Ecological Management Action Plans

[ Up ] [ EM-1 ] [ EM-2 ] [ EM-3 ] [ EM-4 ] [ EM-5 ] [ EM-6 ] [ EM-7 ] [ EM-8 ] [ EM-9 ] [ EM-10 ] [ EM-11 ] [ EM-12 ] [ EM-13 ] [ EM-14 ] [ EM-15 ] [ EM-16 ] [ EM-17 ] [ EM-18 ]

EM-5 Preservation and Restoration of Barrier Islands

EVALUATION METHODS

• Beach nourishment - the addition of sediment (sand) to a beach to replace that which has been lost to erosion.
• Island restoration - the use of imported sediment to repair island damage, or prevent future degradation, by heightening and widening an island.
• Restoration of barrier islands from Sandy Point to Racoon Point.
• Consideration of removal or shortening of rock jetties at Empire Waterway and Belle Pass.
• Provide for building of back-island salt marshes and filling abandoned oil and gas canals.

Must be coordinated with freshwater and sediment diversions. Structural island stabilization only warranted under certain conditions. CWPPRA barrier island and barrier shoreline feasibility study will identify alternatives for BTES by 1997.

The following criteria will be used to determine if plan implementation steps were accomplished:

• Concerns between the USACOE and LDNR have been resolved, and a Cost-Sharing Agreement regarding the use of dredge material on West Grand Terre Island has been reached.
• The CWPPRA Task Force has completed the Barrier Island Feasibility Study/Environmental Impact Statement.
• The BTMC has been kept informed of the progress of the Feasibility/Environmental Impact Studies and has received the associated deliverables.
• All approved and funded barrier island projects have been initiated and completed by the CWPPRA Task Force.
• The BTMC has reviewed the Barrier Island Feasibility Study Report(s) and made recommendations to the CWPPRA Task Force concerning projects and implementation schedules.
• BTMC has aggressively sought Water Resources Development Act funding for more expensive projects.
• The removal or shortening of rock jetties at Empire Waterway and Belle Pass has been considered by BTMC and recommendations have been made to CWPPRA.
• Regulatory agencies (USACOE and LDNR) together with BTMC and the local Coastal Zone Management Council have met with oil and gas companies maintaining wells near Timbalier and East Timbalier islands to discuss spoil maintenance and mitigation banking.

The following criteria will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Action Plan in preserving and restoring barrier islands. Specific criteria may vary depending upon the character of individual projects.

• The barrier islands from Sandy Point to Racoon Point have been restored.
• Barrier island/beach nourishment plans recommended by the Feasibility Study are successful.
• The planned schedule for maintenance is successful in maintaining restored island area and/or shoreline position.
• There are minimal adverse impacts on colonial nesting seabirds and wading birds.

In addition, if there are concerns regarding the quality of dredged material used for barrier island restoration or beach nourishment, these concerns should be addressed using the procedures described in EM-4.

Plan Implementation - The activities of the various agencies outlined above in implementing the plan in accordance with the above criteria will be monitored by an independent Third Party.

Project Effectiveness - Steyer and Stewart (1992) list variables which may be measured to monitor barrier island projects implemented under CWPPRA. It is recommended that this model be followed, whether or not any particular project is funded by CWPPRA. Measurable parameters identified by Steyer and Stewart (1992) have been prioritized by Steyer et al. (1995) into Essential Variables or Additional Variables or Substitutions as shown in Table EM5-xxx1. These have been assigned a priority for monitoring under the CCMP Action Plan. The priorities have been assigned based upon the broader mission of the CCMP compared to CWPPRA (restoration, creation or enhancement of vegetated wetlands is not necessarily the primary goal of CCMP Action Plans) and the objectives of the projects as described in the Action Plan. However, priorities for monitoring variables may vary based upon the characteristics, objectives and design of individual projects.

Table EM5-xxx1. Steyer et al. (1995) classification of monitoring variables for barrier island restoration.

Because of the importance of the barrier islands as nesting and foraging habitat for wading birds, seabirds and migratory birds, it is recommended that the following parameters be measured to document any adverse impacts and/or verify the benefits associated with project implementation:

• The number of colonies for colonial nesting seabirds.
• The number of colonies of wading birds.
• The number of species present in these colonies.

These measurements should be given lower priority than those in Table EM5-xxx1.

This section provides guidance on the types of data collection methods which are currently available and appropriate for monitoring these types of projects. There may be alternative existing or new techniques which could be adopted as long as they conform to the data quality objectives described under QA/QC.

Plan Implementation - The activities of the BTMC and the various agencies outlined above in implementing the plan in accordance with the above criteria will be monitored by an independent Third Party.

Habitat Mapping - The procedures and methods outlined by Handley (1992) and Steyer et al. (1995) should be followed.

Vegetation - Species composition and abundance should be measured using the Braun-Blanquet method as described by Steyer (1992) and Steyer et al. (1995) with the qualification that appropriate training be provided to ensure consistency between individual’s assessments of abundance.

Bathymetry/Topography - Bathymetry and topography should be measured using the techniques outlined by Steyer and Stewart (1992) and Steyer et al. (1995) noting that recording fathometers, measuring in m, should be used for bathymetric surveying with either GPS or conventional rod-and-level techniques recommended for topographic surveying. The choice of survey technqiues should be determined by the acceptable level of error and the sophistication of the available technology and equipment.

Shoreline Markers - Shoreline markers should be used to assess changes in the position of the island shore over time. This information may also be obtained from the bathymetric and topographic surveys of the barrier islands. The procedures of Letzsch and Frey (1980) can be used to document changes in the marsh margin at the back of the islands. Details are described in Steyer et al. (1995).

Colonies of Colonial Nesting Birds - LDWF currently conducts surveys of colonial nesting birds (Martin and Lester, 1990). Either LDWF procedures or those described here should be followed. Lane (1994) suggests the use of methods described by Slack et al. (1992) whereby surveys are conducted annually during a two-week period beginning in the last week of May as this corresponds to the incubation period of most colonial nesting birds. Surveys should be conducted from the ground using 2-4 people viewing the colony on foot or from a boat. The species composition of the birds in the colony is recorded along with an estimate of the size of the colony.

Colonies of Wading Birds - LDWF currently conducts surveys of wading birds (Martin and Lester, 1990). Either LDWF procedures or those described here should be followed. Loesch et al. (1994) indicate that the development of population survey methods is required before assessments can be made of wading bird utilization of wetland habitat. Similar methods employed for colonial nesting birds should be adopted for the CCMP. This may employ a stratified random sampling design (Dubovsky et al., 1988) if colonies are thought to be clustered.

Plan Implementation - There are no relevant sampling design or statistical analyses for the evaluation of plan implementation.

Project Effectiveness - The sampling design for monitoring project effectiveness must include comparison of the project area with an appropriate reference area. Monitoring projects without the use of a reference area can lead to misinterpretation of monitoring data through the lack of a comparative site to identify natural interannual changes in marsh processes, and/or other difficulties (Steyer et al., 1995). It is necessary to ensure that reference and project areas are comparable. Both project and reference areas should be divided into marsh habitats/barrier environments and replicate samples randomly selected within each habitat/environment type. Comparison between project and reference areas should then be based at the sub-area or habitat scale (e.g., dune terrace sub-area in project is compared to dune terrace sub-area in reference area). If it is impossible to select a suitable reference area, as may be the case with barrier island projects which affect a whole chain of islands, then either pre-project monitoring or baseline monitoring (Steyer et al., 1995) may be adopted as an alternative. Both of these approaches reduce the validity of the monitoring results as the monitoring then fails to account for natural interannual variability in barrier processes, especially storm impacts.

The size of the project area, the number of habitats/environments included in the area, and heterogeneity of those habitats/environments determine the number of samples which need to be taken and the validity of the statistical analyses. Steyer et al. (1995) describe appropriate procedures for the determination of sample size within the project area. The use of parametric (e.g., ANOVA, Student’s t-test) or non-parametric (e.g., Mann-Whitney U-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) statistical procedures will depend upon the character of the datasets. If data are not normally distributed, as may frequently be the case with the collected data (e.g., salinity in a fresh or intermediate marsh), then transformations, such as logarithmic and square root transformations, should be applied and the transformed data tested for normality. If a normal distribution cannot be achieved in this manner, non-parametric tests should be pursued. The most basic statistical design for project evaluation is a two-tail test of whether the mean value for a measurable parameter within the project areas is equal to the mean for the reference area. If inequality is identified, further analyses can then determine if the effect of the project is to increase the parameter or decrease the parameter. In the case of large projects comparisons may be more appropriate between one time interval and the next in order to identify progressive changes in barrier island area. In this case, trend analysis is appropriate. Standard linear regression models can be used to detect trends once sufficient annual data points have been obtained (fifteen years is considered the minimum for such trend analysis by Rabalais et al., 1995). Models having probability values of > 0.05 should be rejected, allowing determination of a trend significantly different from zero (i.e., change through time as opposed to no change through time).

Plan Implementation - The cost estimate is based upon attendance at approximately 4 BTMC and CWPPRA meetings per year, contacting implementing agencies, and appropriate reporting. The level of effort is estimated at 80 person-hours and costs including salary, fringe benefits, overhead and associated expenses are approximately $4,000.

Project Effectiveness - Estimated costs for evaluating preservation and restoration of barrier islands have been developed for CWPPRA by Steyer and Stewart (1992). The actual costs depend upon the size of the project and the number of stations sampled/samples collected. These estimates have been revised where possible in consideration of the recommendations presented here regarding measurable parameters and data collection methods. Ranges are presented for cost estimates on an annual or per sample basis (Steyer and Stewart, 1992) in Table EM5-xxx2.

Table EM5-xxx2. Cost estimates for monitoring barrier island restoration projects.

^a Includes species composition and relative abundance.

^b Includes bathymetry, topography and wind speed/direction.

Cost esimates for shoreline markers are $150-300 per measurement (Reed, 1992).

It is estimated that ground surveys of colonial nesting birds for one barrier island chain (e.g., Isles Dernieres) would require a team of two trained observers and would take approximately three days per year. Estimated costs for this effort including salary, fringe benefits, boat costs and reporting are $4-5,000 per year. For barrier island restoration projects implemented by CWPPRA, average annual monitoring costs shall not exceed $4,325. These requirements have constrained the development of monitoring plans for CWPPRA projects to below ideal levels which are more realistically reflected in the cost estimates of Steyer and Stewart (1992).

Monitoring of plan implementation will be undertaken by an independent Third Party who will prepare semi-annual reports describing actions of the BTMC and CWPPRA in relation to barrier island restoration projects. Evaluation of monitoring reports concerning project effectiveness will be conducted by qualified individuals representing organizations independent of any agencies or institutions funding the project construction, operation and/or maintenance. Semi-annual reports will be prepared. The monitoring reports will be submitted not less than 15 days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the BTMC and the parties responsible for monitoring will appear at the meeting to discuss the report. Monitoring reports concerning project effectiveness will also be provided to the agencies or institutions funding project construction, operation, and/or maintenance, as well as landowners for the project and references areas (as appropriate).

The Quality Assurance Plan involves the following components:

• Clear identification of effectiveness criteria (as outlined above).
• Use of qualified and experienced personnel to collect and report data (to be determined and assessed annually by BTMC).
• Review of monitoring data and reports by BTMC (as outlined above).
• Reporting of significant problems identified during the monitoring period to the BTMC before the next report is due.
• Maintaining a semi-annual schedule for reporting on BTMC and CWPPRA activities (as outlined above).

The Quality Assurance Plan involves the following components:

Project Description - (as provided in Action Plan).

Project Organization and Responsibility - (to be prepared by monitor in association with lead implementor).

Data Quality Objectives - For some of the measurable parameters recommended in this monitoring strategy, Table EM5-xxx3 presents these objectives as determined by Steyer et al. (1995). For the measurable parameters pertaining to birds, the main constraint on data quality is observer training and performance. It is recommended that anyone participating in bird surveys participate in taxonomic identification workshops before surveys.

Table EM5-xxx3. Data Quality Objectives for identified primary measurable parameters (all from Steyer et al., 1995).

Sampling Procedures - The data collection methods are as described above. The sampling design will be determined for each individual project by a committee composed of BTMC representatives, the lead implementor of the project, and the monitor.

Sample Custody - Collected samples will be in the custody of the monitor from collection to sample processing. Should contractors be utilized for sample processing, written documentation of sample transmission and receipt shall be maintained by the monitor.

Calibration Procedures - Routine calibration of field equipment (e.g., surveying gear) will be undertaken in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions or at least annually. Written documentation of the calibration procedures and records shall be maintained by the monitor.

Data Review, Validation and Verification - The general procedures described by Steyer et al. (1995) and references therein will be followed. Data will be entered into a DIMS compatible database and statistical analysis will follow procedures agreed to by the BTMC, lead implementor and the monitor.

Problem Identification - Any significant problems identified during the monitoring period, either with monitoring procedures or project effectiveness, will be reported to the BTMC and lead implementor before the next regularly scheduled report is due.

Reporting - Semi-annual reports will be prepared. The monitoring reports will be submitted not less than 15 days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the BTMC and the parties responsible for monitoring will appear at the meeting to discuss the report. Monitoring reports will also be provided to the agencies or institutions funding project construction, operation, and/or maintenance, as well as landowners for the project and reference areas.

[ Up ] [ EM-1 ] [ EM-2 ] [ EM-3 ] [ EM-4 ] [ EM-5 ] [ EM-6 ] [ EM-7 ] [ EM-8 ] [ EM-9 ] [ EM-10 ] [ EM-11 ] [ EM-12 ] [ EM-13 ] [ EM-14 ] [ EM-15 ] [ EM-16 ] [ EM-17 ] [ EM-18 ]