiana Coastal Area Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration Project (www.lca.gov/Projects/4/) Louisiana Coastal Area Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration Project (www.lca.gov/Projects/3/Default.aspx) Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (www.ocpr.louisiana.gov/crm/coastres) Louisiana Coastal Facts – Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (www.ocpr.louisiana.gov/coastalfacts.asp) Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline [BBBS] Restoration Project EIS, 2012 Appendix A Site Photographs View facing south on A.O. Rappelet Road towards Fourchon Beach Emergent wetland vegetation View facing east on Fourchon Beach showing damaged boudin bags Damaged boudin bags and geotextile fabric View facing east – vegetated dune barrier View facing south on A.O Rappelet Road View facing east on Fourchon Beach View facing east-southeast on Fourchon Beach View facing south towards Gulf of Mexico View facing southwest on Fourchon Beach Appendix B Agency Correspondence Please see scanned documents in pdf version Appendix C Floodplain and Wetlands 8-Step Planning Document GREATER LAFOURCHE PORT COMMISSION FOURCHON BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Eight-Step Decision Making Process Date: 9/19/2012 Prepared by: Odessa Bowen, CFM, Floodplain Specialist Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies “to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of the floodplain and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.” FEMA’s implementing regulations are at 44 CFR Part 9, which includes an eight step decision making process for compliance with this part. This eight step process is applied to the proposed Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection project. The project is to construct and install a 5,500 linear feet Geotube System that will consist of placing pre-fabricated geo-synthetic tubes filled with sand that will be located directly behind and on the same alignment as the existing damaged “boudin bags”. In addition, staging activities will occur within the right-of-way at the end of A.O. Rappelet Road, adjacent to the beach and at the end of an unimproved access road to the west off of Chevron Road (also adjacent to the beach). Sand for the filling of the geotubes and backfilling around the structures - once they are installed - will be brought to the location by the Contractor. The proposed project site lies within a special flood hazard area zones VE (EL 17) (1% annual chance flood area, 100-year floodplain, base flood elevation [BFE] determined, coastal high hazard velocity zone). The steps in the decision making process are as follows: Step 1: Determine if the proposed action is located in the Base Floodplain The Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection involves the construction and installation of a 5,500 linear feet Geotube System that will consist of placing pre-fabricated geo-synthetic tubes filled with sand located directly behind and on the same alignment as the existing damaged “boudin bags”, which is located within the 100 year floodplain. The Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection project, per Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) Panel #22057C1000E, dated July 30, 2008, is located within an “VE” (El 17), Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood area, 100-year floodplain, base flood elevation [BFE] determined, coastal high hazard velocity zone. The floodplain in relation to the Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection project is depicted on Figures 12 & 13 of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The project site is not located in a regulated floodway, but is located in an area of coastal flooding with primary flood hazards associated with tidal storm surge and associated waves. Tides can intrude into the nearby areas of the proposed action and water levels in past floods have been documented in excess of 20 feet above the land surface elevation. A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory indicates the proposed site is within a mapped wetland and U.S. waters. Proposed activities likely have the potential to affect wetlands by contributing to sedimentation and intrusion by equipment and activities associated with site construction. Step 2: Early public notice (Preliminary Notice) In general, FEMA has an obligation to provide adequate information to enable the public to have impact on the decision outcome for all action having the potential to affect, adversely, or be affected by floodplains or wetlands that it proposes. FEMA shall provide the public with adequate information and opportunity for review and comment at the earliest possible time and throughout the decision-making process; and upon completion of this process, provide the public with an accounting of its final decision (see §9.12). A Cumulative Initial Public Notice was published statewide 11/7/2005 – 11/9/2005. Additional public notice shall be provided as required by the Executive Order. Furthermore, an EA has been drafted to determine if the construction of the Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection project, as described, will have the potential for significant adverse effects on the quality of the human and natural environment. The results of the investigation are being used to make a decision whether to initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The availability of the Draft EA will be published for five days in the paper of record, The Daily Comet announcing the availability of the Draft EA for public review at the Lafourche Parish Public Library Golden Meadow Branch at 1403 North Bayou Drive, Golden Meadow, LA 70357-2513, (hours are 10 a.m. - 6 p.m., Mon. - Thurs., 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Fri.). A 15 day comment period will follow the public notice publication. Step 3: Identify and evaluate alternatives to locating in the base floodplain. The Geotube system provides beach protection and erosion control functions to the local community, which depends on the location of the resource and proper construction to meet its needs effectively. In order to meet these needs, it is imperative that the facility be “local” to area intended for coastal defense. This beach protection and erosion control facility is “functionally dependent” upon its proximity to water, and there is no practicable alternative outside the floodplain. * Alternative 1 (No Action): Implementation of the No Action Alternative would entail no construction or replacement of the “boudin bags” damaged by Hurricane Katrina and exacerbated by Hurricane Ike. Consequently, the benefits of the upcoming Caminada Headland Beach and Dune Restoration project sponsored by the State of Louisiana would be diminished by the degraded state of the “boudin bags”, as the area could be further damaged by high-frequency storm events. The community would be deprived of the economic recompense granted in the original project funding. No Action would forego opportunities to expand marshes, create essential fish habitat, and reduce storm surge risk. * Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): GLPC seeks FEMA PA federal grant funds for an improved project to construct a 5,500 LF Geotube System located directly behind and on same alignment as existing “boudin bags”. The “boudin bags” primary function was to prevent erosion and protect Port Fourchon. Construction of the beach erosion control facility has been chosen by GLPC as the desired practicable alternative because the current structure has been damaged to a state that is too difficult to repair. In addition, the project will extend protection eastward from the existing geotubes (approximately at the eastern end of the breakwaters) to the eastern end of Bay Champagne. It is intended to restore lost wetlands, trap sediment, reduce open water fetch, and provide improved essential fish habitat. * Alternative 3 (Replace eroded sand fill and damaged top and center bags): This alternative would repair the damaged “boudin bags” beach erosion control facility at the original site to pre-disaster configuration, function, and capacity. Placement of new materials on the site would be necessary to complete the reconstruction. The facility would be constructed within the respective original footprint and would include replenishing lost sand and replacing the destroyed “boudin bags”. This alternative meets the purpose and need of the proposed action; however, due to the logistics of repairing and replacing the “boudin bags”, community leaders have determined the alternative to replace the facility at the original site is not practicable, desirable, or feasible. Construction of the new Geotube System with the same alignment as the existing “boudin bags” has been determined by the applicant and GOHSEP to be a practicable option because it is a viable alternative that is economically feasible, socially acceptable, and has been determined by the community leaders to meet their needs and serve the best interests of the community. Step 4: Identify impacts of proposed action associated with occupancy or modification of the floodplain. Impact on Natural Function of the Floodplain/Impact of the Flood Water on the Proposed Facility In compliance with FEMA policy implementing EO 11988, Floodplain Management, the proposed project was reviewed for possible impacts associated with occupancy or modification to a floodplain. The Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection project would not likely affect the functions and values of the 100-year floodplain as the structure would not impede or redirect flood flows. This proposed project enables GLPC to rebuild in an area that has been identified for coastal flood defense and wetlands restoration. Siting of the facility within the floodplain near the shoreline restores beneficial floodplain values such as natural flood and erosion control, enhancement of biological productivity and diversity, and the societal benefits of food production, and recreational opportunities. Step 5: Design or modify the proposed action to minimize threats to life and property and preserve its natural and beneficial floodplain values New construction must be compliant with current codes and standards. GLPC is required to coordinate with the local floodplain administrator regarding floodplain permit(s) prior to the start of any activities. Step 6: Re-evaluate the proposed action The proposed action is the chosen practicable alternative based upon a review of possible adverse effects on the floodplain, the inclusion of measures to mitigate and minimize harm from floods, and community socioeconomic expectations. The proposed project is not likely to have an adverse effect on the floodplain, and will not facilitate development in the floodplain to any greater degree than non-floodplain areas of the community. The proposed project is not likely to aggravate the current flood hazard because the facility is not likely to impede or redirect flood flows. The project is not likely to disrupt floodplain values because it is not likely to change water levels in the floodplain, and will not reduce habitat in the floodplain. Therefore, it is still practicable to construct the proposed project within the floodplain. Step 7: Findings and Public Explanation (Final Notification) Construction of the new Geotube System with the same alignment as the existing “boudin bags” in the floodplain has been determined to be a practicable alternative with significant benefits to the community. This review and analysis of this proposed action was documented through the required 8-step public participation and decision-making process. A NEPA EA is being drafted that includes a Solicitation of Views from potentially affected parties and a public notice was prepared and advertised that presented these findings (Public Notice attached herein). After evaluating alternatives, including impacts and mitigation opportunities, FEMA has determined that the proposed project is the most practicable alternative. Step 8: Implement the action The proposed Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection project will be constructed in accordance with applicable floodplain development requirements. Project shall be reviewed by FEMA at grant closeout to ensure the project was completed in accordance with all relevant and applicable floodplain ordinances, codes and standards and that all project actions were undertaken in accordance with terms and conditions stipulated to mitigate and minimize adverse effects in or to the floodplain and wetlands. Appendix D Public Notice FEMA PUBLIC NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR FOURCHON BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA Interested parties are hereby notified that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposed construction and installation of pre-fabricated geo-synthetic tubes (Geotubes) filled with sand to protect the shoreline at Fourchon Beach in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (latitude 29.10314/longitude -90.18710). The Fourchon Beach original shoreline protection consisted of “boudin bags” filled with concrete and goby mats. FEMA determined that the restoration should replace sand fill that eroded, as well as replace the top bags and center bags that were damaged. The proposed project would place Geotubes directly behind and on the same alignment as the existing damaged “boudin bags”, along the 5,500 linear feet of damaged beach. The Greater Lafourche Port Commission seeks federal grant funds for this action eligible under a Presidential Disaster Declaration (FEMA-1603-DR-LA Hurricane Katrina). Per the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), and associated environmental statutes, a Draft EA has been prepared to evaluate the action’s potential impacts on the human and natural environment. This Draft EA summarizes the purpose and need, site selection process, affected environment, and potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed action. The Draft EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are available for review at the Lafourche Parish Public Library - Golden Meadow Branch, located at 1403 North Bayou Drive, Golden Meadow, LA 70357-2513, from November 12, 2012 through November 26, 2012. The branch hours of operation are from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday. Additionally, a public notice regarding the proposed action will be published in the Daily Comet newspaper for 5 consecutive days: November 12-16, 2012. The comment period will be fifteen (15) days, beginning on November 12, 2012 and concluding November 26, 2012. Written comments on the Draft EA or related matters can be faxed to FEMA’s Louisiana Recovery Office at (504) 762-2323; or mailed to FEMA Louisiana Recovery Office, EHP - Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection EA, 1 Seine Court, New Orleans, Louisiana 70114. The Draft EA can be viewed and downloaded from FEMA’s website: http://coop.fema.gov/plan/ehp/envdocuments/ea-region6.shtm. Based on FEMA’s findings to date, no significant adverse environmental effects are anticipated. However, if FEMA receives new information that results in a change from no adverse effects then FEMA would revise the findings and issue a second public notice allowing time for additional comments. If no substantive comments are received, the Draft EA and associated Draft FONSI will become final and this initial Public Notice will also serve as the final Public Notice. Substantive comments will be addressed as appropriate in the final documents. Appendix E Site Construction Plans Please see scanned documents in pdf version Appendix F Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (Draft FONSI) U.S. Department of Homeland Security Louisiana Recovery Office 1 Seine Court New Orleans, Louisiana 70114 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOURCHON BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA FEMA-1603-DR-LA Introduction Hurricane Katrina, a strong hurricane with high wind and a destructive storm surge, made landfall and caused catastrophic damage within the parishes of Louisiana. As a result of damages from Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was authorized under Presidential disaster declaration FEMA-1603-DR-LA to provide federal assistance to designated disaster areas in Louisiana. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (PL 93288) Section 406 authorizes FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) Program to provide financial and other forms of assistance to State and local governments to support response, recovery, and mitigation efforts following Presidentially declared disasters. Greater Lafourche Port Commission has submitted an application for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant funding under FEMA’s Public Assistance Program being administered in response to FEMA-1603-DR-LA. The Fourchon Beach shoreline was substantially damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Ike’s winds and coastal flooding and was deemed eligible for grant funding to replace the facility to predisaster condition. The applicant proposes to construct and install a Geotube System that will consist of placing pre-fabricated geo-synthetic tubes filled with sand that will be located directly behind and on the same alignment as the existing damaged “boudin bags”, along the 5,500 linear feet of damaged beach in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. In accordance with 44 CFR Part 10, FEMA regulations to implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared. The purpose of this EA was to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and installation of a Geotube System and to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Findings The above described action would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to geology, soils, hydrology, floodplains, wetlands, water quality, air quality, vegetation, wildlife, state and federally listed threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, socioeconomics (including minority and low income populations), safety, security, noise, hazardous materials, toxic wastes, or transportation. Based on the information analyzed, FEMA has determined that the implementation of the proposed action would not result in significant adverse impacts to the quality of the natural and human environment. This restoration project may have short term impacts to resources such as wetlands, essential fish habitat, nesting shore bird critical habitat and marine fisheries during its construction phase. Longer term and cumulative impacts to the natural resources and socio-economics from the proposed action are anticipated but unknown at this time. As a result of this FONSI, an EIS will not be prepared (44 CFR Part 10) and the proposed action as described in the EA may proceed. Conditions And Mitigation Measures Based upon the studies and consultations undertaken in this EA, several conditions must be met and mitigation measures must be taken by the applicant prior to and during project implementation. * FEMA Public Assistance grant funded projects carried out in the floodplain or affecting the floodplain must be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator for a floodplain development permit and the action must be undertaken in compliance with relevant, applicable, and required local codes and standards. Thereby, this will reduce the risk of future flood loss, minimize the impacts of floods on safety, health, and welfare, and preserve and possibly restore beneficial floodplain values as required by Executive Order 11988. * Source of Fill: Any fill or borrow material used must be sourced from areas that do not contain any buried or submerged cultural materials (e.g. brick foundations, prehistoric Indian artifacts, human burials, and the like). * Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act: If human bone or unmarked grave(s) are present with the project area, compliance with the Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act (R.S. 8:671 et seq.) is required. The applicant shall notify the law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction where the remains are located within twenty-four hours of the discovery. The applicant shall also notify FEMA and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology at 225-342-8170 within seventy-two hours of the discovery. * Inadvertent Discovery Clause: If during the course of work, archaeological artifacts (prehistoric or historic) are discovered, the applicant shall stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the finds. The applicant shall inform their Public Assistance (PA) contacts at FEMA, who will in turn contact FEMA Historic Preservation (HP) staff. The applicant will not proceed with work until FEMA HP completes consultation with the SHPO. * In accordance with the rules and regulations of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program and Louisiana R.S. 49, Sections 214.21 to 214.41, the State and Local Coastal Resources Act of 1978, as amended, the grant applicant must agree to the terms and conditions of the Coastal Use Permit and remain in compliance. * Department of the Army Permit No. MVN 2009-1247 WB and LDNR Office of Coastal Management Joint Coastal Use Permit No. P20090468, Extended, authorize the performance of the work in accordance with its specified terms and conditions. This work must be conducted in compliance with all terms and conditions and must remain in compliance. Additionally, the work must be completed within the time limit established within the issued permits and the applicant must submit a request for a time extension, if needed. * The applicant must follow all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and requirements and obtain and comply with all required permits and approvals prior to initiating work. * To minimize air quality impacts, GLPC and its contractors must implement BMPs to limit air emissions, fugitive dust and exhaust. BMPs would include maintaining and covering spoil piles, covering the loads of haul vehicles and keeping construction equipment properly tuned. * GLPC and its contractors must ensure all project activities are conducted in a safe manner and in compliance with all state and federal occupational safety regulations, including OSHA, to protect workers and the general public. * Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum products, cement, caustics, acids, solvents, paint, electronic components, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, treated timber) and may result in the generation of small volumes of hazardous wastes. Appropriate measures to prevent, minimize, and control spills of hazardous materials must be taken and generated hazardous and non-hazardous wastes are required to be disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. * If any solid or hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater contaminated with hazardous constituents are encountered during the project, notification to LDEQ’s Single-Point-of-Contact at (225) 219-3640 is required. Additionally, precautions should be taken to protect workers from these hazardous conditions. * Project activities will be required by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to observe precautions to control nonpoint source pollution from construction activities and further, will be required to obtain permits implement the required conditions. * USFWS notes that the proposed work should not take place within 650 feet of nesting shorebirds during the nesting season (April 1 to September 15) in areas likely to support nesting shorebirds. LDWF prohibits the entry into or disturbance of active breeding colonies, as well as work within a certain radius of an active nesting colony. If work for the proposed project will commence during the nesting season, a field visit must be conducted to the worksite to look for evidence of nesting colonies; this field visit should take place no more than two weeks before the project begins. If no nesting colonies are found within 400 meters (700 meters for brown pelicans) of the proposed project, no further consultation with LDWR will be necessary. If active nesting colonies are found within the previously stated distances of the proposed project, further consultation with LDWF will be required. Colonies should be surveyed by a qualified biologist to document species present and extent of colonies and a survey report prepared for submittal to LDWF. * For colonies containing nesting wading birds (i.e., herons, egrets, night-herons, ibis, roseate spoonbills, anhingas, and/or cormorants), all project activity occurring within 300 meters of an active nesting colony should be restricted to the non- nesting period (i.e., September 1 through February 15). * For colonies containing nesting gulls, terns, and/or black skimmers, all project activity occurring within 400 meters (700 meters for brown pelicans) of an active nesting colony should be restricted to the non-nesting period (i.e., September 16 through April 1). Approvals: ________________________________________________________________________ Katherine Zeringue, Environmental Liaison Officer Date Louisiana Recovery Office FEMA-1603/1607-DR-LA ________________________________________________________________________ Andre Cadogan, Deputy Director for Operations Date Louisiana Recovery Office FEMA-1603/1607-DR-LA ii 3 1 Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Project Draft Environmental Assessment (November 2012) 5 Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Project Draft Environmental Assessment (November 2012) 21 Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Project Draft Environmental Assessment (November 2012) Lafourche Parish – Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Project Finding of No Significant Impact FEMA-1603-DR-LA November 2012 Page 4 i 3 1 Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Project Draft Environmental Assessment (November 2012) 5 Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Project Draft Environmental Assessment (November 2012) 46 Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Project Draft Environmental Assessment (November 2012) Lafourche Parish – Fourchon Beach Shoreline Protection Project Finding of No Significant Impact FEMA-1603-DR-LA November 2012 Page 4