Coastal Restoration Project Selection in Louisiana: From

CWPPRA to CIAP

The Challenges of Natural Resources Economics & Policy Conference

New Orleans, LouisianaMay 22, 2007

Coastal Restoration Project Selection in Louisiana: From

CWPPRA to CIAP

The Challenges of Natural Resources Economics & Policy Conference

New Orleans, LouisianaMay 22, 2007

• A net loss of 1,900 square miles of coastal wetlands in Louisiana over past century.

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

• Causes: Subsidence, saltwater intrusion, herbivory, and severely altered hydrology

2050 ?

1956

Predicted Coastal Land Loss Predicted Coastal Land Loss (Source: National Wetland Research Center (Source: National Wetland Research Center

19991999 ) )

• 1990 Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA).

Action TakenAction Taken

• 163 CWPPRA projects authorized, with 143 either constructed or in development.

• Projects designed to restore and/or protect via vegetative, structural, hydrologic techniques.

• Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) established by Section 84 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Action TakenAction Taken

• Louisiana allocated approximately $331 million over federal FY 2007-2010, proposes 18 restoration and 5 infrastructure projects

• CIAP allows five authorized uses including – Conservation, Protection, or Restoration of Coastal Areas, including wetland– Mitigation of Damage to Fish, Wildlife or Natural Resources– Mitigation of the impact of Offshore Continental Shelf activities on onshore infrastructure projects or public service needs

Current Economic Current Economic Reality?Reality?

• CWPPRA provides less than 10% of funding

• $14 billion needed for to sustain Coastal La – Coast 2050 Report 1998

• LCA PLAN - $1.9 Billion ?

• Coastal Impact Assistance Program - $510 Million (State 65% and Coastal Parishes 35%)

• Restoration Funds from Katrina and Rita?

• CWPPRA Reauthorized through 2019

“...coastal wetland restoration projects in Louisiana (will) provide for the long-term conservation of such wetlands... based on the cost-effectivenesscost-effectiveness of such projects in creating, restoring, protecting, or enhancing coastal wetlands...”

(Public Law 646: CWPPRA, Sec. 3952 1(b)).

Primary CriteriaPrimary Criteria

Conceptual Model: Conceptual Model: Benefit-Cost AnalysisBenefit-Cost Analysis

Total Benefits ($)

Total Costs ($)B-C Ratio =

...where:

b = $benefits, c = $costs, t = year, and r = interest rate

bt(1+r)t

=

T

t = 0

(1+r)t

ct T

t = 0

> 1.0

Conceptual Model: Conceptual Model: Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness

...where:

TC = $ Project Construction + $ Operation & Maintenance

TB = Benefits of Project?

Total Cost ($)

Total Benefits (units?)CE ($ / unit) =

1. Nominations of projects at Regional Public Meetings (40-160 projects)

2. Regional Voting Meetings (20-40)3. Preliminary Assessment of Nominees4. Selection of Candidate Projects (12-25)5. Candidate Project Assessment6. Selection of Projects (4-10 projects)

Process for CWPPRA Project Process for CWPPRA Project SelectionSelection

Wetland Value Assessment (WVA)Wetland Value Assessment (WVA)

V1 - % emergent

vegetation

V2 - % open water SAV

V3 - edge and

interspersion,

V4 - % shallow open water

V5 - salinity levels

V6 - aquatic organism

access..

Vn

2) Weighted Variables of Habitat Quantity/Quality:

1) Eight Community-Level Habitat Models:

•Fresh/intermediate marsh

• Brackish marsh

• Saline marsh

•Barrier islands/headlands

• Swamp

• Forested ridges

•Bottomland hardwoods

3) Variables integrated in Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) calculated for future with-project (FWP) and future without-project (FWOP) conditions.

4) Net difference (FWP-FWOP) provides benefits over life of project expressed as Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHU).

5) Fully Funded Costs (FFC) = Engineering and Design Costs, Construction Costs, and O&M Costs (adjusted for inflation) FFC * amortization factor = Average Annual Costs (AAC).

6) AAC / AAHU = $ per AAHU (primary unit of cost-efficacy).

Wetland Value Assessment (WVA)Wetland Value Assessment (WVA)

1. Cost-Effectiveness 20%2. Area of Need 15%3. Implementability 15%4. Certainty of Benefits 10%5. Sustainability 10%6. HGM Riverine Input 10%7. HGM Sediment Input 10%8. HGM Structure and Function 10%

Final Weighting Criteria for Final Weighting Criteria for CWPPRA Project Selection - CWPPRA Project Selection -

PrioritizationPrioritization

Consistent with hydrogeomorphic objective of maintaining or establishing landscape features critical to a sustainable ecosystem structure & function. Certain landscape features provide critical benefits to maintaining the integrity of the coastal ecosystem. Such features include barrier islands, lake and bay rims/shorelines, cheniers, land bridges and natural levee ridges.

Prioritization Scoring – Prioritization Scoring – HGM Structure and FunctionHGM Structure and Function

1. The project serves to protect landscape features which are critical to maintaining the integrity of the mapping unit or are part of an ongoing effort to restore a landscape feature deemed critical to a basin or the coast in general (10 points)

2. The project serves to protect any landscape feature described above (5 points)

3. The project does not meet the above criteria (0 points)

Prioritization Scoring – Prioritization Scoring – HGM Structure and FunctionHGM Structure and Function

CIAP Plan Development

Actions to Date

CIAP Plan Development

Actions to Date• Established goals, objectives and ranking criteria

• Held 5 initial public meetings (February 2006); briefed agencies, parishes, CPRA, Gov’s Coastal Comm.

• Worked with 19 coastal parishes on their proposals

• Solicited proposals; placed on DNR web site and discussed at regional open house meetings

• Conducted technical evaluations of proposals

• CIAP Selection Committee chose State-funded projects

• Verified that CIAP projects consistent with Master Plan

• Established goals, objectives and ranking criteria

• Held 5 initial public meetings (February 2006); briefed agencies, parishes, CPRA, Gov’s Coastal Comm.

• Worked with 19 coastal parishes on their proposals

• Solicited proposals; placed on DNR web site and discussed at regional open house meetings

• Conducted technical evaluations of proposals

• CIAP Selection Committee chose State-funded projects

• Verified that CIAP projects consistent with Master Plan

1. Is the proposed project free of issues that may impact timely implementation of the project features?

2. Is the proposed project linked to a regional strategy for maintaining established landscape features critical to a sustainable ecosystem structure and function?

3. Does the proposed project protect health and safety or infrastructure of national, state, regional or local significance?

4. How cost effective is the proposed project?

Criteria for CIAP Project SelectionCriteria for CIAP Project Selection

5. What is the certainty of benefits resulting from impmenetation of the proposed project

6. Does the proposed project address an area of critical conservation/restoration need or a high land loss area?

7. How sustainable are the benefits of the proposed project?

Criteria for CIAP Project SelectionCriteria for CIAP Project Selection

CIAP Screening & Evaluation of

Project Proposals

CIAP Screening & Evaluation of

Project Proposals

• 337 proposals received for CIAP funds

• 253 proposals involved State’s share of CIAP funds; 84 proposals only involved parishes’ share of CIAP funds

• Including overlap, at least $3.8 billion requested in proposals by NGOs, agencies, parishes, and the public, involving only the State’s share ($331 million) of CIAP funds

• 337 proposals received for CIAP funds

• 253 proposals involved State’s share of CIAP funds; 84 proposals only involved parishes’ share of CIAP funds

• Including overlap, at least $3.8 billion requested in proposals by NGOs, agencies, parishes, and the public, involving only the State’s share ($331 million) of CIAP funds

Detailed Technical Evaluation of Detailed Technical Evaluation of Restoration Proposals Restoration Proposals

• External review of 66 proposals conducted by 11 scientists, led by Dr. Robert Twilley (LSU).

A. Highly CompetitiveB. Competitive (Regional or Project

Level)C. Not CompetitiveD. Needs More Information

CIAP External Science ReviewCIAP External Science Review

Detailed Technical Evaluation of Detailed Technical Evaluation of Restoration Proposals Restoration Proposals

• DNR technical review panel reviewed proposals (considered science panel rating and other pertinent info)

• DNR technical review panel developed preliminary list of

projects recommended for State CIAP funding.

CIAP CIAP ProjectProject Selection ProcessSelection Process

• Meeting of CIAP Project Selection Committee: GOCA, DNR, DEQ, DWF, DAF, and DOTD representatives

• Selection meeting also included DNR staff, CPRA Integrated Planning Team members, and Dr. Robert Twilley (LSU)

• DNR presented project recommendations, related info.

• Project Selection Committee chose list of projects for CIAP funding (State’s share)

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

Dr. Rex Caffey (LSU)

Ms. Christian Aust (LSU)

Mr. Daniel Llewellyn (LDNR)

Mr. Christopher P. Knotts, P.E. (LDNR)

For information and updates on the Louisiana CIAP Plan, visit:information and updates on the Louisiana CIAP Plan, visit:http://dnr.louisiana.gov/crm/ciap/ciap.asp

For information and updates on the Louisiana CIAP Plan, visit:information and updates on the Louisiana CIAP Plan, visit:http://dnr.louisiana.gov/crm/ciap/ciap.asp

Questions/Comments?Questions/Comments?

For information and updates on CWPPRA, visit:information and updates on CWPPRA, visit:http://www.lacoast.gov/cwppra/index.htm

For information and updates on CWPPRA, visit:information and updates on CWPPRA, visit:http://www.lacoast.gov/cwppra/index.htm