Chenier and Natural Ridges Study Coastal Louisiana

FEBRUARY2009
STATEOFLOUISIANA
DepartmentofNaturalResources
ContractNumber25330802

CHENIERSAND
NATURALRIDGES
STUDY
PreparedBy:
ProvidenceEngineeringand
EnvironmentalGroupLLC
1201MainStreet
BatonRouge,Louisiana70802
(225)7667400
www.providenceeng.com
ProjectNumber227009
State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................... 2
2.1 The Coastal Use Guidelines. ................................................................... 2
2.2 State vs. Local Concerns. ....................................................................... 4
3.0 WILDLIFE DIVERSITY ......................................................................................... 4
3.1 Typical Habitat of Cheniers and Ridges ................................................ 4
3.2 Importance to Wildlife ............................................................................. 5
3.2.1 Listed Species ............................................................................... 5
3.2.2 Neotropical Migrant Songbirds .................................................... 9
3.2.3 Diversity Indices.......................................................................... 15
4.0 ALTERATIONS IN HABITAT DIVERSITY ......................................................... 16
4.1 Anthropogenic Alterations.................................................................... 17
4.2 Exotic Species Influence ....................................................................... 18
4.3 Commercial Sand Mining ...................................................................... 18
Photograph 4.3.1 Northerly aerial view of a sand pit in Cameron
Parish taken after Hurricane Ike. Note section of
washed-out highway. (Photograph courtesy of
CMD Permits and Mitigation Section). ................. 19
Photograph 4.3.2 Northerly aerial view of sand mining pit on Grand
Chenier taken after Hurricane Ike (Photograph
courtesy of CMD Permits and Mitigation Section).19
Photograph 4.3.3 Ground level view of sand pit adjacent to LA
Highway 82 in Cameron Parish following
Hurricane Ike. ......................................................... 20
Photograph 4.3.4 Easterly ground level view of Trosclair Road
sand pits in Cameron Parish following
Hurricane Ike. ......................................................... 20
Photograph 4.3.5 Aerial view of sand mining pit on Grand Chenier
taken after Hurricane Ike. (Photograph courtesy
of CMD Permits and Mitigation Section). ............. 21
Photograph 4.3.6 Southerly ground level view of Trosclair Road
sand pits in Cameron Parish following Hurricane
Ike. (Photograph courtesy of CMD Permits and
Mitigation Section)................................................. 21
5.0 HYDROLOGICAL STUDY ................................................................................. 22
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 22
5.2 Wave Attenuation due to Cheniers....................................................... 24
5.3 Results and Discussion ........................................................................ 25
6.0 GEOLOGICAL STUDY ...................................................................................... 25
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 25
6.2 Historical Events to Consider ............................................................... 26
227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt i PROVIDENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page No.

Types of Permitted Activities ................................................................ 27
6.3
6.3.1 Dredging ...................................................................................... 27
6.3.2 Levees ...................................................................................... 27
6.3.3 Dikes and Impoundments .......................................................... 28
6.3.4 Subsurface Fluid Withdraw ........................................................ 28
6.4 Effects of Permitted Activities .............................................................. 28
6.4.1 Dredging ...................................................................................... 29
6.4.2 Levees ...................................................................................... 29
6.4.3 Dikes and Impoundments .......................................................... 30
6.4.4 Subsurface Fluid Withdrawal ..................................................... 30
6.5 Studies ................................................................................................... 30
6.6 Results/Discussion ................................................................................ 33
7.0 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES REVIEW ................................................................... 33
7.1 Methodology .......................................................................................... 33
7.2.1 Impacted Cheniers ...................................................................... 35
7.2.2 Project Classifications. ............................................................... 36
7.2.3 State/Local Concerns ................................................................. 36
7.2.4 Permitted Activities..................................................................... 37
8.0 FIELD SURVEYS ............................................................................................... 38
8.1 Methodology .......................................................................................... 38
8.2.1 Accessibility ................................................................................ 39
8.2.2 Site Alterations ............................................................................ 39
8.2.3 Wildlife Species Observed ......................................................... 40
8.2.4 Invasive Plant and Animal Species ........................................... 41
8.2.5 Mapped Soil Types...................................................................... 42
8.2.5.1 Cameron and Vermilion Parishes .............................. 42
8.2.5.2 St. Tammany Parish .................................................... 43
8.2.6 Vegetation .................................................................................... 44
8.2.6.1 Cheniers....................................................................... 44
8.2.6.2 St. Tammany Ridges ................................................... 47
9.0 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ANALYSIS .............................................................. 47
10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 48
10.1 General ................................................................................................... 48
10.2 Biological Factors .................................................................................. 49
10.3 Physical Factors .................................................................................... 50
10.4 Recommendations ................................................................................. 51
11.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 52
227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt ii PROVIDENCE

Tables Within Text

Table 3-1 Federally or state protected species, species guilds, or significant
communities known to exist on or adjacent to cheniers and
natural ridges ........................................................................................... 7
Table 3-2 Species of concern known to occur within cheniers of southwest
Louisiana. ................................................................................................. 8
Table 3-3 Colonial wading bird species with conservation status....................... 9
Table 3-4 Summary data for neotropical migrant songbirds in Louisiana
for the period of 1966 through 2007. .................................................... 10
Table 3-5 Summary data for remnant forests on cheniers and ridges in
southern Louisiana. ............................................................................... 16
Table 4-1 Threats affecting cheniers of southwest Louisiana............................ 17
Table 6-1 Chenier Plain Land Loss by U.S.G.S. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
(Square Miles/Year)................................................................................ 31
Table 6-2 Chenier Plain Land Loss by U.S.G.S. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
(Percent/Year) ........................................................................................ 32
Table 7-1 Number of Permitted Activities by Project Classification on
Cheniers (1980 2008). ......................................................................... 36
Table 8-1 Wildlife species observed on or adjacent to chenier sample
locations during the fieldwork of October 2008. ................................. 41
Table 8-2 Vegetative Species and Frequency by Tree, Shrub, Herb, and
Woody Vine Stratums in the chenier sample locations...................... 45
Table 9-1 Sand pit acreage identified on historic aerial photographs from
1950 through 2007. ................................................................................ 48
FIGURES
Figures Within Text

Figure 3-1 Eastern wood-pewee, a forest-dwelling and neotropical migrant
species, population data for Louisiana................................................ 12
Figure 3-2 Common yellowthroat, a forest-dwelling and neotropical migrant
species, population data for Louisiana................................................ 13
Figure 3-3 Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) Breeding Bird Survey trend
map, 1966 2003 (Sauer et al 2008) ..................................................... 14
Figure 3-4 Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) Breeding Bird Survey
trend map, 1966 2003 (Sauer et al 2008) ........................................... 14
Figure 3-5 Total bird counts (migratory and non-migratory) observed along
Breeding Bird Survey route #106 "Little Chenier, Louisiana. ............ 15
Figure 5-1 Typical aerial view of chenier plain ...................................................... 22
227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt iii PROVIDENCE

Figure 5-2 Changes in wave energy flux reduction on the shoreline when
cross shore and alongshore sea grass bed width increase. ............. 23
Figure 5-3 Schematic profile of mudbank region off the coast of Kerala,
India (Nair 1988) ..................................................................................... 24
FIGURES
Figure
1 Vicinity Map - Cheniers of Southwest Louisiana
2 Location Map - Cheniers of Southwest Louisiana
3a 3d Location Maps With Field Sample Locations
4 Vicinity Map - Select Natural Ridges in St. Tammany Parish
5 Location Map Select Natural Ridges in St. Tammany Parish
5a 5c Location Maps With Field Sample Locations
6a 6d Louisiana Natural Heritage Data Maps
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Explanation of Ranking Categories Employed by Natural Heritage
Programs Nationwide
B Coastal Use Permitting Datasets
C Data Forms and Copies of Sample Location Photographs
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
1 Historical Aerial Photographs - Buck and Hackberry Ridges
2 Historical Aerial Photographs Front Ridge
3 Historical Aerial Photographs Select Ridges of St. Tammany Parish
227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt iv PROVIDENCE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Southwest Louisiana is characterized by extensive coastal marshland interrupted

by numerous forests atop relict beach ridges, or chenier ridges, and natural
ridges or levees. The cheniers of southwest Louisiana and the natural ridges of
southeast Louisiana are unique geological features that are critical components
of the ecology of these areas. They support a diversity of wildlife and, because of
their location along important migration pathways, are especially significant for
migrating birds, as well as providing natural protection against storm surge and
flooding.
Cheniers and natural ridges were formed over thousands of years by the deltaic
processes of the Mississippi River and other streams. The chenier ridges of
southwestern Louisiana run laterally to the modern shoreline and rise above the
surrounding marshes by as little as a few inches or as much as 10 feet (Byrne et
al 1959). These ridges can range from two to 15 feet thick and from 100 to 1,500
feet wide with some ridges extending along the coast for a distance of up to 30
miles. Cheniers were created during the Pleistocene by river sediments being
pushed westward by shoreline currents in the Gulf of Mexico (Gould and
McFarlan 1959). Natural ridges were formed by the repeated overbank flood
sedimentation of rivers in southeast Louisiana (Fisk 1944). Principally, the rivers
involved in creating these natural levees are past distributaries of the Mississippi
River.
Historically, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal

Management Division (LDNR/CMD) has, primarily for non-oil and gas projects,
deferred the regulation of proposed activities on these features to Local Coastal
Parish Programs in Cameron and St. Tammany Parishes. Based on the potential
inherent value of these features, and in light of the damages resulting from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is the CMDs intent to evaluate the necessity to
consider legislative or rule changes to identify uses on these features as State
Concerns.
The Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study was conducted on multiple fronts.
Professional biologists assessed historic and current wildlife usage and
vegetative composition of cheniers and ridges by on-site field evaluations and
review of available literature. A hydrological study was implemented to determine
the efficacy of cheniers and natural ridges in storm surge protection and a
geological study, which evaluated how structural changes in these features may
affect their integrity, was completed. CMD permit records relevant to authorized
activities on cheniers and natural ridges were reviewed and the extent of direct
and indirect impacts associated with individual activities were evaluated.
Additionally, historical and current aerial photography assessment was
undertaken to quantify and qualify feature impacts. The objective of this report is
to address anthropogenic changes that have affected the functions and values of
cheniers and natural ridges in coastal Louisiana.
227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 1 PROVIDENCE

The study areas for cheniers were determined by soil type (Mermentau-
Hackberry) while the study areas for the natural ridges in St. Tammany Parish
were assigned by LDNR/CMD personnel. The study sites are shown on Figures
1 5c.
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
It is imperative to understand the statutory mechanisms by which proposed

coastal uses are evaluated and regulated in the Louisiana Coastal Zone. The
Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) has established specific
guidelines for coastal uses that must be considered in the evaluation of coastal
use permit applications. Ultimately, it is how those guidelines are interpreted and
implemented that determines whether or not a proposed action is in compliance
with the LCRP. In terms of regulatory authority, there is also a distinction
between uses of state and local concerns.
2.1 The Coastal Use Guidelines.
The Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC), Title 43, Chapter 7,

Coastal Management establishes the framework for regulation of
proposed coastal uses in the Louisiana Coastal Zone. The biological and
physiographical importance of cheniers and natural features is recognized
in the LAC and regulatory guidance for proposed activities on these
features appears in select sections. For example, in Guidelines
Applicable to All Uses (701 F.). Information regarding the following
general factors shall be utilized by the permitting authority in evaluating
whether the proposed use is in compliance with the guidelines.
(701 F.12). Proximity to and extent of impacts on important natural

features such as beaches, barrier islands, tidal passes, wildlife and
aquatic habitats and forest lands.
And in Section 701. G. It is the policy of the coastal resource

program to avoid the following adverse impacts. To this end, all
uses and activities shall be planned, sited, designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained to avoid to the maximum extent
practicable significant:
(701. G 5.) Destruction or adverse alterations of streams,

wetlands, tidal passes, inshore waters and waterbottoms, beaches,
dunes, barrier islands, and other natural biologically valuable areas
or protective coastal features.
Subsequent sections of this report describe wildlife functions and values

as well as protective qualities inherent in cheniers and natural ridges.
Though not named specifically in the guidelines referenced above, it is
implicit that cheniers and natural ridges should be considered important

natural features, biologically valuable areas and/or protective coastal

features.
Isolated cheniers and isolated natural ridges are however, mentioned

specifically in the guidelines relevant to proposed surface alterations.
Surface alterations are defined in 700. Definitions as those uses and
activities which change the surface or usability of a land area or water
bottom. Examples include fill deposition, land reclamation, beach
nourishment, dredging (primarily aerial), clearing, draining, surface mining,
construction and operation of transportation, mineral, energy and industrial
facilities, and industrial, commercial and urban developments. In 711. I.
Guidelines for Surface Alterations, it is stated that: Surface alterations
that have high adverse impacts on natural functions shall not occur, to the
maximum extent practicable, on barrier islands and beaches, isolated
cheniers, isolated natural ridges or levees, or in wildlife and aquatic
species breeding or spawning areas in important migratory routes.
It is important to understand the maximum extent practicable modifiers

role in the evaluation process of a proposed coastal use. At 701.H.1
(Guidelines Applicable to All Uses) it states: In those guidelines in
which the modifier maximum extent practicable is used, the proposed
use is in compliance with the guideline if the standard modified by the term
is complied with. If the modified standard is not complied with, the use will
be in compliance with the guideline if the permitting authority finds, after a
systematic consideration of all pertinent information regarding the use, the
site and the impacts of the use as set forth is Subsection F. above, and a
balancing of their relative significance, that the benefits resulting from the
proposed use would clearly outweigh the adverse impacts resulting from
noncompliance with the modified standard and there are no feasible and
practical alternative locations, methods, and practices for the use that in
compliance with the modified standard and:
a. Significant public benefits will result from the use; or

b. The use would serve important regional, state, or national interests,
including the national interest in resources and the siting of facilities
in the coastal zone identified in the coastal resources program, or;
c. The use is coastal water dependent.
To put this in perspective the following example is posed. A sand mining

operation is proposed on a chenier in Cameron Parish which would clearly
result in a significant surface alteration. Since the action may be
interpreted as counter to the surface alterations guidelines as outlined in
the preceding sections, the maximum extent practicable modifier is
invoked and the permitting entity must then determine if the proposed
action would comply with at least one of the three criteria listed above (a-
c) before a permit could be issued or denied.

2.2 State vs. Local Concerns.
Approved Local Coastal Programs, of which there are ten in the Louisiana
Coastal Zone, may, in some cases, be the lead regulatory entity for
various types of proposed coastal uses. According to the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources, CMD website, the 1978 Louisiana
State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act, La. RS. 49:214.21
et seq, authorized the CMDs program and the development, at the parish
level, of local coastal management programs (LCPs). Determination of
whether or not an activity is of state or local concern is codified in the LAC
723. F.3. iii: If a use is not predominately classified as either state or
local by the act or the use overlaps the two classifications, it shall be of
local concern unless it:
a. Is being carried out with state or federal funds;

b. Involves the use or has significant impacts on state or federal
lands, water bottoms, or works;
c. Is mineral or energy development, production or transportation
related;
d. Involves the use of, or has significant impacts, on barrier islands or
beaches or any other shoreline which forms part of the baseline for
Louisianas offshore jurisdiction;
e. Will result in major changes in the quantity or quality of water flow
and circulation or in the salinity or sediment transport regimes; or
f. Has significant interparish or interstate impacts.
3.0 WILDLIFE DIVERSITY
3.1 Typical Habitat of Cheniers and Ridges
Cheniers, named from the French world chene meaning oak, and natural
ridges can be described as a live oak-hackberry forest with live oak
(Quercus virginiana) and hackberry (Celtis laevigata) as the dominant
canopy species. Although this forest type is the typical habitat, some
areas may be woodland (canopy not closed), shrub thicket, or grassland
(Cocks 1907). According to Lester et al (2005), other characteristic
species are honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), swamp red maple (Acer
rubrum var. drummondii), toothache tree (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis),
water oak (Quercus nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and
American elm (Ulmus americana). Subcanopy species include green
hawthorn (Crataegus viridis), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and
deciduous holly (Ilex decidua). Dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor) and prickly
pear cactus (Opuntia spp.) are also common in the understory
(NatureServe 2009, Neyland and Meyer 1997). Chinese tallow tree
(Sapium sebiferum) has become a serious invader of chenier forests, and

can have major impacts on community structure and composition

(Neyland and Meyer 1997).
The natural ridges of St. Tammany Parish are dominated by mixed

hardwood-loblolly pine forest, managed upland pine forest, and managed
pine flatwoods (Lester et al 2005). Mixed hardwood-loblolly pine forests
are dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), American elm (Ulmus americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and water oak (Quercus nigra). Common understory and
herbaceous species include deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), yellow
jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera),
yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Louisiana
blackberry (Rubus spp.).
3.2 Importance to Wildlife
Surrounded by lowland marshes, cheniers and natural ridges create a

mosaic of diverse habitats in close proximity to one another with
evergreen, upland forests adjacent to open freshwater and saltwater
marshes. The cheniers and natural ridges of southern Louisiana are
unique features that provide critical habitat to many species of wildlife.
These forested areas provide habitat, cover, and food sources not
available in adjacent marshes.
3.2.1 Listed Species
At least 14 federally or state monitored species, species guilds, or

significant communities are known to exist on or adjacent to
cheniers and/or natural ridges (G. Lester letter to Providence,
January 21, 2009; USFWS 2003; Table 3-1). Included in this list of
species are two federally protected species. Piping plover
(Charadrius melodus), along with its critical habitat, and red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) are protected by the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although no recorded nests are
present on cheniers or natural ridges at this time, bald eagles
(Halieaeetus leucocephalus) are known to inhabit these areas. Bald
eagles have been delisted from the ESA but are still protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act. Nine of these sensitive biological elements are
considered imperiled to critically imperiled in Louisiana. The
remaining elements of concern are comprised of various species of
plants, birds, sensitive habitats, and a single species of fish. In
addition to those elements described above, there are 11 species
known to inhabit cheniers and/or natural levees not listed on state,
federal, or global lists but are being monitored for potential listing
(Table 3-2).

It is clear that these listed species not only inhabit chenier and
natural levee forests but depend on them for survival (Table 3-1;
Figures 6a 6d). Bald eagle nests and waterbird nesting colonies
are present within or rely upon chenier and natural ridge forests.
Vertical structure, such as trees or shrubs, is required for bird nests
for these species. This type of vertical structure is only found in or
adjacent to forests and not in the nearby marshes. Bald eagles, in
particular, require trees of substantial size to support nests which
may weigh several thousand pounds (del Hoyo et al 1994).
Waterbird nesting colonies include a number of species of herons,
egrets, ibises, and terns as well as anhingas, olivaceous
cormorants, roseate spoonbills, laughing gulls, and black skimmers
(Martin and Lester 1990; Table 3-3). Many of these species,
particularly herons, egrets, ibises, and roseate spoonbills prefer to
nest in large shrubs or trees (Martin and Lester 1990). Primarily
because of habitat degradation, many of these species are in
decline and are listed as birds of conservation concern (USFWS
2002a; Sauer et al 2008).
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW; Picoides borealis) is a bird

of old-growth pine forests and, within the study area, is found only
in federally protected lands in St. Tammany Parish. Its preferred
habitat is stands of pines of at least ten acres, between 60-150
years old (Hovis and Labisky 1985). Mature pine forests have
declined in Louisiana as a result of timbering, housing
developments, and other land-clearing activities; consequently
RCWs have been reduced to small isolated colonies (USFWS
2002b). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages natural ridge
features in Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge specifically for
RCW habitat. In this refuge there are at least 15 active colonies
(USFWS 2003).

Table 3-1
Federally or state protected species, species guilds, or significant communities
known to exist on or adjacent to cheniers and natural ridges
(G. Lester letter to Providence, January 21, 2009; USFWS 2003).
Federal Global No.

Species Scientific Name Rank Rank State Rank State Status Occurrences
Birds
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus LT G3 S2N Threatened/Endangered 1
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis LE G3 S2 Endangered 15
Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus N/A G4 S1B,S2N N/A 2
Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia N/A G5 S1S3B,S3N N/A 1
Plants
Big Sandbur Cenchrus myosuroides N/A G4 S1 N/A 1
Blue Water Lily Nymphaea elegans N/A G4? S2S4 N/A 2
Golden Canna Canna flaccida N/A G4? S4? N/A 2
Gregg's Amaranth Amaranthus greggii N/A G4? S3 N/A 2
Mexican Hat Ratibida peduncularis N/A G4G5 S2S3 N/A 2
Roundleaf Scarf-pea Pediomelum rhombifolium N/A G5 S2S3 N/A 1
Wedge-leaf Prairie-clover Dalea emarginata N/A G5 S2 N/A 1
Fish
Paddlefish Polyodon spathula N/A G4 S3 Prohibited 1
Sensitive Habitats
Migratory Bird Staging/stopover Site N/A N/A GNR SNR N/A 1
Waterbird Nesting Colony N/A N/A GNR SNR N/A 1
Explanation of ranking categories employed by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Programs worldwide in Appendix A.

Table 3-2
Species of concern known to occur within cheniers of southwest Louisiana.
These species are not listed on state, federal, or global lists but are being monitored for potential listing.
This table was adapted from Lester et al (2005).
Species ScientificName GlobalRank StateRank

Birds
AmericanWoodcock Scolopaxminor G5 S1B,S3S5N
FieldSparrow Spizellapusilla G5 S4B,S5N
NorthernParula Parulaamericana G5 S5B
OrchardOriole Icterusspurius G5 S5B
PaintedBunting Passerinaciris G5 S5B
ProthonotaryWarbler Protonotariacitrea G5 S5B
YellowbilledCuckoo Coccyzusamericanus G5 S5B
Mammals
SoutheasternMyotis Myotisaustroriparius G3G4 S4
Reptiles
OrnateBoxTurtle Terrapeneornata G5T5 S1
Butterflies
Celia'sRoadsideSkipper Amblyscirtescelia G4 N/A
FalcateOrangetip Anthocharismidea G4G5 S4?
N/A=notapplicable.Seeattachedexplanationofrankingcategoriesemployedbynaturalheritageprogramsworldwide.
Explanation of ranking categories employed by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Programs worldwide in Appendix A.

Table 3-3
Colonial wading bird species with conservation status.
Data are from Martin and Lester (1990).
Common Name Scientific Name Conservation Status

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga G5, S5B
Black-crowned night heron* Nycticorax nycticorax G5, S5B, S3N
Black skimmer Rynchops niger G5, S5, BCC
Brown pelican* Pelecanus occidentalis G4, S2
Caspian tern* Sterna caspia G5, S1S2B, S3N
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis G5, S5B, S4N
Common tern* Sterna hirundo G5, S1B, S2N
Forster's tern Sterna forsteri G5, S5
Great blue heron Ardea herodias G5, S5B, S5N
Great egret Ardea alba G5, S5B, S4N
Gull-billed tern* Sterna nilotica G5, S2B, S2S3N, BCC
Laughing gull Larus atricilla G5, S5
Least tern Sterna antillarum G4, S4B, BCC
Little blue heron* Egretta caerulea G5, S5B, S3N, BCC
Olivaceous cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus G5, S4
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens G4, S2B, S4N, BCC
Roseate spoonbill* Platalea ajaja G5, S3
Royal tern Sterna maxima G5, S5
Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis G5, S4B
Snowy egret Egretta thula G5, S4B, S5N
Sooty tern* Sterna fuscata G5, S1B
Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor G5, S5B
White ibis Eudocimus albus G5, S5, BCC
White-faced or glossy ibis Plegadis chihi G5, S4
* indicates a species of concern

BCC = bird of conservation concern (USFWS 2002a).
Explanation of ranking categories employed by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Programs
worldwide in Appendix A.
3.2.2 Neotropical Migrant Songbirds
Although many species of concern are known to occur along

cheniers and natural ridges, the greatest wildlife value is to the
many neotropical migrant songbirds that rely on these forests
during migration. The chenier ridges of southwest Louisiana are
uniquely situated to provide a final feeding site for those species
beginning a trans-gulf migratory flight during fall migration or an
initial resting ground for those species returning from a trans-gulf
flight during spring migration (Barrow and Fontenot 2006). Cheniers

are the closest forested areas available to migrants for refueling

and resting before beginning or after ending a journey that may
span a distance less than a few hundred miles or as much as
almost 10,000 miles and with durations of over twenty hours
(Berthold 1993; Barrow and Fontenot 2006). Of the 160 species of
neotropical migrant songbirds in the Western Hemisphere, more
than half utilize Louisiana cheniers at some point during the year
(Barrow and Fontenot 2006). Of those, only a few remain to breed
and the rest are present only during migration.
Many species of neotropical migrant songbirds have experienced a

dramatic decline over the past few decades (Robbins et al 1989;
Sauer et al 2008). Especially at risk are those species in the
eastern United States that use forested habitat in either wintering or
breeding areas (Robbins et al 1989). The North American Breeding
Bird Survey states that 43% of neotropical migrant songbirds show
a significant negative trend in population from 1980 to 2007 (Sauer
et al 2008). In Louisiana, 18% of neotropical migrant songbirds
show a significant negative trend over the period from 1966 to 2007
while only 5% show a significant positive trend during that same
time (Table 3-4).
Table 3-4
Summary data for neotropical migrant songbirds in
Louisiana for the period of 1966 through 2007.
Data are from Sauer et al (2008).
Summary Data for
1966 - 1979 1980 - 2007 1966 - 2007
Neotropical Migrants in Louisiana
Number of species encountered on more
23 38 39
than 14 routes
Proportion of species with significant
0.22 0.21 0.18
negative trends
Proportion of species with significant positive
0.13 0.03 0.05
trends
Prior mean trend -1.01 -1.00 -0.85
Prior variance 66.879 3.662 1.144
The decline of neotropical migrant songbirds has prompted much

research that has focused on the causes of these declines and
whether the limiting factors affecting populations are at breeding
grounds or wintering grounds. A relatively new area of research is
focusing on those areas songbirds use along migratory routes.
These areas that are used by songbirds for refueling and rest
during migration are often referred to as stopover sites.
Although stopover sites are only used for a brief time during
migration, they have proven to be critical to the survivorship and
perpetuation of a population (Finch 1991; Sillett and Holmes 2002;

Yong and Finch 2002). In fact, a recent study indicates that 85%
of annual mortality of a long-distance migrant species occurs
during migration rather than at breeding or wintering grounds
(Sillett and Holmes 2002). This same study also found that
mortality rates are fifteen times higher for songbirds during
migration than at other times during their annual life cycle. At the
beginning of their journey, migrants do not have all of the fat
reserves needed to fuel the entire flight; therefore, they must
periodically interrupt migration to forage and rebuild depleted fat
stores. Suitable stopover sites must provide adequate protection
from predators as well as an ample food supply to allow migrants
to replenish fat reserves rapidly. The availability of suitable
stopover sites may pose a serious constraint to the conservation
of migratory species, especially those that have shown declining
populations.
Two specific examples of neotropical migrant songbirds that are

dependent upon cheniers and natural ridges are the Eastern
wood-pewee (Contopus virens) and the common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas). The Eastern wood-pewee is a conspicuous
inhabitant of eastern deciduous forests and the common
yellowthroat prefers dense thickets adjacent to water (Alsop
2001). Both are indicator species of the current status of
neotropical migrant songbirds. Bird count data from Louisiana
show that these species, like other migrant species of Louisiana,
are on the decline (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). These data show that
Eastern wood-pewees and common yellowthroats are declining in
Louisiana at rates of greater than 5% and 16% per year,
respectively. Further, these two species are declining throughout
their range and not just within localized areas (Figures 3-3 and 3-
4). Likely causes for decline in these species are habitat
degradation and loss, disturbance, and cowbird parasitism (Alsop
2001). In contrast, total bird counts at Little Chenier (including both
migratory and non-migratory) have remained relatively stable over
the last two decades (Figure 3-5). This suggests that while
migratory bird numbers are declining, non-migratory bird numbers
may be on the rise.

Figure 3-1
Eastern wood-pewee, a forest-dwelling and neotropical
migrant species, population data for Louisiana.
Count is number of birds per survey route. Sauer et al (2008).

Figure 3-2
Common yellowthroat, a forest-dwelling and neotropical migrant species,
population data for Louisiana.
Count is number of birds per survey route. Data are from Sauer et al (2008).

Figure 3-3
Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens)
Breeding Bird Survey trend map, 1966 2003 (Sauer et al 2008).
Figure 3-4
Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
Breeding Bird Survey trend map, 1966 2003 (Sauer et al 2008).

Figure 3-5
Total bird counts (migratory and non-migratory) observed along Breeding Bird
Survey route #106 "Little Chenier, Louisiana." Count is number of birds per
survey route. Data are from Sauer et al (2008).
3.2.3 Diversity Indices
Although little research has been conducted specifically on

cheniers and ridges, these areas have been shown to be relatively
diverse. Studies have shown that basal area (m2/ha) ranges from
29.0 to 41.0 and overstory density (stems/ha) from 358.5 to 459.0
(Table 3-5). For reference, bald cypress-water tupelo swamps have
densities at or near 1,235 stems/ha and basal area at 56.2 m2/ha
(Conner and Day 1976).

Table 3-5
Summary data for remnant forests on cheniers
and ridges in southern Louisiana.
Basal Area Overstory Density Species Diversity Species Richness
(m2/ha) (stems/ha) (Simpson's Index) (#/plot)
30.5a 358.5a 0.587-1.173a 8-14a
36.8c 415.5c 0.274-0.824b 7-11b
29.0d 423.0f - -
e f
30.0 459.0 - -
f
32.1 - - -
f
41.1 - - -
Studies: White & Skojac 2002, Neyland & Meyer 1997, Robertson et al 1978, dMarks and
a b c
Harcombe 1981, eHeld and Winstead 1975, fBrown and Peterson 1983.
Chenier forests may be lower in species richness and diversity than

natural ridge forests (Neyland and Meyer 1997; White and Skojac
2002). However, Neyland and Meyer attributed the low species
diversity at several plots on chenier ridges to the high number of
the invasive Chinese tallow tree. In this study, 85% of individuals at
some plots were Chinese tallow tree.
4.0 ALTERATIONS IN HABITAT DIVERSITY
The remnant forests present on cheniers coastal live oak-hackberry forest

are ranked by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program as imperiled or critically
imperiled because of the factors making them vulnerable to extirpation (LNHP
letter to Providence, January 21). Cheniers have been greatly impacted because
these features are slightly above the level of the surrounding marsh and are the
only inhabitable land for the people of these areas. As a result, many of the
cheniers have been cleared of vegetation for home sites, linear transportation
projects, and commercial properties or have been drastically altered by livestock
grazing or commercial mining operations (Table 4-1; Waldo 1963; Barrow and
Fontenot 2006). Specific alterations are discussed more fully in Section 8.0.
Additionally, these forests are at risk from colonization by invasive species and
shoreline erosion.

Table 4-1
Threats affecting cheniers of southwest Louisiana.
This table was adapted from Lester et al 2005.
Threat
Altered Habitat Habitat Habitat
Source of Threat
Composition/ Destruction Disturbance Fragmentation
Structure
Linear utilities X
Livestock grazing X X
Invasive species X
Mining practices X
Residential
X X X
development
Shoreline erosion X
4.1 Anthropogenic Alterations
It appears that the greatest modifications to cheniers and ridges have

come from anthropogenic influences. Estimates of the historical extent of
chenier forests range from 100,000 to 500,000 acres with only 2,000 to
10,000 acres, or 2 to 10%, remaining (Smith 1993 as cited in Lester et al
2005). But this is difficult to approximate because the chenier ridges have
likely experienced anthropogenic modification throughout their existence.
The oldest of the cheniers is 3,300 years old (Gould and McFarlan 1959)
but prehistoric Native Americans first inhabited Louisiana some 12,000
years ago (Kniffen 1968) with European settlement occurring around 1825
(Midkiff et al 1995). Considering this, it is probable that chenier forests
may have never existed in a pristine state because they may have always
been subject to the effects of human activity.
Because of their elevation, many cheniers and ridges have been

converted to roadways, home sites, or commercial properties. Although no
estimate is available, an assessment of topographic maps and aerial
photographs show that almost all roads in these areas have been
constructed atop cheniers or ridges. Home sites and other developments
are subsequently constructed adjacent to roads. These activities have
fragmented, disturbed, and destroyed large portions of remnant forests
(Lester et al 2005).
Livestock grazing is a primary land use for cheniers and ridges. As much
as 95% of all remnant forests are used for livestock grazing (Barrow and
Fontenot 2006). This land use may not destroy habitat but, through
disturbance of native vegetation, does alter the species composition and
structure (Lester et al 2005). Disturbance of vegetation by cattle promotes

semi-open canopies in forests and inhibits colonization of open areas by

woody species. Disturbances of this nature also allow for invasion by
exotic species (Neyland and Meyer 1997).
4.2 Exotic Species Influence
Several exotic species have colonized cheniers and ridges including

osage orange (Maclura pomifera), trifoliate orange (poncirus trifoliata), and
others. But none have been as successful as Chinese tallow tree (Sapium
sebiferum; Neyland and Meyer 1997). Chinese tallow tree has been
shown to quickly establish recently disturbed areas (Neyland and Meyer
1997) and outgrow native bottomland species once established (Jones
and McLeod 1989). Invasion by this species on cheniers has been shown
to significantly reduce species diversity and alter community structure and
species composition (Neyland and Meyer 1997). However, citing the
ability of Chinese tallow tree to displace native grasslands and create new
habitat for native woody species, Neyland and Meyer (1997) suggest
Chinese tallow tree may actually increase the extent of chenier forests into
the surrounding marshes.
4.3 Commercial Sand Mining
One of the most striking alterations to cheniers, in terms of habitat, has

been the excavation of open pit sand and silt mining operations. The two
types of soils that occur on cheniers, Hackberry and Mermentau, have
much higher sand and silt content than the clayey soils of the surrounding
marshes (Midkiff et al 1995). It has become profitable to excavate these
soils to sell for fill material and, as a result, there are multiple open pit
mining operations on existing cheniers. Open pit mining operations involve
excavation of existing cheniers to a depth deeper than the surrounding
marshes. After completion of operations, mining sites are essentially
converted to open water (Photographs 4.3.1 4.3.6). All forested habitat
is cleared and, once underwater, has little potential for regeneration. The
original wildlife habitat for neotropical songbirds, colonial wading birds,
and other forest-dependent wildlife is converted to aquatic habitat that is
typically disconnected from other waterbodies. Further, the loss in
elevation may allow a conduit for storm and tidal surges.

Photograph 4.3.1
Northerly aerial view of a sand pit in Cameron Parish
taken after Hurricane Ike. Note section of washed-out highway.
(Photograph courtesy of CMD Permits and Mitigation Section).
Photograph 4.3.2
Northerly aerial view of sand mining pit on Grand Chenier
taken after Hurricane Ike

Photograph 4.3.3
Ground level view of sand pit adjacent to LA Highway 82
in Cameron Parish following Hurricane Ike.
Photograph 4.3.4
Easterly ground level view of Trosclair Road sand pits in
Cameron Parish following Hurricane Ike.

Photograph 4.3.5
Aerial view of sand mining pit on Grand Chenier taken after Hurricane Ike.
Photograph 4.3.6
Southerly ground level view of Trosclair Road sand pits
in Cameron Parish following Hurricane Ike.

5.0 HYDROLOGICAL STUDY
5.1 Introduction
A chenier is a beach ridge, usually composed of sand-sized material

resting on clay or mud. These are the former beaches that, through the
activities of nature, have become isolated from the mainland by strips of
marshes (Figure 5-1). A chenier plain is characterized by shallow-based,
perched sandy ridges, which rest on clay along a marshy or swampy,
seaward facing tidal shore, with other beach ridges stranded in the marsh
behind (Augustinus 1980). They are formed when the fine sand, eroded
from the up-shore, is deposited. These land features are believed to
attenuate storm surge and wave heights by providing the first line of
defense for protection from storm surges during hurricanes and tropical
storms. The degree that storm surges and wind waves are attenuated
over these land forms is critical to flood protection for coastal areas, as
well as to problems associated with erosion and development of coastal
wetlands.
Figure 5-1
Typical aerial view of chenier plain
A considerable amount of work has been conducted regarding the role of

natural structures for mitigating wave fields for coastal Louisiana. This
report is based on a comprehensive search of existing literature and
modeling efforts. The results and findings of these efforts are summarized

and documented to demonstrate the sea-defense value of such land

features. The examples of some experiments conducted are explained
below.
Shih-Nan et al (2007) ran the model NearCoM to study the effect of sea
grass bed geometry in wave attenuation and sediment transportation.
Their model scenarios included three, flat bottom cases with three
different bed geometries. The first scenario included cross-shore bed
widths from 0 to 700m with intervals of 50m, and the second used a cross-
shore bed width of 100m. The along-shore bed length of the first scenario
is full, while in the second it is 300 m to full, with 300m intervals. These
cases examined the effect of bed width and alongshore extents on
reduction of the wave energy. Figure 5-2 shows a graphical result of the
experiment.
Figure 5-2
Changes in wave energy flux reduction on the shoreline
when cross shore and alongshore sea grass bed width increase.
From the results, it can be seen that larger sea grass bed width in the
direction of wave propagation resulted in higher wave attenuation, and
relative wave attenuation increased as the incoming wave height
increased. The wave energy dissipation rate is proportional to the product
of stress and wave orbital velocity for rough turbulent flow. They found that
increasing the length of sea grass bed alongshore results in a linear
reduction of wave energy flux at the shoreline. It is seen that the total

bottom stress reduction increased linearly with the offshore distance of the
bed.
5.2 Wave Attenuation due to Cheniers
A chenier is formed when the mud or sand particles transported by wave

currents are deposited near coastal areas. The particles that are carried
by the water current are deposited according to the particle weight; i.e. the
heavy particles such as sand and debris settle much faster and near the
coastal areas while fine particles move farther and take more time to
settle. Cheniers are composed primarily of sand and debris but sometimes
contain shells and shell fragments. These materials are carried by the sea
current towards the coastal area and are deposited.
Several studies have been done to show how energy dissipates when
waves move over a muddy surface. A study done by U.S Army Corps of
Engineers Waterway Experiment Station (1994) observed that when water
moves over a muddy surface bottom, mud responds by oscillating at the
frequency of the forcing wave. Due to higher viscosity, the oscillations
attenuate much more rapidly with depth (Figure 5-3). A high rate of
energy dissipation within the mud causes the surface wave height to
decrease rapidly with onshore distance. Mud oscillation occurs primarily
as a result of wave-induced pressure within the body of the material.
Figure 5-3
Schematic profile of mudbank region off the coast of Kerala, India (Nair 1988)
The study performed by Sheremet et al (2004) supports the theory that

energy dissipates when a wave moves through a muddy surface. This
experiment supports the hypothesis that sediment reworking is strongly
related to wave dissipation in all the frequency bands. According to their

observation, the re-suspension and settling of sediment suggests that

dissipation is strongly correlated to the formation of a high-density layer,
likely due to sediment settling during the waning phase of a storm. As a
storm approaches, near-shore currents and long waves traveling ahead of
the approaching storm create the bottom turbulence necessary to
resuspend and advect bed sediment. During the storm, sediment is mixed
throughout the water column. In the waning phase, sediment settling
increases flow viscosity near the bottom, which in turn accelerates settling
by suppressing turbulence and therefore resuspension. As the water
becomes viscous, mud layers act as a mediator of energy transfer from
surface waves to the soft muddy bottom, modifying the spectral energy
balance and wave propagation processes in nontrivial ways.
5.3 Results and Discussion
Cheniers and natural ridges, combined with reefs and marshes, appear to
reduce the wave and surge fields and provide protection via attenuation of
storm surge and wave heights. Loss of such land forms due to increased
erosion in Louisianas coasts has resulted in transformation from low to
higher energy marine environments, which significantly impact the future
coastal restoration efforts in Louisiana.
The attenuation of storm surges and waves are significantly greater over
vegetated surfaces. The reduction in the wave height and velocity
resulting from the presence of cheniers and natural ridges and vegetated
surfaces will also induce deposition of sediments in marshes. Deposition
of such sediments will largely depend on synergistic interactions of
hydrodynamics and the marsh morphology.
There is a significant impact from land forms and vegetated surfaces on

waves and storm surge attenuation, which can result in flood protection in
coastal areas. A comprehensive coastal management plan will depend
highly on proper management of hydrodynamics, vegetation surfaces,
sedimentation, etc. in coastal zones.
Studies have been done regarding the deposition and the formation of the
chenier, but few studies have addressed the wave attenuation over
cheniers and natural ridges. Experimental models are needed to explain
the extent of the impact by the cheniers and natural ridges during storm
surges.
6.0 GEOLOGICAL STUDY
6.1 Introduction
As part of the overall study, a literature review was conducted to

compare geological changes due to permitted activities and to compare
how structural changes (due to permitted activities) may affect chenier

and natural ridge feature integrity. Though a thorough review of the

literature was conducted, there are few geological studies specific to
cheniers and natural ridge features. Therefore, a system-wide review,
which included evaluation of anthropogenic actions and land loss data
across the chenier plain was initiated, in a holistic approach, in an
attempt to gauge anthropogenic alterations of natural features.
The Louisiana Chenier Plain has been formed over the past 7,000 years
as a result of the shifting of the Mississippi River delta lobes. Cheniers
are wave-built ridges deposited on an alluvial plain. A chenier has
alternating mudflats, marsh, and long, narrow, coast-parallel, sandy
ridges with oak dominated forest. The cheniers were formed as
sediments were transported down the Mississippi and Atchafalaya delta
lobes and into the Gulf of Mexico. Upon entering the gulf, currents carried
the sediments through longshore drift and deposited the coarse
sediments along the coasts. Through erosive cycles associated with
delta shifting, the sediment eventually became isolated ridges along the
shoreline. These barriers have served as a natural defense to episodes
of high tidal influx, mostly associated with major storm events.
This portion of the study is intended to document changes to the cheniers

as a result of anthropogenic influences in the study region. Specifically,
the focus is on whether or not permitted activities have impacted or
accelerated the degradation of the cheniers and natural ridges, or are
observed land loss rates a result of natural erosion and subsidence
within the study area.
6.2 Historical Events to Consider
To understand the effects of permitted activities on cheniers and natural

ridges, it is important to understand the major historical events within and
around the Mississippi River Delta over the last century where accurate
measurements and land loss estimates are available. With the passage of
the 1928 Flood Control Act by the United States Congress, the federal
government assumed responsibility for managing the entire Mississippi
River system. Starting in the 1930s, modernized levees along the
Mississippi River were constructed for navigation and flood control. Prior
to the 1950s, deforestation and farming practices resulted in a twofold
increase in sediment load to coastal systems prior to dam and reservoir
construction on the Arkansas and Missouri Rivers. However, as levees
were completed, suspended sediments in the Mississippi River were
deposited on the river floor and additional sediment was not available from
the previously unimpeded natural processes of a meandering river
system. Thus, starting around 1952, the Mississippi River started to show
significant decline of suspended sediment concentrations along the
Mississippi Delta Lobe.

Beginning around the same time (1952) and up until around 1973,
significant canal dredging for oil and gas exploration was prevalent in the
Louisiana Coastal Zone. The result of canal construction was an
immediate impact to wetlands and nearshore habitats. In 1980, the
Coastal Use Permit program was implemented and the LDNR/CMD began
keeping records of dredging within the coastal zone.
The result of dredged canals and a decline in sediment load being

delivered to the Mississippi Delta Lobe started showing its effects along
the coastal zone. Scientific studies were undertaken to understand these
impacts along with naturally occurring geological processes such as
subsidence.
Over the past four decades, land loss has been well documented. A
number of naturally occurring geological processes such as subsidence,
erosion, as well as delta progradation and retrogradation are responsible
for certain types of land loss. In addition, anthropogenic effects must also
be evaluated to determine if man-made effects are contributing to the land
loss and deterioration of cheniers and natural ridges.
6.3 Types of Permitted Activities
Permitted activities associated with dredging, canal construction, the

installation of levees, dikes and impoundments as well as subsurface fluid
withdrawal were evaluated. Permitting agencies such as the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the LDNR, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ), as well as local parish coastal entities and
levee boards have overseen permitted activities in coastal Louisiana.
6.3.1 Dredging
According to the Louisiana State University Center for Wetland

Research, approximately 50% of the USACE permits for dredging
in Louisiana are within the coastal zone. This dredging has placed
significant stress on the wetlands in Louisiana. Dredging of canals
for oil recovery, navigation, and other activities densely interlace
the Louisiana coastal zone. As a result of the dredging activities, a
50% reduction of suspended sediment load in the Mississippi River
has been measured. The significant decrease in suspended
sediment has resulted in a decrease of available sediment for
deposition in the nearshore marshes, wetlands, and delta lobes.
6.3.2 Levees
In addition to permitted dredging activities, levees have also played

a substantial role in land loss along the coastal zone. Since
passage of the 1928 Flood Control Act, modernized levees were
built by the United States Army Corps of Engineers along the

Mississippi River. In many areas, the levees are made of concrete

placed along the river to minimize erosion. Significant development
of population centers and ports along the Mississippi River led to
the need to control the rivers and impede their natural meandering
tendencies. Although these efforts have been successful to this
point in keeping the rivers paths in control, unintended
consequences such as land loss downstream and the need for
upstream dredging have resulted.
6.3.3 Dikes and Impoundments
Dikes and impoundments are another type of permitted activity to

be studied when observing deterioration of the wetlands and
chenier plains. Dikes have been utilized for tidal control to
manipulate salt marsh habitats. Habitats behind the constructed
dikes have shown rapid degradation over time due to the
elimination or reduction in tidal flushing. As a result, sediment
accretion rates are decreased behind the constructed dikes. Marsh
impoundments were constructed for wildlife management as well as
saltwater intrusion control. According to Kennish (2001),
approximately 10% of Louisianas coastal wetlands consists of
impoundments. Levees are typically constructed along the
perimeters of the marsh impoundments, thus isolating the
impoundment from the natural habitat and hydrologic processes.
6.3.4 Subsurface Fluid Withdraw
The Louisiana coast has an abundance of oil and natural gas. As

previously discussed, oil and gas exploration has impacted land
loss rates through the dredging of navigational canals. However,
another impact from oil and gas exploration is the subsidence
caused by the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. As a result of the
subsurface fluid withdrawal, voids are formed in the geological
formations. Naturally, re-compaction of the formation occurs and
leads to subsidence of the surface soils within the regions.
6.4 Effects of Permitted Activities
Numerous scientific studies have been conducted to determine the effects

of permitted activities on land loss in the coastal zone. In this review,
studies by the U.S. Geological Service (2004), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (1990; 1992), M.J. Kennish (2001), R.A. McBride (2006), R.E.
Turner (1997), and N.J. Craig et al (1979) are discussed. These reports
studied land loss causes, coastal morphodynamics, anthropogenic effects,
and land loss rates. Kennish (2001) suggested that 30%-59% of observed
wetland losses occurred from 1955-1978 due to direct and indirect human
impacts.

6.4.1 Dredging
Dredging has caused a substantial amount of land loss in

Louisiana. Dredging directly converts wetland to open water or
upland habitats. In addition, indirect wetland loss from spoil
deposition is well documented as these areas now have a change
in water levels, elevations, and species composition. Spoil banks
lessen overbank flooding and sediment deposits to the marshes.
While dredging causes direct land loss, unintended consequences
have also been observed. For example, the series of canals has
allowed a direct migration pathway for saltwater intrusion into the
wetlands. As a result, indirect loss has been prevalent through
changes in hydrology, saltwater intrusion, and acceleration of
marsh deterioration. Changes in habitat have also made the
remaining land extremely susceptible to accelerated erosion as
vegetation has become sparse, making the granular soils more
easily placed into suspension during high water episodes.
As a result of natural erosion along the man-made canals, widening

over time from usage has been observed. Evident canal widening is
affecting the Chenier Plain and is well documented through aerial
photographs, surveys, and scientific studies. Annual increase of
canal width ranges from 2 to 14% per year for a doubling time of 5-
60 years.
6.4.2 Levees
Since the building of the levee systems starting in the 1930s, the
effects of the levees have been observed. Levees alter the
hydrology of wetland systems. In addition, the levees interfere with
normal tidal flooding and drainage. The major impact from levees is
the decreased sediment supply to the marsh surface. The decrease
in sediment supply has resulted in accretion deficits of 0.41 to 0.81
centimeters per year in many areas of Mississippi River Delta
(Kennish 2001). Thus, sediment that does travel to the delta
regions get directly deposited into deep waters on the continental
shelf edge.
Studies have been conducted to measure suspended sediment

loads in the lower Mississippi River. Estimates from the early
1900s (prior to significant man-made structures and impacts) show
suspended sediment at approximately 380 x 106 tons (Kennish
2001). By 1950 to early 1960 (post levee construction), the load
had decreased to approximately 240 x 106 tons. Then, between
1963 and 1982 (canalization of coastal Louisiana), a 50% reduction
in sediment load was measured (Kennish 2001).

6.4.3 Dikes and Impoundments
As previously discussed dikes and impoundments have been

constructed for tidal/saltwater intrusion control and wildlife
management. Although these structures in many cases have
performed the intended job, they have also adversely impacted the
ecosystem. These structures have, in some cases, lowered salinity.
The reduced salinity is a result of a reduction in tidal flushing due to
the berms and levees constructed. The result in changes in salinity
has other effects such as changes in water quality, changes in
floral/faunal communities to brackish and marsh flora and fauna. As
a result, organic matter production is shown to vary, causing a
change in sediment accretion rates.
6.4.4 Subsurface Fluid Withdrawal
Subsurface fluid withdrawal whether oil, gas, or groundwater, has

resulted in rapid subsidence. This effect has been documented
along many coastal zones from the southeastern Atlantic Coast,
upper Texas Coast, the west coast along California, as well as
coastal Louisiana. According to Kennish (2001), oil and gas
withdrawal along the Louisiana coast has been shown to result in
subsidence between 2 to 80 centimeters per year. The withdrawal
and subsequent subsidence can also trigger faults and compound
subsidence in areas.
6.5 Studies
A significant number of scientific studies have been documented for land

loss along the Louisiana Coastal Zone. The USACE has a series of
reports on land loss rates within the Louisiana Coastal Plain and Louisiana
Chenier Plain. In addition, studies from the Louisiana State University
Coastal Ecology Institute (Turner, 1997), Louisiana State University
Center for Wetlands Resources (Craig, 1979), Rutgers University Institute
of Marine and Coastal Sciences (Kennish, 2001), the United States
Geological Survey (Morton et al 2004), and George Mason University
Applied Coastal Research and Engineering Department (McBride, 2006)
were reviewed for information on the Louisiana Chenier Plain and coastal
ridges. The USACE (1990) Louisiana Chenier Plain study focused on
mapping from four vintage aerial photographs. The study measured and
calculated land loss areas from base maps. This allowed the USACE to
determine land loss and classification.
Results of the USACE study determined land loss rates along the
Louisiana Chenier Plain for four distinct time periods: 1930-1958, 1956-
1974, 1974-1983, and 1983-1990 (Tables 6-1 and 6-2). In general, land
loss rates were the highest in Time Period 2 (1956-1974) and the lowest in
Time Period 1 (1932-1958). The USACE was able to produce a Chenier

Plain composite land loss rate curve. This curve showed the highest land
loss rates in approximately 1966 at a rate of 13.86 square miles per year.
Subsequently, the curve shows a decreasing land loss rate until 1983 with
a Chenier Plain land loss rate 7.74 square miles per year.
Additionally, the USACE evaluated land loss rates within 12 U.S.G.S. 7.5-
Minute Quadrangles of the Chenier Plain. The study showed variable land
loss rates. Of the twelve quadrangles, two showed an increase (>10%
change from the prior period) in land loss rates, three showed constant
(<10% change) land loss rates, and seven showed decreasing land loss
rate. The USACE also concluded that a significant portion of land loss was
due to man-made factors.
A 1998 study by Bryant and Chabreck investigated vertical accretion of

impounded salt marsh. The study involved four sites in the Chenier Plain
and assessed the effects of impoundment levees on sediment delivery.
The study found lower marsh surface elevation in the impoundment marsh
habitat than in surrounding natural marshes. In fact, in 1994 impounded
marsh elevations were 20-30 centimeters lower than natural marsh
elevations. This change in elevation was determined to be a result of
vertical marsh accretion rates. The study concluded that along Louisiana
Coast, accretion rates were approximately 0.6 to 0.8 centimeters per year
versus submergence rates 1-3 cm/yr.
Table 6-1
Chenier Plain Land Loss by U.S.G.S. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
(Square Miles/Year)
Average Loss mi2/Year
Time period Time period Time period Time period
Quadrangle
1 2 3 4
1930's - 1956-58 1956-58 - 1974 1974 - 1983 1983 - 1990
Johnnsons Bayou 0.09 3.12 1.02 0.3
Sulphur 0.05 1.82 0.4 0.28
Cameron 0.08 2.47 0.6 0.25
Sweet Lake 0.13 1.8 0.84 0.68
Grand Lake West 0.05 1.12 1.3 0.44
Hog Bayou 0.54 0.72 0.15 0.56
Grand Lake East 0.29 0.41 1.54 0.62
Constance Bayou 0.64 0.82 0.5 0.59
Forked Island 0.01 0.15 0.14 0.27
Pecan Island 0.06 0.79 0.75 0.62
Abbeville 0.07 0.23 0.24 0.43
Cheniere Au Tigre 0.08 0.36 0.13 0.32
Time Period Average 0.17 1.15 0.63 0.45

Table 6-2
Chenier Plain Land Loss by U.S.G.S. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
(Percent/Year)
Average % Loss/Year
Time period Time period Time period Time period
Quadrangle
1 2 3 4
1930's - 1956-58 1956-58 - 1974 1974 - 1983 1983 - 1990
Johnnsons Bayou 0.04 1.23 0.53 0.16
Sulphur 0.02 0.78 0.2 0.14
Cameron 0.05 1.55 0.53 0.23
Sweet Lake 0.05 0.77 0.42 0.35
Grand Lake West 0.02 0.53 0.68 0.23
Hog Bayou 0.66 1.04 0.27 1.04
Grand Lake East 0.16 0.24 0.95 0.41
Constance Bayou 0.43 0.62 0.43 0.52
Forked Island 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.22
Pecan Island 0.03 0.44 0.47 0.4
Abbeville 0.08 0.25 0.27 0.5
Cheniere Au Tigre 0.08 0.38 0.15 0.37
Time Period Average 0.14 0.66 0.42 0.38
The tables above illustrate the changes in land loss rates over time
periods that can be tied to anthropogenic activities. For instance, in Time
Period 1, major construction efforts for the levee systems were underway.
Time Period 1 showed the least amount of land loss rates within the study.
Within this time period, sediment load within the Mississippi River was
increased twofold due to deforestation and farming practices. Time Period
2 showed the most significant land loss rates over the study period. During
this time period, activities such as dredging, canal construction for oil and
gas exploration as well as building structures for tidal control were
unpermitted and major factors in the coastal zone of Louisiana. At the end
of Time Period 3, the Coastal Use Permit program was implemented. In
most of the quadrangles studied, significant reductions in land loss were
observed during this time period, even though the Coastal Use Permit
program was only in effect for a small portion of the time period. During
Time Period 4, further reduction in land loss rates was observed. These
land loss rate declines can be credited to better management and decision
making processes for permitted activities. Although land loss rates are still
higher in Time Period 4 than Time Period 1, loss of sediment load
accounts for approximately half of the difference observed between the
two time periods. The remaining increase between the two time periods is
a direct result of subsidence, inertia developed in the deterioration of the
chenier plains, and man-made impacts.

6.6 Results/Discussion
The Louisiana coastal zone is a complex environment with a number of

factors affecting its geomorphology. Regional subsidence of the area has
caused significant land loss in the coastal zone. Clearly, man has also
impacted the region in a number of ways including dredging, building of
control structures such as levees and dikes, and building of navigational
canals. These man-made structures have escalated land loss rates due to
a number of unintended consequences. These consequences include a
reduction in suspended load being carried to the coastal zone, saltwater
intrusion into previous freshwater environments, changes in habitat,
reduction in flora that has led to an increase in erosion during high-tide
events, and isolation of areas from tidal flushing that has led to a decrease
in sediment accretion rates. These impacts have built upon each other
and have accelerated the land loss rates more significantly than originally
anticipated.
The impacts of man in conjunction with natural geological processes have

been well documented. However, as has been shown through the studies,
proper permitting appears to have had a substantial positive impact and
slowed land loss rates as compared to pre-permitted periods. Indeed, as
shown during the hurricane season of 2005, the chenier plain and natural
ridges are a vital barrier required for the protection of the coastal zone.
Through the use of proper permitting and an understanding of impacts not

only to the local but regional environment as well, the degradation of the
cheniers and natural ridges can be managed. In fact, given enough
emphasis, the cheniers and natural ridges could perhaps be revitalized if
permitting decisions and the potential impacts were studied through a
central clearinghouse.
7.0 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES REVIEW
7.1 Methodology
Permitting records relevant to activities on cheniers and selected natural

ridges in Cameron, Vermilion, and St. Tammany Parishes from the LDNR
Strategic Online Natural Resources Information Service (SONRIS)
database were reviewed. Coastal Use Permits (CUPs) that were on, or
immediately adjacent to cheniers (Cameron and Vermilion Parishes) or
natural ridges (St. Tammany Parish, as identified by LDNR personnel,)
were identified and the information entered on spreadsheets. It should be
noted that two of these ridges are within Fountainbleau State Park and the
Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge and therefore, have few permit
records for these areas.
The SONRIS database is a dynamic system that changes continuously as

new permit applications are received. Data records captured for this report

are from the inception of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program in

1980 through the week of October 6, 2008. The dataset from permitting
records research includes the following parameters:
CUP#. Coastal Use Permit Number. Sequential numbers,

beginning in 1980, that are assigned permit applications upon
receipt by LDNR/CMD.
Concern. Whether or not a project was considered a state or local

concern. Cameron Parishs Local Program was approved June 22,
1987, as per identified in the Local Coastal Resources
Management Act (SLCRMA) of 1978, Act 361 of 1978 as
amended. R.S. 49:214.21-49:214.42. Therefore, all projects prior
to 1988 were considered state concerns. St. Tammany Parishs
Local Coastal Program was approved on June 18, 1992. Vermilion
Parish does not currently have an approved local coastal program
and therefore all data collected for Vermilion Parish reflect uses of
state concern.
Coordinates in Latitude/Longitude. The coordinates of the

project center(s), or for linear features, points-of-beginning and
points-of-ending.
Permit applicant. The entity applying for a Coastal Use Permit.

This entity is ultimately responsible for the terms and conditions of
the issued permit.
Project description. Short statement describing the permitted

action e.g., cattle walk, drilling rig. Note that some of the early
CUPs do not have descriptions in the SONRIS database and some
of the descriptions entered in the early years are incomplete.
Impacts. Extent of surface impacts, expressed in acres, resulting

from the project. Up until around 1997, impacts documented in
acreage were not captured in the database. In these instances,
cubic yardage of material, either excavation or fill, are noted.
Volumetric rather than area measurements make quantifying
ground disturbance on cheniers difficult.
Habitat type (Cowardin Classification). Classification habitat as

per Cowardin, L. M. et al (1979). Classification of Deepwater
Habitats in the Unites States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is
the standard habitat classification used by LDNR/CMD. Please note
that habitat classification was not documented in Cameron Parish
until 1995 and not until 1997 for projects in Vermilion Parish. St.
Tammany Parish habitat classification data entries began in 1999.

Ridge. Chenier name as mapped on U.S. Geological Service 7.5-

minute quadrangle maps. (Vermilion and Cameron Parishes only).
Data regarding the above-described parameters are included as

Appendix B. The quality of the data for permitted coastal activities on the
SONRIS database has evolved over the life of the LCRP and is, most
notably in the early years, incomplete. For example, impact descriptions
were, until around 1997, limited to volume of excavated and/or fill material
instead of acreage. Habitat classifications do not appear in the database
for Cameron Parish until around 1997. Habitat classifications documented
in the database for Vermilion Parish are limited as well. Limited
information on the aerial extent of impacts makes it difficult to quantify
direct impacts to cheniers and adjacent areas. Lack of habitat data also
makes quantifying and qualifying direct impacts to these features difficult.
The advent of on-line permit application submittal through SONRIS has,
however greatly improved the quality of permitting data.
7.2.1 Impacted Cheniers
Twenty-two mapped ridge systems whereupon permitted activities

have occurred are identified on 2007 aerial photographs (Figures
3a 3d). There has also been permitted activity on unnamed
ridges as well. These named ridge features, along with the total
number of permitted activities in parentheses include:
Cameron Parish
Blue Buck (62) Hackberry Ridge (14)

Little Chenier (20) Pumpkin Ridge (2)
Eugene Island (4) Smith Ridge (5)
Mesquite Ridge (48) Chenier Perdue Ridge (9)
Back Ridge (27) Front Ridge (8)
Grand Chenier Ridge (44) High Island (4)
Oak Grove Ridge (13) Indian Point Island (6)
Garner Ridge (1) Unnamed (28)
Vermilion Parish
Bill Ridge (1) Cheniere Au Tigre (1)

Sand Ridge (1) Front Ridge (12)
Kochs Ridge (1) Buck Ridge (4)
Lost Island (1) Pecan Island (10)
Unnamed (1)

7.2.2 Project Classifications.
Based on data obtained from SONRIS, from LCRP inception

through October of 2008, total Coastal Use Permits and/or other
authorizations on or immediately adjacent to the cheniers in
Cameron and Vermilion Parishes numbered 328. Permitted
activities in Cameron Parish outnumbered those in Vermilion Parish
by nine-to-one. This is of course a function of the broad extent of
cheniers in Cameron Parish as opposed to those in Vermilion
Parish.
Three distinct classes of Coastal Use Permits were identified on the

cheniers oil and gas, private/commercial, and public. Of the total
number of permitted activities, 185 (56%) are oil and gas related,
101 (31%) are private/commercial development, and 42 (13%)
were initiated by public entities, such as Cameron Parish Gravity
Drainage District and Cameron Waterworks. Permit totals of project
types by parish are shown in Table 7-1.
On the St. Tammany Parish ridges evaluated there were thirteen

private/commercial permit issued and three public permits issued
(LA Department of Transportation, Louisiana Department of
Culture, Recreation and Tourism, and the St. Tammany Parish
School Board). There were no oil and gas permits issued for the
study areas.
Table 7-1
Number of Permitted Activities
by Project Classification on Cheniers (1980 2008).
Oil &
Parish Private/Commercial Public Totals
Gas
Vermilion 16 14 3 33
Cameron 169 87 39 295

185
Totals 101 (31%) 42 (13%) 328
(56%)
7.2.3 State/Local Concerns
State and local concern data was compared for the target review
period. The Cameron Parish Local Program was approved by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on June
22, 1987. Therefore all permit actions taken prior to 1988 in
Cameron Parish were documented as state concerns. Of the total
permit actions on Cameron Parish cheniers, (188) documented
from 1988 through October of 2008, there were 81 permit actions

(43% of total) considered local concerns and 107 permit actions

(57% of total) deemed state concerns. Vermilion Parish does not
have an approved local coastal program therefore all uses were
considered state concerns.
On the target St. Tammany Parish ridges, there were 31 total

permits issued. Twelve of those permit actions (39%) were issued
by the local program while 19 permits (61%) were issued as state
concerns.
7.2.4 Permitted Activities
Based on the Descriptions Field in the SONRIS database, oil and

gas was the dominant permitted activity in Cameron Parish.
Because each individual permitted site was not evaluated by aerial
photography and the habitat data was not, in most cases, listed
consistently until around 1996 it is difficult to determine whether or
not woody vegetation was cleared to implement the activity or if
permanent impacts occurred as a result of the project. As stated in
previous earlier sections, most of the chenier features have already
be impacted to some degree, (e.g. cleared for pasture, agriculture,
home sites).
In general, oil and gas exploration and production on the cheniers

includes installation of pipelines/flowlines, well locations and board
roads, heater platform installation, miscellaneous access roads,
and other supporting infrastructure. In terms of direct impacts,
pipelines/flowlines require clearing with construction (temporary)
and permanent rights-of-way. When pipelines/flowlines are installed
the impacts are most often temporary unless woody vegetation
must be permanently maintained post-construction which may in
turn impact wildlife resting/foraging areas as vegetation is removed.
It is reasonable to assume however that most of the
pipelines/flowline impacts are therefore temporary in nature and do
not necessarily affect the integrity of the chenier. Well locations and
associated access roads, from an impact standpoint, are similar to
flowlines/pipelines in impact in that the surface of the chenier is
affected. As mentioned previously, all oil and gas related actions
are uses of state concerns and are therefore processed by the
CMD and not the local coastal program.
Private/public coastal use permits in Cameron and Vermilion

Parishes include activities such as installation of cattle walks,
homesites, borrow sites for fill material, excavation of fish ponds,
and drainage improvements. Of those listed actions, it seems clear
that borrow pits for fill and excavation of fish ponds result in the
highest degree of impact to the cheniers. Data base review showed
that there are twenty-seven permitted borrow pit/fish pond

excavation projects in Cameron and Vermilion Parishes. Of those,

twenty-six are in Cameron Parish. Thirteen of these areas were
permitted as state concerns and thirteen were permitted as local
concerns. The first local coastal program borrow pit permit was
issued in 1996. Up until that point, all borrow pits were permitted as
state concerns. Since 1996, all borrow pit permit applications,
submitted by private/commercial entities, have been processed by
the local coastal program. It must be noted however that review of
historic aerial photography shows that a portion of the aerial extent
of borrow pits along the cheniers may have occurred prior to
inception of the LCRP.
As noted in Section 4.0, open pit mining operations involve

excavation of existing cheniers to a depth deeper than the
surrounding marshes with resultant conversion to open water
aquatic habitat. Open water areas then have little potential for
recovery as wildlife habitat. In Section 5.0, it was stated that
attenuation of storm surges and waves are significantly greater
over vegetated surfaces. When vegetation is removed from
cheniers as a result of open pit construction, it lessens the capacity
of these features to reduce wave height and velocity during storm
surges.
Permitted activities on targeted St. Tammany Parish ridges are

primarily those associated with home site and residential
development. There were no permits associated with oil and gas
exploration and production during the period of available data. This
is not surprising as most of these areas are managed by state and
federal entities which preclude most types of development on these
properties. However, oil and gas facilities on these ridges may have
been installed prior to the inception of the LCRP.
8.0 FIELD SURVEYS
8.1 Methodology
In mid-October 2008 and February 2009, Providence biologists

established 64 individual sample locations on and immediately adjacent to
cheniers in Cameron and Vermilion Parishes and within select natural
ridges in St. Tammany Parish. Data forms, based on CMD Field
Investigation reporting criteria, were developed and used to characterize
various ecological and physiographical features at each sample location.
Data collected at each of the sample locations included:
Feature name
Accessibility
Site alterations

Current/Adjacent land uses

History of land use
Wildlife species observed
Invasive plant and animal species
Mapped soil type(s)
Vegetation
Sample locations were established by review of CMD permitting data,

USDA Soil Conservation Service maps, aerial photography, and U.S.G.S.
7.5-minute topographic maps. The objective of the field effort was to
identify and assess areas of cheniers that have been developed by private
or commercial entities as well as those areas that are, at present,
relatively undisturbed. Individual sample location coordinates were
documented with GPS and those locations are plotted on 2007 aerial
photographs (Figures 3a 3d and 5a 5c). Data forms and photographs
of each sample location, taken in the four cardinal directions, are included
as Appendix C.
8.2.1 Accessibility
All sample locations on the cheniers were accessed either by state

or private (primarily gravel or shell) roads. Time and resource
constraints prohibited access to the more isolated cheniers. Access
to the natural ridge sample locations in St. Tammany Parish were
also via state highways and parish roads.
8.2.2 Site Alterations
As mentioned, areas of high ground are scarce in Cameron and

Vermilion Parishes. Therefore historically, the ridges are utilized for
habitation, transportation, livestock usage, agriculture and various
other forms of infrastructure. Surface alterations observed at the
sample locations include highways and access roads, drainage
ditches, residences/outbuildings, power line rights-of-way, oil and
gas production facilities, fencing, borrow pits, canals, lands cleared
for pasture/agriculture, and miscellaneous fills for access and other
infrastructure. No alterations, at least in terms of clearing and/or
filling were observed on six of the 55 sample locations.
Along the St. Tammany ridges, these features have been

manipulated for varying uses. A dominant land use for the ridges is
residential housing with other uses including oil and natural gas
wells, utility rights-of-way, some commercial development, and
roadways. All ridge features are easily accessible from public roads

along US Highway 190 and from maintained roads throughout the

public parks.
8.2.3 Wildlife Species Observed
Wildlife species observed on or adjacent to the chenier sample

locations were noted on the data forms. These data are a snapshot
of those species occurrences during the October field effort. No
specific wildlife survey protocol was used to assess current wildlife
populations at the sample locations. Table 8-1 shows those
species that were indentified.

Table 8-1
Wildlife species observed on or adjacent to chenier
sample locations during the fieldwork of October 2008.
Common Name Scientific Name

Birds
Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon
Black-winged stilt Himantopus himantopus
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis
Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritas
Great blue heron Ardea herodias
Great egret Ardea alba
Killdeer Charadrius vociferous
Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris
Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus
Purple gallinule Porphyrio martinica
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja
Snowy egret Egretta thula
Reptiles
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis
Banded water snake Nerodia fasciata
Musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus
Plain-bellied water snake Nerodia erythrogaster
Pond slider Trachemys scripta
Red-eared slider Trachemys scripta elegans
Mammals
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
Raccoon Procyon lotor
8.2.4 Invasive Plant and Animal Species
On the cheniers, as expected, Chinese tallow tree (Sapium

sebiferum) is the dominant invasive plant species observed on the
cheniers. Chinese tallow tree was observed at 19 of the 55 sample
locations (35%) established to document current conditions. Only

one other invasive species, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) was

observed and this was limited to only one sample location.
On St. Tammany Parish ridges, the invasive species yaupon (Illex

vomitoria) and Chinese privet were observed during the field
evaluation in all forest types.
8.2.5 Mapped Soil Types
8.2.5.1 Cameron and Vermilion Parishes
Field data confirm that mapped soil series Mermentau-Hackberry

are present at all sample locations. According to the Soil Survey of
Cameron Parish (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1986), these
level and gently undulating, somewhat poorly drained and poorly
drained soils are near the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The
Hackberry soil is on low ridges, and the Mermentau soil is in
depressions between the ridges. The ridges are 1 to 3 feet high and
50 to 300 feet wide. The depressions are about 50 to 300 feet wide.
The soils are subject to flooding during hurricanes and tropical
storms. Most areas are about 60 percent Hackberry and similar
soils and 30 percent Mermentau soil. The two soils occur in areas
so closely intermingled that they are difficult to map separately at
an appropriate scale. Areas are long and narrow and range from 50
to 1,000 acres in size. Slope is 0 to 1 percent in the depressions
and 1 to 3 percent on the ridges.
The Hackberry and Mermentau soils are used mainly as pasture. A

small acreage is used for rangeland, homesite development,
gardens, or industrial development. The primary management
concerns for both soils are wetness and salinity, however,
Hackberry soil is better suited for pasture as Mermentau soil is
prone to experience frequent flooding. The natural vegetation on
Hackberry soil includes: common bermudagrass (Cynodon
dactylon), common carpetgrass (Axonopus affinis), rattail
smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), eastern falsewillow (Baccharis
halimifolia), cabbage-palm (Sabal palmetto), pricklypear (Opuntia
stricta), and, in certain areas, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and live
oak (Quercus virginiana). The natural vegetation on Mermentau soil
includes: coastal waterhyssop (Bacopa monnieri), saltmarsh
morning glory (Ipomoea sagittata), longtom (Paspalum lividum),
marsh hay cordgrass (Spartina patens), big cordgrass (Spartina
cynosuroides), gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae), common reed
(Phragmites australis), seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata),
seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum), Olney bulrush (Scirpus
americanus), and dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula).

8.2.5.2 St. Tammany Parish
Field data confirm that Guyton-Abita-Brimstone are present at all

sample locations in the northwestern ridge. Guyton-Abita-Brimstone
and Myatt-Stough-Prentiss are present at sample locations in the
two southeastern ridges of St. Tammany Parish. According to the
Soil Survey of St. Tammany Parish (USDA Soil Conservation
Service 1990), Guyton-Abita-Brimstone are level to gently sloping,
poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils found on the
Eastern Gulf Coast Flatwoods, a broad stream, or marine terrace.
The Guyton soil is in the drainage ways and depressions between
the ridges. The Abita soil is on slightly convex ridges and side
slopes, and the Brimstone soil is on the broad flats. Most areas are
about 55 percent Guyton soils, 32 percent Abita soils, 8 percent
Brimstone soils, and 5 percent soils of minor extent. Slope is 0 to 1
percent in the depressions and 1 to 5 percent on the ridges. These
soils are used mainly as woodland. A small acreage is used for
crops, pasture, or residential and commercial area. Wetness limits
the use of equipment and the sodium levels of Brimstone can limit
tree growth.
The Myatt-Stough-Prentiss are level to very gently sloping, poorly

drained to moderately well drained soils found on broad terraces in
the southern part of St. Tammany Parish. The Myatt soil is on low
flats and in depressions between the ridges. The Stough soil is on
flats that are slightly higher than those of the Myatt soils, and the
Prentiss soil is found on low ridges. Most areas are about 42
percent Myatt soils, 39 percent Stough soils, 13 percent Prentiss
soils, and 6 percent soils of minor extent. Slope is 0 to 1 percent in
the depressions and 1 to 3 percent on the ridges. Used mainly as
woodland. A small acreage is used for crops, pasture, or urban
uses. The primary limitation for these soils is wetness. Flooding is a
hazard associated with some areas of the Myatt soils.
The natural vegetation found within these soil types, for these
natural ridge plant communities of the ridges of St. Tammany
Parish, include: live oak (Quercus Virginiana), sweet gum
(Liquidambar syraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp
dogwood (Cornus foemina), dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), wax
myrtle (Morella cerifera), seaside goldenrod (Solidago
sempervirens), smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), panic grasses
(Panicum spp.), and basket grass (Oplismenus hirtellus).

8.2.6 Vegetation
8.2.6.1 Cheniers
Chenier vegetative communities are not, in total, diverse. Dominant

vegetative species and frequency (observations as a percentage of
total sample locations) are shown in Table 8-2. As expected, the
dominant forest tree species present on the sampled cheneirs are
live oak, hackberry and the invasive Chinese tallow tree. Dominant
woody shrub species include eastern falsewillow, annual
sumpweed (Iva frutescens), Carolina wolfberry (Lycium
carolinianum), needle bush (Acacia farnesiana), and hemp
sesbania (Sesbania exalata). The herbaceous layer appears to be
dominated by common bermudagrass, marsh hay cordgrass, and
common reed. Dominant woody vine species include Louisiana
blackberry (Rubus louisianus), and grape muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia).

Table 8-2
Vegetative Species and Frequency by Tree, Shrub, Herb, and Woody Vine Stratums
in the chenier sample locations.
TREES
Occurrence by
Common Name Scientific Name Frequency
Sample Location
Live oak Quercus virginiana 32 33.7%

Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 24 25.3%
Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum 18 18.9%
Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos 8 8.4%
Pecan Carya illinoinensis 7 7.4%
Black willow Salix nigra 2 2.1%
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis 2 2.1%
Water locust Gleditsia aquatica 1 1.1%
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 1 1.1%
American elm Ulmus americana 1 1.1%
SHRUBS
Occurrence by
Sample Location
Eastern baccharis Baccharis halimifolia 21 20.4%
Jesuits bark Iva frutescens 19 18.4%
Carolina desert-thorn Lycium carolinianum 14 13.6%
Sweet acacia Acacia farnesiana 12 11.7%
Bigpod sesbania Sesbania exaltata 12 11.7%
Dwarf palmetto Sabal minor 8 7.8%
Erect pricklypear Opuntia stricta 4 3.9%
Bushy seaside tansy Borrichia frutescens 3 2.9%
Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora 2 1.9%
Southern amaranth Amaranthus australis 1 1.0%
Goatweed Capraria biflora 1 1.0%
Yaupon Ilex vomitoria 1 1.0%
Annual marsh elder Iva annua 1 1.0%
Lantana Lantana camara 1 1.0%
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense 1 1.0%
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 1 1.0%
Hercules club Zanthoxylum clava-herculis 1 1.0%

HERBS
Occurrence by
Sample Location
Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon 31 23.8%
Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens 16 12.3%
Common reed Phragmites australis 11 8.5%
Great ragweed Ambrosia trifida 7 5.4%
Saltgrass Distichlis spicata 7 5.4%
Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora 7 5.4%
Common rush Juncus effusus 4 3.1%
Torpedo grass Panicum repens 4 3.1%
Bahiagrass Paspalum notatum 4 3.1%
Annual ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia 3 2.3%
Bardyardgrass Echinochloa crus-galli 3 2.3%
Dogfennel Eupatorium capillifolium 3 2.3%
Maidencane Panicum hemitomon 3 2.3%
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 3 2.3%
Chairmakers bulrush Schoenoplectus americanus 3 2.3%
Cattail grass Setaria glauca 3 2.3%
Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens 3 2.3%
Perennial saltmarsh aster Symphyotrichum tenuifolium 3 2.3%
Narrowleaf cattail Typha angustifolia 3 2.3%
White edge sedge Carex debilis 2 1.5%
Tall morning-glory Ipomoea purpurea 2 1.5%
Alligatorweed Alternanthera philoxeroides 1 0.8%
Wand lythrum Lythrum lineare 1 0.8%
Florida paspalum Paspalum floridanum 1 0.8%
Curly dock Rumex crispus 1 0.8%
Swamp verbena Verbena hastata 1 0.8%
WOODY VINES
Occurrence by
Sample Location
Sawtooth blackberry Rubus louisianus 4 40.0%
Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 2 20.0%
Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides 2 20.0%
Saw greenbrier Smilax bona-nox 1 10.0%
Eastern poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 1 10.0%

8.2.6.2 St. Tammany Ridges
The natural ridges of St. Tammany Parish are dominated by mixed

hardwood-loblolly pine forest, managed upland pine forest, and
managed pine flatwoods. Mixed hardwood-loblolly pine forests are
dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), American elm (Ulmus americana), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and water oak (Quercus nigra). Common
understory and herbaceous species include deciduous holly (Ilex
decidua), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), wax myrtle
(Morella cerifera), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and Louisiana blackberry (Rubus spp.).
The managed upland pine forests and managed pine flatwoods are
present on state and federal conservation areas (Fontainebleau
State Park and Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge). These areas
are managed for red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
habitat. Upland pine forests are dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), loblolly pine, water oak, and blackjack oak (Quercus
marilandica). Common understory and herbaceous species include
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), wax myrtle, yaupon, yellow
jessamine, blackberries, greenbriers (Smilax spp.), broomsedges
(Andropogon spp.), and panic grasses (Panicum spp.). The
managed pine flatwoods are dominated by longleaf pine, slash pine
(Pinus elliottii), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), live oak (Quercus
virginiana), wax myrtle, and blackjack oak. Common understory
and herbaceous species include broomsedges, yellow-eyed
grasses (Xyris spp.), panic grasses, beak-rushes (Rhynchospora
spp.), and white edge sedge (Carex debilis).
9.0 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ANALYSIS
Historic aerial photography for the study areas for the years 1950, 1953, 1957,
1968, 1998, and 2007 were secured from Louisiana State University, Department
of Geography and Anthropology, Cartographic Information Center. The
photographs are photomosaics taken by the United States Department of
Agriculture or the Louisiana Department of Transportation. The historic aerial
photography has been made available to the LDNR under separate cover.
As noted in Section 4.3, the most obvious impacts to cheniers in Cameron and
Vermilion Parishes are the construction of open pits. GIS specialists assessed
the aerial extent of the pits from 1950 through 2007. Existing pits, as of 2007
were digitized and the available years were subsequently evaluated to determine
the approximate years that the pits were constructed as well as the acreage
directly impacted. Table 9-1 shows sand pit acreage by historical aerial
photograph groupings.

Table 9-1 Sand pit acreage identified on

historic aerial photographs from 1950 through 2007.
Years Acreage (Cumulative)
1950s 54.7
1960s 184.0
1990s 354.9
2000 - 2005 502.1
2007 487*
*Based on 2007 data, it appears that approximately 15.1 acres of pits may have been
reclaimed.
Exhibit 1 shows two mapped ridge features, Hackberry Ridge and Buck
Ridge, in Sections 7, 8, 17, and 18 T15S-R13W where sand mining has
been pervasive. It appears that significant mining activity occurred during
the 1960s through the 1990s. Exhibit 2 shows similar information for an
area of Front Ridge, also in Cameron Parish in Sections 21-27, T15S-
R9W.
Review of aerial photography on the selected ridges shows that activity on

the central and eastern ridges (Figures 5b and 5c) is minimal due to
these areas being part of Fountainbleau State Park and the Big Branch
National Wildlife Refuge. The western most ridge (Figure 5a and Exhibit
3) shows that the dominant surface alterations have been primarily
residential and commercial development as well as road infrastructure.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 General
The focus of this report is to address anthropogenic changes that may

have affected functions and values of cheniers and natural ridge features
in south Louisiana by assessing a variety of structural, regulatory, and
ecological factors. Of particular importance are those anthropogenic
alterations that have been authorized by the LCRP. The geologic structure
and hydrologic function of cheniers were explored as was historic and
current usage by wildlife species and the composition of current vegetative
communities. Permitting records were reviewed to determine types and
impacts of permitted actions and whether or not these actions were state
or local concerns. Available aerial photography was evaluated in an
attempt to quantify certain types of changes in landform and habitat.
In an historical context it is reasonable to assume that cheniers have,

since pre-historic times and certainly since the post-European settlement
era, experienced anthropogenic modification throughout their existence.
As mentioned in Section 3.0 it is probable that chenier forests may have

never existed in a pristine state because they may have always been
subject to the effects of human activity. As stated, the oldest of the
cheniers is 3,300 years while human activity dates back some 12,000
years.
It is obvious, especially in the cheniers of southwest Louisiana, that due to

position in the landscape, these features have been especially vulnerable
to development. Simply put, its the only high ground in portions of
expansive coastal parishes available where citizens can live and make a
living. Field data show that the following surface alterations are present on
chenier features: highways and access roads, drainage ditches,
residences/outbuildings, power line rights-of-way, oil and gas production
facilities, fencing, borrow pits, canals, lands cleared for
pasture/agriculture, and miscellaneous fills for access and other
infrastructure. It should be noted that only approximately 11 percent of the
sample locations established to characterize cheniers during the fieldwork
component of the study were undeveloped. This however is certainly not
conclusive as to the overall development pressure on cheniers because
accessibility and resource limitations prevented data collection on some of
the more isolated ridges.
It would appear that most permitted coastal uses along the cheniers are
fairly innocuous and have not resulted in significant degradation of these
features. However, certain types of activities that involve significant
clearing and excavation warrant critical review.
10.2 Biological Factors
From a biological perspective, certain data suggest that there is a

significant decline in certain species of neotropical migrant songbirds over
the past few decades (Robbins et al 1989; Sauer et al 2008). Whether or
not this is directly attributable to degradation of chenier habitat is not fully
understood. Therefore new research, focusing on stopover sites along
migratory routes, is being implemented by university researchers and
governmental agencies. Although stopover sites are only used for a brief
time during migration, they have proven to be critical to the survivorship
and perpetuation of a population. This new area of research should
ultimately provide more conclusive information regarding the importance
of cheniers to migratory bird populations. It is clear that chenier habitat
has been altered by permitted actions that may be contributing to wildlife
habitat degradation.
According to published data, the primary threats to bird populations along

the cheniers are linear utilities, livestock grazing, invasive species, mining
practices, residential development, and shoreline erosion (Lester et al
2005; Barrow and Fontenot 2006). With the exceptions of livestock
grazing, invasive species, and shoreline erosion, these threats are all

regulated activities, whether by the state or local coastal program, and

require some level of coastal use permitting.
The rise of invasive species populating cheniers has also, in the view of
some researchers, led to the decline in habitat diversity along the cheniers
(Jones and McLeod 1989; Neyland and Meyer 1997). Field data from this
study indicate that Chinese tallow tree is present on a significant portion
(35%) of the sample locations established to characterize the vegetative
communities of the cheniers. Invasive species, specifically Chinese tallow
tree, may occur when surface disturbances are authorized on cheniers.
10.3 Physical Factors
It is clear that cheniers and natural ridges function to reduce the wave and
surge fields and provide protection via attenuation of storm surge and
wave heights during storms. There is a significant impact from land forms
and vegetated surfaces on waves and storm surge attenuation, which can
result in flood protection in coastal areas (U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Waterway Experiment Station 1994; Shih-Nan et al 2007). Further, loss of
such land forms due to increased erosion in Louisianas coasts has
resulted in transformation from low to higher energy marine environments.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that permitted activities which impact
chenier and natural ridge vegetation and the structural integrity of the
cheniers and natural ridges themselves have adverse impacts on the
cheniers capacity to afford such storm protection.
There are documented activities that have physically impacted cheniers.

Open pit mining, which was discussed in Section 4.1, is perhaps the most
significant impact to cheniers, both from biological (habitat
removal/conversion) and physical perspectives. Permit records indicate
that since the LCRPs inception, twenty-six pits (borrow for fill, fish ponds,
etc) have been authorized in Cameron and Vermilion Parishes. Of the
twenty-six, there was an even split of those authorizations between state
and local regulatory permitting. Additionally, based on GIS analyses, there
appears to be approximately 487 acres of open pits throughout the
cheniers of Cameron and Vermilion Parishes. It is important to note that
many of the pits were excavated prior to the inception of the LCRP. It is
clear that excavation of cheniers not only removes forest habitat but also
significantly alters the very structure of the landform. Open pits, which are
dug to depths lower than the surrounding cheniers and marshes,
ultimately convert to open water. Unless the pits are reclaimed by re-
deposition of fill and returned to pre-project contours, there is a permanent
conversion from chenier to open water habitat. What remains is essentially
a large hole in a ridge through which storm surges can pass unimpeded.

10.4 Recommendations
Based on evaluation of the referenced factors relevant to chenier and

natural ridges and the inherent biological and physical value of these
features, the following general recommendations are made:
1. The LDNR should consider formally designating cheniers as natural

biologically valuable areas or protective coastal features in the
Louisiana Coastal Zone and adapt more specific guidelines for their
protection.
2. Commercial sand mining operations and large-scale excavations

on cheniers and natural ridges should be discouraged.
3. Because CMD has the resources to provide the personnel and

biological expertise more effectively than local coastal programs,
Coastal Use Permit applications that involve large scale excavation
(open pits for fill material, fish ponds, etc.) whereby the structural
integrity of the chenier is threatened should be processed as state
concerns.
4. Proposed coastal uses involving significant excavation on cheniers

should be subjected to a higher level of review by the permitting
authority. Specifically, a comprehensive justification and
needs/alternatives analysis that clearly demonstrate the proposed
action is the least-damaging, feasible practical alternative should be
required as part of the permitting process for these proposed
coastal uses.
5. Limit clearing of woody vegetation on cheniers through the permit

review process. Require a critical review of alternatives to clearing
and/or excavation to reach project goals.
6. Additional research is needed to better understand the role

cheniers and natural ridges play in migratory bird success.
7. Landowner incentives to reclaim open pits along chenier features

should be considered by the LDNR.
8. Additional modeling efforts, specific to cheiners and natural ridges

in Cameron, Vermilion, and St. Tammany Parishes should be
initiated to document those features capacities for storm surge
protection.
9. Continue to monitor remnant chenier forests as designated by the

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program.

10. Develop outreach programs outlining the importance of cheniers

and, more importantly, the rationale for their preservation and
protection.
11.0 REFERENCES
Alsop, F.J. 2001. Birds of North America: eastern region. Greenberg, R. and J.
Hamilton, editors. DK Publishing. New York, New York.
Augustinus, P.G. 1980. Actual development of chenier coast of Suriname (South

America). Sedimentary Geology 26:91-113.
Berthold, P. 1993. Bird migration a general study, 2nd Ed. Oxford University
Press, Inc. New York, New York.
Brown, S. and D.L. Peterson. 1983. Structural characteristics and biomass

production of two Illinois bottomland forests. American Midland Naturalist
110:107-117.
Barrow, Jr., W.C. and B. Fontenot. 2006. Vanishing before our eyes: Louisiana
cheniere woods and the birds that depend on them. The Barataria-
Terrebonne National Estuary Program. Thibodeaux, Louisiana.
Bryant, J.C. and R.H. Chabreck. 1998. Effects of impoundment on vertical

accretion of coastal marsh. School of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries,
Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University
Agricultural Center. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Byrne, J.V., D.O. Leroy, and C.M. Riley. 1959. The chenier plain and its
stratigraphy, southwestern Louisiana. Transactions Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies, Vol. IX.
Cocks, R.S. 1907. The flora of the Gulf Biologic Station. Louisiana State Board of
Agriculture and Immigration. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Conner, W.H. and J.W. Day, Jr. 1976. Productivity and composition of a
baldcypress-water tupelo site and a bottomland hardwood site in a
Louisiana swamp. American Journal of Botany 63:1354-1364.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. and LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Deepwater Habitats in the Unites States. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Craig, N.J., R.E. Turner, & J.W. Day Jr. 1979. Land loss in coastal Louisiana
(U.S.A.). Louisiana State University Center for Coastal Wetland
Resources. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., & Sargatal, J., eds. 1994. Handbook of the Birds of the
World Vol. 2. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Finch, D.M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of

Neotropical migratory birds. General Technical Report RM-205. U.S.
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station.
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Fisk, H. N. 1944. Geological investigation of the alluvial valley of the lower

Mississippi River. Mississippi River Committee. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gould, H.R. and E. McFarlan, Jr. 1959. Geologic history of the chenier plain,
southwestern Louisiana. Transactions Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies, Vol. IX.
Held, M.E. and J.E. Winstead. 1975. Basal area and climax status in mesic forest
systems. Annals of Botany 39:1147-1148.
Hovis, J. A., and R. F. Labisky. 1985. Vegetative associations of red-cockaded

woodpecker colonies in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:301-314.
Jones, R.H. and K.W. McLeod. 1989. Shade tolerance in seedlings of Chinese
tallow tree, American sycamore, and cherrybark oak. Bulletin of the Torrey
Botanical Club 116:371-377.
Kennish, M.J., 2001. Coastal Salt Marsh Systems in the U.S.: A Review of
Anthropogenic Impacts. Journal of Coastal Research 17(3):731-748.
Kniffen, F.B. 1968. Louisiana, its land and people. Louisiana State University
Press. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 43, Chapter 7. Coastal Management.
Lester, G.D, S.G. Sorensen, P.L. Faulkner, C.S. Reid, and I.E. Maxit. 2005.
Louisiana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Marks, P.L. and P.A. Harcombe. 1981. Forest vegetation of the Big Thicket,
southeast Texas. Ecological Monographs 51:287-305.
Martin, P.M. and G.D. Lester. 1990. Atlas and census of wading bird and seabird
nesting colonies in Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
McBride, R.A., M.J. Taylor, and M.R. Byrnes. 2006. Coastal morphodynamics
and Chenier-Plain evolution in southwestern Louisiana, USA: A
geomorphic model. George Mason University Department of
Environmental Science and Policy. Fairfax, Virginia.

Midkiff, C.A., J. Roy, and R. Nolde. 1995. Soil Survey of Cameron Parish,
Louisiana. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service.
Morton, R.A., T.L. Miller, and L.J. Moore. 2004. National assessment of shoreline
change: Part 1, historical shoreline changes and associated coastal land
loss along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Open-File Report 2004-1043, United
States Geological Survey.
Nair A.S.K. 1988. Mudbanks (Chakara) of Kerala - a marine environment to be

protected. Proceedings of the. National Seminar on Environmental Issues,
Golden Jubilee Seminar. University of Kerala, India. 76-93 pp.
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 28, 2009).
Neyland, R. & H. A. Meyer 1997. Species diversity of Louisiana chenier woody

vegetation remnants. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 124:254-261.
Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, R.S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989. Population
declines in North American birds that migrate to the Neotropics. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 86:7658-7662.
Robertson, P. A., G. T. Weaver, and J. A. Cavanaugh. 1978. Vegetation and tree

species patterns near the northern terminus of the southern floodplain
forest. Ecological Monographs 48:249-267.
Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird
Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, Maryland.
Sillett, T.S., and R.T. Holmes. 2002. Variation in survivorship of a migratory

songbird throughout its annual cycle. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:296-
308.
Sheremet, A., A.J. Mehta, B. Liu, G.W. Stone. 2007. Wavesediment interaction
on a muddy inner shelf during Hurricane Claudette. Estuarine Coastal and
Shelf Science 63:225-233.
Shih-Nan C., L.P. Sanford, E.W. Koch, F. Shi, and E.W. North. 2007. A
nearshore model to investigate the effects of seagrass bed geometry on
wave attenuation and suspended sediment transport. Estuaries and
Coasts 30(2):296-310.
Smith, L. M. 1993. Estimated presettlement and current acres of natural plant

communities in Louisiana. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Turner, R.E. 1997. Wetland loss in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Multiple working
hypotheses. Estuaries 20(1) 1-13.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Birds of conservation concern 2002.
Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, Virginia. Available:
<http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf. Accessed: February
2009.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Department of Forest Resources. Clemson, South
Carolina. 32 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 296 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Land loss rates: Report 2 Louisiana
Chenier Plain, v.2. New Orleans District Corps of Engineers. Various
pagination.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Land loss rates: Report 3 Louisiana
Coastal Plain. New Orleans District Corps of Engineers. Various
pagination.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1994. Water wave

attenuation over nearshore underwater mudbanks and mud berms.
Technical Note DRP-1-14. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Soil Survey of Cameron Parish,

Louisiana.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey of St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana.
Waldo, E. 1963. The Cheniers. Wildlife Education Bulletin No. 63. Louisiana Wild
Life and Fisheries Commission. New Orleans, Louisiana.
White, D.A. and S.A. Skojac. 2002. Remnant bottomland forests near the
terminus of the Mississippi River in southeastern Louisiana. Castanea
67:134-145.
Yong, W. and Finch, D.M. 2002. Stopover ecology of landbirds migrating along
the middle Rio Grande in spring and fall. General Technical Report
RMRS-GTR-99, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experimental Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.

FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP CHENIERS OF SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA
227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt PROVIDENCE

t
u
71
t
u
165
t
u
190
t
u
Big
Big Thicket
Thicket National
National Preserve
Preserve
190
t
u 96 t
u
171

49

210

10
Lake Charles t
u
90

10
Lafayette
t
u
90
t
u90
Beaumont

10 Lafayette Regional
Lake Charles Regional
Port Arthur t
u
167
t
u
90
t
u
69 Cameron
Cameron Prairie
Prairie Nwr
Nwr
Cameron
Sabine
Parish
Sabine Natl
Natl Wildlife
Wildlife Refuge
Refuge
Legend
Vermilion Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study Areas
Parish
Sea
Sea Rim
Rim State
State Park
Park
Reference
Base map comprised of ESRI StreetMap USA dataset.
11 5.5 0 11
Miles
GULF OF MEXICO
Vicinity Map
Cheniers of Southwest Louisiana
Cameron and Vermilion Parishes
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Management Division
Drawn By DRA 02/11/09
Checked By JBA 02/25/08
Approved By RPC 02/25/08
Project Number
1
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B005 Figure
FIGURE 2
LOCATION MAP CHENIERS OF SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA

Legend
Map #1 Map #2 Map #3 Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study Areas
Map #4 Reference
Base map comprised of 1:250,000 USGS topographic maps,
"Lake Charles" and "Port Arthur".
9 4.5 0 9
Miles
Location Map
Cameron and Vermilion Parishes
Project Number
2
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B006 Figure
FIGURES 3A 3D
LOCATION MAPS WITH FIELD SAMPLE LOCATIONS

Big Thicket NPRES

49
Lake Charles

10
Lafayette
Beaumont
Port Arthur
Map #1
Garrison Ridge U
V
27
!
(9
Buck Ridge Smith Ridge Coon Ridge
Eli Ridge
!
(8 Oak Grove Ridge
Sanders Ridge
!
(7
Blue Buck Ridge
!
(4 Legend
!
(
U
V!
34
Garner Ridge !
(5
(
82 6
!
(
33 Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study Areas
!
( 1
!
( !
( !
( !
(
!
(2 31 32 10 Sample Locations
Salt Work Ridge
!
(3 Hackberry Ridge
Reference
Base map comprised of 2007 aerial photograph.
2 1 0 2
Miles
Location Map #1
Cameron Parish
Project Number
3a
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B007 Figure
U
V
27
Big Thicket NPRES

49
Lake Charles

10
Lafayette
Beaumont
!
(
22
Port Arthur
Map #2
!
(
25
High Island
Back Ridge
!
(
23
!
(
26
U
V 82
!
(
27
Eugene Island
U
V 1141 U
V
1142 !
(
28
!
(
30
!
(
21
!
(
17
!
(
16 Legend
Front Ridge
U
V
1141
Mesquite Ridge
Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study Areas
U
V
82
!
(
35
!
(
29
!
( Sample Locations
!
(
20
Reference
2 1 0 2
Miles
Location Map #2
Cameron Parish
Project Number
3b
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B008 Figure
Big Thicket NPRES

49
!
(

22
10
Lake Charles Lafayette
Little Chenier Ridge
Beaumont
!
(
12
Port Arthur
Map #3
Chenier Perdue Ridge
!
(
24 !
(
11
!
(
U
V
14
!
(
13
1143
Little Pecan Island
Pumpkin Ridge
Eugene Island !
(
15
Long Island
!
(
16 !
(
19
U
V
82
Indian Point Island

Legend
!
(
37
Dans Ridge !
(
36
!
( Sample Locations
Cow Island
!
(
38 !
(
39 North Island
!
(
18 !
(
40 Reference
Grand Chenier Ridge
!
(
42
!
(41
!
(
43
2 1 0 2
Miles
!
(
44
Location Map #3
Cameron Parish
Project Number
3c
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B009 Figure
U
V
82
Big Thicket NPRES

49
Lake Charles

10
Lafayette
Beaumont
Port Arthur
Fire Ridge
Cane Ridge Lambert Ridge Map #4

Sweet Bay Ridge Coupe Ridge
Cypress Point Kochs Ridge
!
(
45 Lost Island Belle Isle
!
(!(
46 47
!
( !
(
50 Long Island
48
!
(
49
!
(
51
Pecan Island !
(
52
Back Ridge
!
(
55
!
(
Front Ridge
53
!
(
54
Legend
!
( Sample Locations
U
V
3147
Reference
Cheniere au Tigre
Beef Ridge
Mulberry Island 2 1 0 2
Miles
Sand Ridge
Bill Ridge
Location Map #4
Vermilion Parish
Project Number
3d
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B010 Figure
FIGURE 4
VICINITY MAP
SELECT NATURAL RIDGES IN ST. TAMMANY PARISH

U
V
1078
U
V
1081
U
V U
V U U
V 1083
437
V 1082
1084
U
V
41
U
V
U
V
59
U
V
445 25
U
V21 U
V
435
t
u
190
U
V
1085
U
V U
V
36
U
V
59
22
U
V
445
U
V
1088
U
V
1072
U
V
1077

U
V Pearl
Pearl River
River St
St W
W

12 434
59
Mandeville U
V
1093 t
u190
U
V
1089 U
V 1090
Legend

59
U
V
1091
U
V
434 Reference
U
V
433 Base map comprised of ESRI StreetMap USA dataset.
Slidell
3 1.5 0 3
Miles
U
V 433 Vicinity Map
Select Natural Ridges in St. Tammany Parish
St. Tammany Parish

10 Drawn By DRA 02/11/09
t
u
11
Project Number
4
227-009
t
u90 Drawing Number
227-009-B011 Figure
FIGURE 5
LOCATION MAP
SELECT NATURAL RIDGES IN ST. TAMMANY PARISH

Map #1
Legend
Map #2 Reference
Base map comprised of 1:100,000 USGS topographic maps,
"Ponchatrain" and "Gulfport".
2 1 0 2
Miles
Location Map
Map #3 St. Tammany Parish
Project Number
5
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B012 Figure
FIGURES 5A 5C
LOCATION MAPS WITH FIELD SAMPLE LOCATIONS

U
V
1085
U U
V
V
1077
1085
l er
Ty

12
Tu

t
u
rn p
12 190
ike
Map #1
Mandeville--Covington
St. Tammany t
u
190

12
Slidell
22
U
V
21 St. John the Baptist
!
(
58
Jefferson t
u
11
21
Orleans
1077
Legend
!
(
57
!
(
56 !
( Sample Locations
Coving to
n
Reference
M Saint John Base map comprised of 2007 aerial photograph.
ul
be
rry
Main
U
V 22
22
3,000 1,500 0 3,000
Feet
Location Map #1
St. Tammany Parish
1077U
V Drawn By
Checked By
DRA
JBA
02/11/09
02/25/08
Project Number
5a
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B013 Figure
U
V
59
Ge
rd
ra

12

12
t
u
190
t
u
190
U
V
1089
St. Tammany Map #2

12
Slidell
190
St. John the Baptist
!
( t
59
Jefferson
Orleans
u
11
U
V
1093
!
(
60 Legend
!
( Sample Locations
Ma
in
Reference
!
(
61 3,000 1,500 0 3,000
Feet
Location Map #2
St. Tammany Parish
U
V
434 Approved By RPC 02/25/08
Project Number
5b
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B014 Figure
Ma
in
0
19
n
la w
Oa k
190
t
u190
Gause
Cle
si
or
arb
eH
mbo
Lac
Gra
nd

12
t
u
190
U
V
434
St. Tammany t
u
190

12
Slidell
Map #3
!
(
62 !
(
63
Paqu
et St. John the Baptist
pson
Jefferson t
u
11
m
Tho
Orleans
Bayou Paquet
!
(
64
Legend
U
V
433 B
ay
o u L ib er t y Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study Areas
!
( Sample Locations
Reference
3,000 1,500 0 3,000

Feet
Location Map #3
St. Tammany Parish
Project Number
5c
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B015 Figure
FIGURES 6A 6D
LOUISIANA NATURAL HERITAGE DATA MAPS

Big Thicket NPRES

49
Lake Charles

10
Lafayette
Beaumont
Port Arthur
Map #1
Garrison Ridge U
V
27
Buck Ridge Smith Ridge Coon Ridge
Oak Grove Ridge Eli Ridge
Sanders Ridge
Blue Buck Ridge
Legend
Garner Ridge
U
V
82 Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study Areas
Remnant Chenier Forest
( !
! ( !
( (
!
Salt Work Ridge (
! (
! Sensitive Biological Elements
Hackberry Ridge
Reference
Forest and Element data was obtained from the Louisiana Natural
Heritage Program (LNHP), dated 2008.
2 1 0 2
Miles
Louisiana Natural Heritage Data

Map #1
Cameron Parish
Project Number
6a
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B017 Figure
U
V
27
Big Thicket NPRES

49
Lake Charles

10
Lafayette
Beaumont
Port Arthur
Map #2
High Island
U
V
Back Ridge
1143
U
V 82
Eugene Island
U
V 1141 U
V
1142
Legend
Front Ridge
U
V
1141
! !(
( (!
Mesquite Ridge
U
V
82
!
( Sensitive Biological Elements
!
(!
(
Reference
2 1 0 2
Miles

Map #2
Cameron Parish
Project Number
6b
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B018 Figure
Big Thicket NPRES

49
Little Chenier Ridge

Lake Charles

10
Lafayette
Beaumont
Port Arthur
Map #3
Chenier Perdue Ridge
U
V
1143
Pumpkin Ridge !
( !
(
Little Pecan Island
Eugene Island
Long Island
U
V
82
Indian Point Island

Legend
Dans Ridge
Cow Island
!
North Island
!
(
Reference
Grand Chenier Ridge
2 1 0 2
Miles

Map #3
Cameron Parish
Project Number
6c
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B019 Figure
U
V
82
Big Thicket NPRES

49
Lake Charles

10
Lafayette
Beaumont
Port Arthur
Fire Ridge
Cane Ridge Lambert Ridge Map #4

Sweet Bay Ridge Coupe Ridge
Cypress Point Kochs Ridge
Lost Island Belle Isle
Long Island
Pecan Island
Back Ridge
Front Ridge Legend

!
U
V
3147 Reference
!
( Heritage Program (LNHP), dated 2008.
Cheniere au Tigre
Beef Ridge
Mulberry Island 2 1 0 2
Miles
Sand Ridge

Bill Ridge
!
(
Map #4
Vermilion Parish
Project Number
6d
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B020 Figure
APPENDIX A
AN EXPLANATION OF RANKING CATEGORIES EMPLOYED

BY NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS NATIONWIDE

EXPLANATION OF RANKING CATEGORIES EMPLOYED BY NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS NATIONWIDE
Each element is assigned a single global rank as well as a state rank for each state in which it occurs. Global ranking is done under the guidance of NatureServe, Arlington, VA. State ranks are
assigned by each states Natural Heritage Program, thus a rank for a particular element may vary considerably from state to state. Federal ranks are designated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. DISCLAIMER: This document is not an official copy of the laws in effect and should not be utilized or relied upon as such. For this
reason, the accuracy of the information contained within this document cannot be guaranteed and the reader is cautioned that it is his/her responsibility to be apprised of the laws in effect at any given
time. These laws include those contained within the Louisiana Revised Statutes, particularly Title 56, the official regulations of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, federal laws, and
any local or parish ordinances.
FEDERAL RANKS (USESA FIELD): T = subspecies or variety rank (e.g., G5T4 applies to a subspecies with a global species rank
LE = Listed Endangered of G5, but with a subspecies rank of G4)
LT = Listed Threatened STATE ELEMENT RANKS:
PE = Proposed endangered S1 = critically imperiled in Louisiana because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer known extant
PT = Proposed Threatened populations) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation
C = Candidate S2 = imperiled in Louisiana because of rarity (6 to 20 known extant populations) or because
PDL = Proposed for delisting of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation
E (S/A) or T (S/A) = Listed endangered or threatened because of similarity of appearance S3 = rare and local throughout the state or found locally (even abundantly at some of its
XE = Essential experimental population locations) in a restricted region of the state, or because of other factors making it
XN = Nonessential experimental population vulnerable to extirpation (21 to 100 known extant populations)
No Rank = Usually indicates that the taxon does not have any federal status. However, S4 = apparently secure in Louisiana with many occurrences (100 to 1000 known extant
because of potential lag time between publication in the Federal Register and entry in
the central databases and state databases, some taxa may have a status which does not populations)
yet appear. S5 = demonstrably secure in Louisiana (1000+ known extant populations)
(Rank, Rank) = Combination values in parenthesis = The taxon itself is not named in the (B or N may be used as qualifier of numeric ranks and indicating whether the occurrence is
Federal Register as having U.S. ESA status; however, all of its infraspecific taxa breeding or nonbreeding)
(worldwide) do have official status. The statuses shown in parentheses indicate the
statuses that apply to infraspecific taxa or populations within this taxon. THE SPECIES SA = accidental in Louisiana, including species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or
IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE A COMBINATION STATUS IN LOUISIANA twice or only at great intervals hundreds or even thousands of miles outside their usual
(PS) = partial status= Status in only a portion of the species range. Typically indicated in a range
full species record where an infraspecific taxon or population has U.S. ESA status, but SH = of historical occurrence in Louisiana, but no recent records verified within the last 20
the entire species does not. THE SPECIES DOES NOT HAVE A STATUS IN
LOUISIANA years; formerly part of the established biota, possibly still persisting
(PS: Rank) = partial status= Status in only a portion of the species range. The value of that SR = reported from Louisiana, but without conclusive evidence to accept or reject the report
status appears because the entity with status does not have an individual entry in SU = possibly in peril in Louisiana, but status uncertain; need more information
Natureserve. THE SPECIES MAY HAVE A STATUS IN LOUISIANA SX = believed to be extirpated from Louisiana
GLOBAL ELEMENT RANKS:
G1 = critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer known SZ = transient species in which no specific consistent area of occurrence is
extant populations) or because of some factor(s) making it especially identifiable
vulnerable to extinction STATE PROTECTION STATUS:
G2 = imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 known extant populations) or State status are contained in Title 56 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes as well as
because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range relevant rules and regulations adopted by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries
G3 = either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some Commission and the Secretary of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The
of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g., a single physiographic region) or because of Secretary of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is authorized to implement
other factors making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range (21 to 100 known additional restrictions in emergency situations in order to protect fish and wildlife
extant populations)
resources.
G4 = apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at
the periphery (100 to 1000 known extant populations) Endangered = Taking or harassment of these species is a violation of state and
G5 = demonstrably secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range, federal laws.
especially at the periphery (1000+ known extant populations) Threatened = Taking or harassment of these species is a violation of state and
GH = of historical occurrence throughout its range; i.e., formerly part of the established biota, federal laws.
with the possibility that it may be rediscovered (e.g., Bachmans Warbler) Threatened/Endangered = Taking or harassment of these species is a violation of
GU = possibly in peril range-wide, but status uncertain; need more information state and federal laws.
G? = rank uncertain. Or a range (e.g., G3G5) delineates the limits of uncertainty Prohibited = Possession of these species is prohibited. No legal harvest or
GQ = uncertain taxonomic status possession.
GX = believed to be extinct throughout its range (e.g., Passenger Pigeon) with virtually no
Restricted Harvest = There are restrictions regarding the taking and possession of
likelihood that it will be rediscovered
these species.
APPENDIX B
COASTAL USE PERMITTING DATASETS

VERMILION PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
CUP # LATITUDE LONGITUDE APPLICANT DESCRIPTION acre (ac) HABITAT TYPE RIDGE
Cattlewalk - General dredge and/or fill (eg.
Flowlines) - Marsh management plan -
Industrial/commercial development - H20
P19981809 29 34 39.7808076 -92 12 11.4681276 Sagrera Estates block: Levee 2.9ac (6000cy) E2EM1P5 None Listed
General dredge and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) - No
P19810517 29 34 15.7876536 -92 12 45.468306 Sagrera, Lloyd development None Listed None Listed Cheniere au Tigre
Refurbish 13,400 linear feet of existing levee,
install nine 24-inch culverts, and install rip-rap -
E.A. McIlhenny H20 block: Lock/culvert flapgate - Marsh 2.05ac, 3.14ac, E1UBLx5,
P20020507 29 33 16 -92 16 43 Enterprises management plan 9.17ac E2EM1P5, USSs Bill Ridge
Levee Construction - install rip rap to restore
Trunkline Gas an existing levee and spoil bank near Pecan
P20050795 29 32 22 -92 19 44 Company Island 0.23ac UBs Sand Ridge
Columbia Gulf
P19951523 29 37 38.7841008
38 7841008 -92
92 21 51
51.4832508
4832508 Transmission General dredge and/or fill (eg
(eg. Flowlines) 4040cy none listed Front Ridge
Columbia Gulf Submerged or buried pipeline - General
P19951287 29 37 40.7849916 -92 21 55.4840388 Transmission dredge and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) 132cy none listed Front Ridge
Columbia Gulf Submerged or buried pipeline - General
P19950081 29 37 42.7874448 -92 22 1.4849148 Transmission dredge and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) 1005cy none listed Front Ridge
Columbia Gulf
P19901056 29 37 40.7846676 -92 22 .4840752 Transmission None listed 0cy None Listed Front Ridge
Columbia Gulf
P19920559 29 37 37.7886072 -92 22 7.4843328 Transmission Industrial/commercial development 54cy None Listed Front Ridge
Abandonment of a 36" natural gas pipeline-
approx. 25.18 miles long-approx. 9.3 miles on
land or in state waters. The remainder of the
length to be abandoned is in federal waters.
The above-ground structures at the on-shore
valve setting will be removed, temporarily
Columbia Gulf displacing approx. 356 cubic yards of native
P20080601 29 37 37.72 -92 22 7.78 Transmission material. 0.04ac UUo Front Ridge
Columbia Gulf
P19950629 29 37 26.7864888 -92 21 9.4829328 Transmission Boat ramp 69cy None Listed Front Ridge
VERMILION PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Proposed installation of a 98' micronet tower
with 5 guy lines at 20' intervals and electronics
building for broadcasts of GPS differential
corrections to support offshore navigation.
Approximately 0.52 cubic yards of soil will be
dispersed naturally around bore as a result of
installation of the posts (4" x 4") for the
electronics building. An additional 0.45 cubic
yards of concrete will be used to secure the
Cochrane posts (4" x 4"). No additional dredge or fill
P20071300 29 38 34.52 -92 23 10.54 Technologies required. 0.02ac (1cy) UR Koch's Ridge
General dredge and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) -
P19990424 29 38 37 -92 20 59 Broussard, N.R. Agricultural, forestry, aquaculture activities 600cy None Listed Lost Island
Columbia Gulf
P19910868 29 37 52.7874636 -92 22 51.483936 Transmission General dredgeg and/or fill ((eg.
g Flowlines)) 24cyy None Listed Front Ridge
g
Install board road, drillsite & structures to
serve Corwin Broussard #1-H2O Block:
P20010251 29 38 8 -92 24 37 Petro-Hunt, LLC Lock/Culvert Flapgate 4.48ac (1254cy) UR Front Ridge
Both above ground and buried pipelines -Ring

P19980976 29 37 12.7840908 -92 23 40.4873232 Exxon levee new oil and gas only-H2O Block: levee 0.03ac UR Front Ridge
P19940472 29 37 59.7883548 -92 23 40.4865276 Broussard, Larry, J. General dredge and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) 44cy None Listed Front Ridge
P19970688 29 35 42.7927812 -92 21 52.483554 Exxon General dredge and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) 0.2ac (900cy) UR Front Ridge
Vermillion Parish
P19911115 29 38 48.7827996 -92 25 18.4881 PO None listed 0cy None Listed Back Ridge
The project will include excavation and fill.
Hurricane Rita destroyed the existing home on
the site. In order to rebuild their home above
the flood level, the house pad will have to be
elevated to elevation 10.0. Approximately
1400 cubic yards will be excavated from an
existing pond and used as fill to build the
P20051578 29 39 2.62 -92 23 28.74 Choate, Acey house pad. 0.4ac (1400cy) UU Back Ridge
VERMILION PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Rig present - H20 Block: pilings or dolphins
P19871216 29 39 5.779998 -92 23 20.4850284 Bertrand, Wiley (eg.Walkway) 0cy None Listed Back Ridge
Build a road to improve access to a 110-acre

waterfowl project and deepen existing borrow 0.29ac, 0.09ac, PEM1C, PFO1A,
P20030802 29 39 5 -92 23 53 Reynolds, John M. pit to use as a fish pond at Pecan Island 0.11ac (1450cy) UR Back Ridge
Vermillion Parish Development: sewerage/treatment plant -
P19811171 29 38 49.7849568 -92 26 46.4914608 School Board Dredge: borrow pit for fill 0cy None Listed Pecan Island
Woodbine Well #1 named LB Broussard- Dredge: ring
P19900778 29 38 59.7853968 -92 27 2.4915096 Petroleum levee new oil and gas only 0cy None Listed Pecan Island
Proposed re-entry into an existing well site for

drilling operations. A ring levee will be
constructed around the existing well site using
99 cubic yards of excavated native material.
Additionally a pad site at the ring levee will be
installed inside the ring levee using 1950 cubic
yards of topsoil, 649 cubic yards of crushed
stone or gravel and 1300 cubic yards of truck
mats. An approximately 531' x 231' additional
work area (maintained) will be utilized on an
upland area south of the ring levee. No
excavation or filling of the upland work area 0.81ac, 0ac
P20070985 29 38 59.78 -92 27 2.49 Oracle Oil, LLC will be necessary. (3998cy) PEM1C, UU Pecan Island
P19831435 29 38 51.7910856 -92 27 35.491518 Broussard, Errol General dredge and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) 7662cy None Listed Pecan Island
P19951297 29 38 43 -92 27 16 Exxon Exploration General dredge and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) 10125cy None Listed Pecan Island
VERMILION PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Proposed construction of a metering station
and re-capturing use of an existing 4-inch
flowline to serve the LB Broussard No. 1 Well.
The 4-inch flowline is currently present above
the marsh surface. Also, proposed 4-inch
flowline (1,455.54') to be placed above ground.
Approximately 245 cubic yards of topsoil/dirt
material will be hauled in to construct the
containment berm. All access will be through
existing pads or roads. The metering station
and use of flowlines will be to tie into the well
that was recently permitted under CUP
P20070985. No additional dredge or fill are
P20071643 29 39 1.65 -92 27 4.13 Oracle Oil, LLC required for this project. 0ac (245cy) UU Pecan Island
Reconstruct the Pecan Island Fire Station.
Vermillion Parish Approx. 600 cu. yds. of fill material will be
P20061508 29 38 48 -92 27 5 Police Jury hauled in. 0.59ac (600cy) UU Pecan Island
Dredge 60' from embankment and use
discharge or building up land to be used as a
campsite and construct a bulkhead on tract
P20030778 29 39 7 -92 28 59 Guillory, Jimmie J. B12 0.08ac (900cy) E2EM1P5 Pecan Island
Dredge for a new boat slip and construct a

P20020402 29 39 8 -92 29 4 Duhon, Autry L. boat shed on a private lake on Pecan Island 0.08ac (33cy) UU Pecan Island
Marsh Management plan-General dredge
Vermillion and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) H20 Block:
P19900892 29 38 .7862604 -92 28 .4936656 Corporation Lock/Culvert flapgate 35942cy None Listed Pecan Island
VERMILION PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Proposed restoration of the bank for the
freshwater diversion outfall channel as part of
the Pecan Island Bank Restoration (ME-01)
project in Pecan Island. Approximately 256.8
cubic yards of native material will be
excavated from a borrow area and used as fill
behind a proposed +/-550' pvc sheet piling.
Approximately 700 cubic yards of riprap (rock
material) and 646.1 cubic yards of clay
(special fill from an offsite borrow area) will be
Vermillion used as fill along the banks of the existing
P20080813 29 38 53.8 -92 28 9.4 Corporation diversion canal. 0.17ac (1602.9cy) UF8 Pecan Island
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
CUP # CONCERN LATITUDE LONGITUDE APPLICANT DESCRIPTION acre (ac) HABITAT TYPE RIDGE
P19800322 State 29 45 26.7984828 -93 38 55.5699192 Tenneco None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Little Chenier
P19810212 State 29 50 27.7807056 -93 0 5.5384992 LIG Submerged or buried pipeline 0cy None listed Ridge
P19810459 State 29 47 14.7930216 -93 4 1.5367008 Chevron Pipeline Submerged or buried pipeline-Rig present 0cy None listed Eugene Island
P19810494 State 29 48 26.7939468 -93 13 33.546522 Williams Board road 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Industrial/Commercial Development -
P19810512 State 29 47 25.7976528 -93 19 15.5524008 Conoco Dredge: borrow pit for fill 0cy None listed Back Ridge
Tennessee Gas
P19810682 State 29 45 41.7954384 -93 38 51.5697144 Pipeline None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Board road-Rig: Directional hole-No Grand Chenier
P19810828 State 29 45 28.796976 -92 55 50.524608 Watson dredging 0cy None listed Ridge
P19810833 State 29 45 52.7976396 -93 38 10.5692136 Shell p

Industrial/commercial development 0cyy None listed Blue Buck
P19810868 State 29 45 26.7984828 -93 38 55.5699192 Tenneco Above ground pipeline 0cy None listed Blue Buck
P19810916 State 29 45 49.794894 -93 42 23.5741644 Trahan, Robert Dredge: Borrow pit for fill 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Dredge: Borrow pit for fill-Pipeline: Grand Chenier
P19811025 State 29 45 56.7960156 -92 57 28.5279084 Conoco Submerged or buried 0cy None listed Ridge
P19811158 State 29 47 18.7968012 -93 19 18.553062 Superior Supply Dredge: Borrow pit for fill 31cy None listed Not named
Backfill and/or plug for mitigation-
P19811683 State 29 45 23.7967992 -93 38 51.5697432 Tenneco submerged or buried pipelines 4500cy None listed Blue Buck
P19811727 State 29 45 47.7956376 -93 37 29.5693716 Shell Above ground and buried pipeline 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Grand Chenier
P19811863 State 29 45 35.7936156 -92 55 41.5248924 MCOR Board road - Rig present 1000cy None listed Ridge
Little Chenier
P19820020 State 29 50 29.7786768 -92 59 45.53916 Despot Board road - Rig present 3800cy None listed Ridge
P19820185 State 29 45 31.7939076 -93 38 50.5691556 United Gas Submerged or buried pipeline 0cy None listed Blue Buck
P19820277 State 29 49 21.787194 -93 2 9.5394948 Goldking Board road 10500cy None listed Pumpkin Ridge
Submerged or buried pipeline - Dredge:
P19820386 State 29 45 38.796084 -93 37 41.5679592 Gulf backfill and/or plug for mitigation 6000cy None listed Blue Buck
CAMERON PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Transcontinental
P19820429 State 29 45 55.7953128 -93 38 30.5696688 Gas Submerged or buried pipeline 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Little Chenier
P19820497 State 29 49 45.7818492 -92 52 9.5254788 Faulk, Carl Dredge: Canal maintenance 2500cy None listed Ridge
Cameron Parish
P19820511 State 29 47 26.7837468 -93 44 57.5790864 Police Jury Boat Ramp 4960cy None listed Smith
P19820534 State 29 45 22.793508 -93 39 57.570804 Crain Brothers Cattlewalk - Dredge Borrow pit for fill 3750cy None listed Blue Buck
Dredge: Backfill and/or plug for mitigation-
P19820684 State 29 46 6.801006 -93 21 31.5532044 C&K Pipeline: buried and above ground 11105cy None listed Not named
Namias-
P19820859 State 29 46 53.7918996 -93 40 31.5735204 Crownover Dredge: Ring levee new oil and gas only 0cy None listed Smith
Grand Chenier
P19821095 State 29 43 31.7927676 -92 47 56.5144692 Davis Oil Rig present 1900cy None listed Ridge
LA Resources Submerged or buried pipeline - Dredge: Grand Chenier
P19821205 State 29 43 28.7978628 -92 47 16.5125292 Pipeline backfill and/or plug for mitigation 4400cy None listed Ridge
P19821763 State 29 48 42.790752 -93 14 44.5481952 Williams Board road- rig present 3333cy None listed Back Ridge
Buried pipeline - Dredge: backfill and/or
P19821801 State 29 45 34.802334 -93 36 54.567396 Gulf plug for mitigation 12852cy None listed Blue Buck
Cameron Parish
P19830111 State 29 47 .797838 -93 13 50.5473132 Recreation Borrow pit for fill 18354cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Amoco
P19830586 State 29 48 33.7979988 -93 18 51.5537064 Production Rig/well present 2446cy None listed Back Ridge
P19830819 State 29 48 25.7954832 -93 13 23.5470936 Williams Industrial/Commercial Development 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Chenier Perdue
P19830965 State 29 49 5.7867852 -92 57 30.5331948 Theriot, Martin General dredge and/or fill 1220cy None listed Ridge
Amoco
P19830986 State 29 48 24.7931856 -93 19 .5525544 Production Rig/well present 670cy None listed Back Ridge
P19831002 State 29 46 3.8056656 -93 21 6.5541024 Forman Rig/well present 0cy None listed Not named
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Submerged or buried pipeline - general

P19831216 State 29 47 11.7963168 -93 14 35.548026 Cockerell dredge and/or fill 6930cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19831239 State 29 43 40.791396 -92 47 9.5121636 Tricentrol Rig/well present 8595cy None listed Ridge
P19831244 State 29 46 48.7981452 -93 19 26.552226 LLOG Rig/well present 3900cy None listed Not named
Submerged or buried pipeline- general
P19831451 State 29 48 28.7909676 -93 13 24.547476 Williams dredge and/or fill 1670cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Little Chenier
P19831590 State 29 50 32.7759 -92 59 51.5399892 Despot Rig/well present 4290cy None listed Ridge
LA Resources Submerged or buried pipeline- general
P19831623 State 29 48 29.7949968 -93 13 26.5475568 Pipeline dredge and/or fill 700cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Cameron Parish
P19831651 State 29 47 21.7893408 -93 44 54.5791236 Police Jury Canal maintenance 5200cy None listed Smith
Cameron Parish Grand Chenier
P19831679 State 29 45 .7951284 -92 54 3.521178 Waterworks Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 120000cy None listed Ridge
Cameron Gravity
P19831688 State 29 47 7 -93 17 52 Drainage District General dredge and/or fill 3200cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Chenier Perdue
P19831761 State 29 48 56.7815184 -92 56 32.5320396 Forman Rig/well present 3500cy None listed Ridge
Submerged or buried pipeline - general Grand Chenier
P19840158 State 29 44 33.7970112 -92 52 29.5201848 Technadril-Fenix dredge and/or fill 4032cy None listed Ridge
P19840270 State 29 49 49.784736 -93 8 6.5444604 Stone Rig/well present 4604cy None listed High Island
Callon Petroleum Grand Chenier
P19840554 State 29 43 57.7933248 -92 47 15.5129712 Operating Rig present - board road 8067cy None listed Ridge
Hackberry
P19840662 State 29 44 1.790232 -92 48 58.5142884 Evans, Mhire Borrow pit for fill 1500cy None listed Ridge
LA Waterfowl Boatslip - dredge - H20 Block: Pilings or Little Chenier
P19840666 State 29 49 29.7786792 -92 52 32.5258212 Unlimited dolphins (eg.Walkway) 800cy None listed Ridge
Texaco Production/heater platform - Dredge: shell Grand Chenier
P19840699 State 29 43 46.7922828 -92 47 13.5127104 Exploration and pad 300cy None listed Ridge
Little Chenier
P19840774 State 29 50 25.7826624 -93 0 2.53827 Despot Rig/well present 0cy None listed Ridge
CAMERON PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Cattlewalk - H20 Block: lock/culvert
P19840882 State 29 47 37.789422 -93 10 38.5440672 Dimas, Gary flapgate 1700cy None listed Front Ridge
Little Chenier
P19840923 State 29 50 38.7822948 -93 1 8.5401624 Arco Rig/well present 3183cy None listed Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19841091 State 29 43 33.7947204 -92 47 7.5135372 Wintershall Board road-rig/well present 2400cy None listed Ridge
Amoco
P19841442 State 29 48 27.7907616 -93 18 53.5533372 Production Well present 0cy None listed Back Ridge
Hackberry
P19841542 State 29 44 58.7891436 -93 43 36.5727 TXO Rig/well present 11666cy None listed Ridge
P19841730 State 29 49 36.7848516 -93 8 18.5446464 Stone Rig/well present 12500cy None listed High Island
Tennessee Gas
P19841749 State 29 45 28.8002196 -93 38 46.5691524 Pipeline buried pipeline - dredge or fill 10600cy None listed Blue Buck
Davis, Raymond Dredge: Borrow pit for fill, Rig present- Well
P19841769 State 29 46 24.7898496 -93 43 53.5748736 C. y
name: Raymond Davis Fee 3000 cyy None listed Blue Buck
Above ground and buried pipeline - general Little Chenier
P19850279 State 29 49 53.7839184 -92 56 52.5327864 TX Gas dredge and/or fill 18500cy None listed Ridge
P19850471 State 29 47 35.793744 -93 14 24.547668 Great South Rig/well present 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Cameron Parish Oak Grove
P19850503 State 29 47 22.7882472 -93 6 46.5401376 Gravity Drainage Drainage/flood program development 7460cy None listed Ridge
Cameron Parish
P19850504 State 29 47 25.7888076 -93 7 28.540254 Gravity Drainage Drainage/flood program development 4030cy None listed Front Ridge
Amoco
P19850673 State 29 48 33.7972392 -93 19 5.5521876 Production Backfill and/or plug for mitigation 200cy None listed Back Ridge
Hackberry
P19850746 State 29 45 15.7898412 -93 43 21.572706 TXO Rig/well present 5856cy None listed Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19850803 State 29 44 21.7906152 -92 50 48.5169936 Linder Well present 0cy None listed Ridge
Amoco
Cameron Grand Chenier
P19850984 State 29 43 57.7933248 -92 47 15.5129712 Development Rig/well present 8067cy None listed Ridge
Agricultural/Crayfish Pond - General dredge Little Chenier
P19851123 State 29 50 37.7763216 -93 0 56.5405488 Vincent, Amos and/or fill 3407cy None listed Ridge
Amoco
P19851158 State 29 48 24.7974228 -93 18 48.5526096 Production None listed 0cy None listed Back Ridge
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
P19851280 State 29 48 23.791806 -93 12 52.5475296 Williams Well present 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19851384 State 29 48 21.788226 -93 12 35.54613 Williams Well present 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19851489 State 29 47 21.7901688 -93 7 39.5410476 Rutherford, John Cattlewalk - Dredge Borrow pit for fill 3300cy None listed Front Ridge
Denovo Oil and Chenier Perdue
P19860111 State 29 49 23.7853056 -92 59 52.5374556 Gas Rig/well present 0cy None listed Ridge
Mosbach
P19860312 State 29 47 25.7870004 -93 4 38.5378716 Production Well present 0cy None listed Eugene Island
Grand Chenier
P19860353 State 29 44 39.7944816 -92 50 45.5175348 Linder Rig/well present 11670cy None listed Ridge
Amoco
Production
P19860399 State 29 48 32.7922164 -93 19 4.5530076 Company Rig/well present 1540cy None listed Back Ridge
Cameron g or buried ppipeline
Submerged p - ggeneral Grand Chenier
P19860401 State 29 43 55.7953104 -92 47 15.5123088 Development dredge and/or fill 1880cy None listed Ridge
Little Chenier
P19860439 State 29 50 32.7757488 -93 0 12.5395344 Conner, Kermit Pumping station 3300cy None listed Ridge
P19860580 State 29 44 34.7960256 -93 42 44.5725756 Canlan Oil Rig/well present-maintenance and repair 0cy None listed Not named
P19860614 State 29 46 3.7937028 -93 38 47.569596 CSX dredge and/or fill 8901cy None listed Blue Buck
Indian Pt.
P19860734 State 29 46 16.7889756 -92 55 30.5252688 Miller, Watkin H20 Block: Bulkhead and/or warf 0cy None listed Island
General dredge and/or fill - H20 Block: Grand Chenier
P19860752 State 29 44 37.792788 -92 51 25.5171276 Roberts, James Lock/Culvert flapgate 35cy None listed Ridge
P19860774 State 29 45 35.798814 -93 36 16.5668832 Bailey, John None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Amoco
P19860884 State 29 48 26.7972768 -93 19 1.5530916 Production Backfill and/or plug for mitigation 829cy None listed Back Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19860952 State 29 44 41.7913476 -92 50 44.5167096 Linder Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 1360cy None listed Ridge
LA Resources
P19870088 State 29 44 33.7942284 -93 42 40.5732744 Canlan Oil None listed 0cy None listed not named
CAMERON PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Cameron Parish Drainage/flood program development -
P19870131 State 29 45 40.8034476 -93 35 .5665884 Gravity Drainage Buried pipeline-General dredge and/or fill 4471cy None listed Blue Buck
ANR Pipeline
P19870162 State 29 44 40.7931864 -93 42 1.5726996 Company None listed 0cy None listed Not named
Hackberry
P19870203 State 29 45 .7946892 -92 50 48.516756 Standard Oil General dredge and/or fill 1053cy None listed Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19870349 State 29 46 .796116 -92 57 40.5281772 Conoco Canal maintenance dredge 20000cy None listed Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19870352 State 29 43 18.7918788 -92 46 42.51252 Theriot, Valian General dredge and/or fill - Board road 3000cy None listed Ridge
Hackberry
P19870448 State 29 45 .7955496 -92 50 49.5166236 Linder Rig present 8921cy None listed Ridge
Hackberry
P19870468 State 29 45 .7955496 -92 50 49.5166236 Linder None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19870548 State 29 45 52.7942412 -92 56 50.5262076 Boudreaux,, Larryy Agricultural/Crayfish
g y Pond 2725cyy None listed Ridge
g
Chenier Perdue
P19870555 State 29 49 4.7816112 -92 57 36.5328792 Hoin, Ernest None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Cameron Parish
P19870568 State 29 47 13.79742 -93 18 25.5509352 Police Jury General dredge and/or fill 340cy None listed Not named
Little Chenier
P19870594 State 29 50 40.7841108 -93 1 35.5404324 Rutherford, John Agricultural/Crayfish pond 1000cy None listed Ridge
Cameron General dredge and/or fill -
P19870612 State 29 47 21.7938372 -93 9 36.5435784 Construction Industrial/commercial development 163000cy None listed Front Ridge
P19870894 State 29 46 6.8104488 -93 30 .5622048 LaDOTD Highway work 0cy None listed Blue Buck
LA Resources
P19870929 State 29 45 59.797638 -93 38 17.569752 Pipeline Above ground and buried pipeline 25cy None listed Blue Buck
Little Chenier
P19870980 State 29 50 54.7819908 -93 2 28.541922 Trahan, Gene Residence or camp 900cy None listed Ridge
P19871016 State 29 48 38.7924156 -93 13 32.5477236 Graham Dredge: shell pad 4500cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Amoco
Amoco
Roy Bailey
P19880012 Local 29 45 54.7968204 -93 39 34.572258 Construction None listed 0cy None listed Not named
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Cameron
P19880017 Local 29 45 20.8034568 -93 36 34.5680064 Construction None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Roy Bailey Grand Chenier
P19880018 Local 29 45 19.7947872 -92 54 51.5217636 Construction None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Amoco
Buried pipeline-general dredge and/or fill- Hackberry
P19880102 State 29 45 1.7925408 -92 50 47.5164276 Linder well present 925cy None listed Ridge
Welch's Alligator Grand Chenier
P19880123 Local 29 45 22.7885328 -92 54 46.5227676 Farm None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19880166 State 29 44 34.7959428 -92 52 12.5194044 Exxon Rig/well present 0cy None listed Ridge
Hackberry
P19880254 Local 29 44 3.7915332 -92 49 12.5154912 Richard, Lester None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
P19880307 State 29 48 33.7890636 -93 13 32.5480188 Graham Above gground ppipeline

p 0cyy None listed Mesquite
q Ridge
g
P19880321 State 29 48 33.7936896 -93 13 34.5476568 Graham General dredge and/or fill 1700cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Hackberry
P19880413 State 29 45 .789444 -92 50 30.5150892 LL&E Rig/well present 0cy None listed Ridge
P19880421 State 29 48 35.7919956 -93 17 31.5514824 Camex dredge and/or fill 200cy None listed Back Ridge
P19880448 State 29 48 33.7890636 -93 13 32.5480188 Graham dredge and/or fill 4584cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19880565 State 29 48 23.7970152 -93 17 45.551346 Camex Rig/well present 278cy None listed Back Ridge
Cameron Parish
P19880757 Local 29 48 40.79322 -93 12 41.5471752 Gravity Drainage None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Equipment
P19880758 Local 29 45 28.799514 -93 39 45.5715432 Rentals None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Cameron Parish
Cameron Parish
Chenier Perdue
P19880784 State 29 48 44.7873624 -92 54 52.528176 Dynamic Rig/well present 175cy None listed Ridge
Cameron Parish
CAMERON PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
LA Resources Oak Grove
P19880825 State 29 47 .7885104 -93 4 20.5371624 Pipeline Industrial/commercial development 760cy None listed Ridge
Indian Pt.
P19880974 State 29 45 32.7886128 -92 54 2.521584 Statex Petroleum Rig/well present 1580cy None listed Island
P19881037 State 29 48 28.7981496 -93 17 46.552164 Rosewood Rig/well present 0cy None listed Back Ridge
Roy Bailey Oak Grove
Energy Grand Chenier
P19890319 State 29 43 58.7922744 -92 47 10.513518 Properties Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 60cy None listed Ridge
Nasser Oil & Grand Chenier
P19890361 State 29 44 26.7952704 -92 50 56.5169784 Gas, Inc. Rig/well present 5986cy None listed Ridge
Oak Grove
P19890388 Local 29 47 12.7961268 -93 6 48.53988 Hebert, Richard None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Amoco
P19890422 State 29 48 26.7983496 -93 18 19.5527988 Production Well ppresent - ppipeline
p above gground 0cyy None listed Back Ridge
g
P19890525 Local 29 45 10.7913852 -92 54 .5210712 Recreation None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
P19890570 Local 29 46 16.7928132 -93 43 20.5752072 Trahan, Alton None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
P19890697 State 29 48 22.7921472 -93 17 44.5510032 Camex Well present 0cy None listed Back Ridge
P19890722 State 29 48 29.7917388 -93 12 28.547028 Graham Rig (directional hole) and well present 533cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19890751 State 29 46 6.8104488 -93 30 .5622048 LaDOTD None listed 50000cy None listed Blue Buck
P19891086 State 29 49 24.7875636 -93 2 27.5390592 Theriot, Willard None listed 0cy None listed Pumpkin Ridge
Natural Gas Grand Chenier
P19891108 State 29 44 58.7957208 -92 51 54.51903 Pipeline General dredge and/or fill 180cy None listed Ridge
Grand Chenier
P19900154 Local 29 43 35.7972492 -92 47 30.5137464 Brasseaux, D.L. None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
P19900207 State 29 46 5.7996768 -93 38 47.570658 Scurlock Oil None listed 3110cy None listed Blue Buck
Buried pipeline - Well present - general Hackberry
P19900215 State 29 45 .789444 -92 50 30.5150892 Linder dredge and/or fill 1945cy None listed Ridge
Cameron Parish
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
P19900546 Local 29 45 59.792058 -92 57 2.5262568 Recreation None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
P19900910 State 29 46 8.7976416 -93 20 58.5533904 Linder Rig/well present 4580cy None listed Not named
P19901161 State 29 48 39.7878156 -93 13 .5477052 Graham Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 1334cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19910165 Local 29 45 48.7986804 -93 39 12.5708616 Young, Elden None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Indian Pt.
P19910180 Local 29 45 42.78789 -92 54 37.5231672 Conner, John None listed 0cy None listed Island
Natural Gas
Buried pipeline - Well present - general
P19910385 State 29 46 8.7976416 -93 20 58.5533904 Linder dredge and/or fill 2250cy None listed Not named
Oak Grove
P19910493 Local 29 47 .7880352 -93 3 49.5363888 Reina,, J.C. None listed 0cyy None listed Ridge
g
Grand Chenier
P19910523 Local 29 43 30.7940052 -92 45 40.5110268 Miller, Donald None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Chenier Perdue
P19910597 Local 29 49 22.7840736 -93 0 52.5378276 Giroir, Joseph None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Cameron
P19910708 State 29 45 44.7919704 -93 41 54.5717076 Telephone none listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
P19910737 Local 29 46 45.7983696 -93 14 56.5474452 Cameron Parish None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Natural Gas Grand Chenier
P19910741 State 29 44 36.7948176 -92 52 47.51859 Pipeline General dredge and/or fill 340cy None listed Ridge
P19910816 Local 29 49 .7899852 -93 11 26.5465896 Richard, P.D. None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19910963 Local 29 46 30 -93 44 0 Trahan, Allen None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Shell Western
P19911072 State 29 47 20.7919932 -93 4 8.5363356 E&P Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 2283cy None listed Eugene Island
Vastar Grand Chenier
P19920612 State 29 46 .796116 -92 57 40.5281772 Resources, Inc. Canal maintenance dredge 24250cy None listed Ridge
P19920794 Local 29 48 20.791386 -93 13 4.5474852 Valette, Calvin None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
LA Resources
P19920823 State 29 47 22.7895288 -93 4 9.5372904 Pipeline Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 208cy None listed Eugene Island
CAMERON PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Fawvor, James Grand Chenier
P19920853 Local 29 45 16.7963904 -92 55 15.5230572 E. None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Garber,
P19920898 Local 29 46 57.7894116 -93 41 10.573782 Nickolaus None listed 0cy None listed Smith
P19921061 Local 29 46 26.7944952 -93 10 48.542772 Theriot, F.O. None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Phillips Hackberry
P19921107 State 29 45 14.7930264 -93 44 38.5756044 Petroleum Buried pipeline 0cy None listed Ridge
Borrow pit for fill - Industrial/commercial
P19921303 State 29 47 .8011428 -93 19 20.5529628 Smith, Victor P. construction 5120cy None listed Not named
P19921315 State 29 46 14.7948132 -93 43 20.5756428 LeBouef, Eric None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Shell Western Oak Grove
P19930065 State 29 46 59.7955908 -93 3 52.5368232 E&P Rig/well present 1000cy None listed Ridge
Cameron
P19930111 Local 29 45 41.796702 p
-93 37 30.5694264 Telephone None listed 0cyy None listed Blue Buck
Columbia Gulf Pumping station, pipelines buried and
P19930235 State 29 45 51.7940172 -93 38 21.5698956 Transmission above ground, general dredge and/or fill 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Cameron Parish
P19930579 State 29 48 24.7987764 -93 19 18.5527236 MW Petroleum Rig/well present 1045cy None listed Back Ridge
Roy Bailey Grand Chenier
Cameron Parish
P19930632 Local 29 47 28.795506 -93 8 .5425584 Gravity Drainage None listed 0cy None listed Front Ridge
Transcontinental
P19930873 State 29 46 5.7937296 -93 38 30.570936 Gas General dredge and/or fill 1517cy None listed Blue Buck
Lacoste, Donald
P19930945 Local 29 45 40.80258 -93 33 55.565478 D. None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Little Chenier
P19930987 Local 29 49 36.7832676 -92 55 .5300364 Trahan, Hillary None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Quinn, George
P19931086 Local 29 48 40.7916288 -93 13 2.5477752 C. None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Riceland
P19931292 State 29 44 30.79176 -93 42 53.5728132 Petroleum Rig/well present 1945cy None listed Not named
Smith Production
P19940035 State 29 46 18.8013792 -93 20 53.5531344 Company Rig/well present 3895cy None listed Not named
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Smith Production
P19940036 State 29 46 33 -93 19 51 Company Rig/well present 1945cy None listed Not named
Roy Bailey
P19940119 Local 29 45 59.7922164 -93 39 34.5708612 Construction None listed 0cy None listed Not named
P19940380 Local 29 47 18.7924812 -93 16 38.550648 Theriot, Roman None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19940452 Local 29 46 50.7969264 -93 15 20.5474536 Miller, Layton None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19940997 Local 29 46 30.7933032 -93 10 58.5443388 Savoie, John C. None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Cameron Parish Hackberry
P19941213 Local 29 45 24.79014 -93 44 2.5741824 School None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Riceland
P19950044 State 29 44 26.7922284 -93 43 16.5726984 Petroleum Well present 0cy None listed Not named
Cameron Parish
P19950060 Local 29 48 45.7932708 -93 11 28.5454284 Gravityy Drainage
g None listed 0cyy None listed Mesquite
q Ridge
g
Cameron Parish
Boudreaux,
P19950496 Local 29 48 14.79078 -93 11 39.5452788 Glenda None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Boudreaux,
P19951049 Local 29 48 10.7886492 -93 11 43.5461676 Glenda None listed 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19951055 State 29 47 .7890504 -93 4 19.5369636 E&P General dredge and/or fill 802cy None listed Ridge
Texas Meridian Pumping station - buried pipeline and well
P19951369 State 29 48 42.7912704 -93 16 43.5501732 Resources present 0.6ac (2076cy) E2EM1P6 Back Ridge
Roy Bailey Oak Grove
Cameron Little Chenier
P19951418 Local 29 50 53.7777672 -93 2 17.5423992 Waterworks None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
ANR Pipeline
P19960777 State 29 48 .7945128 -93 11 .544596 Company Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 120cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Texas Meridian
P19960905 State 29 48 46.7896932 -93 17 1.5510408 Resources Buried pipeline - well present 0cy None listed Back Ridge
CAMERON PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Cameron Parish
P19961386 Local 29 45 15.8107572 -93 27 20.5597368 Gravity Drainage None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
P19961876 Local 29 45 30.7980756 -93 37 20.5677588 Sandpiper Estate None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Texas Meridian
P19970534 State 29 48 47.7915408 -93 18 48.5528508 Resources Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 3.9ac (6196cy) E2EM1P6 Back Ridge
P19970796 Local 29 46 25.79187 -93 7 42.5410464 Labove, Kent None listed 0cy None listed Front Ridge
Erbelding,
P19971050 Local 29 45 10.8026136 -93 35 25.5655788 George None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
LA Resources 0.03ac, 0.03ac
P19971363 State 29 48 24 -93 16 59 Pipeline Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill (114cy) E2EM1P6, UR Back Ridge
Little Chenier Little Chenier
P19971512 Local 29 51 8.7780744 -93 3 10.5434676 Hunting None listed 0cy None listed Ridge
Riceland 1ac, 1.1ac
P19971670 State 29 44 33.791442 -93 42 51.5735028 Petroleum g
Rig/well ppresent ((1904cy)
y) E2EM1P5,, UU Not named
Protech Oil Field
P19980188 Local 29 45 55.7874072 -93 44 42.5756436 SE None listed 0cy None Listed Garner
Basin
P19980318 State 29 45 26 -93 37 42 Exploration Borrow pit for fill 1ac (200cy) UU Blue Buck
RME Petroleum
P19980445 State 29 48 39.7935936 -93 12 10.5455412 Company Buried pipeline - general dredge and/or fill 0.22ac (620cy) PEM1C Mesquite Ridge
Riceland
P19981006 State 29 44 34.7960616 -93 42 47.5722792 Petroleum Well present 0.69ac E2EM1P4 Not named
ANR Pipeline
P19981183 State 29 45 54 -93 38 32 Company None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Rutherford, Olive
P19981257 Local 29 47 24.7950168 -93 7 56.5416696 B. None listed 0cy None listed Front Ridge
Zydeco Well Name: SL 16508- General dredge
P19981673 State 29 43 21.791424 -93 47 54.5841384 Exploration and/or fill (eg. Flowlines) 2.5ac E2EM1N4 Not named
Grand Chenier
P19981723 State 29 44 20.7949632 -92 50 17.5170732 Fancor Oil, Inc. Well present 2.07ac (267cy) UF8 Ridge
Roy Bailey
P19990323 state 29 46 .17 -93 39 49.92 Construction None listed 0cy None listed Blue Buck
Cameron Parish Normal maintenance and repair - general
P19990401 Local 29 47 42.1959 -93 13 57.0521 Gravity Drainage dredge and/or fill 660cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Cheniere Energy
P19990563 State 29 45 55.2767 -93 39 45.2497 Inc Rig/well present 3.1ac (730cy) UR Blue Buck
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Bertrand,
P19990734 Local 29 46 7.03 -93 7 55 Charles Lynn Residential development - borrow pit for fill 8450cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Cameron Parish Normal maintenance and repair - general
P19990738 Local 29 47 4.2714 -93 18 21.7378 Gravity Drainage dredge and/or fill 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
P19991060 Local 29 49 42.62 -93 7 7.23 Wicke, Greg None listed 0cy None listed High Island
.35ac/.23ac Grand Chenier
P19991289 State 29 44 14.04 -92 50 13.41 Panaco, Inc. General dredge and/or fill (466cy) PEM1C/UF8 Ridge
Oak Grove Little Chenier
P19991330 Local 29 51 26.04899 -93 4 19.6401 Hunting Club None listed 0.04ac (266cy) E2EM1P6 Ridge
The Meridian
Resources and Oak Grove
P19991400 State 29 47 .79149 -93 3 48.53665 Exploration Rig/well present 1.74ac (1452cy) UU Ridge
Cameron Parish Perform maintenance dredging on Smith,
P20000355 State 29 44 10 -93 44 25 Gravity Drainage Mays & Trahan Bayous 0.01ac E1UBL4 Blue Buck
Indian Access re
Access, re-enter
enter, complete and produce Little Chenier
P20000623 State 29 50 31.273 -92 59 49.17 Exploration, Inc. the Camelia Nunez Well #2 0.55ac UR Ridge
Hilliard Grand Chenier
P20000658 State 29 43 13 -92 46 17 Petroleum Install structures to serve Mhire Well #1 2.4ac (655cy) UR Ridge
DNR Office of Indian Pt.
P20001124 State 29 42 0 -92 59 0 Conservation- Underwater Obstructions Removal 0cy None listed Island
DNR Office of Indian Pt.
P20001254 State 29 42 0 -92 59 0 Conservation- Underwater Obstructions Removal 0cy PEM1Fh Island
Riceland
P20001274 State 29 44 34 -93 42 48 Petroleum Structures to serve SL16037 #2 0.68ac (622cy) E2EM1P4 Not named
Southwestern 2.8ac, 3.14ac
P20001537 State 29 49 48.2 -93 8 2.5 Energy Structures to serve Joyce Sturlese et al #1 (760cy) PEM1T, UU High Island
Dore Energy Ring levee structures to serve Gray Estate
P20001630 State 29 45 44.1 -93 42 5.9 Corporation #1 0.61ac, 1.26ac PEM, UR Blue Buck
Constance,
P20001661 Local 29 48 15 -93 13 25 Katrina Excavate for fish pond and fill 0cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Petroquest Drill barge structures to serve Mermentau 2.07 ac, 2.06ac Chenier Perdue
P20001882 State 29 48 42 -92 54 43.5 Energy, Inc. Minerals #1 (297cy) E2EM1P6, UR Ridge
Cameron Parish Restore levee & remove water control Little Chenier
P20010045 Local 29 49 24.5 -92 52 45.85 Gravity Drainage structure 0cy None listed Ridge
Department of Bridge Replacement for Parish Road 357 Oak Grove
P20010264 State 29 47 9 -93 6 55 Transportation over Creole Canal 0cy None listed Ridge
CAMERON PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Basin
P20010314 State 29 45 21.18 -93 37 46.9 Exploration Repair 16" gas pipeline 0.01ac (333cy) USSs Blue Buck
Riceland Install structures to serve Matilda Gray Hackberry
P20010340 State 29 45 11 -93 42 53 Petroleum Streams #1 4.2ac E2EM1N5 Ridge
Tepco Install drill board road, drillsite & structures Grand Chenier
P20010413 State 29 45 20 -92 55 11 Resources, Inc. to serve Fawvor Estates #1 2.2ac (4033cy) UA Ridge
Cameron Parish Perform lateral maintenance in Cameron
P20010529 State 29 47 21.4795 -93 18 17.2166 Gravity Drainage area 0cy None listed Back Ridge
American Tower Construct Johnson Bayou Communication
P20010810 Local 29 45 59.92 -93 42 50.68 Corporation Tower 0.01ac UR Blue Buck
Williams Field Pipeline/Flowline - Maintenance on a 24"
P20010992 State 29 42 53.808 -93 50 24.463 Services pipeline 16.5ac PEM1F Blue Buck
Drill Site - Ring levee to drill the Evariste 2.06ac, 1.42ac Grand Chenier
P20011125 State 29 44 23 -92 50 20 Fancor Oil, Inc. Nunez Heirs Well #3. (355cy) PFO1A Ridge
Cameron Parish
P20011231 Local 29 46 31.9728 -93 44. 11924 Gravityy Drainage
g Replace
p culvert in the Johnson Bayou
y Area 32cyy None listed Blue Buck
Mission Install structures to serve ER & CF Henry
P20011511 State 29 48 46.251 -93 17 .371 Resources Est. et al SWD #2 0.42ac UR Back Ridge
Cameron Parish Maintenance dredge existing W-1 east
P20011812 Local 29 47 48.48 -93 11 28.21 Gravity Drainage drainage lateral 0.55ac (1926cy) PEM1C
Bertrand,
P20020216 Local 29 46 7.03 -93 7 54.73 Charles Lynn Fill for development 638cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Wilkerson,
P20020217 Local 29 47 25 -93 12 32 Wendell Excavate sand and clay for commercial use 0.86ac (16000cy) UR Mesquite Ridge
Boudreaux, Excavate to enlarge an existing boat slip
P20020564 Local 29 47 11 -93 8 18 Dorothy and boat house 0.01ac (50cy) UA Front Ridge
Harrington, Home site/driveway - excavate a pond and
P20020581 Local 29 45 55 -93 45 53 Richard use fill for landscape improvements to and 1.6ac UR Blue Buck
Excavate a fish pond to obtain fill for Indian Pt.
P20021171 Local 29 46 0 -92 55 13 Boudreaux, Larry commercial use 1.72ac (38000cy) UA Island
Ballard Install two 6" flowlines and structures to Chenier Perdue
P20021530 State 29 49 2 -92 57 0 Exploration serve the Theriot Heirs Well No. 001 ST 0.06ac (343cy) E2EM1P6 Ridge
Reef Exploration, Install structures and ring levee to drill
P20030001 State 29 48 32 -93 17 37 Inc. Henry 28 Well No. 2 2.45ac E2EM1P5 Back Ridge
Excavate a fish pond and deposit fill around
P20030470 State 29 45 49 -93 43 10 Badon, Stacey homesite at 6648 Golf Beach Hwy. 2.27ac (38223cy) UR Blue Buck
Excavate a fish/turtle pond, deposit fill, and
P20030629 Local 29 47 46 -93 13 52 Trahan, Alfred stockpile fill for future use 1000cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Hilliard install a board road, ring levee, and Hackberry
P20030636 State 29 46 17.007 -92 50 24.833 Petroleum structures to drill the Millrich Properties, 2.5ac (750cy) USSs Ridge
Smith Production Construct a well pad and ring levee to drill
P20030737 State 29 46 33.692 -93 19 51.58 Company the Vua J.A. Davis No. 3 Well 2.07ac (1082cy) None listed Not named
Cameron Parish Replace an existing water well and
P20031174 Local 29 48 29.938 -93 9 52.1221 Water Works construct an elevated storage tank to 500cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Dig a fish pond and use excavated material Grand Chenier
P20031495 Local 29 44 16 -92 51 2 Baker, Lynn as fill for a house pad located in Grand 2000cy None listed Ridge
Noble Energy, Drill Site - install structures to drill the
P20031651 State 29 45 53 -93 48 15 Inc. Sanders Ridge No. 2 Prospect Well located 0.03 ac UR Blue Buck
Reef Exploration, Construct a ring levee for drilling the 1.96ac, 0.45ac Chenier Perdue
P20040680 State 29 48 42 -92 54 45 LLC Mermentau Minerals Well No. 1 in the Little (286cy ) E2EM1P6, UR Ridge
Cheniere Install the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal 6.56ac
P20040708 State 29 45 15 -93 52 34 Energy, Inc. (P20033120) and the Sabine Pass Pipeline (4569000cy) E2EM1P5 Blue Buck
Sandalwood Oil Construct a board road to set up a drilling
P20041202 State 29 46 25 -93 19 20 and Gas,, Inc. rigg and structures necessaryy to drill the SL 3.65ac ((933cy)
y) UR Not named
excavate a pond in the Ocean View
P20041292 Local 29 45 29 -93 36 22 Romero, Jerry Subdivision 0.86ac USS Blue Buck
Cameron Parish introduce fresh water into the Oyster Lake
P20041337 State 29 48 40.0861 -93 23 51.6766 Gravity Drainage Area 0cy None listed Not named
Han-Padron Place four "bottom-mounted" meters in
P20041608 State 29 45 54 -93 20 48 Associates various locations to provide navigational 0cy M1UBL4 Not named
Sandalwood Oil install a drillsite and structures to drill the
P20041765 state 29 48 44 -93 14 44 and Gas, Inc. Calcasieu Lake South Prospect 1.51ac (2294cy) UUo Back Ridge
Clayton Williams Install a 4" flowline to serve SL 17636 Well
P20051133 State 29 44 49 -93 15 53 Energy, Inc. No. 1 3474cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
Cameron Parish maintenance of drainage lateral in Sections
P20051228 Local 29 47 18 -93 16 10 Gravity Drainage 24-26 0.77ac (1850cy) UR Mesquite Ridge
PEL-TEX Oil Install a board road, driveway, and drill site Chenier Perdue
P20051334 State 29 48 47 -92 55 16 Company, LLC to drill the Millrich Properties, L.L.C. Well 2.51ac (7002cy) UR Ridge
After-the-fact permit for repair of an existing
P20051668 State 29 46 .14 -93 38 17.32 Chevron Pipeline valve site damaged by Hurricane Rita. 0.01ac UUo Blue Buck
Callon Petroleum Construct an oil and gas production facility
P20060778 State 29 47 8 -93 11 52 Operating in an area that was a former homesite 636cy None listed Mesquite Ridge
PEL-TEX Oil Install 2 pipelines, install 2 valve sites and 2 0.84ac, 4.28ac, E1UBL6, Little Chenier
P20061120 State 29 48 47.31 -92 55 16.03 Company, LLC driveways, directional drill a 2,660-foot (12427cy) E2EM1P6 Ridge
Water hole/fish pond to get dirt for property
P20061131 Local 29 45 -93 44 Trahan, Gregory improvements and possibly sell excess 0cy None listed Blue Buck
CAMERON PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Install a sand fence on Beach Blvd. in the
P20061497 Local 29 45 21 -93 36 21 Hannen, Paul Oceanview Subdivision in Johnson Bayou 0ac, 0cy URd Blue Buck
Fill and grade for house pad and fish pond
P20061498 Local 29 46 13 -93 42 22 Snyder, James at 115 Eddie Lane in Johnson Bayou 0.24 ac UU Blue Buck
Excavation and fill to raise house
P20061764 Local 29 47 59 -93 12 33 Vincent, Michelle foundation to the required base flood 0.05ac (1388cy) UU Mesquite Ridge
Quality Oilfield, Digging for sand to use for house pads to Grand Chenier
P20061816 Local 29 43 46.32 -92 48 15.57 LLC elevate homes to FEMA requirements at 1.38ac (26000cy) PUBHx Ridge
Cheniere
P20070057 Local 29 45 59.92 -93 42 50.68 Energy, Inc. Proposed construction of Johnson Bayou 0.5ac (1010cy) UR Blue Buck
Cheniere Sabine Construction of the Johnson Bayou
P20070115 State 29 45 56 -93 38 44 Pass Pipeline, Metering & Regulatory (M&R) Facility to 3.03ac, 13.92ac E2EM1P6, Uuo Blue Buck
Ballard Proposed well location to produce the Chenier Perdue
P20070206 State 29 49 3 -92 57 0 Exploration Baccigalopi well no 2 on an existing shell 0.01ac USS Ridge
Natural Gas The proposed project will include the
P20070358 State 29 47 35.6 -93 44 52.3 p
Pipeline construction and operation
p of an 0.1ac ((190cy)
y) UUo Smith Ridge
g
PEL-TEX Oil Installation of a ring levee drill site, with a Little Chenier
P20070445 State 29 49 24.12 -92 53 56.69 Company, LLC board road, to drill and produce the 1.95ac (4600cy) UR Ridge
Williams Gas Proposed interconnect on the 30" SWLA
P20070662 State 29 45 59.4 -93 38 22.1 Pipeline Lateral at the SWLA, M.P. 20.3 0.1ac (246cy) UUo Blue Buck
Excavate and deposit fill for a new home
P20071608 Local 29 46 6 -93 21 35 Allaire, John C. site at 621 Gulf Beach Hwy. in Holly Beach 3111cy None listed Not named
M & C Oilfield construction of bulkhead, access road, two 7ac, 0.67ac
P20071709 State 29 46 20 -93 20 49 Services, Inc. crane pads, and mooring dolphins (326660cy) E1UBL4, UR Not named
Energy XXI Gulf Proposed limestone road, drillsite (285' x
P20080092 State 29 45 43 -93 34 47 Coast, Inc. 315') & structures for drilling Venus 2.47ac UR Blue Buck
Stone Energy Placement of board mats and plastic
P20080177 State 29 45 10.7 -93 37 46.1 Company barriers around an existing exposed 0.1ac Urd Blue Buck
Natural Gas Proposed installation of two 12" and one
P20080204 State 29 45 59.99 -93 38 27.5 Pipeline 16" pipelines (total length approx. 920') to 0.86ac UUo Blue Buck
Gulf South Proposed installation of a temporary trap Grand Chenier
P20080504 State 29 45 10.98 -92 53 58.32 Pipeline and a temporary workspace (50' x 100') on 0.03ac (250cy) UU Ridge
Pioneer approximately 43 soil borings were Oak Grove
P20081087 State 29 47 8.4 -93 4 13.2 Exploration, LLC sampled from various locations on the site 0cy None listed Ridge and
ST. TAMMANY PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
CUP # CONCERN LATITUDE LONGITUDE APPLICANT DESCRIPTION acre (ac) HABITAT TYPE
Perform geotechnical soil borings for tower footing
P20000573 State 30 4 54.98 -90 24 42.45 Entergy locations (Gypsy to Madisonville) 0.01ac E1UBL5
Mullen, Edward C.
P19820961 State 30 12 54.703422 -89 41 16.2111444 Jr. General dredge and/or fill (flowlines) 2,010cy Not listed
P19870462 State 30 11 50.705488 -89 42 31.2134472 Wall, V.G. Borrow Pit For Fill 217,000 cy Not listed
St. Tammany Parish
P19821400 State 30 16 5.7017964 -89 51 1.2404952 Council None listed 0cy Not listed
St. Tammany Parish
P19821442 State 30 16 .7028472 -89 51 .2371896 Council PERMIT NUMBER CANCELLED 0cy Not listed
Dufor, Elliot,
P19840544 State 30 25 9.6993192 -90 10 44.2862364 Centine None listed 0cy Not listed
Bouliville
P19850231 State 30 15 51.7058496
51 7058496 -89
89 50 46.2379668
46 2379668 Corporation Residential development
de elopment 0c
0cy Not listed
P19860242 State 30 20 9.7047852 -89 59 46.2631164 Tree Timber Service None listed 0cy Not listed
Tullier, Norris J.
P19870247 State 30 16 5.6993448 -89 50 38.2392204 Mrs. None listed 0cy Not listed
P19870741 State 30 20 .7005444 -90 0 .2616732 Allkirk Corporation Industrial/commercial development 0cy Not listed
P19880954 State 30 16 18.7003812 -89 51 39.241152 Mossler, E.K. Dredging for fill behind bulkhead 300cy Not listed
P19910269 State 30 20 6.7033896 -90 0 14.2642008 Wilson, Justin None listed 0cy Not listed
P19920644 State 30 25 17.6996964 -90 9 44.286498 Madisonville Wood Residential development 0cy Not listed
DiCarlo, Vincent
P19931181 Local 30 16 5.7018864 -89 52 49.2440736 and Mary None listed 0cy Not listed
P19940145 State 30 25 37.698834 -90 12 20.2899168 Revere, Richard None listed 1926cy Not listed
Black River Land
P19950540 Local 30 25 35.6943288 -90 10 57.2889504 Development None listed 0cy Not listed
P19950801 State 30 25 30.7003044 -90 10 25.286268 Duncan, Janice None listed 170cy Not listed
ST. TAMMANY PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
P19951310 Local 30 26 .6937584 -90 11 55.2883056 Frobea, Michael None listed 0cy Not listed
LA Department of
P19951421 State 30 20 52.701036 -90 2 38.26941 Culture General dredge and/or fill 18055cy Not listed
P19960363 Local 30 22 45.7020552 -90 10 45.2846928 Materne, Gerald M. None listed 0cy Not listed
Indian Trace
P19961100 Local 30 26 10.699908 -90 14 .294198 Development None listed 0cy Not listed
Hurricane evacuation study to connect US90 to

P19971391 State None listed None listed LaDOTD LA3127 0cy Not listed
P19980883 State 30 16 4.700388 -89 50 40.2386532 LaDOTD None listed 0cy Not listed
P20001114 Local 30 20 13 -89 59 30 Simms, Dustin Construction of single family residence 0cy Not listed
Delta Land Holding, Proposed construction of the River Club residential

P20071007 State 30 26 18 -90 7 47 LLC development in Covington, which contains 149 lots. 0cy Not listed
DiMarco, Elizabeth
P19990501 Local 30 16 3.31 -89 50 58.11 P.BETH P None listed 0.1ac PEM1T
ST. Tammany Soil borings-preliminary geotechnical information for
Parish School construction of a new junior high school on Hwy 190
P20030318 Local 30 20 27.09 -90 0 27.3 Board east of Mandeville 0.09ac UF7
Construct a planned unit development (Lakewood
P20030412 Local 30 26 0 -90 13 32 Coate, Buddy Estates) 0.07ac UF7
Baham construct a homesite on Lot 30 at 1966 Hwy. 22 in
P20040921 Local 30 26 11 -90 14 35 Construction, LLC Madisonville 0.08ac UF7
Post Corporation of construct a homesite on Lot 16 of River Cypress Lane
P20050873 Local 30 25 22 -90 8 56 LA, LLC of Brady Island subdivision in Madisonville 0.1ac UF7
Construct a homesite on a vacant lot in an established

P20070962 Local 30 25 9 -90 11 11 Sjunnesen, Eric subdivision on Mattingly Lane in Madisonville 0.13 ac (262cy) UF8
P19811583 Jackson Cable PERMIT WITHDRAWN
P19841754 Kopfler, Edwin L. PERMIT WITHDRAWN

ST. TAMMANY PARISH
IMPACTS
cubic yards (cy)
Second
P19850752 Development PERMIT CANCELLED
St. Tammany Parish
P19921196 Gr PERMIT WITHDRAWN
P19930835 V&B International APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

APPENDIX C
DATA FORMS AND COPIES OF

SAMPLE LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS

BIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
CHENIERS AND NATURAL RIDGES STUDY
LDNR Contract No. 2533-08-02
10/7/08 Field Analysts: Ryan Coleman/Lee Womack

Date:
Sample Location ID Number: 001 Coordinates: 29.75823, 93.82230
Feature Name: Garner Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Gravel road/private/raised
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Access road, gravel
with drainage ditches
Current/Adjacent land uses Current marsh; Adjacent - none
History of land use (if known) N/A
Wildlife Species observed Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) (2)
Invasive plant and animal species N/A
Mapped soil type(s) Mermentau-Hackberry
Comments Chenier feature not recognizable
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Spartina patens H FACW 6.
2. Iva frutescens S FACW+ 7.
3. Sesbania exaltata S FACW- 8.
4. Distichlis spicata H FACW+ 9.
5. Rumex crispus H FAC 10.
Remarks: Dieback as a result of Hurricanes Ike and Gustav

W E
Photographs of Sample 001 in the four cardinal directions

10/7/08 Field Analysts: Ryan Coleman/Lee Womack

Date:
Feature Name: Saltwork Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Well pad, trailers,
fill, gravel, drainage ditches along access road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current oil/gas pad, trailers
Wildlife Species observed Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) (2); grackle (Quiscalus

quiscula)(15); marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) (2)
Comments Ridge feature not visible
VEGETATION
5. Phragmites australis H FACW 10.
Remarks: Dieback due to salt intrusion from Hurricanes Ike and Gustav
W E

Date: 10/7/08 Field Analysts: Ryan Coleman/Lee Womack
Feature Name: Hackberry Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Ditches along
access road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current gravel turn around, drainage alterations; Adjacent
marsh
Wildlife Species observed Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritas) (1); grackle (Quiscalus

quiscula) (7); common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) (1)
VEGETATION

Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Sanders Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Gravel road private
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Tank, well pad,
gravel fill for pad
Current/Adjacent land uses Current oil/gas; Adjacent marsh
Wildlife Species observed Plain-billed water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster; red-eared slider
(Trachemys scripta elegans); alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
VEGETATION
1. Amaranthus australis S OBL 7. Baccharis halimifolia S FAC
2. Sesbania exaltata S FACW- 8. Phragmites australis H FACW

Iva frutescens Schoenoplectus
3. S FACW+ 9. H OBL
americanus
4. Typha angustifolia H OBL 10. Lycium carolinianum S FACW
6. Ipomea purpurea H FACU 12.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Blue Buck Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Gravel driveway private
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Camp, storm
damage, gravel fill, power line right-of-way (ROW) fence, concrete pad
Current/Adjacent land uses Current camp; Adjacent marsh
Wildlife Species observed Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) (4); Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula)
(1)
Invasive plant and animal species Sapium sebiferum
Comments Ridge feature visible
VEGETATION
1. Celtis laevigata T FACW 7.
2. Sapium sebiferum T FAC 8.
3. Lycium carolinianum S FACW 9.
5. Acacia farnesiana S FACU 11.
6. Cynodon dactylon H FACU 12.
Remarks: Celtis laevigata stunted

BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD* PARAMETERS FOR
MITIGATION CALCULATIONS
(WVA)
PERCENT OF OVERSTORY CANOPY CONSISTING OF MAST OR OTHER EDIBLE
100 all SEED PRODUCERS (RED MAPLE, SUGARBERRY, GREEN ASH, BOXELDER,
sugarberry COMMON PERSIMMON SWEETGUM, HONEYLOCUST, RED MULBERRY,
BALDCYPRESS, TUPELO GUM, AMERICAN ELM, CEDAR ELM, ETC.)
PERCENT OF OVERSTORY CANOPY CONSISTING OF HARD MAST PRODUCING

0 TREES (OAKS, SWEET PECAN, OTHER HICKORIES)
AVERAGE AGE OF CANOPY-DOMINANT AND CANOPY-CODOMINANT TREES

OR
AVERAGE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH) OF CANOPY-DOMINANT OR CANOPY-
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Celtis laevigata overstory/midstory 8-10
Sapium sebiferum midstory 3-4
Acacia farnesiana understory <2
10 PERCENT UNDERSTORY COVER
20 PERCENT MIDSTORY COVER
50 PERCENT OVERSTORY COVER
IS THE AREA PART OF A FORCED DRAINAGE SYSTEM? No
WHAT IS THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE WATER TABLE?

(NEAR THE SURFACE, DEEP) N/A
IS THE NATURAL HYDROLOGY ESSENTIALLY UNALTERED ALLOWING FOR NATURAL

WETTING AND DRYING CYCLES? No
DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION None
*An area supporting or capable of supporting a canopy of woody vegetation of which greater than 40% consists of
tree species such as oaks, hickories, American elm, cedar elm, green ash, sweetgum, sugarberry, boxelder, common
persimmon, honeylocust, red mulberry, eastern cottonwood, American sycamore, etc.
W E

Feature Name: Garner Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Gravel access road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Gravel access road
leading to well pad/tanks/trailers; Power line right-of-way (ROW) gas - cleared
Current/Adjacent land uses Current ROW and access road gravel Sabine Lake Central
Gathering Facility Rosetta Resources, LP.OP; Adjacent marsh
Wildlife Species observed N/A
Comments Power line ROW running directly through ridge feature, ridge feature not visible
VEGETATION
Symphyotrichum
1. H OBL 8. Spartina patens H FACW
tenuifolium
2. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 9.
3. Borrichia frutescens S OBL 10.

Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Smith Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Blacktop road (PR 548)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) House, gravel
fill/road, blacktop road, fence, drainage ditch
Current/Adjacent land uses Current home site; Adjacent marsh/pasture
Wildlife Species observed Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), killdeer (Charadrius

vociferous), snowy egret (Egretta thula), grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), stilt (Himantopus
himantopus), blue heron (Ardea herodias), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), common
moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja)
Comments ridge feature visible
VEGETATION
1. Cynodon dactylon H FACU 5. Quercus virginiana T FACU+
2. Phragmites australis H FACW 6. Platanus occidentalis T FACW-
3. Ipomea purpurea H FACU 7.
Schoenoplectus
4. H OBL 8.
americanus
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Smith Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Unnamed road, blacktop/ gravel off PR 548
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Fence, house (lost
in storm), shed, roads, pasture
Current/Adjacent land uses Current fallow pasture; Adjacent - residential
Comments ridge feature visible
VEGETATION
1. Carya illinoiensis T FAC+ 8.
2. Quercus virginiana T FACU+ 9.
5. Baccharis halimifolia S FAC 12.
6. Typha angustifolia H OBL 13.
7. Spartina alterniflora H OBL 14.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Smith Ridge Northern Finger
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Blacktop Leads to warehouse/oil production
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Fill/oil production,
power line ROW, road, cranes/equipment
Current/Adjacent land uses Current oil facility; Adjacent marsh/bayou
Wildlife Species observed Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), alligator (Alligator

mississippiensis)
Comments ridge visible
VEGETATION
1. Phragmites australis H FACW 8. Sapium sebiferum T FAC
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Peveto Woods bird sanctuary
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Blacktop Gulfview Avenue; Gravel Little Florida
Beach PR-556
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Preserve no
alterations
Current/Adjacent land uses Current - bird sanctuary BR Audubon; Adjacent - camps
Comments Most trees/shrubs salt bit; prevalent hurricane/storm damage probably the most
cheneir-like observed before storm damage
VEGETATION
1. Quercus virginiana T FACU+ 7. Lycium carolinianum S FACW
3. Ilex vomitoria S FAC 9.
4. Vitis rotundifolia WV FAC 10.

5. Gleditsia aquatica T OBL 11.
Remarks:
(WVA)
SEED PRODUCERS (RED MAPLE, SUGARBERRY, GREEN ASH, BOXELDER,
COMMON PERSIMMON SWEETGUM, HONEYLOCUST, RED MULBERRY,
15 BALDCYPRESS, TUPELO GUM, AMERICAN ELM, CEDAR ELM, ETC.)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus virginiana 50/25/10
Celtis laevigata 8-12
Gleditsia aquatica 2-8
Sapium sebiferum 6
5 (marginal due to storm) PERCENT UNDERSTORY COVER


W E

Feature Name: Little Chenier
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Little Chenier Road (PR 201)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Old homesite
Current/Adjacent land uses Current abandoned homesite; Adjacent Chenier

Communications and homesite
Wildlife Species observed Gallinule (Porphyrio martinica), cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis),
grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), slider (Trachemys scripta), cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),
dove (Zenaida macroura)
Comments Entire chenier appears to be subsiding dominated by marsh and > 50% developed,
s not sandy
VEGETATION
1. Sabal minor S FACW 5.

Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus virginiana approximately 10 trees 20
20 PERCENT UNDERSTORY COVER impacted by salt water intrusion mostly dead


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION None________
W E

Feature Name: Little Chenier
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Little Chenier Road (PR 201)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Oil/gas, holding
tanks, gravel fill, clearing
Current/Adjacent land uses Current oil/gas pad; Adjacent pond/marsh
Wildlife Species observed Raccoon (Procyon lotor), kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), rabbits
(Sylvilagus floridanus), musk turtles (Sternotherus odoratus), gallinule (Porphyrio martinica),
cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis), grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), white egret (Ardea alba)
Comments All vegetation adjacent to site -dominated by marsh and > 50% developed soils
not sandy - chenier appears to be subsiding; Western end of chenier dominated entirely by marsh
and raised homesites no chenier feature visible
VEGETATION
2. Panicum hemitomon H OBL 7.
3. Salix nigra T OBL 8.

Remarks: Baccharis showed signs of being salt bitten
W E

Feature Name: Chenier Perdue
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads E. Creole Road (LA 1143) to PR 216
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Well pad for
oil/gas, gravel fill, holding tanks
Current/Adjacent land uses Current - well pad; Adjacent marsh/pasture
Wildlife Species observed Raccoon (Procyon lotor), grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), redwing blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), killdeer (Charadrius
vociferous), cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), gallinule
(Porphyrio martinica)
Comments Chenier somewhat visible on western portion
VEGETATION
1. On site: 7. Typha angustifolia H OBL

5. Baccharis halimfolia S FAC 11.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Chenier Perdue
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) PR 216
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Cleared for pasture
- now fallow scrub shrub
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent fallow pasture
Wildlife Species observed Banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata)
Comments Site appears to be historically used for grazing; soil is loamy with shale fragments
VEGETATION
1. Baccharis halimifolia S FAC 8. Lythrum lineare H OBL

4. Rubus louisianus WV FAC 11.
6. Ambrosia trifida H FAC 13.
7. Verbena hastata H FAC 14.
Remarks: Baccharis and Iva dominant
W E

Feature Name: Pumpkin Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Pumpkin Ridge Road point taken from road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Road running
perpendicular through
Current/Adjacent land uses Marsh
History of land use (if known) Marsh
Wildlife Species observed White egret (Ardea alba)
Comments All marsh ridge does not exist
VEGETATION

Remarks:

NE
NW SW
SE
Photographs of Sample 015 in four directions

Date: 10/8/08 Field Analysts: Ryan Coleman/Blake Amos
Feature Name: Dans Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Unnamed gravel road, Pioneer Exploration LTD sign
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Well pad,
gravel/limestone fill
Current/Adjacent land uses Current well pad
Wildlife Species observed Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), white egret (Ardea alba), snowy
egret (Egretta thula)
Comments Ridge seems to be dominated by marsh; from sample location Eugene Island
appears to have a large stand of live oaks
VEGETATION
1. Iva frutescens S FACW+ 7. Ambrosia trifida H FAC
2. Panicum repens H FACW 8. Baccharis halimifolia S FAC
3. Spartina patens H OBL 9.
4. Lythrum lineare H OBL 10.

Remarks: Cynodon dactylon killed by salt
W E

Feature Name: Oak Grove Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Cleared homesite
Current/Adjacent land uses Current fallow, homesite; Adjacent shrub/scrub, baseball field
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Iva frutescens S FACW+ 9. Solidago sempervirens H FACW
2. Panicum repens H FACW- 10.

Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Oak Grove Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA1143/Muria Road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Previous on ramp
to Hwy 82
Current/Adjacent land uses Current none; Adjacent marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Gleditsia triacanthos T FAC- 9.

Remarks:
(WVA)
2% BALDCYPRESS, TUPELO GUM, AMERICAN ELM, CEDAR ELM, ETC.)

98% TREES (OAKS, SWEET PECAN, OTHER HICKORIES)

OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
+/- 80 40
Quercus virginiana
+/-20 12
Celtis laevigata
100% PERCENT UNDERSTORY COVER
5% PERCENT MIDSTORY COVER
IS THE AREA PART OF A FORCED DRAINAGE SYSTEM? NO


WETTING AND DRYING CYCLES? YES
DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION not within plot
W E

Feature Name: Eugene Island (live oak stand)
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Gravel road using a 4-wheeler
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) N/A
Current/Adjacent land uses Current N/A; Adjacent marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Spartina patens H FACW 9. Quercus virginiana T FACU+
2. Iva frutescens S FACW+ 10. Ambrosia artemisiifolia H FACU
3. Celtis laevigata T FACW 11. Cynodon dactylon H FACU

Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
+/- 80 40
Quercus virginiana
+/-20 12
Celtis laevigata


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION not within plot
W E

Feature Name: Mesquite Ridge (not visible)
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Rutherford Beach Rd.
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Roads, roadside
ditches
Current/Adjacent land uses Current fallow pasture; Adjacent marsh
Comments Chenier not visible
VEGETATION

Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Front Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Borrow pits,
roadside ditches along LA82
Current/Adjacent land uses Current N/A; Adjacent marsh
Comments N /A
VEGETATION

6. Iva annua S FAC 14.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Little Chenier Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Parish Rd. (Little Chenier Rd.)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Residential
housing, roadside ditches, borrow areas for road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current residential and pasture; Adjacent marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
4. Typha angustifolia H OBL 8.

Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: High Island
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA1143 (E. Creole Hwy.)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Residential
housing, LA1143, roadside ditches, ballpark, maintained pasture
Current/Adjacent land uses Current residential and commercial; Adjacent pasture/ marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
2. Setaria glauca H FAC 8.
4. Panicum virgatum H FAC+ 10.

5. Borrichia frutescens S OBL 11.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA1143 (E. Creole Hwy.)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Old homesite,
LA1143, roadside ditches
Current/Adjacent land uses Current fallow; Adjacent pasture/ marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Cynodon dactylon H FACU 9. Quercus virginiana T FACU+
2. Celtis laevigata T FACW 10. Borrichia frutescens S OBL

3. Eupatorium capillifolium H FACU 11.
4. Ambrosia artemisiifolia H FACU 12.
Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Celtis laevigata +/-30 26
Sapium sebiferum +/-10 8
Quercus virginiana +/-30 24
Carya illinoiensis +/-40 20


WETTING AND DRYING CYCLES? NO
DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION YES
W E

CHENIERES AND NATURAL RIDGES STUDY
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Parish Rd. 313 via 312 via Raymond Richard Rd.
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Parish road,
borrow pit for road, residential houses, cemetery
Current/Adjacent land uses Current residential/pasture; Adjacent pasture/ marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION

Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Celtis laevigata +/-15 14
Sapium sebiferum +/-10 8


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Sapium sebiferum
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) E. Creole Hwy (LA27)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Roadside ditches,
LA 27
Current/Adjacent land uses Current church, Entergy substation, residential. Cemetery;

Adjacent pasture/ marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
3. Setaria glauca H FAC 8.

5. Echinochloa crus-galli H FACW- 10.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: See map
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) E. Creole Hwy (LA 27)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Old homesites,
roads, ditches
Current/Adjacent land uses Current fallow; Adjacent marsh/pasture/residential
Comments N/A
VEGETATION

8. 16.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) E. Creole Hwy (LA27)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Roads, ditches,
pond, old home site, Entergy substation
Current/Adjacent land uses Adjacent fallow pasture/ marsh; Current fallow/substation
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
Taxodium distichum
1. T OBL 8. Sapium sebiferum T FAC
(Planted)
Quercus virginiana
2. T FACU+ 9. Baccharis halimifolia S FAC
(Planted)
Carya illinoiensis Eupatorium
3. T FAC+ 10. H FACU
(Planted) capillifolium
4. Solidago sempervirens H FACW 11.

Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus virginiana +/-40 30
Carya illinoiensis +/-20 16
Taxodium distichum +/-40 30


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION minimal
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Gravel Road via Davis Road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Old well pad;
cleared/fallow pasture
Current/Adjacent land uses Adjacent fallow pasture/ marsh; Current none
Wildlife Species observed Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus)
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 9. Iva frutescens S FACW+
2. Quercus virginiana T FACU+ 10. Capraria biflora S FACW
3. Spartina patens H FACW 11. Setaria glauca H FAC
4. Opuntia stricta S FACU- 12. Celtis laevigata T FACW

5. Lycium carolinianum S FACW 13. Distichlis spicata H FACW+
Symphyotrichum
8. H OBL 16.
tenuifolium
Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus virginiana 20 20
Celtis laevigata +/- 15 12


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION minimal
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA 27, Pasture Rd.
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Some clearing
Current/Adjacent land uses Adjacent marsh; Current - pasture
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
4. Opuntia stricta S FACU- 11.

Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Gleditsia triacanthos 10 6


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Quercus virginiana, Gleditsia triacanthos
W E

Date: 10/15/08 Field Analysts: Blake Amos/John Price
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Access along private farm road, Stream Properties site
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Minimal
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent minimal cattle grazing, largely undisturbed
History of land use (if known) Same as current for several decades
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Celtis laevigata T FACW 9. Solidago sempervirens H FACW
2. Acacia farnesiana S FACU 10. Sesbania exaltata S FACW-
6. Ambrosia artemisifolia H FACU 14.
7. Spartina alternifolia H OBL 15.
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Celtis laevigata 30 24
Acacia farnesiana 10 4
Sapium sebiferum 10 6


WETTING AND DRYING CYCLES? Yes
DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Celtis laevigata, Acacia farnesiana
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Via private road off Hwy 82, Stream Properties site
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent forest land, undisturbed
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
6. Rosa multiflora S UPL 12.
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Celtis laevigata, Sapium sebiferum
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Private farm road; Stream Properties site
Current/Adjacent land uses Current undisturbed forest land; Adjacent cattle grazing
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
4. Rosa multiflora S UPL 12.
8. 16.
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Quercus virginiana
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Off LA Hwy 82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Natural gas
pipeline, road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent pipeline, cattle grazing, road
Wildlife Species observed Shorebirds, terns
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Spartina alternifolia H OBL 3.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Private Road off LA Hwy 82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Dock facility
adjacent
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent forest, dock facility
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
3. Solidago sempervirens H FACW 7.
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)


WETTING AND DRYING CYCLES? Hydrology altered - adjacent lot recently cleared and graded
DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Celtis laevigata
W E

Feature Name: Grand Chenier
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Off LA Hwy 82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Old homesite,
pasture, LA Hwy 82
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent fallow pasture, abandoned homesite,
oil/gas facility to E
Comments N/A
VEGETATION

Zanthoxylum clava-
6. S FAC 12.
herculis
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)


WETTING AND DRYING CYCLES? No road adjacent
W E

Feature Name: Indian Point Island
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Off Indian Point Road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Borrow pit,
agricultural field, pasture
Current/Adjacent land uses Current - borrow pit, agricultural field, pasture; Adjacent - to the
south is typical chenier habitat
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
2. 5.
3. 6.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA Hwy 82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Borrow pit,
highway
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent borrow pit, highway
Species observed N/A
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
4. 8.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Cow Island
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Montie Road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Pasture, road,
homesite, infrequently mowed
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent pasture, road homesite
Comments N/A
VEGETATION

6. 12.
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Quercus Virginiana
W E

Field Analysts:
Date: 10/16/08 Blake Amos/John Price
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Parish Road 136
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Open pasture, road,
homesite
Current/Adjacent land uses Current pasture; Adjacent marsh, homesite
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Sapium sebiferum T FAC 8. Vitis rotundifolia WV FAC
Eupatorium
4. H FACU 11.
capillifolium
Symphyotrichum
5. H OBL 12.
tenuifolium
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)


WETTING AND DRYING CYCLES? No, roadside drainage
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Grand Chenier Hwy (LA Hwy 87)
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Open pasture, road,
homesite
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent pasture, road, homesite
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
2. Echinochloa crus-galli H FACW- 6.

Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: North Island
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Parish Road 147
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Road, homesite
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent marsh, pasture, road, homesite
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
3. Gleditsia triacanthos T FAC 11.

Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus virginiana 100+ 48
Gleditsia triancanthos 10 5


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Quercus virginiana,Celtis laevigata

W E

SITE INFORMATION
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current forest land; Adjacent road
Comments N/A
VEGETATION

Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus virginiana
60 36
Celtis laevigata
20 12


Nophotographsavailablefor

thissite.
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Oil/gas facility,
road, canal constructed perpendicularly through ridge
Current/Adjacent land uses Current oil/gas facility, road; Adjacent marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
3. Salix nigra T OBL 9.

Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) W LA Hwy 82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Road, homesteads
Current/Adjacent land uses Current road, homesteads; Adjacent marsh
Invasive plant and animal species Ligustrum sinense
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
2. Ligustrum sinense S FAC 8.
Parthenocissus
4. S FAC 10.
quinquefolia
6. Lantana camara S FACU 12.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Road, homestead,
agricultural field, pasture
Current/Adjacent land uses Current pasture; Adjacent road, homestead, marshy, open
water
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
2. Paspalum notatum H FACU+ 8.
4. 10.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Canal continued
directly through chenier (N to S), road, agricultural, pasture
Current/Adjacent land uses Current road, agricultural, pasture
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
4. 8.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Cane Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Via private road (Astor Road) off LA Hwy 82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Road, homestead
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent forest, road, homestead
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. T FACU+ 9.
Quercus virginiana
2. T FAC+ 10.
Carya illinoiensis
3. T FACW 11.
Ulmus americana
4. WV N/A 12.
Tillandsia usneoides
7. Toxicodendron WV FAC 15.

radicans
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Carya illinoiensis 15 16
Ulmus americana 6 4


W E

Feature Name: Back Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LAHwy 82
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Borrow pit, road,
homestead
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent borrow pit, road, homestead
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
3. Platanus occidentalis T 11.
FACW-
(Planted)
6. 14.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Borrow pit, road,
residence
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent borrow pit, road, residence
Comments N/A
VEGETATION

4. Carex debilis H FACW 12.
6. 14.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Kochs Ridge
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Veasley Road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Pasture, roads,
residence
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent pasture, roads, residence, marsh
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
4. 12.
Remarks:
W E

Feature Name: Pecan Island
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Beach front road then private farm road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Agricultural
pasture land, road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent agricultural pasture land, road
Comments N/A
VEGETATION


5. Paspalum floridanum H FACW 13.
6. 14.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA 3147 then boat dock road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Minimal
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent undisturbed forestland
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Quercus virginiana T FACU+ 9. Ambrosia trifida H FAC
6. Smilax bona-nox WV FAC 14.
7. Tillandsia usneoides WV N/A 15.
Remarks:
(WVA)


OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)


W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA 3147
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Borrow pits and
road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent borrow pits and road
Comments N/A
VEGETATION

3. Schoenoplectus H OBL 11.
americanus
4. H OBL 12.
Spartina alternifolia
5. H FACU 13.
Cynodon dactylon
6. 14.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) LA 3147
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Oil/gas facility
Columbia Gulf
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent oil/gas facility, road
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. S FACW 9.
Lycium carolinianum
2. H FACW 10.
Spartina patens
3. S FAC 11.
Baccharis halimifolia
4. Alternanthera H OBL 12.
philoxeroides
5. Eleocharis crus-galli H FACW- 13.
6. H FACW 14.
Carex debilis
Remarks:
W E

Date: 2/16/09 Field Analysts: Blake Amos/Lee Womack
SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Moticheck Rd
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) home site, road,
industrial
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent home site, road, industrial
Invasive plant and animal species Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), giant switchcane
(Arundinaria gigantea)
Mapped soil type(s) Abita silt loam
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Quercus nigra T FAC 8. Ligustrum sinense S FAC
2. Quercus falcata T FACU- 9. Arundinaria gigantea S FACW
3. Pinus taeda T FAC 10.
4. Lygodium japonicum WV FAC 11.

Gelsemium
5. WV FAC 12.
sempervirens
6. Smilax glauca WV FAC 13.

Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus nigra 12 6-10
Quercus falcata 12 6-10
Pinus taeda 20 12

(NEAR THE SURFACE, DEEP) DEEP

DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION NONE, DENSE MIDSTORY
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Dutch Road near LA 22
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) home site, road,
utility right-of-way
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent home site, road, utility right-of-way
Invasive plant and animal species Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria)
Mapped soil type(s) Guyton silt loam
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Pinus taeda T FAC 8. Ligustrum sinense S FAC
2. Quercus nigra T FAC 9.
3. Cornus drummondii T FAC 10.
6. Smilax glauca WV FAC 13.

Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus nigra 12 8-12
Pinus taeda 30 24

(NEAR THE SURFACE, DEEP) NEAR SURFACE

DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Quercus sp.
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Guste Island Road
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) recently developed
home site/subdivision, utility right-of-way, drainage improvement retention pond
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent home site/subdivision, utility right-of-way,
drainage improvement retention pond
Invasive plant and animal species Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
Mapped soil type(s) Abita silt loam
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
Andropogon
2. H FACW+ 9.
glomeratus
Gelsemium
4. WV FAC 11.
sempervirens
5. Trifolium repens H FACU 12.
Eupatorium
6. H FACU 13.
capillifolium
Panicum
7. H FACW 14.
dichotomiflorum
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Hiking trail in state park
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) hiking trail,
hurricane damage
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent Fountainebleu State Park
Invasive plant and animal species yaupon (Ilex vomitoria)
Mapped soil type(s) Myatt fine sandy loam
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
1. Pinus taeda T FAC 8. Rubus trivialis S FAC
2. Quercus nigra T FAC 9. Ilex vomitoria S FAC
3. Sapium sebiferum T FAC 10. Eleocharis palustris H OBL
4. Quercus falcata T FACU- 11. Juncus effusus H FACW+
5. Quercus virginiana T FACU+ 12. Sabal minor S FACW
6. Liquidambar styraciflua T FAC+ 13.

Eupatorium
7. S FACU 14.
capillifolium
Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus nigra 6 5-6
Quercus falcata 25 18


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Quercus nigra, Liquidambar styraciflua
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Lemieux Blvd
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) unimproved road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge
History of land use (if known) Appears to have been logged within the last 30 years
Wildlife Species observed marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), leopard frog (Rana
sphenocephala), chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), blue
jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus),
great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)
Mapped soil type(s) Guyton silt loam
Comments red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) present on refuge
VEGETATION
3. Pinus elliottii T FACW 10.

Panicum
5. H FACW 12.
dichotomiflorum

Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Pinus elliottii 25 20
Pinus taeda 25 24

(NEAR THE SURFACE, DEEP) NEAR THE SURFACE

DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Quercus nigra
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Barringer Rd
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Road, home sites
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent road, home sites
Mapped soil type(s) Prentiss fine sandy loam
Comments red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) present on refuge
VEGETATION
1. Pinus taeda T FAC 8. Andropogon glomeratus H FACW+
2. Quercus marilandica T NI 9.
6. Ilex decidua S FACW- 13.
7. Morella cerifera S FAC+ 14.

Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Pinus taeda 30 24


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Quercus marilandica
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Boy Scout Rd
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Nature board walk,
managed pine stands for red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Picoides borealis) habitat
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent nature walk, RCW habitat
Mapped soil type(s) Stough fine sandy loam
Comments Managed for RCW by selective harvests, midstory clearing, and fire regime. West
Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus) present on refuge.
VEGETATION
1. Pinus elliottii T FACW 8. Ilex vomitoria S FAC
2. Pinus palustris T FACU+ 9.

Andropogon
3. H FACW+ 10.
glomeratus
Panicum
5. H FACW 12.
dichotomiflorum
6. Leersia virginica H FACW 13.

Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Pinus palustris 25 12


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION Pinus sp.
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Bayou Paquet Rd
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Oil/gas well pad,
pipeline right-of-way, road
Current/Adjacent land uses Current - oil/gas well pad, pipeline right-of-way, road; Adjacent
land managed for red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Picoides borealis) habitat
Mapped soil type(s) Myatt fine sandy loam
Comments RCW and West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus) present on adjacent refuge
VEGETATION

Andropogon
3. H FACW+ 10.
glomeratus
4. Cornus drummondii T FAC 11.
7. 14.
Remarks:
W E

SITE INFORMATION
Accessibility (e.g., State, Parish Roads) Dave Pichon Rd
Site Alterations (e.g., borrow pits, structures, oil and gas infrastructure) Home sites, road,
utility right-of-way
Current/Adjacent land uses Current and adjacent home sites, road, utility right-of-way
Invasive plant and animal species yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
Mapped soil type(s) Stough fine sandy loam
Comments N/A
VEGETATION
6. Morella cerifera S FAC+ 13.
7. 14.
Remarks:
(WVA)



OR
CODOMINANT TREES
SPECIES AGE OR DBH

(inches)
Quercus nigra 10 6
Pinus taeda 30 24


DOCUMENT ANY TREE REGENERATION NONE
W E

EXHIBIT 1
HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

BUCK AND HACKBERRY RIDGES

1950's 1960's
Buck Ridge Buck Ridge
Hackberry Ridge Hackberry Ridge
Legend
1990's 2000's Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study Areas
1950's Pits
1960's Pits
1990's Pits
2000's Pits
Reference
Base map comprised of 1953, 1967, 1998, and 2007 aerial
photographs.
1,000 500 0 1,000

Buck Ridge Buck Ridge
Feet
Historic Aerial Photographs

Buck and Hackberry Ridges
Cameron Parish
Hackberry Ridge Hackberry Ridge Drawn By DRA 02/17/09
Project Number
1
227-009
Drawing Number
227-009-B016 Exhibit
EXHIBIT 2

FRONT RIDGE

1950's 1960's
Front Ridge Front Ridge
Legend
1990's 2000's 1950's Pits
1960's Pits
1990's Pits
Reference
photographs.
1,000 500 0 1,000

Front Ridge Front Ridge
Feet

Front Ridge
Cameron Parish
Project Number
2
227-009
Drawing Number
EXHIBIT 3

SELECT RIDGES OF ST. TAMMANY PARISH

1950's 1960's
Legend
1980's 2000's
Reference
photographs.
1 0.5 0 1
Miles

Cheniers of Southeast Louisiana
St. Tammany Parish
Project Number
3
227-009
Drawing Number

Chenier and Natural Ridges Study Coastal Louisiana

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationProvidence Engineering and Environmental Group LLC, 2009, Cheniers and Natural Ridges Study. Project Number 227009. Report prepared for State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 272 pp.

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chenier and Natural Ridges Study Coastal Louisiana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chenier and Natural Ridges Study Coastal Louisiana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEBRUARY2009

Section Page No.

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt i PROVIDENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page No.

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt ii PROVIDENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Tables Within Text

Figures Within Text

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt iii PROVIDENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt iv PROVIDENCE

Southwest Louisiana is characterized by extensive coastal marshland interrupted

Historically, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 1 PROVIDENCE

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

It is imperative to understand the statutory mechanisms by which proposed

2.1 The Coastal Use Guidelines.

The Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC), Title 43, Chapter 7,

(701 F.12). Proximity to and extent of impacts on important natural

And in Section 701. G. It is the policy of the coastal resource

(701. G 5.) Destruction or adverse alterations of streams,

Subsequent sections of this report describe wildlife functions and values

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 2 PROVIDENCE

natural features, biologically valuable areas and/or protective coastal

Isolated cheniers and isolated natural ridges are however, mentioned

It is important to understand the maximum extent practicable modifiers

a. Significant public benefits will result from the use; or

To put this in perspective the following example is posed. A sand mining

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 3 PROVIDENCE

2.2 State vs. Local Concerns.

a. Is being carried out with state or federal funds;

3.0 WILDLIFE DIVERSITY

3.1 Typical Habitat of Cheniers and Ridges

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 4 PROVIDENCE

can have major impacts on community structure and composition

The natural ridges of St. Tammany Parish are dominated by mixed

3.2 Importance to Wildlife

Surrounded by lowland marshes, cheniers and natural ridges create a

3.2.1 Listed Species

At least 14 federally or state monitored species, species guilds, or

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 5 PROVIDENCE

The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW; Picoides borealis) is a bird

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 6 PROVIDENCE

Federal Global No.

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 7 PROVIDENCE

Species ScientificName GlobalRank StateRank

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 8 PROVIDENCE

Common Name Scientific Name Conservation Status

* indicates a species of concern

3.2.2 Neotropical Migrant Songbirds

Although many species of concern are known to occur along

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 9 PROVIDENCE

are the closest forested areas available to migrants for refueling

Many species of neotropical migrant songbirds have experienced a

The decline of neotropical migrant songbirds has prompted much

227-009-001NG-Chenier Rpt 10 PROVIDENCE

Two specific examples of neotropical migrant songbirds that are