Coastal Management Division Overview Coastal Management Division Overview October 2006

Legislative Authority for Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended (La. R.S. 49: et seq.) Federal approval of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program granted by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce in October 1980 (Coastal Zone Management Act Of 1972 as amended through P.L , The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996) Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended (La. R.S. 49: et seq.) Federal approval of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program granted by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce in October 1980 (Coastal Zone Management Act Of 1972 as amended through P.L , The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996)

Mission of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program Protect, develop, restore and enhance coastal area Support and encourage multiple use of coastal resources consistent with maintenance and enhancement of renewable resources Employ procedures and practices that resolve conflicts among competing uses Protect, develop, restore and enhance coastal area Support and encourage multiple use of coastal resources consistent with maintenance and enhancement of renewable resources Employ procedures and practices that resolve conflicts among competing uses

The Louisiana Coastal Zone

Coastal Use Permit Program What we regulate Coastal Use Permit Program What we regulate Activities that have a “direct and significant impact on coastal waters” Any earthwork (dredging, filling, bulldozing, etc.) Discharges USE OF WHEELED OR TRACKED VEHICLES IN WETLANDS Activities that have a “direct and significant impact on coastal waters” Any earthwork (dredging, filling, bulldozing, etc.) Discharges USE OF WHEELED OR TRACKED VEHICLES IN WETLANDS

Coastal Use Permit Program Coastal Use Permit Program 1,800 to 2,000 applications reviewed annually About 60% of applications are O&G activities; rest include marinas, subdivisions, roadways, commercial development, camps, etc. No Net Development-Related Loss of Wetlands 1,800 to 2,000 applications reviewed annually About 60% of applications are O&G activities; rest include marinas, subdivisions, roadways, commercial development, camps, etc. No Net Development-Related Loss of Wetlands

Coastal Use Permit Program ( Authorizations ) Coastal Use Permit Program ( Authorizations ) Exemptions (statutory) No Direct and Significant Impacts (determined by Secretary) General Permits Coastal Use Permits Exemptions (statutory) No Direct and Significant Impacts (determined by Secretary) General Permits Coastal Use Permits

Emergency Authorizations (imminent threat to life, property or environment) We WANT you to get your lines back in service Upside of EAs Start work immediately – strongly recommend coordination and approval first if possibleStart work immediately – strongly recommend coordination and approval first if possible Downside Downside Can only do that work immediately necessary to correct the emergencyCan only do that work immediately necessary to correct the emergency Assuming an unknown liability on behalf of your companyAssuming an unknown liability on behalf of your company Damages to wetlands or other coastal resources will have to be mitigatedDamages to wetlands or other coastal resources will have to be mitigated Work may have to be removed or modifiedWork may have to be removed or modified We WANT you to get your lines back in service Upside of EAs Start work immediately – strongly recommend coordination and approval first if possibleStart work immediately – strongly recommend coordination and approval first if possible Downside Downside Can only do that work immediately necessary to correct the emergencyCan only do that work immediately necessary to correct the emergency Assuming an unknown liability on behalf of your companyAssuming an unknown liability on behalf of your company Damages to wetlands or other coastal resources will have to be mitigatedDamages to wetlands or other coastal resources will have to be mitigated Work may have to be removed or modifiedWork may have to be removed or modified

Exempted Activities (La. R.S. 49:214.34) Exempted Activities (La. R.S. 49:214.34) >5’ MSL “Fastlands” NOT absolute – Secretary may still find that a specific activity should be regulated >5’ MSL “Fastlands” NOT absolute – Secretary may still find that a specific activity should be regulated

General Permits (La. R.S. 49: E) General Permits (La. R.S. 49: E) Authorize similar types of activities that occur frequently and have minor impact Generated in collaboration with impacted user group Expedited review - in some instances can receive same-day approval Currently 18 Authorize similar types of activities that occur frequently and have minor impact Generated in collaboration with impacted user group Expedited review - in some instances can receive same-day approval Currently 18

Installation, maintenance, removal and repair of up to 10,000 feet of pipeline/flowline (12” I.D. max) Determination of mitigation typically deferred for one growing season MUST submit complete application – including landowner/oyster leasee notifications Approval typically within 2 weeks or less Authorization for one mob/demob, but valid for 2 years Installation, maintenance, removal and repair of up to 10,000 feet of pipeline/flowline (12” I.D. max) Determination of mitigation typically deferred for one growing season MUST submit complete application – including landowner/oyster leasee notifications Approval typically within 2 weeks or less Authorization for one mob/demob, but valid for 2 years General Permit 6

Minor O&G activities (<0.5 acres) Includes staging areas, small work areas, pipeline support structures, etc. Mitigation must be resolved prior to issuance Minor O&G activities (<0.5 acres) Includes staging areas, small work areas, pipeline support structures, etc. Mitigation must be resolved prior to issuance General Permit 19

Will likely require an “individual Coastal Use Permit” Minimum of 47 days to issue All impacted landowners and oyster lease owners must be notified at time of application Mitigation needs must be addressed before permit issuance Initiation within 2 years, completion w/in 5 years Will likely require an “individual Coastal Use Permit” Minimum of 47 days to issue All impacted landowners and oyster lease owners must be notified at time of application Mitigation needs must be addressed before permit issuance Initiation within 2 years, completion w/in 5 years Major New Construction

Area Maintenance Permit Allows for interagency/public review of future maintenance of entire line Don’t have to notify all landowners up-front Pre-identifies areas of special concern Subsequent approval of specific work items typically within 5 days Allows for interagency/public review of future maintenance of entire line Don’t have to notify all landowners up-front Pre-identifies areas of special concern Subsequent approval of specific work items typically within 5 days Mitigation assessed as work needed Must commence within 2 years, but can continue for 5 years Mitigation assessed as work needed Must commence within 2 years, but can continue for 5 years

Required by law – “compensatory mitigation, at a level sufficient to replace or to substitute for the ecological value of the wetlands lost as a result of each permitted activity, shall be required” Typically the most time consuming part of permit processing Applicant’s responsibility Options include buying credits from appropriate commercial bank, building habitat, improving habitat, contribution to mitigation fund Required by law – “compensatory mitigation, at a level sufficient to replace or to substitute for the ecological value of the wetlands lost as a result of each permitted activity, shall be required” Typically the most time consuming part of permit processing Applicant’s responsibility Options include buying credits from appropriate commercial bank, building habitat, improving habitat, contribution to mitigation fund Mitigation

Permit Streamlining Initiative Stakeholder frustration with Coastal Use Permit process reached high level in 2001 DNR desire to better assist and educate applicants on how to submit complete applications DNR desire to use technology to achieve better, faster and more consistent permit reviews Stakeholder frustration with Coastal Use Permit process reached high level in 2001 DNR desire to better assist and educate applicants on how to submit complete applications DNR desire to use technology to achieve better, faster and more consistent permit reviews

Reduce “non-value added” permitting delays Improve customer service Enhance interagency coordination Improve application of technology WITHOUT ADVERSELY IMPACTNG OUR RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP RESPONISIBILITIES Reduce “non-value added” permitting delays Improve customer service Enhance interagency coordination Improve application of technology WITHOUT ADVERSELY IMPACTNG OUR RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP RESPONISIBILITIES Emphasis on Streamlining

Professional Facilitator and Business Consultant Services Sought stakeholder concerns and recommendations Involved O&G entities, local governments, landowners, developers, permit agents, levee districts, ports, conservation community, and state and federal agencies Analyzed permit process to identify major points of delay Professional Facilitator and Business Consultant Services Sought stakeholder concerns and recommendations Involved O&G entities, local governments, landowners, developers, permit agents, levee districts, ports, conservation community, and state and federal agencies Analyzed permit process to identify major points of delay Streamlining Initiative Search for Solutions Streamlining Initiative Search for Solutions

Stakeholders said to concentrate on 9 key areas: Skills Development (employee training) Escalation Procedures Field Investigation Standards Process Improvement Outreach Technology/Automation Document Engineering Mitigation Interagency Agreements Stakeholders said to concentrate on 9 key areas: Skills Development (employee training) Escalation Procedures Field Investigation Standards Process Improvement Outreach Technology/Automation Document Engineering Mitigation Interagency Agreements

Began testing in May 2005 Became effective November 1, 2005 Allows web-based application submittal, fee payment Improves online tracking of permit status for applicants Makes permit documents available online Automates routine tasks (generate letters, s, track deadlines and performance metrics) Currently about 84% of all oil and gas applications are submitted electronically Began testing in May 2005 Became effective November 1, 2005 Allows web-based application submittal, fee payment Improves online tracking of permit status for applicants Makes permit documents available online Automates routine tasks (generate letters, s, track deadlines and performance metrics) Currently about 84% of all oil and gas applications are submitted electronically Web-based Permit Process

New DNR/DWF MOU Provides for more timely DWF commentsProvides for more timely DWF comments Coordination streamlined through DNR funded “Permits Coordinator” position in LDWFCoordination streamlined through DNR funded “Permits Coordinator” position in LDWF Standard permit conditions for some projects (e.g., in “unproductive” public oyster areas and on oyster leases) that eliminate need for LDWF reviewStandard permit conditions for some projects (e.g., in “unproductive” public oyster areas and on oyster leases) that eliminate need for LDWF review DWF review not needed for mitigation plans for most projects impacting < 5 acresDWF review not needed for mitigation plans for most projects impacting < 5 acres If project is on an LDWF wildlife management area or wildlife refuge, the project must be preapproved by LDWF before submittal of applicationNOTE: If project is on an LDWF wildlife management area or wildlife refuge, the project must be preapproved by LDWF before submittal of application Provides for more timely DWF commentsProvides for more timely DWF comments Coordination streamlined through DNR funded “Permits Coordinator” position in LDWFCoordination streamlined through DNR funded “Permits Coordinator” position in LDWF Standard permit conditions for some projects (e.g., in “unproductive” public oyster areas and on oyster leases) that eliminate need for LDWF reviewStandard permit conditions for some projects (e.g., in “unproductive” public oyster areas and on oyster leases) that eliminate need for LDWF review DWF review not needed for mitigation plans for most projects impacting < 5 acresDWF review not needed for mitigation plans for most projects impacting < 5 acres If project is on an LDWF wildlife management area or wildlife refuge, the project must be preapproved by LDWF before submittal of applicationNOTE: If project is on an LDWF wildlife management area or wildlife refuge, the project must be preapproved by LDWF before submittal of application

Increased Outreach Increased Outreach Hosted permitting seminars (“green development”, successful mitigation techniques, best management practices for marsh buggy use, etc.) Held training sessions (completing an application, applicant submitted field investigations, using the electronic permit system, etc.) Coastitnotes Improved website Hosted permitting seminars (“green development”, successful mitigation techniques, best management practices for marsh buggy use, etc.) Held training sessions (completing an application, applicant submitted field investigations, using the electronic permit system, etc.) Coastitnotes Improved website

Preliminary Streamlining Results Processing time for all permits reduced by 55% (59.9 days to 26.8 days) between 2002 and 2005.

Future Actions Planned

Continued Refinement of Electronic System Incorporate other CMD roles (field investigations, mitigation) Post-issuance capabilities (revisions, transfers) Incorporate other CMD roles (field investigations, mitigation) Post-issuance capabilities (revisions, transfers)

New DEQ/DNR MOA

Improve Availability of Mitigation Revise current mitigation rules - address permitting delays caused by applicant/landowner coordination - update costs for contributions to Wetlands Trust Fund (legislatively mandated) – may approach or exceed $30K/acre Reconcile conflicting agency policies Revise current mitigation rules - address permitting delays caused by applicant/landowner coordination - update costs for contributions to Wetlands Trust Fund (legislatively mandated) – may approach or exceed $30K/acre Reconcile conflicting agency policies

Fresh/Inter. Marsh Brackish MarshSaline Marsh Current - $4,771 Current - $5,304Current - $5,967Current - $4,771 Current - $5,304Current - $5,967 Proposed - $30,212 Proposed - $28,093Proposed - $28,587Proposed - $30,212 Proposed - $28,093Proposed - $28,587 SwampBottomland Hardwood Current - $9,198Current - $1,040Current - $9,198Current - $1,040 Proposed - $15,958Proposed - $12,838Proposed - $15,958Proposed - $12,838 Examples of Estimated Costs to Mitigate 1 Acre of “Average” Quality Wetland Habitat

Questions?